A genuine, worthy sequel

[betamonkey]

Yes, they own the IP, now I should like everything they do!!!
{"Wut" ain't a place I ever heard of. English, motherfucker, do you speak it?}?

No need to put words in my mouth. If you want to leap to this erroneous conclusion, then by all means.

Let me put it plainly. You don't have to like it but not liking it doesn't make it go away.

And I'm not sure that 'wut' insult is really called for. I could imagine myself receiving a strike for such a statement towards yourself.

 

[Sander]

No need to put words in my mouth. If you want to leap to this erroneous conclusion, then by all means.

Let me put it plainly. You don't have to like it but not liking it doesn't make it go away.

No, you said that the owners decide what fits the Fallout IP.
That's not actually how it works. What they decide is what they add and change to the IP. What actually *fits* the IP isn't decided by anyone, it's simply logic.

And if your point was simply 'live with it!' Ehm, okay, useful point.

And I'm not sure that '{"Wut" ain't a place I ever heard of. English, motherfucker, do you speak it?}' insult is really called for. I could imagine myself receiving a strike for such a statement towards yourself.

It's an automated word-replacement that actually insults *me*, not you.

 

[betamonkey]

What actually *fits* the IP isn't decided by anyone, it's simply logic.

Thank you. It's not decided by anyone. Not by people who love the change and not by those who hate it.

And I would say the reasoning behind their existence is quite 'logical' if you are receptive to it. Much moreso than any of the examples given about Fallout 2. But it's going to come down to personal preference and no 2 people are necessarily going to see eye to eye.

And if your point was simply 'live with it!' Ehm, okay, useful point.

Well, if you want to put it so snidely, then yes. That's the jist of it, but it does the point a great disservice. In the end you have two options. Accept it or don't. Sure, voicing your displeasure of it is fine but taking it upon yourself to decide what others should think of it is not. Not saying you specifically do this, you may or may not, but I have seen a few that would presume to speak for the many.

It's an automated word-replacement that actually insults *me*, not you.

Yeah, I just noticed it was coded into the board. Makes for some confusion to say the least.

 

[Sander]

Thank you. It's not decided by anyone. Not by people who love the change and not by those who hate it.

And I would say the reasoning behind their existence is quite 'logical' if you are receptive to it. Much moreso than any of the examples given about Fallout 2. But it's going to come down to personal preference and no 2 people are necessarily going to see eye to eye.

And now you're twisting it to a point where it's simply opinion.
Which I specifically I deny. I say it can be deduced logically, which means that you can logically discuss it.

And again, Fallout 2 is seen as breaking the setting. But its gameplay is much closer to Fallout, and it does have a lot of good setting elements.

Well, if you want to put it so snidely, then yes. That's the jist of it, but it does the point a great disservice. In the end you have two options. Accept it or don't. Sure, voicing your displeasure of it is fine but taking it upon yourself to decide what others should think of it is not. Not saying you specifically do this, you may or may not, but I have seen more than a few that would presume to speak for the many.

Logically discussing what does or doesn't fit the setting is different from telling someone what he should like.

 

[betamonkey]

And now you're twisting it to a point where it's simply opinion.
Which I specifically I deny. I say it can be deduced logically, which means that you can logically discuss it.

And it's my opinion that it isn't your place to deny. Not for me. Not for anyone else. Only for yourself.

And based on the canon ending of FO 1 which led to the Brotherhood taking a more beneficial role with the surrounding communities, I do not see much 'logic' supporting that Lyon's contingent is an impossibility.

 

[Sander]

And it's my opinion that it isn't your place to deny. Not for me. Not for anyone else. Only for yourself.

So anyone feeling that Frogger should play a prominent role in any Fallout game just has an 'opinion' that is just as valid as any other opinion?
Don't be ridiculous.

By the way, discussion means exactly that: discussion. It doesn't mean that one person simply decides randomly, it means that you can logically determine what does and doesn't fit the setting. Which really isn't that hard.

