Poll: "Fallout 3": Why Do Fans of the First Two Dislike It?
- Thread starter Austin Howe
- Start date
Big fan of the first two games here. And I do dislike Fallout 3. So I figure I'm the target demographic for this thread. First of all, let me just make one thing perfectly clear: Fallout 3 is an entertaining game, by all means. It's not -terrible-. It's probably not even bad. However, I think it's a lackluster experience.
Essentially, the few things I honestly like about Fallout 3 are direct continuations from the first two games. The dark humor is there to an extent, the art style and soundtrack choice is still what I remember it has. Bethesda has translated that part well for a new generation.
What don't I like with it? Take your pick of the litter. Awful story, awful writing, zero to no character development anywhere. Behemoth of a world that rarely actually has anything interesting in it (honorable exceptions being a couple of the vaults, and the cannibal town). I find it to be a vapid, shallow playing experience, and while it's fun to blow super mutant heads off in slow motion, the charm wears off fast.
Essentially, the few things I honestly like about Fallout 3 are direct continuations from the first two games. The dark humor is there to an extent, the art style and soundtrack choice is still what I remember it has. Bethesda has translated that part well for a new generation.
What don't I like with it? Take your pick of the litter. Awful story, awful writing, zero to no character development anywhere. Behemoth of a world that rarely actually has anything interesting in it (honorable exceptions being a couple of the vaults, and the cannibal town). I find it to be a vapid, shallow playing experience, and while it's fun to blow super mutant heads off in slow motion, the charm wears off fast.
Fallout 3 was the first one that I played and I loved it. I then played Fallout 1 and hated it. I then tried playing it again a few weeks later and enjoyed it. I loved Fallout 2 almost right from the start and think it is probably the best in the series, New Vegas is excellent, but I think the story feels weaker as it isn't as personal as the other three's.
i'm ashamed to say when i got fallout 1 after completing new vegas it took me about ten minutes of punching rats to figure out i had a weapon and even then they kicked my ass that said i still think its an awesome looking game just gonna take me a bit longer than i initially thought.
I played the first two ones and then got the third and New Vegas. I loved all four, but you can't compare a turn-based RPG and a RPG/FPS hybrid. They were all good but I liked the first two better (in a turn-based way) and viewed the the sequels as separate games (which were also good).
I just gotta say something about this. It seems like people don't know about Wasteland, the predecessor of Fallout, one of the "best game of all time". And guess what Wasteland fanboys think of the fallout series?
I just think back about the day I played the demo of Fallout 1 for the first time, picked up a mini gun and made a rampage. Bits of flesh went flying in the air. You can still do that in Fallout 3 and NV. But the first time you see it, well, it can't be beaten.
I just think back about the day I played the demo of Fallout 1 for the first time, picked up a mini gun and made a rampage. Bits of flesh went flying in the air. You can still do that in Fallout 3 and NV. But the first time you see it, well, it can't be beaten.
I like them all. But then I'll never complain if someone wants to re-energize a dead series I love.
So they took a few liberties. Black Isle went bankrupt. I figure without Bethesda and their re-working of the Fallout mythos, we wouldn't have the very profitable and likely to spawn many sequels version of Fallout today.
Yep, I'm a game whore.
So they took a few liberties. Black Isle went bankrupt. I figure without Bethesda and their re-working of the Fallout mythos, we wouldn't have the very profitable and likely to spawn many sequels version of Fallout today.
Yep, I'm a game whore.
I was also disappointed about that I saw that if you have a low int in FO2 you can speak with the mentally challenged farmer (he speaks polite in the translation)MiracleOfSound said:
They did actually have this in new vegas, just not as much.MiracleOfSound said:
For example if you go to Repconn headquarters, and the robot asks you for the password to get to the restricted areas, you have as opinion to say ICE CREAM! if you have low intelligence.
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/REPCONN_Headquarters
There's some others too.
Fallout 1 and 2 are among the best games I've ever played. I think some clarification is called for on all the Fallout 3 hate.
