Alternate title?

  • Thread starter Thread starter WelcomeToNewReno
  • Start date Start date
W

WelcomeToNewReno

Guest
I've been pondering something. If Fallout 3 was called Fallout: Capital Wasteland, and New Vegas called Fallout 3, would there be less fan rage? It'd be like Fallout POS, we'd eventually let it go.
 
You mean Fallout: BOS, right? If so, I do get your point, but I'd say it's not entirely true. Nobody remembers BOS (you know what I mean), but Fallout 3 ("Fallout: Capital Wasteland") is a game the gave Bethesda a lot of bottle caps and brought a lot of "Fallout" fans. It's not just the title.
 
They should have just cut out all the RPG elements and called it 'Fallout: First Person Shooter' or something like that. Then they could have made New Vegas the real Fallout 3.
 
You know, I think you're absolutely right. For all its flaws, Fallout 3 isn't really a bad RPG in its own right (IMHO). If it were given a "side-story" title, it'd probably be regarded the way Fallout Tactics is.
 
Snikers said:
You know, I think you're absolutely right. For all its flaws, Fallout 3 isn't really a bad RPG in its own right (IMHO). If it were given a "side-story" title, it'd probably be regarded the way Fallout Tactics is.
How so ? Would a "new" name or making it a "spin off" suddenly change the dialogue from mediocre crap to nobel prize quality ? Or would it come with new animations to replace the old and fucked up ones we saw in the game ? Maybe with improved AI even ? If yes. Then I agree a name change would make it a better RPG.
 
Fallout Tactics has no dialogue trees, iron-clad linearity, abandoned many of the design elements of previous games and completely does away with roleplaying elements. Your choices in achieving your goals are limited to different implementations of violence. The characters are one-dimensional and the story is bland. And yet, it's been vindicated in the minds of many Fallout fans because of its redeeming qualities; it's far above par for tactical combat games, you have unparalleled freedom in creating your character and the balance remains playable throughout. Compare this to Fallout: BOS, which changed many things but didn't leave anything to enjoy.

Fallout 3 was by no means art, but it's far more open-ended than many modern games. Despite how "crowded" the wasteland feels, it has an explorative spirit befitting the sandbox genre. The main plot is poor, but the smaller quests are decent, and the designers did an excellent job (IMHO, again) of telling stories through the environment. It doesn't have much for AI, but then, few games do. There's fun little surprises everywhere.

I think if Tactics had been named Fallout 3, fans would have hated it much more than they do now. I think if Fallout 3 had been named something else (Fallout: Capital Wasteland, or something), most Fallout fans would have breathed a sigh of relief and said "well, it's a welcome turnaround from BOS".
 
Yes we know, thats all you ever talk about.
And all you guys talk about is how much you hate it. Can't we just agree that Fallout 3 and NV are two different types of games geared towards two different types of people. Its like comparing apples and oranges, can't they both be good in a different way?
 
Fallout 3 isn't even a good shooter, it shouldn't take fifteen bullets to the head to kill someone.
 
Courier said:
Fallout 3 isn't even a good shooter, it shouldn't take fifteen bullets to the head to kill someone.

Neither is NV by that comparison. Legion members have bullet proof faces when you're using a shotgun and a number of other weapons. Actually, NV is significantly worse for such occurrences. And if anything is taking you 15 bullets to the head to kill in F3, you are doing something very wrong.

But I don't know why people bring up the number of bullets it takes to kill an opponent. How many other FPS games work does not directly translate into how something should work in an FPS RPG that has to make a number of stat based calculations. It was never realistic and never will be realistic.
 
Quagmire69 said:
fifteen bullets to the head to kill someone.
Vegas is worse about that, I shot Vulpes eight times in the head at point black range and it barely scratched him.

But New Vegas isn't trying to be a shooter like FO3 was, and most of the gameplay is largely improved. The plot and dialogue makes up for any design flaws and engine limitations.
 
Courier said:
But New Vegas isn't trying to be a shooter like FO3 was, and most of the gameplay is largely improved. The plot and dialogue makes up for any design flaws and engine limitations.

On the contrary, they tried to be even more so by adding iron sights and a number of other gun tweaks. And surely, they made many of other significant gameplay improvements, given that they had Fallout 3 to base those improvements on. Many mechanical changes were based on lessons learned from F3, not from original ideas that were born of people who had never played the game or seen the feedback.

You'll get varying opinions plot and dialogue wise. I found the plot to be all encompassing and coherent but often thrust into my face. There was a lot of added dialogue but often too much and more than was necessary. A lot of tedious fedex quests and dialogue labyrinths for uninteresting side ventures that made me not care about a lot of the primary and secondary stories Obsidian was trying to relay.
 
Back
Top