The Fallout Debate

[Low Key]

I played Fallout 3 and had all sorts of fun, enough so that I went out and bought the Fallout Trilogy figuring with all the hype the originals get on this site it would be good.

Boy was I wrong. I stopped playing Fallout 1 after about an hour. I don't know how to explain it other than it was boring. I think it had to do with the view and the turn based fighting. Having a 360 degree view and knowing when the enemy will attack kind of took all the surprise out of battle.

I'll probably give it another shot because I don't like wasting money like that, but in my opinion, Fallout 3 excels where the first two do not.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

I think the OP is dead wrong. F3 is hated because the story sucks, the ending is atrocious, the dialogue is poor and it lacks the humour of the first two. Those are the things that people loved about the first two, atleast the people I know. Bethesda always fails on these points in all their games and I can't for the life of me understand why they don't hire a professional writer to handle these things for them (or fire the incompetent one they have now).

I did actually mention that it lacked the humour of the first two, but anyway.

I'm really hoping New Vegas can mix the new-style gameplay with the old-school personality.

 

[Srdjan]

It's great game, but it isn't Fallout.

 

[zerzxes]

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.

You stole my words mate. Everyday after i played Fallout 3 I thought it was a good game. Just not "Fallout 3" it only have the apocalyptic settings and enemies, not anything sequel related.

I like Fallout "D.C chronicles" but the second wasis the best Fallout.

 

[CheckD3]

According to Yahtzee, that makes F3 and the entire creating team a group that doesn't cater to the fans, and instead tries to broaden their interests.

I too am a fan of F3 and will soon be replaying it again, and probably another time after that just to get some more trophies. A game as epic as F3 is something that is replayable and fun beyond words. But I went in not knowing a single thing about Fallout as a series or franchise. So I got a fresh experience that was fun for beggining to end to the point that the ending felt almost TOO quick for me and I know now that I need to flesh out the game to lengthen it.

However, to hear that Fallout fans were upset makes me wonder if they even came into consideration, and if anyone is thought about when they make the Fallout games. New Vegas seems to start you off after being left for dead and starting you off in a village rather than a vault, which from I've heard of the Fallout games, is a large step in a new direction. I for one will be getting New Vegas to rent when it comes out and might buy it if I get a good paycheck one time and find it a price of $30 or less, and I MIGHT even get the DLC this time, too poor for F3 this time.

But going back to Yahtzee, he's the one that says that it's the fans that you need to avoid, because pleasing them locks out more and more people from getting interested in the game, where as pleasing those who didn't like the originals to their whims mean you get more sales, since fans will always buy the game and new people you please will also buy it. It means they can afford more fun things and food so they can live and make the next game.

I wonder why they add numbers on the Fallout games, especially, as you said, the 3rd installment. They seem to be mostly unrelated with the only similarity in the general feel of the game

 

[Henrik Persson]

To be fair to Bethesda they did manage to capture the setting really well. The whole bleak future/50's vibe that's trademark Fallout. Fallout 3 wouldn't have been so good if it hadn't had that.

As for all the disappointed fans, I guess they just didn't know Bethesda like I do. I knew what to expect and could enjoy the game because of it. It's a shame that people expecting something else hate it, because they're missing out on a good game.

 

[Julianking93]

You're right, and I can see why older fans don't like 3 mainly because well, the first was an overhead and almost RTS style game while 3 obviously isn't

But I like 3 better because I don't like RTS. At all.

 

[Optimus Hagrid]

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

While the first two poke fun at pop culture, indulge in wacky humour like talking stone heads and whales falling from the sky

...

...huh. That actually sounds pretty cool. I gave up on the games when I got stuck behind that horrid combat system, but maybe I should give them another try.

 

[Henrik Persson]

You're right, and I can see why older fans don't like 3 mainly because well, the first was an overhead and almost RTS style game while 3 obviously isn't

But I like 3 better because I don't like RTS. At all.

It's nothing even remotely like and RTS. It's friggin' turn based.

 

[Julianking93]

You're right, and I can see why older fans don't like 3 mainly because well, the first was an overhead and almost RTS style game while 3 obviously isn't

But I like 3 better because I don't like RTS. At all.

It's nothing even remotely like and RTS. It's friggin' turn based.

Its a turn based topdown game.

That's what I see as RTS though I know it stands for real time strategy, but I hate that type of game too.

