A genuine, worthy sequel
- Thread starter Bloody William
- Start date
I hate one-liners of this kind.
Ya know, it'd be great if you could elaborate a bit.
Ya know, it'd be great if you could elaborate a bit.
I really disagree with the person who started this topic.
fallout 3 is not a proper sequel, it is a bad sequel. It lacks the atmosphere of previous ones, Fallout and Fallout 2. It also lacks the depth of the earlier games. People are generally friendly, equipment and ammo everywhere , no real lack of resources etc. Nothing is well explained, and world just seems to be shallow. Its more of an spin-off when you think about it. Some of the factions, like BoS and Enclave, were already weakened or destroyed in previous ones. It might not outright break canon, but it makes very little sense in the light of Fallout and Fallout 2 events.Where do the ragged remnants of Enclave get the fuel to fly several thousands of kilometers over UNCHARTED terrain ? They don't even know where the radiation centers are. And BoS ? they don't have the resources to traverse that distance wia land, especially if the faction in DC is a SPLINTER group. They became researchers, not warriors in the ending of Fallout. The story and writing are lacking when compared to Fallout and Fallout 2, it is the simple truth.
Now as compared to beths previous games i must say this IS an improvement over Oblivion, but not over Morrowind.
fallout 3 is not the greatest game in last few years...that would be rather idiotic claim to make. Its a good to mediocre game, depending who you ask. Half-life 2 had better writing than fallout 3, and its an FPS game. It was much better game overall than fallout 3.
fallout 3 is not a proper sequel, it is a bad sequel. It lacks the atmosphere of previous ones, Fallout and Fallout 2. It also lacks the depth of the earlier games. People are generally friendly, equipment and ammo everywhere , no real lack of resources etc. Nothing is well explained, and world just seems to be shallow. Its more of an spin-off when you think about it. Some of the factions, like BoS and Enclave, were already weakened or destroyed in previous ones. It might not outright break canon, but it makes very little sense in the light of Fallout and Fallout 2 events.Where do the ragged remnants of Enclave get the fuel to fly several thousands of kilometers over UNCHARTED terrain ? They don't even know where the radiation centers are. And BoS ? they don't have the resources to traverse that distance wia land, especially if the faction in DC is a SPLINTER group. They became researchers, not warriors in the ending of Fallout. The story and writing are lacking when compared to Fallout and Fallout 2, it is the simple truth.
Now as compared to beths previous games i must say this IS an improvement over Oblivion, but not over Morrowind.
fallout 3 is not the greatest game in last few years...that would be rather idiotic claim to make. Its a good to mediocre game, depending who you ask. Half-life 2 had better writing than fallout 3, and its an FPS game. It was much better game overall than fallout 3.
Sjeez, I can't believe it: Fallout 3, a genuine worthy sequel?
You did play Fallout 3 Bethesda made, right? And you did play FO1 and FO2 made by Interplay?
The Game that had about 1 decent town (Megathon)? (Oh yeah and if you blew it up like I did, 0 decent towns. And No, River City is not a city: it is a ship.)
The Game with only Dumb raiders (except for Paridise Falls, but that were slavers), making the game more shooter then RPG.
The general rule in this game is first shoot, then loot (because much talking isn't in it, at least until you find someone to talk to: towns re rare and population lvls re low)
90 % of the locations in this world re just shoot to kill (including almost every Vault in the game), not much RPG in it: number of quests is very low in general. (And if you find quests you ll notice that most of them re involving Megathon and River City)
So really a game where "shoot first, ask questions later" (that is if you find someone to talk to) is a genuine worthy sequel to FO1 & FO2? I don't even know it it is a genuine RPG, without even thinking about a it being a genuine sequel.
You did play Fallout 3 Bethesda made, right? And you did play FO1 and FO2 made by Interplay?
The Game that had about 1 decent town (Megathon)? (Oh yeah and if you blew it up like I did, 0 decent towns. And No, River City is not a city: it is a ship.)
The Game with only Dumb raiders (except for Paridise Falls, but that were slavers), making the game more shooter then RPG.
The general rule in this game is first shoot, then loot (because much talking isn't in it, at least until you find someone to talk to: towns re rare and population lvls re low)
90 % of the locations in this world re just shoot to kill (including almost every Vault in the game), not much RPG in it: number of quests is very low in general. (And if you find quests you ll notice that most of them re involving Megathon and River City)
So really a game where "shoot first, ask questions later" (that is if you find someone to talk to) is a genuine worthy sequel to FO1 & FO2? I don't even know it it is a genuine RPG, without even thinking about a it being a genuine sequel.