And based on the canon ending of FO 1 which led to the Brotherhood taking a more beneficial role with the surrounding communities, I do not see much 'logic' supporting that Lyon's contingent is an impossibility.

No one is saying that it is impossible, but that the BoS portraying themselves as the saviours of the wasteland doesn't fit the setting. Which isn't denied by Fallout's canon ending, where the BoS help a single setting slightly. They don't turn into the holy saviours of the wasteland anywhere.

 

[Bloody William]

because this is entertainment.

ENTERTAINMENT!? ... This is Fallout!

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?

Paradise Falls north-northwest of Arefu, Rivet City far southeast, the Citadel west of Rivet City, the many 1-2 quest towns and other sites in the Wasteland... it's true that there are far fewer/smaller "hubs" in Fallout 3 than in the first two games, but there are also many more hubs and hot spots. Together, Fallout and Fallout 2 had 32 hot spots on the map (places you could actually go that weren't random encounters). Fallout 3 has over 130 happed hot spots (again, not counting random encounters, which I admit are more random fights than easter eggs or other strange things). There might be less hubs but if anything there are far more quests and places to explore.

 

[Sander]

I'd like to count this out, but I'm pretty sure there aren't more quests throughout the Wasteland of Fallout 3 than there were in Fallout 2, although it might come close to Fallout.

The reason being that what, 90% of the hotspots on the map are nothing but dungeon crawls.

 

[betamonkey]

So anyone feeling that Frogger should play a prominent role in any Fallout game just has an 'opinion' that is just as valid as any other opinion?
Don't be ridiculous.

Being ridiculous is trying to equate Frogger to a splinter cell of the BoS. It's what I would call a strawman. Frogger doesn't make sense so neither does a few BoS soldiers fighting mutants to try and help people!

 

[Sander]

Being ridiculous is trying to equate Frogger to a splinter cell of the BoS. It's what I would call a strawman. Frogger doesn't make sense so neither does a few BoS soldiers fighting mutants to try and help people!

Where exactly did I say this?
If anything, you're the one using a strawman here.

All I said is that Fallout's setting elements can be logically discussed.

 

[Roflcore]

I'd like to count this out, but I'm pretty sure there aren't more quests throughout the Wasteland of Fallout 3 than there were in Fallout 2, although it might come close to Fallout.

even if the number is higher, I have barely seen any quest that could be called quest anyways. yes I know, since the mmo shit has hit the world going to x and grinding y or finding z is called a quest, but thats total bullshit.

I was thinking about something like this

 

[Bloody William]

I'd like to count this out, but I'm pretty sure there aren't more quests throughout the Wasteland of Fallout 3 than there were in Fallout 2, although it might come close to Fallout.

The reason being that what, 90% of the hotspots on the map are nothing but dungeon crawls.

According to the Fallout Wiki, Fallout 2 had 118 quests, including main quest objectives. Out of those, at least half of them are "kill" or "deliver" quests, and many of the quests are simply steps in overarching quest arcs (Solve the Gecko powerplant problem, repair the powerplant, optimize the powerplant are three "quests" on the list).

Fallout only had 53 quests, with the same deal. Each step enumerated, many of them "kill" or "deliver" quests.

Fallout 3 has 41 quests, 29 of them major main or side quests with multiple steps, and the remaining 15 ranging from simple (fixing pipes and getting scrap metal for Walter in megaton) to strange bits of diplomacy or puzzle solving (the election of Dave, finding the secret loot in the museum of technology). That of course doesn't include all of the various unnamed and fun "quests" like collecting the bobbleheads, meeting Harold, etc.

 

[betamonkey]

All I said is that Fallout's setting elements can be logically discussed.

If only it were so simple. There is no 'logical' way to discuss something so controversial that hinges largely on opinion.

95% of these so-called discussions boil down to:

It doesn't fit.
Yes it does.
No it doesn't.
Yes it does.
Why?
Because A, B and C.. and D isn't out of reach either.
... it doesn't fit.

You know this to be true.

