A genuine, worthy sequel

Bloody William

First time out of the vault
I'm not here to pick on anyone who's adamantly anti-Fallout in this thread, I just want to make the case that Fallout 3 is, in fact, both a valid sequel and a worthy successor to the first two Fallout games.

Fallout 3 is a drastic departure in gameplay mechanics. I won't deny that. It's also a buggy game with stability issues. I won't deny that either. However, in terms of tone, design, and general gameplay it is a Fallout game through and through.

What do you think of when you think of Fallout? I think of the SPECIAL system, the Vault Experiment, the feeling of being a lone chump fresh out of the Vault/village and trying to make sense of why everything you know just fucked up and why there's so much resting on your shoulders. I think of ghouls and supermutants and the Brotherhood and scavengers and raiders and dozens of tiny, hilarious little in-game jokes where any trope or story is fair game. I think of walking through ruins and scavenging whatever you can find. I think of choices, and seeing a half dozen possible ways to solve a problem from diplomacy to gunshots. I think of a wasteland full of things both vital to your quest and completely irrelevant, but still entertaining and sometimes useful. I think of an open-ended, paced plot where you can screw around and do whatever you want (granted, with the time limit of the first half of Fallout), but then you go after the main quest and see a major plot development that both changes and greatly increases the responsibility you have, moving from saving your family to saving the entire Wasteland. And all of those aspects, Fallout 3 carries in spades.

Story-wise, this is a Fallout game. Yes, it's different from Fallout and Fallout 2, but Fallout 2 was different from Fallout, and the differences between the three Fallouts are far, far less than the differences between any of those games and FOT/BoS. It's on the east coast now, and the difference between the Capital Wasteland and the west coast both justify and explain the differences in certain aspects of the game. You're just out of your little paradise, looking for your father in a quest that turns into something much bigger. In that time, several towns and hot spots offer you plenty of other stuff to do, not railroading you in any way to stick with the main plot. You can negotiate peace between costumed lunatics, hunt zombies, recover ancient pre-war artifacts, help people with researching whatever crazy crap they're researching, encourage junkies' drug addictions, investigate other Vaults and the crazy things the Vault Experiment had planned for them, and more. The BoS is different in attitude, but that's because (and this is explained clearly) it's a liberal splinter group that headed east and decided to stay and actually help the survivors, not just hoard tech. If you want the classic BoS, they're still out west, and can be seen in the Outcasts, who are far more traditional BoS soldiers than the ones at the Citadel. Supermutants are different, and they're supposed to be. This is explained in-game that, yes, supermutants were made in the same was as the west coast supermutants, but there are reasons that they're different. It makes more sense than the same supermutants as Fallout and Fallout 2, and results in a far better, more Fallout-y game than if they were completely missing.

The humor and storytelling is still there, and frankly in far better condition than in Bethsoft's other work. This stuff is leaps and bounds above most of the things in the Elder Scrolls games. The main quest is about as solid as the previous main quests (not amazingly so, but good enough to play through), the NPCs, settings and different quests bring a great humor that ranges from the chuckle worthy to the ridiculously dark, and anywhere from Rivet City to Megaton to the Citadel, you're looking at the same sort of environ seen in Fallout and Fallout 2, settlements and hazards that developed by people looking for ways to survive in any way they can after the war. There's just as much out there to find, and some of it is as bleak as you would find in any Fallout game.


[spoiler:7a15df2feb]Tenpenny Tower, anyone? Do "the right thing" and negotiate a peace between the residents and the ghouls, and the ghouls eventually slaughter everyone. Tranqulity Lane is a mad German genius's (the same genius who created the G.E.C.K.) attempt to stay alive and entertained after the way, through virtual reality and the deranged torture of the few survivors still alive from pre-war. Andale is home to cannibal murderer "nuclear families." Minefield and other ruins have abandoned houses with skeletons in some of the most stark, dark tableaus you'll see in a video game.[/spoiler:7a15df2feb]

