A genuine, worthy sequel

Ausdoerrt said:
Well, I caould tallk more about FF but that's not the point. Also, comparin anything to FFX-2 is like comparing anything to FO:BOS.

As for, FOO recation, from what I'm seeing it's not quite as great as you're saying, it's generally a mixed bag. I also know a few original Fo fans myself, and they're not happy with the game. The guys who like GoW are. No, they're not familiar with NMA.
Click to expand...

My friends are. Do you think GoW/Halo fanboys even know about NMA, enough to laugh at it? Do you think they've even heard of it? Many, if not most, of the guys disregarding NMA for being kneejerk anti-Fallout 3 fanboys, are longtime gamers who've been playing games and reading sites since they've been up, for at least a decade.

And the attitude that these are young gamers who don't understand anything other than Halo, that all of the review sites are easily swayed and in the tank for Bethsoft, that everything is a cynical market force and not a genuine result of developing a very good game, is breathtakingly arrogant.
Click to expand...

If you take away the Beth fanboys and console 'tards who give FOO 10s and the angry FO1/2 fanbois who give 1-2 ratings, you'll probably end up with a score of about 70-80% from the people who are rating the game for what it is. Also, the fact that the user ratings are 5--10% lower than critics' means that the reviewers DO get swayed quite a bit. If you look at the more classic all-time favourites, it's usually 5-10% in the different direction.
Click to expand...

How exactly do you strip away the fanboys, 'tards, and the anti-fanboys to get that number?
 
Bloody William said:
My friends are. Do you think GoW/Halo fanboys even know about NMA, enough to laugh at it? Do you think they've even heard of it? Many, if not most, of the guys disregarding NMA for being kneejerk anti-Fallout 3 fanboys, are longtime gamers who've been playing games and reading sites since they've been up, for at least a decade.
Click to expand...

I just said, we had two different experiences. I was trying to show you that your example is uniform, and people who talk about "console kids" aren't talking entirely out of their @$$


How exactly do you strip away the fanboys, 'tards, and the anti-fanboys to get that number?
Click to expand...

Read my post again. CAREFULLY. Besides what I've already said, it's also quite obvious from reading a specific user review.
 
Well the fact that reviews are swayed is just this, a fact. Every1 agrees that FO3 has lots of bugs and issues, but it still got 10/10, can some1 please explain how an unperfect game can get a perfect mark?
 
Here here, Bloody William. I completely agree with everything you've said. Having been a gamer since my 286 days, I am certainly not a GoW/Halo n00b.

Just wanted to add my support to your case. I love Fallout 3, it's a great, albeit slightly flawed, game. As for the lore problems that people seem to have, everything is made up from imagination. I doubt any of you would have a problem if the original Fallout creators had created the exact same storyline. Bethesda haven't got it wrong because it's not real, it's not fact. I guess I don't care so much if somebody else puts their own spin on something, but I can see why it would bother some people.
 
Andy-Spacetrain said:
Here here, Bloody William. I completely agree with everything you've said. Having been a gamer since my 286 days, I am certainly not a GoW/Halo n00b.

Just wanted to add my support to your case. I love Fallout 3, it's a great, albeit slightly flawed, game. As for the lore problems that people seem to have, everything is made up from imagination. I doubt any of you would have a problem if the original Fallout creators had created the exact same storyline. Bethesda haven't got it wrong because it's not real, it's not fact. I guess I don't care so much if somebody else puts their own spin on something, but I can see why it would bother some people.
Click to expand...
So your argument is...it doesn't matter because it's imaginary?
Okay, a good point if you don't care about consistency, overarching meaning or anything like that.
 
Andy-Spacetrain said:
Here here, Bloody William. I completely agree with everything you've said. Having been a gamer since my 286 days, I am certainly not a GoW/Halo n00b.

Just wanted to add my support to your case. I love Fallout 3, it's a great, albeit slightly flawed, game. As for the lore problems that people seem to have, everything is made up from imagination. I doubt any of you would have a problem if the original Fallout creators had created the exact same storyline. Bethesda haven't got it wrong because it's not real, it's not fact. I guess I don't care so much if somebody else puts their own spin on something, but I can see why it would bother some people.
Click to expand...

That's like saying it would have made perfect sense for Han Solo to return in The Empire Strikes back as a dish of stewed tomatoes. The thing about imaginary ideas is that... hey sometimes they're consistent, comprehensible and they mean something in their supported context. Have you ever read a book?
 