 

[Sander]

If only it were so simple. There is no 'logical' way to discuss something so controversial that hinges largely on opinion.

95% of these so-called discussions boil down to:


It doesn't fit.
Yes it does.
No it doesn't.
Yes it does.
Why?
Because A, B and C.. and D isn't out of reach either.
... it doesn't fit.

You know this to be true.

Most of them boil down to this because people fail to actually read what is being written and think logically. Instead, people harp on what they *like* and then try to find excuses as to why this should or shouldn't fit the setting.

According to the Fallout Wiki, Fallout 2 had 118 quests, including main quest objectives. Out of those, at least half of them are "kill" or "deliver" quests, and many of the quests are simply steps in overarching quest arcs (Solve the Gecko powerplant problem, repair the powerplant, optimize the powerplant are three "quests" on the list).

Fallout only had 53 quests, with the same deal. Each step enumerated, many of them "kill" or "deliver" quests.

Fallout 3 has 41 quests, 29 of them major main or side quests with multiple steps, and the remaining 15 ranging from simple (fixing pipes and getting scrap metal for Walter in megaton) to strange bits of diplomacy or puzzle solving (the election of Dave, finding the secret loot in the museum of technology). That of course doesn't include all of the various unnamed and fun "quests" like collecting the bobbleheads, meeting Harold, etc.

Quests having multiple steps but still being called quests goes for most Fallout and Fallout 2 quests as well, so this distinction is rather arbitrary.

Moreover, you original argument was that Fallout 3 has much more to do. Even though you just conclusively showed that for every point of interest on the map, there are far fewer quests than in the previous games.

 

[Hroesvelgr]

If only it were so simple. There is no 'logical' way to discuss something so controversial that hinges largely on opinion.

95% of these so-called discussions boil down to:

It doesn't fit.
Yes it does.
No it doesn't.
Yes it does.
Why?
Because A, B and C.. and D isn't out of reach either.
... it doesn't fit.

You know this to be true.

You're right, with SOME people there is no chance of logical discussion whatsoever...

I frankly don't know where you got your figures from or even the sample argument which you provide in absolute terms as the way everyone else talks.

However, from my understanding of

actual logic, it can be used to discuss almost anything, including abstract and fictional ideas. For example, story and setting elements in Fallout.

In fact, the entire reason there's such a thing as Chris Avellone's Fallout Bible, a Fallout Wiki or even the original ideas and stories themselves is because those people were able to lay out the ideas in a coherent and logical manner.

As an example of something that doesn't fit in Fallout 3 within the traditional setting, it can be LOGICALLY deduced that if there were junked cars everywhere in all three games, the ones in Fallout being indeed much newer after the war than the ones we have in Fallout 3, and the ones in the first two games not being in a condition of volatility so much that they would explode in a mushroom cloud when shot with a few 10mm rounds, then there is no reason that ALL of the cars in Fallout 3 should do so 200 years after the war.

But hey, logic.... not everyone's cup of tea. It's like you said about Fallout 3 though. Whatever your opinion of it is, it isn't going to go away.

 

[betamonkey]

actual logic, it can be used to discuss almost anything, including abstract and fictional ideas. For example, story and setting elements in Fallout..

And the point still is, no matter how much logic one side brings to the table it can still be dismissed with a simple 'I don't think so'.

Honestly, I've seen far more solid logic supporting the current implementation than I have against it.

But that doesn't sway people at all. Anyone who is against it isn't going to be convinced by any one person posting why they feel it works on this forum. That's just the way it is.

And the opposite is true, those who see how it was done and accept it as it is aren't going to decide it doesn't make sense just because someone else doesn't like it.

 

[Doolan]

For starters, thanks a bunch for the understanding and respect shown in this thread, everybody's doing a great job at keeping it civil, and that should teach NMA outsiders that we're not raging lunatics, or not in a bad sense at least...

Anyway, I wanted to point out that, when it comes to betamonkey and Sander's argument on what fits the Fallout theme and what doesn't, I stand in a sort of middle point.