Obviously both the first and second games were built around the SPECIAL system, which was expressed through a turn-based hex grid for combat and movement. Sure, I remember and even enjoyed the turn-based combat. When you got skills up to a decent point it was very satisfying (assuming the combat area wasn't populated with mobs and NPCs so each turn took like five minutes). Yes, Bethsoft changed that, but between the implementation of the SPECIAL system and the clever use of VATS to make combat far more deliberate and less real-time than the Elder Scrolls games, they've come up with something entirely new that works surprisingly well. No, it's not turn-based, but it still has me considering position of myself and enemies, number of AP I have, and the range/capacity of my gun far more deliberately than if it was simply an FPS. You can run into a fight and gun everyone down, but it'll take longer, you'll waste ten times as many bullets, and you'll take a lot more damage. Or you can use some Fallout turn-based-ish strategy and pick your shots, take down some targets and then protect yourself/hide/use cover while your AP recharges to finish up the fight. It's not the same thing, but it works well and it doesn't interfere with the flow of the game. If anything, it's faster while keeping much of the same elements, down to the "Vrrrrrt" sound of VATS, the same sound as the little combat button in Fallout and Fallout 2.

I don't know what Fallout is to you. Maybe it's the turn-based combat, in which case there are plenty of other, indie games that are more worthy of being called Fallout sequels. But if you're looking for a really good RPG that keeps the Fallout spirit and humor, that looks and feels like Fallout, that sticks reasonably close to canon (better than FOT and BoS at the very least), and that's full of great things you'll only see in the Wasteland, then Fallout 3 is a true and worthy sequel in the series.

As for the gameplay differences, look at the difference between Final Fantasy XII and the other, semi-turn-based (real-time but discrete and menu-based) Final Fantasies (not counting 11, which is an MMO). Look at the difference between the Super Mario Bros. games and Mario 64. Look at the difference between the early Castlevania games and Symphony of the Night (regarded by many, including myself, to be the best Castlevania game and one of the best games of all time, period). You can turn gameplay mechanics on their ears and still have a really, really good sequel that satisfyingly continues the series.
 
"However, in terms of tone, design, and general gameplay it is a Fallout game through and through."

Stopped reading here.
 
Feel free to contribute with more than just "I agree" or "I disagree".
 
I would comment on FOO "not railroading you in any way to stick with the main plot", "Story-wise, this is a Fallout game", "The humor and storytelling is still there" and "But if you're looking for a really good RPG ... then Fallout 3 is a true and worthy sequel in the series" but I feel like I'd be simply repeating what has been said a gazillion times already:

1. FOO is an average (read mediocre) game;
2. FOO is NOT a full RPG;
3. FOO is not very funny;
4. FOO is very linear with little else to do other than dungeon-crawl.
... etcetc.


As for examples: Mario 64 kept the arcade spirit of the game and changed little in terms of gameplay; can't comment on Castlevania game from personal experience, but I know that an XBOX game in full 3D ala DMC was horrid; guess why Square Enix is bringing back a slightly modified traditional TB battle system to FFXIII?
 
The Brotherhood is not the Brotherhood, the Enclave is not the Enclave, Supermutants are not Supermutants, Towns act like chariety N.G.O.s..

could go on all day, so no, fallout 3 is not fallout. just read up the old threads and you see why.
 
Guys easy on the negativity. The OP is just stating his opinion. If you have something to say thats not just "you are wrong" or "FOO is not Fallout" then say it. But the guy wrote like an essay on his view. To just make a snarky comment is not constructive...

Just don't post if all you have is a one liner... honestly... jeez...
 
I just want to make the case that Fallout 3 is, in fact, both a valid sequel and a worthy successor to the first two Fallout games.
That's funny because FO3 lacks Fallout's core and what's that is clearly said by FO1 devs.
But hey, it's an opinion of a random guy on the internet- obviously he's right and original creators are wrong.


The OP is just stating his opinion.
And his opinion is uneducated and wrong.
Just like "I think Earth's square" opinion.
 
Roflcore said:
The Brotherhood is not the Brotherhood, the Enclave is not the Enclave, Supermutants are not Supermutants, Towns act like chariety N.G.O.s..

could go on all day, so no, fallout 3 is not fallout. just read up the old threads and you see why.

[spoiler:922e7ae8ec]The Brotherhood is a splinter group that broke off ideologically. If you want the old school Brotherhood, seek out the Outcasts at Fort Independence. Explained in the game, and not breaking canon.[/spoiler:922e7ae8ec]

[spoiler:922e7ae8ec]The Enclave as a shadow government blew up on the Oil Rig, but it went on as a military group thanks to soldiers from Navarro and other Enclave bases relocating to Raven Rock. Again, explained in the game, and not breaking canon.[/spoiler:922e7ae8ec]

[spoiler:922e7ae8ec]The supermutants are different because they were exposed to a different strain of FEV in Vault 87. Again explained in the game, not breaking canon, and frankly far better than just an inexplicable supermutant exodus from the west coast and more satisfying than an FO game with no supermutants.[/spoiler:922e7ae8ec]

[spoiler:922e7ae8ec]Towns act like charity NGO's? What?[/spoiler:922e7ae8ec]

It's not that these things are different, it's that they've changed in a way that's consistent with Fallout, considering when and where FO3 takes place.
 