Yes I have read a book. Take LOTR for example, one of my favourite books. I've read it 3 times, first time was 17 years ago. When the films came out, I didn't mind. I, for example, disliked the Faramir change. But I'm not going to say "this isn't LOTR", because it is. It's just a slightly skewed version. It doesn't really bother me, nothing is perfect. I'm not going to not watch the films, or even dislike them based on these differences, because this is entertainment. If somebody wrote a documentary about something that was entirely wrong, that would bother me.
 
e_X_plosive said:
Well the fact that reviews are swayed is just this, a fact. Every1 agrees that FO3 has lots of bugs and issues, but it still got 10/10, can some1 please explain how an unperfect game can get a perfect mark?
Click to expand...

Well, I don't think it's a perfect game and wouldn't give it a 10/10. The problem with any numbered scoring system, especially ones that aren't on a percentile or similarly gradiated scale, is that they invite things like this. Why have a 10/10 if you never use it? Why give a 10/10 if it's not perfect? On a percent scale, or a scale out of 20, or out of 50, you can give it a 99%, a 98%, a 95%, anything that's closer to perfect than it is just an A-grade game. Unfortunately, once again this is a subjective issue, even when you put it into numbers.

Andy-Spacetrain said:
Here here, Bloody William. I completely agree with everything you've said. Having been a gamer since my 286 days, I am certainly not a GoW/Halo n00b.

Just wanted to add my support to your case. I love Fallout 3, it's a great, albeit slightly flawed, game. As for the lore problems that people seem to have, everything is made up from imagination. I doubt any of you would have a problem if the original Fallout creators had created the exact same storyline. Bethesda haven't got it wrong because it's not real, it's not fact. I guess I don't care so much if somebody else puts their own spin on something, but I can see why it would bother some people.
Click to expand...

Imagination or not, it certainly is possible to massively screw up a fictional series' story, tone, characterization, through arbitrary changes. Brotherhood of Steel proved that. Just because it's fiction doesn't mean you can't mess it up by veering massively off course from what fans expect and appreciate in previous works. I'm just arguing that Bethsoft hasn't veered off-course, that it's put together a plot, characters, settings, and an overarching theme that is consistent with the first two Fallout games. The things that have changed from Fallout and Fallout 2 are satisfactorily explained, and if they were not changed and Bethsoft simply piled in all of the same old things into the game, the same setting, the same elements, it would feel far more like like a remake or a brazen fanwank* than a sequel.

*incidentally, Brazen Fanwank is the name of my band, and we'll be playing at Konrad's next Tuesday.
 
I agree. I just want to clarify, as I seem to have been misread, that I'm not talking about complete re-writes of fantasy lore. I'm trying to say that 90% accurate is good enough for me. If they said that the BoS were all made of onions, then that would bother me, as it would massively contradict the previous games, and would ruin the idea and atmosphere of the game, but that isn't what has happened.
 
Plain and simple: Fallout 1 and 2 fans are whiners who can't appreciate a good game. It really does make me angry that all of you are flaming this game so hard. I agree fully with William, and I'm proud to say that. As I have said before... If this game had been turn-based, and isometric, the ONLY people who would play it is the old Fallout fans. Bethesda would be stupid to do that, and would lose a lot of money in the process. This game is meant to appeal to the new and the old. It's not too overbearing and confusing, by flooding you with the story and garbage from the first two. It's a great game, simply. You should at least appreciate the effort Bethesda put into the game. -Rant Over.-
 
And strike two for trolling.
Learn to articulate your arguments without calling everyone a whiner. For that matter, familiarise yourself with arguments.

Also, why the fuck would I care whether or not the game would be commercially successful? Britney Spears is commercially successful, that doesn't make me like her music.
 
to make fallout 3 a worthy sequel, a lot of modding its required, and a lot of changes need to be made.
since this game for everybody out there ITS THE SEQUEL OF FALLOUT, modding must be made, besides its the only thing we can do :(
 
Black said:
The OP is just stating his opinion.
Click to expand...
And his opinion is uneducated and wrong.
Just like "I think Earth's square" opinion.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but no. I respect your opinion UNTIL you arbitrarily claim that somebody is not entitled to one.

I played Wasteland. I played Fallout 1 since the demo was released. I played Fallout 2 and Tactics. Except for Tactics, which I didn't enjoy that much, I have gone through all "canon" titles several times, recommended both Fallouts to everyone I know and even purchased copies for them, feeling that I was doing them a favor for letting them know what a grade-A game was.

Fallout 1 and 2 are two of my three favorite games ever, the other one being Jagged Alliance 2. I have played pen and paper RP games extensively and, as a board wargamer, I am more than familiar with the advantages offered by turn-based mechanics.

And I like Fallout 3, a lot, and agree with all points made by the OP. Does that make my opinion "uneducated"? You make me laugh. It's this kind "holier than thou" attitude from a minority that gives NMA a bad image. Thankfully, I know that most people in this forum are very educated and reasonable, so I can only laugh at your remark and take it as an isolated example of bitterness..

