The new fallout game, why the eltism of hate?
- Thread starter Gormless
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I, for one, am glad that Interplay didn't make the third fallout. Why? Because they didn't innovate. Fallout 1 and 2 had almost excactly the same engine and from what I have seen the other fallout spin-offs had it to. Van Buren, the codename for fallout 3 (it was in the making) weren't supposed to innovate anything either. Bethesda will at least make a new engine, and will try giving it a new spin. What I have seen looks good.
And who knows, maybe they even balance that ridiculously imbalanced SPECIAL system. I mean, it was an original - and good - idea but there was only about three skills that were worth having, plenty of skills that were practically useless, and any character with less than 7 agi sucked (agility was action points). This is the hallmark of bad game design, and I was sincerely disappointed when I saw that they had done nothing to fix this in fallout 2. Fallout 3 may be bad but Interplay had for some time suffered from severe creativity shortage so I don't think Bethesda would make this game any worse than it woulda been.
And who knows, maybe they even balance that ridiculously imbalanced SPECIAL system. I mean, it was an original - and good - idea but there was only about three skills that were worth having, plenty of skills that were practically useless, and any character with less than 7 agi sucked (agility was action points). This is the hallmark of bad game design, and I was sincerely disappointed when I saw that they had done nothing to fix this in fallout 2. Fallout 3 may be bad but Interplay had for some time suffered from severe creativity shortage so I don't think Bethesda would make this game any worse than it woulda been.
Stunningly, I like both the Fallout Franchise and Morrowind.
Oblivion? Not so much. And this is going to be for one extremely simple reason...
If I cannot make a character that is less than twice my own age, the game is no fun.
Seriously. Everyone who has oblivion, boot it up now. Okay, now...Make a character.
Now make that character look less than 50 fucking years old. I dare you, I double-dare you and I swear to god you will not succeed because it is FUCKING. IMPOSSIBLE.
And frankly, in Fallout, I don't wanna play a 40 year old guy who goes looking for my 80 year old dad. I really don't. I'd prefer to be 20 and go looking for my 40-ish dad.
There. That's the entire reason I feel a bit worried. Right there.
Oblivion? Not so much. And this is going to be for one extremely simple reason...
If I cannot make a character that is less than twice my own age, the game is no fun.
Seriously. Everyone who has oblivion, boot it up now. Okay, now...Make a character.
Now make that character look less than 50 fucking years old. I dare you, I double-dare you and I swear to god you will not succeed because it is FUCKING. IMPOSSIBLE.
And frankly, in Fallout, I don't wanna play a 40 year old guy who goes looking for my 80 year old dad. I really don't. I'd prefer to be 20 and go looking for my 40-ish dad.
There. That's the entire reason I feel a bit worried. Right there.
Wow, you care about how a character you'll look at a total of 10 times looks?
Anyway, as someone who dabbled in Fallout and liked Bloodlines and Torment a lot more, liked both Morrowind and Oblivion, and has actually seen Fallout 3 in person, it looks pretty cool. However, I do agree the build I saw didn't quite get its arms around the Fallout vibe, but since that's mostly a content issue (I've never really associated gameplay with what made me like an RPG) and they were more than a year out of release, they've had plenty of time to perfect that. At the time, though, I thought BioShock was more in line with the old Fallout games.
Onto the Oblivion hate, I'm not sure I get it. But then again, I took one look at the story quest and said the same thing I said about Morrowind's story quest: "Not gonna do it." Then I ran around, became an assassin, a master thief and explored some pretty cool dungeons in the process. It wasn't a rousing, epic storytelling experience, but it was an engaging way to kill an hour or three. I will say I'd have enjoyed Morrowind in Oblivion's engine quite a bit more, but nothing in Oblivion made me think Bethesda would screw up Fallout.
But I also have it on good authority that the same person can make two games that are different from each other.
Anyway, as someone who dabbled in Fallout and liked Bloodlines and Torment a lot more, liked both Morrowind and Oblivion, and has actually seen Fallout 3 in person, it looks pretty cool. However, I do agree the build I saw didn't quite get its arms around the Fallout vibe, but since that's mostly a content issue (I've never really associated gameplay with what made me like an RPG) and they were more than a year out of release, they've had plenty of time to perfect that. At the time, though, I thought BioShock was more in line with the old Fallout games.