Wow that read like a promotion in some parts. You can do a lot of stuff in Fallout 3, but in the end I don't feel like it gave me the feeling as FO1 or 2. (edit...left out the end of a sentence, bleh). The storytelling isn't really there, they blew some chances to leave behind good worthy bits of information (Enclave base, for example), the logs and stuff you find is cool and all but eh.

Generally the problem with the game, is a lot of breadth, but not a lot of depth.
 
The Earths...not square?! :cry:

Wrong or not, I just thought it was a bit much. Whatever though. Do what you want. You will anyway...
 
Ausdoerrt said:
As for examples: Mario 64 kept the arcade spirit of the game and changed little in terms of gameplay; can't comment on Castlevania game from personal experience, but I know that an XBOX game in full 3D ala DMC was horrid; guess why Square Enix is bringing back a slightly modified traditional TB battle system to FFXIII?

Mario 64 didn't "keep the arcade spirit" of the previous games, it was a vast departure that, while it was still ostensibly a platformer, focused much much much more on puzzle solving and interaction than any of the previous Mario games.

I don't mean the junky Xbox Castlevania game, I mean Castlevania:SOTN, a Playstation game that you can get from XBLA for $10 in gamerpoints. It was the first "Metroidvania" Castlevania game that switched from the linear level-by-level platform style of the Castlevania games before it to the RPG-esque (stats and equippable items), castle-exploring, use-skills-to-get-further style that's now the standard for Castlevania.

Yes, FF13 will be back to turn-based, but this doesn't mean FF12 was bad. It was a really good combat system in a Final Fantasy sequel, even if it bucked pretty much every trend.
 
Black said:
I just want to make the case that Fallout 3 is, in fact, both a valid sequel and a worthy successor to the first two Fallout games.
That's funny because FO3 lacks Fallout's core and what's that is clearly said by FO1 devs.
But hey, it's an opinion of a random guy on the internet- obviously he's right and original creators are wrong.

What did the FO1 devs say about FO3, and when did they say it? NBot being snarky, I would really like to read these things because I haven't heard them before.

The OP is just stating his opinion.
And his opinion is uneducated and wrong.
Just like "I think Earth's square" opinion.

You can point at the round earth and say "EARTH. ROUND. NOT SQUARE." It's quantifiable. It's defined in hard terms.

What makes a "real" Fallout game is a lot more subjective, and I've put forth my arguments about why Fallout 3 is a real Fallout game and a true sequel. My opinion's just as subjective as yours, and that doesn't make me uneducated or wrong any more than it makes you those things. And that sort of attitude is exactly what makes NMA seem so venomous and petty to the rest of the gaming world. You're a snob who refuses to explain why everyone else is wrong.
 
Bloody William said:
Mario 64 didn't "keep the arcade spirit" of the previous games, it was a vast departure that, while it was still ostensibly a platformer, focused much much much more on puzzle solving and interaction than any of the previous Mario games.

I'd say that happened because the technology wasn't quite there during the early Mario days. It took over 10 years after all.

I don't mean the junky Xbox Castlevania game, I mean Castlevania:SOTN, a Playstation game that you can get from XBLA for $10 in gamerpoints. It was the first "Metroidvania" Castlevania game that switched from the linear level-by-level platform style of the Castlevania games before it to the RPG-esque (stats and equippable items), castle-exploring, use-skills-to-get-further style that's now the standard for Castlevania.

The Curse of Darkness (XBOX) is treated as part of the main series though, how's that for a counter-example? As for SOTN, it kept the 2D perspective.

Yes, FF13 will be back to turn-based, but this doesn't mean FF12 was bad. It was a really good combat system in a Final Fantasy sequel, even if it bucked pretty much every trend.

Didn't fare generally well with the fans though, just like what's happening to FOO
 
Sorry Bloody Wiliam none of your spoilers make sense. Yeah I know what bethesda made up to explain why the factions are there and why they act like they do. but that doesn't make things right. maybe bethesda says a jedi knight in washington dc is perfectly normal because he slipped to a timespace portal, but that doesn't mean im going to believe it.
 