Trithne
Still Mildly Glowing
That's the real kicker: Everyone is so goddamn NICE. It feels like Bethesda thought that by sprinkling the term 'asshole' around, it'd have that authentic wasteland feel, but there's no sense of everyone being purely out for themselves and their own, screw outsiders.
Amon GeSoto
First time out of the vault
Bloody William said:
Let's examine that claim, shall we?
Fallout 3 gutted the SPECIAL system. Everything thing except intelligence and Strength is a dump stat. The only reason to have Strength is to carry more. With a high intelligence I can make up for any shortage in other areas controlled by stats. If I spread points over areas it might take longer, but since levels are so easy to come by in Fallout 3 why bother? I can put all my points into a single skill and benefit right then and there. If I were rolling a gun based character in the first two Fallout games I'd want a high perception so I could get the Sniper Perk, because the first two Fallout games your chance to hit was based off total skill. Where as in Fallout 3 it's based off distance, not skill, so the Sniper perk is useless in it.Bloody William said:
Bloody William said:
What is resting on your shoulds in Fallout 3? In the first two Fallout games there was a clear responsibility put on your shoulders, for Fallout 1 it was finding another water chip and for Fallout 2 your villiage was dying. The life and death of others was put on you and you could choose to heed your duty or ignore it. Fallout 3 puts no responsibility on your shoulder, other than trying to find Daddy, but I hardly know him. Bethesda barely even put in dialogue options for me to explore the relationship between us.
Bloody William said:
Although Bethesda did give a reason as to why there are supermutants in Fallout 3, they aren't very good. They seemly put supermutants in the game just for nostalgic reasons, rather than further the world of Fallout, though Fallout 2 also suffered from this problem. It would be like someone writing a sequel to the Lord Of The Rings and bringing Sauron and The One Ring back, it serves no purpose in terms of advancing the universe.
Bloody William said:
Walking through ruins or dungeons in Fallout 3 is ultimately unrewarding. Combat is so amazingly easy that fighting is boring, so when I find nothing in a building I feel cheated, not to mention that, with a few exceptions, all the buildings in Fallout 3 feel the same. All the caverns fill the same and so on. The first two Fallout games had this problem, but because combat was challenging it got your mind off the dungeons themselves.
Bloody William said:
Most of the choices boil down to good fight or bad fight. Diplomacy, for the most part, will only get you a better reward. Notable exceptions include Tenpenny Tower, Blood Ties and a few others.
Bloody William said:
Although Fallout 3 allows for engagment of the plot on your own time, only in a few spots does it allow for nonlinear story path. Only in finding information about your Father does the game allow for nonlinear steps. After you find your Father the game forces you to do things it's way.
Bloody William said:
Details aside, Fallout 1 and 2 were somewhat similar in their themes, both delt with the idea of morphing humanity into some form of perfection. For Fallout 1 it was about turning them into something other than humans, and in Fallout 2 it about keeping humans in their "purest" form. Both games' stories are different with themes aside. As for Fallout 3, it's actually TOO much like the first two games. Almost every part of Fallout 3's plot elements are parallel to some part of Fallout 1 or 2's.
Bloody William said:
As stated, Bethesda doesn't care about advancing the world of Fallout, so much as keeping enough to justify it's changes to the rest of the game.
Also it's made clear through some conversations over heard that it's the mutants who capture people and mutate them so as to make more mutants. But other than Big Town and the captives, the only relationship I've seen between the Supermutants and humans is crushing their spine. Also, they've been at this for twenty years, where do they get all the FEV to do this? Sure Vault 87 had it, but how much of that stuff can there be? The mutants are too stupid to make it, and none of this explains why Vault 87 is on one side of the map while the mutants are concentrated in DC, on the otherside of the map. Did the BoS just never notice they were coming from the west? They knew about FEV from the events of the previous Fallout games, so they must know that the mutants have a place of origin, but they seem too stupid to notice.
Bloody William said:
Fallout 3 still suffers from Oblivions clear cut morals. At least Morrowind's story had some shades of gray, but in Fallout 3 somebody is the good guy and somebody is the bad guy, and generally indicated by how many curse words they use.
Bloody William said:
With the exception of maybe Tenpenny Tower, all these examples have clear cut evil people, who's card-board personalities can be smelled from a mile away.
[spoiler:41d6794685]In fact, in the case of Tenpenny Tower the only real difference is both Roy and Tenpenny are the bad guys.[/spoiler:41d6794685]
Bloody William said:
As I said above, the SPECIAL system no longer functions as it did in the previsous games. As for VATS, considering it was made to placate the original fans, it's a really shallow system and makes combat boring to boot. First, none of the options open to me from the combat of the previous games is open to me. I can only burst with weapons, I can't go full auto, and I can't do single shot unless the gun is single fire. I can't throw grenades at certain point, I have to throw it at a person. And since your chance to hit is based off of distance, not skills, I can just run up to somebody and shoot them in the face and win.