 

[hardlymotivated]

(Obligatory spoiler warning in advance)





I'm currently playing through Fallout 3, having played through Fallout 1, 2 and Tactics countless times. I've finished the main storyline, and I'm working my way through the DLCs at the moment.

Let me begin by stating that I think it's a good game. It's fun, it's interesting, the gameplay's all very fluid and whatnot, but I'm not quite sure I like what they've done with the series. Paraphrasing what people have said earlier in the topic, it's a good game - but it's not a good Fallout game. I can certainly agree with that.

It all started off nicely - character creation was cleverly made, all of the growing-up stuff seemed pretty well thought out. But upon the escape from the Vault, everything became a bit troubling. I mean, you've lived in the Vault for all of roughly nineteen years. You've spent all of that time in an incredibly isolated community. The small number of people in Vault 101 would've all known each other immensely well. I'm not saying that they would've had to have liked each other, but when someone's been with the same group of people for nineteen years, I'd expect community cohesion to work out pretty well.

Now, of course, the Overseer wields most of the power in the Vault, and I understand that there's a lot of propaganda which reaffirms this in the minds of those living there, but I still can't get my head around the way in which the guards suddenly turn into mindless, cold-blooded killers when you're attempting to escape. Would they really shoot people they've known for at least nineteen years because the Overseer told them to? I suppose I just thought it was unrealistic. Maybe I've misinterpreted it, but I'd have thought that the Overseer wouldn't have disclosed the Vault Experiment (in this case, 101 being permanently shut) to his mooks. And if he had, why would they have been willing to callously murder people for the sake of it?

I don't have time to go into more detail at the moment, but there were quite a few other things in the game that I thought didn't make much sense when I was playing, so I might jot them down later. (Presence of super mutants, FEV as a convenient plot device, return of the Enclave, a very black-and-white moral choice system, etc.)

 

[sketch_zeppelin]

Well i'm one of the rare folks that hasn't played either of the previous fallouts and just did not like the Fallout 3. bethesda does open world great but they really need to fix the combat. Now Fallout 3 does have the best combat in a Bethesda game to date but it's still kind of wonky. Aiming feels off (even when using VATS) the guns don't do a lot of damage till you level up which makes no sense (even if your untrained in a weapon, a rocket launcher to the face should still do massive damage).
I also am sick and tired of gloomy ruined landscapes. People can yell at Halo for being unoriginal but at least it had some blues and purples. Now here's Fallout 3 which is suppose to be original as hell but its draped it the same stale ruined world as every sci-fi game.
Also i hate that you have to canablize weapons and armor to repair the stuff your currently using. It's frustrating, over complecated and it's too easy to accidently dismantle a peice of equipment you were saving.
The enemies aren't any better. Madmax bandit, toxic mutant or random monster or the day.
The story seem'd ok but the rest of the game was so drab and unitresting that i couldn't finish it.

So it's not that i think Fallout 3 sucks compared to the first two, i just think it sucks period.

 

[DisturbedMXer8]

Anyone who hasnt played the first 2, you know not the true horror of a deathclaw.

Couldn't have said it better myself. F1+2 both built up the fear of the Deathclaw really well, before you even got to encounter one. When you finally did for the first time, it was pretty much certain death (it was for me the first few times). In the original games, Deathclaw were by far the most formidable opponents, one of them easily more difficult to kill than several super mutants. It made them scary, yet interesting, and was a triumph in itself just to defeat one. In F3, I've yet to die by Deathclaw, even while being shot at by a gang of Enclave. Sure, they're scary (awesome looking graphic), they just aren't as big and badass as they were. One of the biggest disappointments from F3, for me. Also, I've read that they are going to make Super Mutants even worse in F:NV, "worse than deathclaw"... I don't think that's quite right, hopefully Obsidian won't allow that.

 

[Henrik Persson]

Anyone who hasnt played the first 2, you know not the true horror of a deathclaw.

Couldn't have said it better myself. F1+2 both built up the fear of the Deathclaw really well, before you even got to encounter one. When you finally did for the first time, it was pretty much certain death (it was for me the first few times). In the original games, Deathclaw were by far the most formidable opponents, one of them easily more difficult to kill than several super mutants. It made them scary, yet interesting, and was a triumph in itself just to defeat one. In F3, I've yet to die by Deathclaw, even while being shot at by a gang of Enclave. Sure, they're scary (awesome looking graphic), they just aren't as big and badass as they were. One of the biggest disappointments from F3, for me. Also, I've read that they are going to make Super Mutants even worse in F:NV, "worse than deathclaw"... I don't think that's quite right, hopefully Obsidian won't allow that.