Onto the Oblivion hate, I'm not sure I get it. But then again, I took one look at the story quest and said the same thing I said about Morrowind's story quest: "Not gonna do it." Then I ran around, became an assassin, a master thief and explored some pretty cool dungeons in the process. It wasn't a rousing, epic storytelling experience, but it was an engaging way to kill an hour or three. I will say I'd have enjoyed Morrowind in Oblivion's engine quite a bit more, but nothing in Oblivion made me think Bethesda would screw up Fallout.
But I also have it on good authority that the same person can make two games that are different from each other.
The thing that really interests me is the perceived emotional investment in the fallout franchise. I understand that people want to play a good game that fits in with a fictional universe they enjoy to dabble in, but I also don't see how a poorly thought out and developed sequel detracts from previous enjoyment of games nor do I think people should obligate themselves to playing such a sequel simply because it is named fallout 3.
It seems to me that way too many of these people are blindly going to buy fallout 3 AND complain about it because it isnt going to be like previous iterations. You're not under any obligation to buy the game and it isnt going to ruin fallout for you is it?
Anyway, I really enjoyed Bioshock and if it is similar to that in some ways then i'm ready!
It seems to me that way too many of these people are blindly going to buy fallout 3 AND complain about it because it isnt going to be like previous iterations. You're not under any obligation to buy the game and it isnt going to ruin fallout for you is it?
Anyway, I really enjoyed Bioshock and if it is similar to that in some ways then i'm ready!
I'd have to agree too, Fallout one and two are some of the best games i have had the pleasure to play but I also enjoyed Oblivion, while it did not exactly set my world alight it was a amusing distraction for (more than) a few hours. I will save all judgement for Fallout 3 until i've had a chance to play it myself...then again I'm an ex wow addict so what do I know?krysalist said:
YOU'RE beyond hilarious : P
It's that some products take more effort to consume, similarly to how it's harder to learn a foreign language than to read another comic book. The concept of "better" is at stake here! Where do we draw the line? Is a guy who spends all his time eating chips and playing Halo 3 just as good as someone who is studying to become a doctor and reads the heavy classics in his free time? ^^
The word "better", like the word "evil" doesn't quite belong in reality, because it's so relative. Better can only be used in context, because the Halo player would undoubtedly whoop the students ass in Halo : P
Personally I prefer something that challenges my analytical capabilities. Bring on the symbolism, the double standards and the high-class writing! Fallout was an annoying game, because regardless if you were Achillles or just a fragment of skin peeled from his heel it took forever to get anywhere? Oh, a room filled to the rim with rats, great... ~~
While I agree that any concept needs modernizing sometimes I don't understand why people in general seem to think that real-time = improvement. It's not that I mind really, but I quite liked some of the turn-based battles in Fallout, because with some sneaky moves and AI-abuse you could win battles against huge odds. I don't think that will be as possible in real-time.
This, however, isn't really what I'm afraid Bethesda will cock up. Battle has always been okay in their games. These are the two things I fear:
1. Console Retardedness: From the glorious master race character creation system in Daggerfall we're now left with so little in Oblivion that you might as well roll a random character. Who knew an Axe was blunt for example? Since this is already coming to consoles it means that things will be dumbed down; perhaps even more than in Oblivion, who knows?
2. Script Retardedness: I'm not sure how many chimps with typewriters Bethesda has in their basement, but it's clearly not enough. Unless they've hired someone new to do the writing for Fallout we're in for a painful ride past a collection of Captain Blands, Evil-Because... Villans and other limp-armed, language-and-act censored creatures of the deserts. This is all neatly delivered by half-decent actors with no sense of what situation the line is spoken in and even when lines are traded between two NPC-characters they are still record separately to ensure that you get no immersion whatsoever. I doubt there will be any body-language, because as we all know it's 60% of the impression. What if it actually feels like an actual conversation? The horror! (or if there is body language it will be limited to say 5 different movements, none of them anything a human would ever do, making any conversation a puppet theater more than anything else).
How come they cannot just adapt a similar set of "gameworld rules" from the original fallout games into this new one?