I think the story DOES have a different tint, and I love every bit of it. After playing through the whole main quest and as many side quests as I could, I noticed a drastic change of tone, which I welcomed. First off, because I didn't really want to play the same game all over again. Second off, because the change in tone between Fallout 1 and 2 was just as noticeable.

Side quests and references in Fallout 3 are often gritty and pessimism-heavy:


[spoiler:4df4b246df]A cage littered with the skeletons of children with tiny bloody hand prints on the walls. A note recorded by a dying father in the last few seconds of his life. A gang of ghouls slaughtering an entire tower full of residents showing that, no matter how hard we try, some things were never meant to happen. The town you rescue from super mutants slowly dying away because, even with your help, they don't really stand a chance. I could go on.[/spoiler:4df4b246df]

Your actions are actually presented as relatively meaningless, and deliberately so, in a dying world full of violence.

Then the main quest takes exactly the opposite approach.

[spoiler:4df4b246df]The main quest is meant to be "main", it's big and expansive, it's the thing that will change the world. It's not just a meaningless "I killed the bad guys, we are free now", but rather a "brave new world" approach that proves the player wrong. Some actions DO matter, and through dedication and sacrifice you can actually change things for the better, like your father did, even at the cost of your own life. Humanity will always have hope, because even though "war never changes", some people will always go beyond mere survival[/spoiler:4df4b246df]

The change of tone is that you go from a purely personal quest of self-preservation and violence littered with some "I help this town" instances to a more epic-scale journey of moral discovery that I really didn't find in either "original" title.

Fallout 1 was more linear, and Fallout 2 was so full of dark humor and irony that I rarely took anything seriously. It didn't feel like I was actually doing something horrible, since most evil actions felt more like sticking a firecracker in a turd and watching it splatter (there actually was a case of exactly this in FO2, by the way). I was evil "for laughs" in a psychotic way. In Fallout 3, I actually felt like a self-serving prick many times and even felt compelled to reload to a previous save to shape things differently.

The mechanics have changed drastically, and have a number of flaws that I won't deny. There were flaws in the previous titles as well, and worry not, I won't just make a comparison between two games ten years apart, I know better than that. All I mean is that the flaws in the game mechanics didn't bother me back then, and they don't bother me now, because for me Fallout is a lot more than that.

Changes, like in the Brotherhood and their behavior, are explained if you bother to play enough, and thinking they changed it because "they are evil and wanted to destroy canon" is pretty naif. It was actually easier for them to make it a carbon copy. Instead, they changed it AND added an explanation, because the "core" Brotherhood didn't fit the new setting. Even they, after so many years of following their own path, are trying to actually do something for everyone, and you are to follow their example, trying to redeem the wasteland instead of just living in it.

Not only I consider Fallout 3 to be a worthy sequel, I consider it to be an absolutely brilliant game in many aspects. I understand and respect all the complaints here and agree that no game can make everyone happy, but as a pretty hardcore fan of the series I am pleased beyond my wildest expectations. And I don't take kindly to certain people dismissing my opinion as moronic just because they didn't get the point, or got it differently.

And before anyone asks, no, I didn't like Oblivion.
 
Nice post Doolan, good for you, standing up for your opinion and such. Interesting that you didnt like TES:O but really liked Fallout 3. I appreciate your opinin mate.

We all gotta just live and love guys. :D Live and love.
 
Doolan said:
Fallout 1 was more linear
Click to expand...
Did you play the same games as me?
Fallout 1 was nowhere near as linear as Fallout 3 was. Fallout 1 had a very open main quest, in which virtually everything could be done in multiple ways, in any order, with no artificial limitations, no railroading, no closing off of areas until you got to the right part of the storyline.
Fallout 3 instead had an entirely linear, railroaded main quest where you could accidentally skip a small part of the main quest (which the game handled badly). There were no choices you could make other than minor changes of tone in dialogue, and two choices at the very, very end. Which, added to that, immediately determine almost all of the ending, the other bit being determined solely by whether you have positive or negative karma.

