The Fallout Debate

[jtr477]

It's not a debate. Fallout 3 is a reskinned Oblivion. With guns and VATS. As a game, it's good for its time, but as a fallout successor, it's a stinking pile of radiated mutant crap.

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.

I feel that Fallout 3 was proof enough that the team working on TES can only do one type of game and aren't creative enough to widen their view. Compared to Oblivion, the dialogue system's the same, the viewpoint's the same, the general gameplay is the same (open world filled with dungeons that have no point whatsoever) and the facial animations are as horrid. The perk system is a dumbed-down version of the original (case in point: 5% damage) and VATS is an unrealistic pile of dismemberment showcase that doesn't even compare to the real-time gameplay.

I don't hate Fallout 3. I hate Bethesda.

First of all, allthough i give you your right in the TERRIBLE facial animations, i have to say you're wrong about the dialogue system, fallout 3's was line based, and oblivion's was completely topic based, except for some parts.


Other then that, the soundtrack, the atmosphere and those little gems you find scattered across the game are often ballstighteningly great.

Also, you get mad at bethesda for making this type of game? But everyone has specialies innit? The dungeons aren't supposed to have a point, they are supposed to be explored, to play.

 

[GonzoGamer]

I liked Fallout 3 best (my favorite game of this gen) but I too think they should've called it something like Fallout Capital Wateland or Fallout: Teenage Wasteland (since you play a teenager) and New Vegas could've been Fallout 3 as it sounds like more the spiritual sucessor.

 

[Unit Alpha]

I don't have the rose-tinted nostalgic glasses on so personally I like FO3, probably because I can't stand isometric.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Fallout 2 is my least favourite of the numbered Fallout games.


Heee heeee, I REVEL IN MY HERESY!

 

[StarCecil]

I liked Fallout 3 better than the originals. I think the biggest difference is that Fallout 3 is more accessible and therefore "inferior". I couldn't stand the isometric view, the sudden change to turn based combat when it felt like it was a real-time game. I liked the imagery in Fallout 3, and I liked the grimmer setting. To me, it's like complaining about KotOR 2 being dark compared to the rest of Star Wars. Sure, it's darker and has its minor annoyances, but it's still great to play.

 

[Zomgfacekik]

The first two had a better atmosphere,story and feeling while the 3rd had fun gameplay. dont get me wrong, the third had all of those but they werent as prominent as the first two.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

I think the biggest difference is that Fallout 3 is more accessible and therefore "inferior".

Damned right. It all went to crap when they openned Fallout to the console scrubs.

[/PC elitist]

I do remember Feargus Urqhart saying in an IRC Q&A session that if someone really wants to have a say on what does or doesn't make a Fallout game, they should pony up the cash to buy the IP.

 

[Icehearted]

As a HUGE fan of the first two (and a NMA member ) I felt FO3 wasn't really a fallout game. Honestly, when all is said and done, it's a shooter with an oddball targeting mechanic. Sure, one could argue that it is indeed a fallout game, set in the universe and whatnot, but the first two were tied together fairly plainly, whereas the more recent game took canon, tossed it in a bin, set it on fire, attempted to pee on it to put it out and failed, only to call in all it's friends and giggle while it screamed "love me" as it melted into something so disfigured one would wonder why they bothered even utilizing the license in the first place. It very well could have been a re-skinned game with a different title, and it probably would have done just as well with less controversy. Calling it Fallout Adventure or Fallout: FPS, or Fallout: point and click and hope like hell your bullets hit something you're aiming at, and again it would have probably drawn a lot less flack.

I had a pretty solid tactic I loved using in the first two; equip rifle, free hands. Enemies would get kneecapped on their way to me, or I might have just shot one in the balls if I trusted my aim/luck, get close enough and a punch in the eyes would blind or knock out anyone that wasn't trying to limp away, and for those that were limping off in terror I'd savor a long range bullet to their back. It made combat a freakin' joy for me, and none of that exists in FO3. FO3 you shoot, may or may not hit depending on yada yada yada. Tactics were out the window.

Incidentally, I really liked FO3. I just don't really think of it as FO3, if I do my head caves in at the oddity of it all.

TL;DR
I loved the first two for what they were, and the third for what it was, but the differences are too great for the third to really be a third in my simple mind.