Surely the original fallout games had some underlying structure, independant to the 3rd person interface, that gave the original games their heart and soul so to speak.
Can't they apply those mechanics to the new game and still be able to place the player behind the eyes of the ingame character?
Although I will admit, games these days from an isometric 3rd person perspective do seem to lack the fluidity of blending the visuals between environments and action/effects. It really would be a triumph to see a company truly pull this off with the visual power of todays graphic technology.
Fallout 2 seemed as though every visual was on the same level of detail. Many of todays 3rd person isometric games seem to have incredibly sharp effects over a much less detailed environment, or certain parts of the environment (ie interactive segments) much more stunning than the overall average terrain.
Perhaps this is all still a technology limitation in hardware capability and/or software development. But I still think that a game that runs in real time but looks like the old computer generated low-res cut-scenes is possible. Everyone seems to be rushing towards higher definition these days, which always means certain parts of the game need to be of lower detail to allow for smooth framerates.
I personally wouldnt mind playing in lower resolutions if it meant the gameplay looks pre-rendered, but is actually running real-time. I think that would rock. Perhaps that is just me....
No doubt I've veered well off topic......but I still have a low-res, high-detail dream.....
Surely the original fallout games had some underlying structure, independant to the 3rd person interface, that gave the original games their heart and soul so to speak.
Can't they apply those mechanics to the new game and still be able to place the player behind the eyes of the ingame character?
Although I will admit, games these days from an isometric 3rd person perspective do seem to lack the fluidity of blending the visuals between environments and action/effects. It really would be a triumph to see a company truly pull this off with the visual power of todays graphic technology.
Fallout 2 seemed as though every visual was on the same level of detail. Many of todays 3rd person isometric games seem to have incredibly sharp effects over a much less detailed environment, or certain parts of the environment (ie interactive segments) much more stunning than the overall average terrain.
Perhaps this is all still a technology limitation in hardware capability and/or software development. But I still think that a game that runs in real time but looks like the old computer generated low-res cut-scenes is possible. Everyone seems to be rushing towards higher definition these days, which always means certain parts of the game need to be of lower detail to allow for smooth framerates.
I personally wouldnt mind playing in lower resolutions if it meant the gameplay looks pre-rendered, but is actually running real-time. I think that would rock. Perhaps that is just me....
No doubt I've veered well off topic......but I still have a low-res, high-detail dream.....
Yes they are, you can look it up on ebay. There's a the Fallout Collection that has 1, 2 and Tactics (NOT FBOS) published by White Label.ReepNeep said:
Most criticism about Fallout 3 comes either from people who can't go over the fact that the game won't be primarily played from an isometric view, which I personally consider retarded. Fallout isn't reduced to being only an isometric game, it's an RPG, and like it or not, Bethesda make very good RPG games (or so does the reviews and sales say), and consoles or PC doesn't make the slightest difference (nothing meaningful anyways), or at least the criticism made toward these issues are always the same and always pointless and superficial anyways.
The other part of criticism comes from people who didn't take time to read interviews and previews about the game, or can't seem to understand what is clearly written in perfectly understandable english, that Bethesda is keeping main part of the gameplay (which, again, isn't reduced or constrained to the isometric view) and most importantly, the story and the setting.
For you who still think that Fallout 3 will be Oblivion with guns, well guess again. Of course it will have some semblance, since this is going to be a RPG played in first person (many people also say that M&M Dark Messiah look like Oblivion and the two aren't the same game at all), but the quest won't be handled the same way, the whole interactions won't be handled the same way and Bethesda said time and again that they are focusing on quality over quantity and I've yet to see a single reason in all the threads I've read about Fallout that could make me think that we shouldn't trust them about it.
And for those who didn't like Oblivion, well it certainly sucks to be you since it is one hell of a great RPG. I absolutely love Fallout, I played the heck out of Oblivion, and like it or not, this is the case of a great number of people out there. If you don't like it, don't buy it and don't play it, Bethesda owns the I.P. and they are entitled to do what they want with it, which suits me just fine. Stay with your great 10 years old game, personally I'll continue to enjoy those but will also be enjoying the next iteration pretty soon.
Fallout 3 GOTY, there I said it.