If you played Fallout 3 expecting it to be much like the first two, you were going to be disappointed. It's Fallout in name and setting but much of the Fallout "feel" is completely absent. The Fallout games (especially 2) had such creative and brilliant dialogue. Fallout 3 does not. One simple example is virtually every one you talk to in Fallout 3 you have a generic "I should go" or "Goodbye" type of goodbye. In Fallout 2 it varied a lot depending on how the conversation went. You could drop a real smartass type of goodbye for NPCs you got verbally aggressive with.
Fallout 2 especially had a lot of humor in it, often related to the creative dialogue.
I think Fallout 3 is a decent game on it's own. But it doesn't stand up to the same brilliance and unique flavor of the other two. So it depends on how you look at it. Fallout New Vegas is much closer to the original feel.
EDIT:
I also found combat in FO 1 and 2 to be so much more satisfying and humorous. With the visuals and the sounds.. That game made wailing on someone physically so very entertaining. Be it stabbing someone in the eye, kicking them in the junk, or just knocking them the fuck out with a haymaker. Or sawing them in half with a minigun.
If you played Fallout 3 expecting it to be much like the first two, you were going to be disappointed. It's Fallout in name and setting but much of the Fallout "feel" is completely absent. The Fallout games (especially 2) had such creative and brilliant dialogue. Fallout 3 does not. One simple example is virtually every one you talk to in Fallout 3 you have a generic "I should go" or "Goodbye" type of goodbye. In Fallout 2 it varied a lot depending on how the conversation went. You could drop a real smartass type of goodbye for NPCs you got verbally aggressive with.
Fallout 2 especially had a lot of humor in it, often related to the creative dialogue.
I think Fallout 3 is a decent game on it's own. But it doesn't stand up to the same brilliance and unique flavor of the other two. So it depends on how you look at it. Fallout New Vegas is much closer to the original feel.
EDIT:
I also found combat in FO 1 and 2 to be so much more satisfying and humorous. With the visuals and the sounds.. That game made wailing on someone physically so very entertaining. Be it stabbing someone in the eye, kicking them in the junk, or just knocking them the fuck out with a haymaker. Or sawing them in half with a minigun.
I played Fallout 3 first and hated it, then played 1 and 2 and loved them.
My reason for hating Fallout 3 was that everything about it was so damn depressing. I'm sure the other games had a few emotional moments but they weren't afraid to joke around a little.
My reason for hating Fallout 3 was that everything about it was so damn depressing. I'm sure the other games had a few emotional moments but they weren't afraid to joke around a little.
FO3 is a good game, no doubt about it, and its a nice extension of the fallout IP; having said that it's not entirely in the spirit of FO1&Fo2, it lacks the essence that made those games what they were and that's what we all miss.Austin Howe said:
Its difficult to sum up what that essence is exactly but it had more dark humour, in fact if you could make a game out of pure dark humour it might look like FO2. FO3 is sanitised so much that its almost unrecognisable, plus however atmospheric FO3 is it fails to capture the original fallout atmosphere.
Its certainly nothing to do with the combat, there is no action combat in in the original series so that's an independent addition by Bethesda, the original series was pure isometric RPG which is another element of qualitative difference, is it bad to have action in fO3? no, but it does make it a different game.
I for one am glad for FO3, if only for the reason that its given new generations of gamers reason to go back and play the originals.
Probally because it dropped the whole "RTS" Thing and was beaten down to a dull,squirmy,buggy, FPS. They're very different. I have a friend who plays FPS' and a friend who plays RTS' and both of them don't like the other genre but get along fine. Maybe it's just they tried and werent used to the perspective or the large difference between the 2nd/1st and 3rd. Maybe it was just too angsty/mature. Sure enough it did have it's soft moments (Like the 50's song's and advertise-ment, I always thought those were kinda cool) so the Crane swapped from "Beautiful and humorous" to the "Dull and angsty" Port. I liked the first 2 better, and that's why, maybe other people did'nt like it because of that either.