But the problem is that the bugs that Fallout 3 are not NEW to Bethesda. Isn't the point of developing new games to fix the mistakes of the past? Not only that, but improve on the system? I would say from an Elder Scrolls point of view, Fallout is a significant improvement on Oblivion, but that's it. It's not an improvement on anything else, because even comparing it to Oblivion, it still has all the same bugs and problems. As a consumer, I would expect something better for sixty fucking dollars. Guess I was wrong. And I can't even take it back and get my money back, I'll be lucky if I get even half of what I spent to buy it.
A genuine, worthy sequel
- Thread starter Bloody William
- Start date
I've got mixed feelings on Fallout 3. I agree with the poster who said that most of the people involved in discussion are either people who were predetermined to hate it or predetermined to love it. Ultimately I'd give it a 7 or 8 out of 10 (despite spending a lot of time enjoying the game as a whole).
The first group were going to love anything Bethesda made...especially Oblivion like. To you? I'd suggest actually playing Fallout 1 and 2. You might be surprised.
The second group were going to hate anything Fallout that wasn't made by the original development team. The main quest here is really pretty lame compared to the first two games. I don't suggest playing it past the point you acquire Power Armor.
If you rushed to level 20 to get the Explorer perk... quit and restart. You may've irrevocably tainted the game for yourself. If the game's too easy for you... up your difficulty level appropriately.
Now... don't rely on Fast travel constantly. Wander and explore the world. While this place may not be perfectly fleshed out (so so main quest (though I love the early parts)) there is a tremendous amount to explore here and much of it is very reactive... some of it is even beautiful. This landscape is vast. It won't work if you're determined to hate it though.
The first group were going to love anything Bethesda made...especially Oblivion like. To you? I'd suggest actually playing Fallout 1 and 2. You might be surprised.
The second group were going to hate anything Fallout that wasn't made by the original development team. The main quest here is really pretty lame compared to the first two games. I don't suggest playing it past the point you acquire Power Armor.
If you rushed to level 20 to get the Explorer perk... quit and restart. You may've irrevocably tainted the game for yourself. If the game's too easy for you... up your difficulty level appropriately.
Now... don't rely on Fast travel constantly. Wander and explore the world. While this place may not be perfectly fleshed out (so so main quest (though I love the early parts)) there is a tremendous amount to explore here and much of it is very reactive... some of it is even beautiful. This landscape is vast. It won't work if you're determined to hate it though.
On the bright side: I discovered that the game is reasonably fun while running around on foot in leather armour and shooting stuff with simple guns (10mm, hunter rifle, laser pistol) at mid-level range. I'd write a long comparison piece between FO3 and Alien Shooter 2 but I have little to no incentive to.
On the dark side: the technical issues are there, I have Fallout3 lock up on me, several times I had to hard-reboot. Unacceptable
On the dark side: the technical issues are there, I have Fallout3 lock up on me, several times I had to hard-reboot. Unacceptable
Only in a sense that this game had to be the same type of game as the first two. I didn't go into it with a preconceived negative opinion or the idea that they make games exactly the way they did ten years ago. I agree with folks that the main quest is deeply flawed (and I'd have loved the books to be readable) but I've had a relatively fun time wandering the world, not using fast travel, and running through side quests and encounters. I don't think that this is a 'great' game but it isn't all that is evil.
Corvin said:
Ahhh, here it goes again.
I DON'T WANT A SEQUAL TO ANY GAME, TO BE WITH THE SAME OLD GRAPHICS!!!
I THINK NOBODY WOULD WANT THAT!!!
I WANTED IMPROVEMENTS!!
1. 2D iso improved to 3D iso!
2. Turn-based combat plus real-time combat (that way you can choose, whichever you want to play, like in Tactics)
3. Additionally, 3rd person, and 1st person perspective (because today's engines are able to handle all of them)
4. Updated engine for the same system/mechanics like in previous games. Or a new one (the one Beth is using looks fine enough), but still, to use it mainly for ISO view and turn-based combat!
5. More detailed death animations from the previouse games!
6. Ragdolls
7. Fix bugs, and problems with previouse games (eliminate the flaws), to learn on previous games' mistakes.
8. More and better voice actors (not necesarly for every character ingame, text works fine, because you don't hear the same voice overs all around)
9. More complex dialogues (make the game more real!)
10. putting some new ideas (perks, traits, skills, weapons, enemies, etc) which will work with the game, and will not destroy the balance of the game!
These are the design improvements I would do (not mentioning the main plot and quests- which should be obvious to everyone). Bethesda didn't improve the game, they changed/turned/converted it into something that will sell better nowdays.
