The Fallout Debate

[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.