The other part of criticism comes from people who didn't take time to read interviews and previews about the game, or can't seem to understand what is clearly written in perfectly understandable english, that Bethesda is keeping main part of the gameplay (which, again, isn't reduced or constrained to the isometric view) and most importantly, the story and the setting.
For you who still think that Fallout 3 will be Oblivion with guns, well guess again. Of course it will have some semblance, since this is going to be a RPG played in first person (many people also say that M&M Dark Messiah look like Oblivion and the two aren't the same game at all), but the quest won't be handled the same way, the whole interactions won't be handled the same way and Bethesda said time and again that they are focusing on quality over quantity and I've yet to see a single reason in all the threads I've read about Fallout that could make me think that we shouldn't trust them about it.
And for those who didn't like Oblivion, well it certainly sucks to be you since it is one hell of a great RPG. I absolutely love Fallout, I played the heck out of Oblivion, and like it or not, this is the case of a great number of people out there. If you don't like it, don't buy it and don't play it, Bethesda owns the I.P. and they are entitled to do what they want with it, which suits me just fine. Stay with your great 10 years old game, personally I'll continue to enjoy those but will also be enjoying the next iteration pretty soon.
Fallout 3 GOTY, there I said it.
I admit I never played Fallout.Not my era, not my age. Sorry.
But any game that takes (statistically) 800 hours of playing, in order to get the full experience out of it must be a masterpiece.
The game that might as well be completed within 10 minutes is a fucking Eight Wonder of Gaming.(YES IT IS TRUE, THERE'S A VID AND I CAN POST IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME)
That's almost all I know about Fallout(besides plot synopsis for both games) and that is enough to predict that Bethesda will cock it up.
But any game that takes (statistically) 800 hours of playing, in order to get the full experience out of it must be a masterpiece.
The game that might as well be completed within 10 minutes is a fucking Eight Wonder of Gaming.(YES IT IS TRUE, THERE'S A VID AND I CAN POST IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME)
That's almost all I know about Fallout(besides plot synopsis for both games) and that is enough to predict that Bethesda will cock it up.
Except they admitted it's "Oblivion with guns". They used those words. Those EXACT words. It is also clear at this point that they are not making as much of an effort to stick to the setting as they should (they can't even maintain the setting in THEIR OWN franchise), and they have said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that can challenge my belief that meaningful choices within the game will be depressingly limited. On top of that, "quality over quantity" is the exact reverse of what Bethesda has given us with their past games. Contrary to your observations, I have seen no reason to trust Bethesda, but plenty of reasons not to. They gave us bullshit about Oblivion, and they are more than likely doing the same with this game.Whiskey Jak said:
Oh... and it sucks to be a person who disliked Oblivion? My God, that's an arrogant thing to say. "You don't share my taste in games? That sucks! I feel sorry for you."
Have you even read the posts in this thread? Plenty of strong, valid points have been made as to why Fallout 3 is upsetting even to fans who don't demand it use an archaic viewpoint and combat system.
Both of these thoughts sprang to mind while reading this conversation.
I never got to really play much of Fallout. I played some of number two, but I got distracted in not too long a time by other things, and next thing I know my computer is having issues playing the game. I will say, however, that calling Fallout 2 "ugly" is...I don't know. It certainly isn't ugly, though.
I have been known to be in the boat of not trusting a franchise when it has moved to a new creator, or believing at a certain title the whole franchise is ruined. I honestly don't buy Square Enix games anymore, because at some point on the Playstation they lost the polish and care that I saw in their earlier days. I continued to play Final Fantasy up to ten, and while 9 and 10 aren't bad games, they aren't great either. I can forgive this of other developers, but Squenix? Not really.
However, there are a lot of old fans that HATE Squenix. I used to, and sometimes still feel seething rage when I know people that express the same level of fandom I once did, but for the most part the company just doesn't interest me. It's more that they used to be amazing that boils my blood.
