The Fallout Debate

MiracleOfSound

Fight like a Krogan
Jan 3, 2009
17,776
0
0
First off, let's keep this thread civil. Anyone who flames will be promptly reported.

I haven't been on the forums much in the past few days, as in my free time I have been utterly addicted to Fallout 2.

Having just finished it, I began to think about the difference between the older Fallout games and their little brother from Bethesda, and came to a few conclusions.

Fallout 3 gets an awful lot of hate from fans of the older games. I can finally see why now.

It's not because it's a bad game. It's a great game. My favorite game.

It's just a very bad sequel.

Let me elaborate.

1. The first two games are closed in, claustrophobic (due in part to the isometric view) affairs, while Fallout 3 is a more accessible and easier game.

F1 and 2 keep the player constantly in fear of the next encounter above their level, constantly hitting save in case they suffer a sudden death.

F3's massive open world and enemy level scaling replace this with a more relaxed play-style, and far fewer deaths due to walking into the wrong area at too low a level.

To make a powerful character in the first two you must really work at it, picking one or two skills and grinding every quest and random encounter you can find. It is far more challenging and strategic than F3's VATS system and forgiving levelling.

2. Fallout 3's world is restricted by the rules of reality in a way that the early games are not.


The atmosphere and humour are far less surreal and random in F3. It is a much more serious game.

While the first two poke fun at pop culture, indulge in wacky humour like talking stone heads and whales falling from the sky, Fallout 3 dwells on the grim, dark side of human nature in a much bleaker way... radio transmissions from fathers trying to save their dying children, audio logs of peoples' last moments before the bombs fell, that kind of thing.

Therefore, in my opinion it does not wholly capture the vibe of the originals.

My conclusion is that it would have been better off named Fallout: Vault 101 or something other than Fallout 3, this way the old school fans would maybe not have had their expectations dashed so hard.

Which game is best is all down to opinion, personally I prefer f3 with it's more accessible combat and modern gaming values. I don't like to be frustrated by games, and I've had more fun in the Capital Wasteland than any other gaming experience in my life.

What do people think?

Am I right or wrong?

I would especially like to hear form fans of the old games who did enjoy 3 and hear what they have to say.
 

jtr477

New member
Feb 24, 2010
67
0
0
I think i agree with you there. I loved fallout 3, as it was a great game, good atmosphering nice gameplay and it looked sweet.

However i played this from a standalone viewpoint, and as a game that is not the sequel of anything it does excellently.

However i suppose it can be so that it doesn't really line up with and take over the feeling of f1 and f2.

Then again i suppose this is because of the major time rift, the gameplay difference and the fact that f3 was taken over by bethesda, which wasn't bad for the game, but might have changed the overall feel.
 

MiracleOfSound

Fight like a Krogan
Jan 3, 2009
17,776
0
0
HG131 said:
Well, personally, I feel that while not really a sequel besides for in name, it's a better game. As in, if you're comparing a game to F3 where 10 is as good and 1 is the worst game ever in comparison, they would land a 2.
Well, I did enjoy the first two a lot too. Just not in the same way.

I agree though that because they are so different, comparing them for 'which is better' is rendered pointless.
 

legion431

New member
Mar 14, 2010
729
0
0
Fallout 3 is one of my top 5 games of all time. I haven't played the first 2, nor any of the spin-offs. Fallout 3 was not a sequel in game, only in chronology. They were set in different places, had different styles of technology. You can't compare them, they're just too different.
 

Booze Zombie

New member
Dec 8, 2007
7,416
0
0
I just found Fallout 3 dull and repitive.

Fallout 1-2 offered what I felt were much more interesting storylines and substantially more interesting choices to make in the game world.

Comparitivly, Fallout 3 is bad, to me.
 

jtr477

New member
Feb 24, 2010
67
0
0
Also, i believe that this was great for Bethesda as a game developer. I think it really helped broaden their horizons and show that they can adapt and tweak a game system, and put it to a extremely good other use.

It certainly made me hope bethesda are going to make more non-fantasy styled games in the future.
 