Bloody William said:
What did the FO1 devs say about FO3, and when did they say it? NBot being snarky, I would really like to read these things because I haven't heard them before.
They said it waaay before FO3. http://www.nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=35764
What makes a "real" Fallout game is a lot more subjective
Except it's not subjective. Let's say that for John pipboy is enough for a Fallout sequel- so what? Why should anyone care what John thinks? What makes his opinion better than Mary's, who thinks that Fallout is a sum of factors?
 
Ausdoerrt said:
Bloody William said:
Mario 64 didn't "keep the arcade spirit" of the previous games, it was a vast departure that, while it was still ostensibly a platformer, focused much much much more on puzzle solving and interaction than any of the previous Mario games.

I'd say that happened because the technology wasn't quite there during the early Mario days. It took over 10 years after all.

I don't mean the junky Xbox Castlevania game, I mean Castlevania:SOTN, a Playstation game that you can get from XBLA for $10 in gamerpoints. It was the first "Metroidvania" Castlevania game that switched from the linear level-by-level platform style of the Castlevania games before it to the RPG-esque (stats and equippable items), castle-exploring, use-skills-to-get-further style that's now the standard for Castlevania.

The Curse of Darkness (XBOX) is treated as part of the main series though, how's that for a counter-example? As for SOTN, it kept the 2D perspective.

Yes, FF13 will be back to turn-based, but this doesn't mean FF12 was bad. It was a really good combat system in a Final Fantasy sequel, even if it bucked pretty much every trend.

Didn't fare generally well with the fans though, just like what's happening to FOO

Um... my point is that all of those games were excellent, and seen as very good entries in their respective series. With few exceptions, Mario 64 and SOTN represented a paradigm shift for the Mario and Castlevania series. Mario became a 3D platform-puzzler that emphasizes being clever with your environment just as much as it does running from the start of the stage to the flag pole/spinning block/floating gate/star. Castlevania became a Metroid-like RPG-ish amalgam with both great platforming but an excellent sense of exploration.

And FFXII didn't fare too well with fans? Average score of 90.6% among critics and 88% among fans. It was a very good Final Fantasy game, leaps and bounds above FFX-2 or FF9.

I'm sorry this is hard to accept, but Fallout 3 is being very well received by fans and critics alike. Outside of NMA (and there are many, many classic Fallout fans outside of these walls), it's being seen as a great game and a great sequel. 93% among critics, 83% among fans on Metacritic's user review system (one they're currently working on cracking down on repeat reviews for), 92% among fans on Gamespot, 88% among fans on IGN. 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.

I've been a gamer for two decades. Many of my friends have been as well. My gamer friends and I are not newbies. We're not bro gamers. We're not Xbox jockeys who cut our teeth on Halo. We've been playing since we've had 386 boxes, and we unanimously agree that Fallout 3 is a great, albeit imperfect in that Bethsoft-buggy sort of way, game. And it's a great Fallout game.

Black said:
Bloody William said:
What did the FO1 devs say about FO3, and when did they say it? NBot being snarky, I would really like to read these things because I haven't heard them before.
They said it waaay before FO3. http://www.nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=35764

And now that the game's out, what have they said about it? Because I'd really like to know. I can appreciate if Tim says that turn-based combat is important to the game (or was when they developed it), but what have they said about the game, now that it's out?

What makes a "real" Fallout game is a lot more subjective
Except it's not subjective. Let's say that for John pipboy is enough for a Fallout sequel- so what? Why should anyone care what John thinks? What makes his opinion better than Mary's, who thinks that Fallout is a sum of factors?

I think Fallout is a sum of factors too, and I've enumerated them for you. Regardless, this is a subjective argument and if you want to go the popular vote go ahead because outside of NMA gamers, including long-time Fallout fans, are freaking loving Fallout 3.

I don't care if you agree with me. I don't even want you to agree with me if you have a different opinion and can support it civilly with informed arguments. But I have a bit of a problem if I explain my stance and your only response is calling me uninformed. That's not discussion, that's not talking about why I'm wrong, that's not attempting to change my mind or at least offering a different opinion. That's being a snobby douchebag.

(Edited to un-double-post)
 
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.

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.

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.

TBH my rants like this are not FOO exclusive, I tend to sneer at any overrated games from FFVII to Halo series.
 
Back
Top