Of course they did. They have also brought 'Fallout' to a lot of people that never would have experienced even the slightest touch of the concept in the process.
They also released a buggy game with a deeply questionable main quest. My hope is that expansions and modding help complete its transformation into something better. If people who love the whole Fallout concept torpedo that process it is going to reduce the chances of that working as well as it could.
I go to a very staid and conservative law school. There are casual gamer friends of mine who are geeking out and missing finals time over this or aspiring to play it all winter break and get to be Mad Max for a while. You can't tell me that is all something work getting all capsish mad over.
They used their graphics, they didn't improve Fallout's original graphics.
They simply modded TES:Oblivion.
Edit: But I already wrote, it's okay to use a newer engine, but use it to improve previouse game's mechanics/system. Bethesa didn't improve previous mechanics, they used their own mechanics.
PS: Graphics don't create the game.
They simply modded TES:Oblivion.
Edit: But I already wrote, it's okay to use a newer engine, but use it to improve previouse game's mechanics/system. Bethesa didn't improve previous mechanics, they used their own mechanics.
PS: Graphics don't create the game.
Withoutpurpose
First time out of the vault
I'd like to add one thing that bugged me...
I tried Fallout 1 the other day again. Man, the graphics are bad compared to the new one I mean, it's only 12 years older! It should be exactly the same graphics because, well, that is what makes a good game, right?
But I made this new type of character, one that I'd tried when I played it the first time but didn't really go through with. The character was incredibly stupid, with 1 point in intelligence and boy oh boy! My dialogue options were awesome! The gatekeeper, after he had realized I was too stupid to understand him, simplified his language and asked if I'd like to go to the scorpion cave which gave me the dialogue options: "uh huh" or "uh uh". That's it.
The reason why I tried this is because I made the same particular character in Fallout 3. For some reason I had no difficulty talking to anyone, wasn't considered retarded and I could do all the missions I could do before.
But hey! The games pretty! Who cares if you are intelligent or not?
Also, the skills. I understand the reason for having fewer skills, it makes the choices fewer and simplifies the gameplay, which could be interpreted as a good thing, I ain't judging. Sometimes it's fun when you just easily immerge yourself in pretty colours or, you know, nicely rendered enviroment. Here's my problem though...
With 1 point in intelligence you can still reach about 70 skill points in every single skill. Every single one! With a cap of 100 that is not acceptible. Here's one for you guys that know that measured quantities are the only way to explain anything.
You start with at the lowest 17 skill points if you distribute all your stat-points equally except in intelligence. Tag your lowest skills. Distribute your 209 skill points you recieve for your 19 lvl-ups equally between all skills which avarages about 16 points in each skill (13 skills in total and 11 points for each lvl in the game). Find all the bobble-heads via guide on the internet. Now, lets stop here for a moment. that means you have, in your lowest skill, around 43 points. This is with intelligence 1 people! If you'd like to reach the left-over skillpoints you can find all the 25 books for each skill (and there are 25 for each skill in the game, all skills) and you've got yourself 68 skillpoints in your worst skill. You can find their location on the internet as well. This is without using any instant-plus-to-one-skill perk. So, what's the benefit for being smart? Yes, that's it: Once in a while you get extra dialogue options.
Has anyone gotten very unlucky because he has only 1 in luck? If so, please tell, I'd like to hear a story that involves: Your character + some weapon + enemy = weapon explodes in your hand and you die (has happened to me in Fallout 1).
No one has as of yet called me the ugliest thing alive when I've only had 1 point in charisma.
I'm bullied even though I've got strength 10. I must be very timid.
What happened with the ending? So the main storyline was the only thing that mattered? Thanks, guess I won't be saving Megaton any time soon again (Mushroom cloud, pretty).
Why can't I shoot people in the groin?
Why can't I shoot people in the eyes?
Why can't I target at all when I'm in close combat? I guess martial artists don't really know how to hit specific bodyparts. The same goes for all duelists, Kendo-practitioners and fencers.
I know some people complained about too many easter-eggs in Fallout 2 and I respect that. I find the lack of all easter-eggs just a big dump over the whole concept of Fallout though. I've seen the Alien-blaster which is basically a rip-off from the first game. I've heard about the Vault 77 jumpsuit which is a very sad attempt to have an interesting easter egg but has anyone seen the fabled Vault 77 person? Where is my one-sleaved leather armour? Or even better, why didn't I find a Mel Gibson-y character that was scouring the wastes for gasoline? Is it copyright problems? Really? How many people sued Interplay then for all their hijinks?