Bat Vader

New member
Mar 11, 2009
4,996
0
0
I think Fallout 3 is an excellent game and I consider it a sequel but not a sequel at the same time.

I find it to be more of a tale in the Fallout universe rather than an actual sequel to Fallout 1 and 2.

Kinda like how New Vegas isn't a direct sequel to Fallout 3 but just another tale in the Fallout Universe.
 

Nimzar

New member
Nov 30, 2009
532
0
0
I first played the original fallout a few years before Fallout 3 came out. I loved it.

I played Fallout 3. I also liked it.

You have hit the nail on the 'ead though. Fallout 3 is a great game... just not in the same way that Fallout 1 and 2 are great.

Honestly, I couldn't say which of the games I like better if I were to judge them in isolation. The games are so different in my mind that they are judge by a different metric.

The whole RPG genre is TOO wide to judge all the games that fall under its umbrella against each other. And I'm not just talking 'bout jRPG vs wRPG. I'm talking Action RPG, 'Classic' RPG, MMORPG, JRPG, 'dungeon crawl' RPG (like Diablo), etc.

Fallout 3 is an Action RPG and must be judged as such.
Fallout 1 and 2 are 'Classic' RPGs and must be judged as such.
 

MiracleOfSound

Fight like a Krogan
Jan 3, 2009
17,776
0
0
jtr477 said:
Also, i believe that this was great for Bethesda as a game developer. I think it really helped broaden their horizons and show that they can adapt and tweak a game system, and put it to a extremely good other use.

It certainly made me hope bethesda are going to make more non-fantasy styled games in the future.
Me too, but not until they make TESV... I can't think of any other game I'm looking forward to more than that right now.
 

SimuLord

Whom Gods Annoy
Aug 20, 2008
10,077
0
0
I think I'm qualified to comment because I've played Fallout 1, 2, Tactics, and 3 and found merits in all of them (well, except Tactics. That game is the weak sister of the franchise, with a flawed combat model and a distaste for sticking to Fallout canon. Vault 0? Seriously? When the Brotherhood's origin in the Mariposa Base right before the war is well-documented in the first two games?!)

Frankly, I thought 3 was the best of the bunch. Story, gameplay, immersion, likeable characters and replay value, sure it was unmistakably a Bethesda Softworks game (Morrowind and Oblivion vets found a LOT of familiar ground!), but it was also unmistakably a Fallout game. Lead writer Emil Pagliarulo clearly read the Fallout Bible and lived by it to the best of his ability while doing his best to resolve the many plot holes that snuck into Fallout 2. The very existence of the Brotherhood Outcasts and their explanation of their purpose to the player proved they did the research.

I liked Fallout. I liked Fallout 2. And I still think Fallout 3 was better. I know this puts me in the minority, but (once they got the DLC out to get the game right) Bethesda made a top-ten all time game (I have Fallout 3 ranked #8 on my personal list). Black Isle/Interplay did not (in fact, I have neither game even showing up in my top 25).

(edit: As an aside, Fallout 3 boasts one of my all-time favorite characters as well---Three Dog is in my all-time character pantheon, right near the top of the list.)
 

knhirt

New member
Nov 9, 2009
399
0
0
You're right, OP.
I hope to see a true sequel, one day. One that fully captures the spirit of the old games and has a similar playstyle (not to mention sense of humor), but is upgraded visually and technologically. I don't want to see more FPS fallout action.
 

MiracleOfSound

Fight like a Krogan
Jan 3, 2009
17,776
0
0
gof22 said:
I find it to be more of a tale in the Fallout universe rather than an actual sequel to Fallout 1 and 2.
Eloquently put. You pretty much summed up what I was trying to say in one sentence.
 

MiracleOfSound

Fight like a Krogan
Jan 3, 2009
17,776
0
0
Neptunus Hirt said:
You're right, OP.
I hope to see a true sequel, one day. One that fully captures the spirit of the old games and has a similar playstyle (not to mention sense of humor), but is upgraded visually and technologically. I don't want to see more FPS fallout action.
Maybe if New Vegas does well, Obsidian will finally get to finish Van Buren.
 