 

[kazriko]

Level 20 level cap

Raised to 30 in the 3rd DLC.

Fallout 3 is a great game, and captures SOME of the fun of the original ones, but yeah, it's more like another game in the same world than a complete sequel. I like all 3 of them though. I even enjoyed Fallout Tactics once I took it out of realtime mode and played it all turn based.

What I don't like about fallout 3 was the number of bugs in the game. They really should tighten up their code...

 

[spacer]

I'd never played a Fallout game before I got Fallout 3. I played through the whole (ie: main story quest and a couple of side quests) thing, came to the end and thought wow, that was great, people on the internet obviously are full of crap. Then I went and got Fallout 2 and whilst I still haven't finished it yet, so far it's not strictly speaking a better game, but it's a much better written game. The part in New Reno where you have to decide which drug dealer to have killed based on no evidence? That was brilliant (The whole of New Reno is pretty great). Getting sexed up by that mutant in Broken Hills? Hilarious, and disgusting. When I realised I'd spoken out of turn with the leader of Vault City and could never get back in? That was great, it felt completely natural and she successfully came across as an evil *****. Fallout 2 is definately more of an RPG in that respect, Fallout 3 would just let you restart the conversation again if you messed up, it seems a bit like an exercise in picking the right dialogue options to proceed rather than actual role playing. The atmosphere/mood of Fallout 2 seems to just be so much more involving than Fallout 3, it made me really think about what I was doing. I can't really think of any moments in Fallout 3 where I was really taken aback by the storytelling or characters. The only ones that came close were Colin Moriarty and Liberty prime, who whilst pretty funny, manages to encapsulate how Fallout 3 feels about its setting (it's a bit of a joke.) I know Fallout 2 has its fair share of jokes, but so far they're jokes set in the world, rather than about it. Like I said I haven't finished it, it could completely change for all I know.
All that said, having been raised on Quake and Half Life, the combat in Fallout 2 is weak compared to Fallout 3. The way you had to build your characters in order not to be ruined by the starting temple was pretty lame too. That's why I wouldn't really call Fallout 2 a better game. The story is superior to Fallout 3's, but I really like Fallout 3's gameplay.

This could all be complete bullshit though, the first RPG I ever played was Mass Effect, so take that for what you will .

 

[MiracleOfSound]

IThe part in New Reno where you have to decide which drug dealer to have killed based on no evidence? That was brilliant

It was the Salvatores!

They poisoned him with bad Jet and tried to frame the Mordinos to start a gang war betweent them and the Wrights.

You need to search the dead guy's room and pass a few speech checks to find out.

That was one thing that was very different in F1 and 2, you mess up once and options are gone forever. It added to the tension I thought.

 

[spacer]

Oh. Well that works out, I told them it was the Salvatores anyway .

 

[Arion banki]

As an rpg Fallout 3 simply failed to make me want to invest time in the world it was trying to create. The npc's and dialogue were uninteresting the combat was at best average.

Actually the same criticism applies to Oblivion as well.

 

[Woffles]

I really have to try the first 2 Fallout games. I actually did not like Fallout 3, I found it boring outside of the main story. I understand it is drastically different from its predecessors though, and for that I definitely want to try the first 2.

 

[veloper]

Bethesda did a couple things right and then screwed up.

The good:
+ FO 1&2 had turn based combat, where you got minimal control over just 1 toon. Switching to FPS mechanics was the logical choice.
+ the original never was so '50s orientated as FO3, but this change made FO3 much more appealing and unique compared to other PA settings.
+ the art direction in FO3 is great (though the animations and 3d models less so).

The bad:
- this is by far the best writing and VO Bethesda ever did, but it is still not good enough (still I can forgive this, if Beth continue improving).
- as a shooter it is pretty weak and needs alot of improving.
- the challenge is poor, because of instant stimpack health in unlimited quantities (a flaw FO also had, but there it cost you action points=time atleast).
- there's little sense of progression as you can(and should) max out a weapon skill + repair early and you can also obtain the best stuff early on.
- valuable stuff is located all over the place, unguarded.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

I really have to try the first 2 Fallout games. I actually did not like Fallout 3, I found it boring outside of the main story. I understand it is drastically different from its predecessors though, and for that I definitely want to try the first 2.

Definately worth giving them a try, I loved them. But I loved F3 too.