If this plot was original I wouldn't see Super-mutants v2 and Enclave v2 becoming the main antagonists. OK, a little harsh. I can understand the super-mutants going to the East (actually anticipated in Fallout 1) but then why, oh why were they created in a Vault and didn't come from the West? Why did they decide on capturing other people to create more if they weren't following the Masters doctorine? As in most cases, the explenation is pretty much like this:
The Enclave is back and they have a new president! Yay! Fine by me! Good to have a force for those goody-goody two-shoes BoS to fight! Otherwise, I wouldn't know what they would do. Become more idealistic and help wastelanders even more?
So, positive points.
There is a very morbid atmosphere that I hadn't felt in the other Fallout games. Perhaps I was too young to fully accept the horrors of shooting a person into pieces. Perhaps it was just silly to imagine a person being blown to bits by a 10mm. Well, here comes this beautiful rendering in handy because yessiree now it looks more real than ever before, even more horrifying than shooting pedestrians in GTA4 (please don't talk about whether or not GTA4 is more horrifying than FO3. I just took it as an example of another 1st p RPG with loads of violence). Fallout feels real, except for all the other stuff that I've pointed out earlier, regarding SPECIAL and skills.
The Vats system is awesome, except for the few flaws I mentioned. It is truly a step to the right direction.
The music is awesome, except the one which was non-diegetic. The atmos-music isn't that great but that is, and I totally agree with all of you who will point this out to me, my opinion.
But in the end it's not enough so that's why:
You who like pretty things, I recommend trying the old-school FO 1 and 2. Try being dumb. Try being Unlucky. Try out the jinx trait. As somebody mentioned before, check out the Sierra Army Deopot.
I tried Fallout 1 the other day again. Man, the graphics are bad compared to the new one I mean, it's only 12 years older! It should be exactly the same graphics because, well, that is what makes a good game, right?
But I made this new type of character, one that I'd tried when I played it the first time but didn't really go through with. The character was incredibly stupid, with 1 point in intelligence and boy oh boy! My dialogue options were awesome! The gatekeeper, after he had realized I was too stupid to understand him, simplified his language and asked if I'd like to go to the scorpion cave which gave me the dialogue options: "uh huh" or "uh uh". That's it.
The reason why I tried this is because I made the same particular character in Fallout 3. For some reason I had no difficulty talking to anyone, wasn't considered retarded and I could do all the missions I could do before.
But hey! The games pretty! Who cares if you are intelligent or not?
Also, the skills. I understand the reason for having fewer skills, it makes the choices fewer and simplifies the gameplay, which could be interpreted as a good thing, I ain't judging. Sometimes it's fun when you just easily immerge yourself in pretty colours or, you know, nicely rendered enviroment. Here's my problem though...
With 1 point in intelligence you can still reach about 70 skill points in every single skill. Every single one! With a cap of 100 that is not acceptible. Here's one for you guys that know that measured quantities are the only way to explain anything.
You start with at the lowest 17 skill points if you distribute all your stat-points equally except in intelligence. Tag your lowest skills. Distribute your 209 skill points you recieve for your 19 lvl-ups equally between all skills which avarages about 16 points in each skill (13 skills in total and 11 points for each lvl in the game). Find all the bobble-heads via guide on the internet. Now, lets stop here for a moment. that means you have, in your lowest skill, around 43 points. This is with intelligence 1 people! If you'd like to reach the left-over skillpoints you can find all the 25 books for each skill (and there are 25 for each skill in the game, all skills) and you've got yourself 68 skillpoints in your worst skill. You can find their location on the internet as well. This is without using any instant-plus-to-one-skill perk. So, what's the benefit for being smart? Yes, that's it: Once in a while you get extra dialogue options.
Has anyone gotten very unlucky because he has only 1 in luck? If so, please tell, I'd like to hear a story that involves: Your character + some weapon + enemy = weapon explodes in your hand and you die (has happened to me in Fallout 1).
No one has as of yet called me the ugliest thing alive when I've only had 1 point in charisma.
I'm bullied even though I've got strength 10. I must be very timid.
What happened with the ending? So the main storyline was the only thing that mattered? Thanks, guess I won't be saving Megaton any time soon again (Mushroom cloud, pretty).
Why can't I shoot people in the groin?
Why can't I shoot people in the eyes?
Why can't I target at all when I'm in close combat? I guess martial artists don't really know how to hit specific bodyparts. The same goes for all duelists, Kendo-practitioners and fencers.