DisturbedMXer8

New member
Jun 6, 2009
9
0
0
To this day, Fallout 1 has always been and probably will remain my favorite game of all time. I remember picking up the Fallout 1+2 pack from Target for 10 bucks when I was 11 or 12 years old, and instantly becoming addicted the minute I started playing it. It had to have taken me at least 2 years of casually playing it before I finally figured out how to remotely disable force fields in the Mutant Base in order to beat it, which is actually what got me addicted. The game kept me in constant fear of running into random hordes of Super Mutants or, god forbid, a pack of Deathclaw. Despite this, however, the endless amounts of quests and insanely diverse ways of completing them had me completely enthralled with the game, and the dark humor kept me laughing all the while. When I finally beat it, after I can't even remember how many years of playing different characters, the ending just had me looking forward to starting Fallout 2.

So far, the only one of the three I have completed all the way through is the Original. However, I have gotten all the way to the Enclave base in F2, and I am currently capped at 20 in F3 waiting to get the Broken Steel expansion before I continue, so I feel that I have played them enough to give a decent opinion. Everything I liked about F1 I liked about F2 as well, with the exception of the beginning: I like to make smart, charismatic characters that can talk their way through anything, which made the Temple of Trials damn near IMPOSSIBLE for me. The rest of the game was brilliant, just like the first. With F3, I agree with basically everything stated above. Amazing game, much easier to play, incredible atmosphere, but not connected well with the original's styles. I did quite like the Harold encounter at Oasis, though. I loved seeing him go from F1, to F2, and then to F3. It's the one thing that connects them all together.

I am totally excited about Fallout: New Vegas, and I am really happy about that title. I wish they had done the same with F3, it would make more sense for the complete change the game went through with Bethesda. From what it looks like, though, it seems that Black Isle Studios (the company behind F2) is coming back to help build F:NV under a new name: Obsidian Entertainment. If it's as good as F3, and Obsidian can bring the old style back... I think it just might end up being my new favorite.
 

DigitalSushi

a gallardo? fine, I'll take it.
Dec 24, 2008
5,718
0
0
MiracleOfSound said:
whales falling from the sky,
HELLO GROUND!

Also I've not been able to get past 30 minutes of Fallout 2, lost the disc years ago when I didn't understand hardcore role playing games.

I've got Fallout 3 and at any difficulty setting the skills and perks you chose has no real detriment to higher level characters, from what I understand F1 and F2 you need to know your skills well. A Fallout 3 character with a low level energy weapons skill has no real bearing on later parts of the game because other skills make up for it.
 

CommyGingerbreadMan

New member
Dec 22, 2009
197
0
0
See now we reach a problem, When Fallout 1 & 2 came out, arguably Gaming hadn't reached it's popularity today. Still a Nerds world it was in. Nowadays, you can't make a game challenging and still make money off it what with people Expecting better graphics and realistic engines. Before you could make a game, and get back what you paid+ some more, and that was terrific! Nowadays, companies need what they paid for + lots more. I loved all 3 games, probably for the same reason as the others. It was another tale, and not a sequel.
 

MiracleOfSound

Fight like a Krogan
Jan 3, 2009
17,776
0
0
DisturbedMXer8 said:
If it's as good as F3, and Obsidian can bring the old style back... I think it just might end up being my new favorite.
Yeah I'm really psyched for New Vegas.

There were elements I preferred in both F3 and the older games, and NV could get the balance just right.

Do yourself a favour and finish F2 if you get the chance, the last few chapters are amazing.

Just one hint... help the Brotherhood as soon as you can, well worth it for certain loot you can acquire!
 

Indecipherable

New member
Mar 21, 2010
590
0
0
I absolutely loved Fallout 3, but the differences between older Fallouts and the newer are quite vast. The story of Fallout 3 and the linearity is probably going to make a lot of people pretty upset if they were expecting something open with broad sweeping consequences. None of that is in Fallout 3.

Probaby my favourite thing of Fallout 3 is just exploring, to travel around and uncover what has happened all over the lands. The story itself is rather meh.