Now, Fallout 1 and 2 are great games, or so the masses say. Again, didn't get to play much of it. However, if Fallout 3 turns out to be something different, it's this simple: let it go. Even if a bunch of kids that never played the first two are claiming it to be the most amazing thing, let it go. I will discuss with rational and reasonable people why FF9 and 10 aren't as good as their predecessors (and why FF8 has no sample of good game design on any of its four game discs), but for the most part, I just leave it be now. It isn't worth my time, and if Fallout 3 isn't that good, then just give it up. Franchises get destroyed over time. If the game keeps the franchise around, well who cares? Obviously the game can't suck, otherwise it wouldn't sell as well as it does (unless it caters to a series of die hard fans, such as FF8, or the flawed and bugged engine is overlooked due to its ridiculous play, such as GTA3).
Also, someone mentioned the inevitable "dumbing down for console-tards" thing when it came to Oblivion's character creation. Granted neither Oblivion nor Mass Effect really offer much in the way of creating statistics or such, but I spent my whole first hour of gameplay for both Oblivion and Mass Effect in character creation. My roommate kept annoying me to just accept something and move on, but due to my painstaking facial manipulations and consideration over what my character's class and history would be, I have a character I am more than happy with in Mass Effect. He looks quite Roman. As for Oblivion...well, it's hard to tell the difference between one Argonian and the other, but he's unique enough.
Or is "only one hour" too "dumbed down" compared to other guys? Seriously, read deeply into the mechanics of FFTactics, Ogre Battle 64 and the recent mechanics of Pokemon Diamond and Pearl, and you'll find some complex systems. So seriously, enough of the "dumbing down for console-tards", because there's plenty of games I've played that you likely have never touched that are pretty damn deep.
How about comparing the character creation screens of Fallout and Oblivion. How about comparing the atmosphere, originality, and storytelling of those games too?
This is obviously something that will differ between opinions. Personally, I LIKED that Fallout 2 wasn't much different from Fallout 1. I'm not the sort of gamer who demands a step forward in technological advancement in order to appreciate a game. I loved Fallout 1. Fallout 2 was more of the same, in all the right places. Okay, I'll admit that the skills weren't balanced. But I also didn't have much of a problem with much of it, either. You either upgraded your weapon skills (and chose which weapons you prefer) or you upgraded your specialty skills, like sneak, pickpocket, science, etc. It was a rich roleplay experience to me. But technologically, it is MY personal opinion that, as a fan of Fallout, I still think it looks great when I play it today, and even if they kept everything the exact same, I would be happy. I rate Fallout at the top of my list of favourite games of all time, ever. So, more of the same would be a good thing to me with that mindset.H0ncho said:
I'm not saying that making it first-person will be a bad thing. I'm just reserving my opinion until I actually play it, and recognize that it could very easily be made in such a way that I won't enjoy it. I have a hard time getting into FPRPGs, and I liked Fallout the way it was. Bethesda is trying to fix what wasn't broken, and when you do that, you have two obvious outcomes: you'll either break it, and it'll suck, or you'll improve it and it'll be great. More of the same means that there's no chance of getting BETTER, but it also risks making it WORSE. In all honesty, time has taught us that we should reserve judgment until the final product, so we can all talk about our predictions of the outcome, but flat out disowning the franchise for changing is closed-minded, the same as assuming that there is absolutely no chance it could be improved is closed-minded.
I trust Bethesda. They make good games (for RPG enthusiasts), and know full well what kind of games Fallout fans expect.
They could rebuild fallout...
They have the technology...
Worst case scenario: Morrowind in a post-apocalyptic setting. I can handle this.
I, once I have upgraded my computer, will certainly snag it.
They could rebuild fallout...
They have the technology...
Worst case scenario: Morrowind in a post-apocalyptic setting. I can handle this.
I, once I have upgraded my computer, will certainly snag it.
The biggest reason for the hate is that Bethesda is calling this game Fallout, they could make a FPSRPG in a post-nuclear world and it wouldn't garner anywhere near as much hate. By putting this game in the fallout universe there is an expectation that it will make sense with the backstory of the previous games yet much of what we've heard so far runs counter to much of the established backstory. It would be akin to the 7th Harry Potter book had Dumbledore and Sirius living, just like nothing happened. The other problem is trusting Bethesda, many of the fallout fans don't have particularly good things to say about Bethesda (after Oblivion) thus they don't trust Bethesda to do the series justice and the aforementioned backstory problems don't fill them with confidence.