I know some people complained about too many easter-eggs in Fallout 2 and I respect that. I find the lack of all easter-eggs just a big dump over the whole concept of Fallout though. I've seen the Alien-blaster which is basically a rip-off from the first game. I've heard about the Vault 77 jumpsuit which is a very sad attempt to have an interesting easter egg but has anyone seen the fabled Vault 77 person? Where is my one-sleaved leather armour? Or even better, why didn't I find a Mel Gibson-y character that was scouring the wastes for gasoline? Is it copyright problems? Really? How many people sued Interplay then for all their hijinks?
If this plot was original I wouldn't see Super-mutants v2 and Enclave v2 becoming the main antagonists. OK, a little harsh. I can understand the super-mutants going to the East (actually anticipated in Fallout 1) but then why, oh why were they created in a Vault and didn't come from the West? Why did they decide on capturing other people to create more if they weren't following the Masters doctorine? As in most cases, the explenation is pretty much like this:
The Enclave is back and they have a new president! Yay! Fine by me! Good to have a force for those goody-goody two-shoes BoS to fight! Otherwise, I wouldn't know what they would do. Become more idealistic and help wastelanders even more?
So, positive points.
There is a very morbid atmosphere that I hadn't felt in the other Fallout games. Perhaps I was too young to fully accept the horrors of shooting a person into pieces. Perhaps it was just silly to imagine a person being blown to bits by a 10mm. Well, here comes this beautiful rendering in handy because yessiree now it looks more real than ever before, even more horrifying than shooting pedestrians in GTA4 (please don't talk about whether or not GTA4 is more horrifying than FO3. I just took it as an example of another 1st p RPG with loads of violence). Fallout feels real, except for all the other stuff that I've pointed out earlier, regarding SPECIAL and skills.
The Vats system is awesome, except for the few flaws I mentioned. It is truly a step to the right direction.
The music is awesome, except the one which was non-diegetic. The atmos-music isn't that great but that is, and I totally agree with all of you who will point this out to me, my opinion.
But in the end it's not enough so that's why:
You who like pretty things, I recommend trying the old-school FO 1 and 2. Try being dumb. Try being Unlucky. Try out the jinx trait. As somebody mentioned before, check out the Sierra Army Deopot.
Mimezu said:
I take my job seriously. Mess with the boss and die.
Let's get one thing out of the way - VATS is NOT turn based. It's a superpower, similiar to Max Payne's bullet time.
Personally, first person RPGs make it much harder for me to suspend disbelief, as I hold them to the same standards I hold classic isometric RPGs, and many of FPP games simply fail to meet those standards.
Fallout 3 in particular - I never felt there, roaming the wasteland, it's far too inconsistent and technologically inferior. Ruined DC is better, since they did their homework on Fallout architecture... right up until I realized it's just one, big skirmish.
Why should they change? Fallout was from the beginning developed in the way it was, it's design is defined. A sequel should not discard core design principles. It's all basic logic, really.
Just like I don't call WoW a sequel to the Warcraft series (I call it "lore-butchering game pandering to the lowest common denominator").
Then why take an existing franchise instead of creating your own?
It's hard to call you anything else when you ignore logic and facts. We've explained, numerous times, what makes Fallout tick, with factual evidence to support what we say - yet you people think your feelings are somehow overriding the statements of developers who created Fallout.
It's not a true sequel, and it's a fact. Nothing connects it to its predecessors, it could very well be a completely new franchise.
So it's basically "TES with Fallout elements"? If so, why do you claim it's a true sequel?
[guote]I have issues to see where the core of the franchise is lost, but I guess that this is because we simply don't have the same views on games. Like I said i'm an illustrator, and the most important core feature in Fallout for me has always been the setting, the visual atmosphere, the pulp 50's feeling ... and all those points are simply awesome in FO3. [/quote]
If you are so focused on visual atmosphere, I find it surprising you haven't even mentioned that the world feels more as if it was 2097 not 2277.
Not to mention that the core of Fallout was always the emulation of the P&P RPG feel, your choices having consequences and an actual impact on the world, your character being a part of the world, not an overpowered god-like VATSman. Artistic design is merely a part of the Fallout feel.
Even though SPECIAL was integral to the Fallout RPG gameplay? Look at Van Buren, as much attention was put to tweaking SPECIAL as was to other parts of the game, and the devs actually responded to fan queries.
If a game claims to be a sequel, I expect continuity between games, especially in terms of gameplay. Simple logic, really, especially in a game with so defined a design.
Tactics & BOS were spin-offs. Fallout 2 retained Fallout 1's gameplay and refined the character development system, and while it was shaky lore-wise (thanks to the departure of the Fathers), it remains a true, worthy sequel, even if it's not as coherent as the original.