Also, in the original games I picked what I wanted to do and the game did that one action and waited for me to decide what I wanted to do next. In Fallout 3 everything happens in that one VATS activation. This opens up problems of what if I shoot at an enemy and he moves behind cover, because sometimes the game speeds up and enemies will move behind cover, meaning that if I decided to shoot more than once I start emptying my ammo on debris and wasting my AP, and God knows I don't want to play Bethesda's medicore attempts at a real time shooter. All this because VATS was a poorly designed, and poor thought out work around.
Bloody William said:
It's a good RPG, but it isn't very Fallout like. It also got rid of endings for each place you visited which was a halmark of the series. The ending just talking about your karma rating and two choices you made based off the main quest. Nothing about what you did to Megaton, Rivet City, or any of the others. Very unFallout.
Bloody William said:
Oh, you mean like how ghouls now living to be over 100 is the rule and not the exception? Or how ALL the raiders seem to have come together in a meeting and decided to all be satists? Or poorly explained reasons for the supermutants being in DC? Or why the Enclave still exists even those most of it's people relocated to the oil rig in Fallout 2 which was destroyed?
Bloody William said:
Most of those still have at least core elements of their previous incarnations. Where as Fallout 3 doesn't. It has VATS which offers nothing similar to the previous Fallout games other than being able to let the computer aim for it, which, might I add, defeats the purpose of making Fallout 3 an FPS, which it is. Also, Super Mario and Castlevania have a general story to building upon. For Castlevania it's Dracula and the Belmonts (though you don't always play one), and for Mario it's about people stealin' a pimp's ho and jumpin' on their shit. Also, Symphony of the Night, although very different when compared to the first Castlevania, still has similar gameplay, and the differences came from several sequels that bulit upon the original gameplay.
Bloody William said:
For you, maybe, but you don't really seem to care what condition the game comes in, just so long as it has the name Fallout on it and some familiar content. Just because the game has the same tone and humour (which I would say it doesn't, but there you go) does not make it a sequel, if it did you could call Tactics a sequel. The definition of a sequel is a story that advances the story of it's predecessor. For games, a sequel either advances the story or the gameplay elements of it's predecessor, of which Fallout 3 does neither.
It neither advances the story of the Vault Dweller or the West Coast, and since it's willing to throw reason out the window just to make it more "Fallout-y" it can't be taken as an advancement of the universe of Fallout. And it kicked all but the tiniest bits of Fallout's gameplay out the door, it didn't try to improve them it got rid of them.
Chancellor Kremlin
Mildly Dipped
At the end of the day it all boils down to this:
If I can't hit a child in the groin with a sledgehammer then its not Fallout.
If I can't hit a child in the groin with a sledgehammer then its not Fallout.
Chancellor Kremlin said:
Yeah... wheres the knockouts in f3?
I found it very effective as a martial character in f2 to be able to knock out people with successfull head or groin crits and limit the incoming damage this way...
Not to mention you can't target specific body parts in VATS as a hand-to-hand char.
No. "The Earth is square" is factually incorrect. "Fallout 3 is a good game" is a subjective opinion. There is no right. There is no wrong. Just because it differs from your opinion, it doesn't mean he's wrong. It merely means his opinion is DIFFERENT from yours.Black said:
Chancellor Kremlin said:
<Harold>God, I never get tired of that image.</Harold>
Lichbane said:
Wrong. The design of Fallout 3 can be compared to the design of Van Buren, yielding a very clear result: Fallout 3 is a bad RPG. And it's a fact.
Corvin said:
Its "fixed" in a mod already..and i still hate the game. Well it was stupid to add unkillable godmode children with guns to the game.
Just don't put kids in to the game if you don't want to have trouble with the ratings. Although i really dont see how why this game shouldn't be AO..it so gory and all.
Trithne
Still Mildly Glowing
Oh yes, I played the game. Little Lamplight is stupid. Not not-nice, just stupid. I entirely refused to deal with it, because it's entirely beyond comprehension how such a society could exist. The fact is that LL is simply a forced fetch quest. And it's telling that the only group of people beth would let you talk to, and yet make into utter assholes, they also made invulnerable. I'm certain LL is their way of thumbing their noses at us and our kid-killing ways.
Chancellor Kremlin
Mildly Dipped
Corvin said:
Well then don;t include kids in the game full stop. Especially annoying gun yielding kids who constantly insult you.
Like said before, this was a nice way to show us the finger really.