Naturally, certain elements can be discussed logically. A large pink dinosaur in sexy sleepwear playing the banjo in Navarro probably doesn't fit the setting too well, and it can be argued against easily. Same would go for making a game about a lumberjack and his parrot who lead a simple life in the woods of Bulgaria.

However, providing we stick to reasonable changes, things are not exactly that clear, since everyone made his / her own experience while playing the original Fallouts. First because they are games, and imagination *is* still a large part of it. Second because they are open games, and most of the details are not simply spoonfed to you like in, say, the Metal Gear series so not even the tiniest aspect is left for you to determine and the message is delivered exactly as the author intended.

The same happens with pen and paper RPGs really. While there are rules, a large part of the enjoyment, if not the main part, is what everyone makes out of it and how different people react differently to the same aspect of the same game.

That said, it's obvious that different people will likely be attached to different aspects of the franchise and consider them more central, and that's where what fits and what doesn't becomes a matter of choice in part. Not entirely, I know, but not everyone has the same idea of what Fallout is and should be.

In my case, what I wanted was there, and the changes felt mostly justified. There were a couple of inconsistencies and loopholes, as in Fallout 2, but none that really bothered me enough to forget the great time I was having.

The Brotherhood is a perfect example really. They *are* different from the "original" Brotherhood, it is even stated so directly in the game, and you are given reasons by all parties involved. There's even a ton of computer terminal text to make the background richer in that and many other quests if you take the time to read it.

For some, explained or not, this change is gamebreaking. For me, it just strengthens the idea that I'm in a different part of the Wasteland where people are obviously different as well and have different goals. Bombs don't kill diversity I guess, and I would have been slightly annoyed if I had been presented with exactly the same background as in the opposite coast without a hint of an explanation for it. I simply wouldn't have bought that the Brotherhood, the Mutants or even the Raiders were so extremely well organized and centralized that they operated nation-wide as a single, coherent entity with the sole purpose of populating to the last corner of God's clean Earth just so you, the player, feel like you're playing the same game all over again.

I did notice less abundance of quests and dialog, but I was actually happy about that to some extent. In Fallout 2 it was as simple as adding text and a slightly different sprite (or not even that) for a new character. In the new engine, you either make a unique-looking, fully voiced character that can reflect all possible outcomes (ultimately leading to less characters) and just add more through expansions later on, or you go for a generic, semi-procedural generation of faces and a limited pool of voice-acted dialog and end up with the dismal flop that Oblivion was in many aspects.

Then again, when my main complaint about a game after 30 hours without even visiting 1/4th of the locations and inadvertently skipping about half of the main quest is "Jeez, I want more!", I guess I actually like it a lot, don't I?

In short though,

Part of it *is* subjective, since Fallout fans obviously long for what they used to know, and the key of Fallout is that you made your own experience. Hence, everyone knew a slightly different thing.

Especially with so open ended, freeform game, you can't just assume everyone has the same mental image.

 

[Bloody William]

According to the Fallout Wiki, Fallout 2 had 118 quests, including main quest objectives. Out of those, at least half of them are "kill" or "deliver" quests, and many of the quests are simply steps in overarching quest arcs (Solve the Gecko powerplant problem, repair the powerplant, optimize the powerplant are three "quests" on the list).

Fallout only had 53 quests, with the same deal. Each step enumerated, many of them "kill" or "deliver" quests.

Fallout 3 has 41 quests, 29 of them major main or side quests with multiple steps, and the remaining 15 ranging from simple (fixing pipes and getting scrap metal for Walter in megaton) to strange bits of diplomacy or puzzle solving (the election of Dave, finding the secret loot in the museum of technology). That of course doesn't include all of the various unnamed and fun "quests" like collecting the bobbleheads, meeting Harold, etc.

Quests having multiple steps but still being called quests goes for most Fallout and Fallout 2 quests as well, so this distinction is rather arbitrary.

Moreover, you original argument was that Fallout 3 has much more to do. Even though you just conclusively showed that for every point of interest on the map, there are far fewer quests than in the previous games.