Now, explain to me, how do relatively miniscule changes from Fallout 1 to Fallout 2 justify the drastic genre reassignment operation in Fallout 3?
Let's see: Van Buren. Quite different from Fallout and Fallout 2, yet it was still a true sequel. It didn't take liberties with Fallout, it treated them with respect and aimed to recreate the atmosphere and feel of Fallout 1.
I'm merely expecting a sequel that keeps the gameplay intact, evolves the world and storyline without raping the lore excessively and that maintains continuity with previous titles, in all aspects, not just the visual one.
Fallout 2 expanded and upgraded the combat system, making it better balanced and more varied, keeping the basic mechanics in place.
Why fix something that isn't broken?
Why innovate for the sake of innovation? VATS is a godlike superpower, especially in its current form, where its supplementing twitch-based FPS gameplay.
What's your problem with turn-based anyways?
I don't know what a strawmen is (sorry about my english) but I think I get your point, and again I disagree. Video games, books and movies are not that different, and I stand to my point and think that I can use this as an example
No, you can't. Books and movies don't have gameplay.
What happens to other series is irrelevant. We're talking about Fallout, not the general situation of the gaming industry.
That still doesn't make Fallout 3 a proper sequel.
Tell me, is it really that hard to comprehend that a game that doesn't maintain continuity with it's predecessors is not a sequel but a spin-off?
I'm a guy with standards. Valve can make their games incredibly refined, nearing perfection - why can't Bethesda, despite their budget and marketing?
I'm not here to kiss ass. I'm here to enforce rules, and nothing in them forbids me from having my own opinion or discussing aggressively.
It's an educated guess - if visual and text cues in Fallout are not sufficent to immerse you and you consider FPP with pretty graphics more immersive, that indicates you might have trouble with purely written media like books. Hardly baseless.
I don't there really is in fiction. A good book/game/movie is both enjoyable and immersive. It's a matter of building a believeable world and interesting storyline.
I'm comparing a sequel to its predecessors. It's not a strawman by any means, it's simple, logical comparison.
Note: In a book, you see what you want to see, basing on textual cues from the author.
Me, actually.
The point is, my opinion is based on factual evidence in the form of statements from original Fallout devs, who defined what a sequel makes.
There's nothing in the rules stating that you will be coddled and treated with utmost respect. If you're posting an opinion on a PUBLIC FORUM, you're agreeing to have it ripped apart by people who don't share it.
Which was already present in the original Fallout - you had to have the awareness perk to be able to get the exact information about the enemy.
Which is what happens with all stat checks in Fallout - only in combat are numbers visible, because it adds a layer of tactical depth to it. Warfare does include number crunching.
I'd also like to add that by your definition, Fallout 3 is not very immersive. Percentage chances of success in dialogue options?
Corvin said:
Van Buren was commercially viable, and finished in 70%.
Mr. Fucktard Caen cancelled it in favour of FOBOS2 and FOT2, both not even in pre-production stage (!). He isn't the sharpest tool in the shed.
It already was. Why not create something original and turn that into a huge hit?
beverageleverage
It Wandered In From the Wastes
No way. Alien Shooter 2 is amazing; wave after wave of enemies, fast paced, excellent controls, an extreme sense of danger and mortality especially on the hardest difficulty, and a decent variety of weapon and armor choices that are actually distinguishable from each other in function and usefulness. Fallout 3 has none of this; small clumps helpless enemies to attack with a gatling laser and tesla armor which aren't much more effective or rare than an assault rifle and leather armor.Ausdoerrt said:
I'm not sure they could have completed Van Buren into a Fallout 3 that would've pleased me or you or 4.7 million fans at that point. I loved Fallout 1 and 2.
Tactics was so so and BOS was horrible. Things have shifted. You're working towards making this game better and that's a wonderful thing... like I said before I just can't see having friends of mine who seem to never be excited about games being excited about and enjoying Fallout 3 as bad.
You have the talents to make your experience better. They don't.
Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 didn't have this broad a commercial impact. Pre-developed intellectual property is valuable.
Who remembers some of the complaints about Fallout 2?
Tactics was so so and BOS was horrible. Things have shifted. You're working towards making this game better and that's a wonderful thing... like I said before I just can't see having friends of mine who seem to never be excited about games being excited about and enjoying Fallout 3 as bad.
You have the talents to make your experience better. They don't.
Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 didn't have this broad a commercial impact. Pre-developed intellectual property is valuable.
Who remembers some of the complaints about Fallout 2?
Corvin said:
Yes they could. We have enough evidence to show that it was indeed a worthy sequel and an intricate, well crafted game.
I don't really understand the excitement point. But thank you for the rest