You're right, though, that throughout most of the wasteland your choices don't matter one bit. This is a bad thing for a Fallout thing. Not because the world isn't supposed to be a pessimistic thing, but because the game shows virtually no consequences to your actions. Quests that do are exceptions rather than rules. In other words: the world doesn't feel like a world at all, it feels like a bunch of random missions slapped together.
Instead of deliberately offering a world that is doomed in which you can make no difference (which, if they did, they then immediately went and contradicted through the main quest - creating a world with an inconsistent setting), they offered a world that simply didn't react to what you did.
[spoiler:5fff35a272]Kill/grow/stop Harold? He's fine with whatever you do. Finish Moira's guide? Magically a review appears, but it is never referenced again. Kill the vampires/negotiate a peace? Whatever, the town ends up exactly the same, including the little kid. Help/don't help/murder the BoS? Wait, you don't even have a choice there. Destroy/convince to commit suicide/let live Eden? Not only is it written poorly, it simply doesn't matter what you do and it's never referenced again.
Explore the world? 90% of the locations you find are Super Mutant or Raider (ie psychopaths who enjoy decoration through corpse) lairs, with no relevance anywhere. Those locations that do have relevance somewhere, are nothing but dungeons, only very few of which are fleshed out in any way. For instance, there's a Deathclaw Sanctuary somewhere, with Enclave scientists around. Is it referenced anywhere? Nope. Is there any information whatsoever about this location on site? Nope. It could've been very interesting, instead it's just a place filled with Deathclaws. Fort Constantine could've been really interesting a la the Sierra Army Depot, now it's just a place where you can get the T-51b Power Armor.
Many of the Vaults suffer the same fate, where they failed to grasp great storytelling opportunities and just made them into generic dungeons with one or two computers explaining what happened (which begs the question how computers survive in an entirely rusted-over vault in the first place.[/spoiler:5fff35a272]

Moreover, many NPCs are unkillable and many possible solutions aren't present in the game, limiting not only the consequences or the reactions in the world, but also the choices you are offered in the first place.

There are exceptions, as I said, and some of it is done well (Tenpenny Towers, for instance). But these are very rare exceptions.

This could've been at least partially fixed with an endgame slideshow, showing what you did in the world. No such thing happened, at all. Instead, the ending leaves you with a very sudden and abrupt finish, with barely any closure.

Doolan said:
Changes, like in the Brotherhood and their behavior, are explained if you bother to play enough, and thinking they changed it because "they are evil and wanted to destroy canon" is pretty naif. It was actually easier for them to make it a carbon copy. Instead, they changed it AND added an explanation, because the "core" Brotherhood didn't fit the new setting. Even they, after so many years of following their own path, are trying to actually do something for everyone, and you are to follow their example, trying to redeem the wasteland instead of just living in it.
Click to expand...
Yes, obviously everyone here thinks Bethesda changed things because they are evil.
What the fuck?
It doesn't really matter why Bethesda did what they did, what matters is the end result. And the end result is a setting in which many things are changed. It's a setting that really is not a real Fallout setting anymore.
If you like that, good for you. But that doesn't mean that it fits the Fallout theme, because it doesn't.
 
Sander said:
It doesn't really matter why Bethesda did what they did, what matters is the end result. And the end result is a setting in which many things are changed. It's a setting that really is not a real Fallout setting anymore.
If you like that, good for you. But that doesn't mean that it fits the Fallout theme, because it doesn't.
Click to expand...

Someone could very easily make the same argument about Fallout 2 compared to Fallout 1. But I guess since it was still published by Interplay it makes it okay?

I mean, really. Talking Deathclaws? How is that not any more out of place than a well explained (in game no less) division of BoS soliders?

It's not something you would do, and you just assume it's not something BIS would do.. so it's WRONG!

Who decides what fits the Fallout theme in the end? The owners of the IP.
 
betamonkey said:
Someone could very easily make the same argument about Fallout 2 compared to Fallout 1. But I guess since it was still published by Interplay it makes it okay?

I mean, really. Talking Deathclaws? How is that not any more out of place than a well explained (in game no less) division of BoS soliders?

It's not something you would do, and you just assume it's not something BIS would do.. so it's WRONG!
Click to expand...
You do realise that Fallout 2 is seen as inconsistent and lacking in many of the setting details, right? Most people here praise Fallout 2 for its gameplay, but also lambast for the setting inconsistencies (including New Reno, talking Deathclaws, San Francisco; although there are many parts in the setting that are very good), breaking of the 4th-wall and the silly eastereggs.

In other words, your point of hypocritical people is irrelevant and incorrect.

Betamonkey said:
Who decides what fits the Fallout theme in the end? The owners of the IP.
Click to expand...
Yes, they own the IP, now I should like everything they do!!!
Wut?
 
Alienfreak said:
because this is entertainment.
Click to expand...

ENTERTAINMENT!? ... This is Fallout!
Click to expand...

This is Chinatown Marge!

Uh I was wondering, if this game is a worthy successor, it has to have real towns with backgroundstories and a lot of quests and interaction. But so far I couldn't find them, only "settlements" that consist of 1-3 houses with 1-2 quests were you have to go to x and loot y. So please point me in the right direction, will you? North? East? West? Where should I go to find those?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top