You misunderstand. the "quests" in Fallout and Fallout 2 are the specific steps, as listed in the Wiki. Like I said, Gecko had three "quests" that together were one problem: sold the Gecko poweplant problem. The remaining quests for that town are two get-items-and-return (barter or BS to get them from convenient NPCs) and one's a fairly straightforward run to the Den with a funny twist (a "mummy" is really the ghoul you're looking for in toilet paper). Same with New Reno. Five of the "quests" listed are steps with very little in them (find who stole your car, and then investigate four people. Together, that's five "quests" on the list).

Meanwhile, on the Fallout 3 list, the "Wasteland Survival Guide" is listed as a single quest, though it has nine different, fairly complex parts with multiple ways to accomplish them and/or go the extra mile for a bit of bonus. Step-by-step based on the lists, it's no exaggeration to say that Fallout 3 has as many or more things to do than Fallout or Fallout 2.

 

[Sander]

For some, explained or not, this change is gamebreaking. For me, it just strengthens the idea that I'm in a different part of the Wasteland where people are obviously different as well and have different goals. Bombs don't kill diversity I guess, and I would have been slightly annoyed if I had been presented with exactly the same background as in the opposite coast without a hint of an explanation for it. I simply wouldn't have bought that the Brotherhood, the Mutants or even the Raiders were so extremely well organized and centralized that they operated nation-wide as a single, coherent entity with the sole purpose of populating to the last corner of God's clean Earth just so you, the player, feel like you're playing the same game all over again.

Most of 'us' never wanted to see the exact same elements without any explanation in another part of the world.
The point is, that Bethesda added all of these elements with little respect for the original material, and little added benefit as well. Why is there a need for the Enclave or the BoS to be there in the first place? And when you do use them, why do you change them to such a degree that you might as well have created your own organisations and avoided the entire problem altogether?

Also, did you really feel that scribes looking like they jumped out of Gothic and everyone in the BoS suddenly speaking like they had been created by an unimaginative fantasy writer ('Steel be with you' and 'Hail' everywhere) really fit the setting?

Also, I'm confused, what part of the gameplay did you find was preserved in Fallout 3?

Meanwhile, on the Fallout 3 list, the "Wasteland Survival Guide" is listed as a single quest, though it has nine different, fairly complex parts with multiple ways to accomplish them and/or go the extra mile for a bit of bonus. Step-by-step based on the lists, it's no exaggeration to say that Fallout 3 has as many or more things to do than Fallout or Fallout 2.

You misunderstand, this goes both ways.

Many Fallout quests are relatively intricate as well (Find The Water Chip, Destroy the Mutant Threat are single quests that are very, very involved and expansive), while many Fallout 3 quests are also very simple.

3 of Fallout 3's quests are supersimple quests in the first tutorial. The Main Quest is split up into 12 quests, all of which are very straightforward and simple. These 12 Fallout 3 quests are roughly equivalent to the 2 Fallout 1 Main Quest items, and are furthermore much more railroaded and straightforward.

Outside of those quests, there are a grand total of 17 more quests, excluding the 12 minor quests that are small (some of which are simply repeatable loot-trading).
Those 17 quests are indeed more intricate than Fallout's quests, but these 17 quests are all very local, and leave a large number of locations unmeddled.
Moreover, when you compare the number of locations in Fallout 3 and Fallout, Fallout has a much higher quest:location ratio.

Which was the entire point: Fallout 3 may have many more location, most of them are nothing but empty shells or dungeon crawls.

 

[Crowley]

Just thinking out loud here. Specifically, Fallout 3 has got me thinking about what exactly I enjoy in the first two games. First, I would have to mention actually making a difference in the world. Looking at the first two games, most of the population centers had three or more endings based on how you, the player, handled things in there. A hopeless dying world in my opinion is not Fallout. After all if that were the case, what would be the point in stopping the Master in the first place? People manage to eke out their own little corner of existence and they make a future for themselves. That's why killing children is so bad, since they are what the future is dependent on.