You're playing Fallout 3 the wrong way, i.e. not on the toughest difficulty. Deathclaws make me run like hell. I'm not sure those things can be killed. Even if they could it wouldn't be worth the ammo. Fallout 3 got waaaaay more fun when I discovered you could change the difficulty. Keep it at the toughest except during a certain fight outside the radio station. That one's not meant to be played at that difficulty.

 

[XzarTheMad]

I was going to write a long post about my views on this, but I gave up; It'd be several pages of TL;DR. Let me just say: I have played all Fallout games released, I own all of them, and I consider Fallout 3 to be the best overall.

 

[He_Is_Legend]

I like the way HardlyMotivated puts it. He says it is a good game, but not a good Fallout-game. This is the truth. The worst thing about Fallout 3, is that it seems to be turned/turning into a pretty cheerleader at a school. Fallout 1 and 2 were kinda like the not so popular kid that once you got to know him appeared to be really cool and fun and awesome. What I mean by this is that Bethesda has made some great games before (The Elder Scrolls-series), but I do not think this game (Fallout) is intended for their style. They are turning an awesome cult series into a over-hyped fallucy.

The thing I liked about the old Fallout-games, is that they are notoriously hard, and the combination of excellent black humour and parodies are great. I like the fact that it is so rich in choices and that you can actually use your female character as a prostitute to get your way. Bethesda had a big job to do, and I was very happy to learn that it was suppose to be "Oblivion with guns". I got really dissapointed. The game is way too easy, and a level 1-2 character can easily do things that never could be touched in the prequels. A good example are these low intelligence-dialogues; funny.

When you create a character, you always end up with the same face. I struggled for an half hour to try and make myself, but I always ends up looking like the default face; and this is true for females aswell; any combination turns out the same, I feel.

I was hoping the game would be stuffed full of guns and armour, but the selection is rather weak, but that was just my expectations after playing "Fallout:Tactics" while waiting for Fallout 3 to be released. And where have the natives gone? There are no tribesmen and their funny conversatinos about technology.

I hope the NEW GAME is better.

 

[reg42]

I'm looking forward to playing this. I've got the Fallout Collection marked as one of my next buys. It's either that or Final Fantasy XIII.
I've only played Fallout 3, and I really enjoyed it, but having even only seen snippets from the earlier titles, I can tell that they are very different games.

 

[Blatherscythe]

I don' know. Fallout 3 is different because it was made by different developers and it's grim and generally humorless because the world has been reduced to a radioactive hellhole! As for Fallout 3 being easy that's a good thing, remember Fallout 1 and 2 were very unforgiving. Even with power armor a single critical hit from an assault rifle would leave you in pieces. Fallout 3 may have been too easy but at least it wasn't an unforgiving asshole of a game.

I've played Fallout 1, 2 and 3 so I know what I'm talking about. As for Fallout 1 and 2 being claustophobic all I can say is, what? The game was massive! If your talking about the battles and shootouts that took place inside those not claustrophobic you got a top down view of the action and if you were smart you hid behind tables, walls and boxes. Calling Fallout 1 and 2 claustrophobic is just stupid, Fallout 3 had parts of levels that could be considered claustophobic but only a few parts to favor melee fighter enemies.

One thing you nailed spot on though was the level up system. Fallout 3 allowed you to be a jack of all trades while in contrast Fallout 1 and 2 had you pick away at the skills you had choosen early on in character creation.

I love anything that has to do with Fallout and I see where your coming from, the differences are mainly because of different genres and different developers. Fallout 1, 2 and arguably Tatics were top down turn based RPG shooters. Fallout 3 is an RPG/FPS.

 

[dthvirus]

Fallout 3 is a great game, but a bad Fallout game. That's all I see to it. Doesn't subtract from how fun Fallout 3 is however.

 

[Hallow'sEve]

Everyone keeps saying "it's just not a Fallout game", what exactly MAKES a "true" Fallout game? Asking since I've only played F3 (but I loved it)