An Honest and Fair Way to Look at FO1 vs FO3

E

Eternal

Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
I don't like bethesda, and I don't really care too much for Fallout 3. I'm gonna get that right out there in the open. However I want to try and think of a fair and relatively unbiased way you could describe the differences between Fallout 1 and Fallout 3 with simply staying Caviar vs Garbage, seeing as some people actually liked fallout 3 A LOT.

So here it is:

Fallout 3 is a lot like the movie version of the book at is Fallout 1.

Does that sound like a fair assessment? Consider the facts/opinions(and fapinions).

Like many movies do, FO3 has taken the idea of the Fallout universe and condensed it down to a more simple form for the average consumer. It has taken many liberties or outright contradictions to the previous fallout canon, and tends to prefer to "show" rather than "tell". FO3 is much more centered around the action rather than the characters. The people who worked on FO3 had access to the works of FO1 but didn't consult the people who worked on it or created it any more than was required.

I think that without outright insulting bethesda or FO3 (as is the norm for me and many of NMA) that the comparison of movie vs book is a good one for FO3.


That being said, just like 95% of movies based off of books, the book was better.

Also I've met and worked with people who actually say they would rather watch the movie of something than read the book in almost any circumstance, and I have since rediculed these people for their ignorance.
 
Also I've met and worked with people who actually say they would rather watch the movie of something than read the book in almost any circumstance, and I have since rediculed these people for their ignorance.
Click to expand...

I'm not a book reader, I'm more of a watcher and a listener. Does that make me an ignorant too?
 
Public said:
Also I've met and worked with people who actually say they would rather watch the movie of something than read the book in almost any circumstance, and I have since rediculed these people for their ignorance.
Click to expand...

I'm not a book reader, I'm more of a watcher and a listener. Does that make me an ignorant too?
Click to expand...

Would you rather watch a movie than read the book version of something under any circumstance? If so than yes I would say you are. Are you willing to read a book sometimes before or after you watch a movie of something? If so than you are not.

These are people who under any circumstance would not read the book version of something if there was any movie version of it.
 
Fallout 3 had a few good aspects. However, when you look at the first two in comparison...it just really doesn't live up. Bethsoft took it and shaped it into something that was...not fallout. It feels more like a soul-less clone. Maybe if it wasn't called Fallout 3 I would have enjoyed it. I don't see why bethsoft had to buy the rights to this game. Maybe to cash in and appeal to old school gamers? Anyway, I kind of liked it but it was not memorable in any way whatsoever.
 
Eternal said:
Also I've met and worked with people who actually say they would rather watch the movie of something than read the book in almost any circumstance, and I have since rediculed these people for their ignorance.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but in all honesty the original fallouts are one of those crappy books with a dragon or starship on the cover at best, one of those garish things I would not be caught dead reading in the subway. The first two games are better than FO3, but they are swimming in clumsy racial stereotypes, bad jokes, fetch quests and campy pop references.

This argument is more like "I pitty those people going to see the Dragon Ball Z movie, they will never know how deep and magical the manga is".
 
What racial steryotypes?

Also since when does having a spaceship or a dragon on the cover of a book make it crap?
 
Also I've met and worked with people who actually say they would rather watch the movie of something than read the book in almost any circumstance, and I have since rediculed these people for their ignorance.
Click to expand...
Can I ridicule you for not being able to spell ridicule? And blind ignorance?

It's true that books typically give a deeper, richer experience. But some books get far too long-winded and have pages upon pages of fluff that they could actually do without. All media have their flaws and their shining perfect examples.
 
Well I'm replaying 2 right now and I have run into several characters who’s only point is to throw some awful Italian accents into text and have your character mock their accents via dialog options. That is before even getting to New Reno, which has me wondering who those Asian characters in San Francisco are going to sound now that I'm an adult. I’m sure Dr. Long Wang will change my mind about how mature these games are, comparable to quality literature.

On the covers: I'm really not into stunted books about some dudes dungeons and dragons campaign or star treck fanfiction. Even the classics like Lord of the Rings or I Robot barely got more than one read out of me, and frankly I rather watch the movie than re-read prose about hobbits walking. Same goes for Stephen King… he needs to be condensed and films do that to him.

Now I agree that sometimes the movie really will miss the point of the book, such as Breakfast of Champions. It turns Kurt Vonnegut’s novel into a campy mess with a feel good ending that completely betrays the most transgressive element of the novel. Also The Perfume leaves out all the hauntingly emotionless narration from the main character, making something visually appealing but lacking the virtues of the original. Most things that are narrated in first person are hard to adapt, Fight Club (Chuck Palniuk) did ok but Choke did not fare nearly as well.

Still you get what I mean… for me Fallout 3 is a far more accessible work than the original 2 but it is presented at the same length and in the same medium, so it is not so much a tortured adaptation as it is simply a sequel. It is not like going from Bram Stokers Dracula (book) to Bram Stokers Dracula (movie) so much as it is going from Nosferatu (old but great movie) to B. S. Dracula (newer and really not bad movie).

I’m not trying to antagonize you guy’s, but I love discussing genres and mediums and the differences between books, games, theater, movies and all that. I think games are very important culturally as a means of storytelling that allows you to discover the plot by interacting with the world and advancing at your own pace, something which RPGs do best. Still the argument that the first fallouts are beyond the understanding of the common man who would never pick up a book while Fallout 3 is made for people who has never read something other than a tabloid or a cell phone screen just does not ring true to me. They are all pop culture, good games, but having enjoyed the first 2 fallouts does not make me some elite genius… although maybe it is all some people have to be proud of.
 
I dig the FO1 - book, FO3 - movie analogy. Take it apart and mock by all means. But IMO FO1 is based on good (or bad) writing, FO3 is based only on bad (or good) visuals. One is an interactive book, the other is an interactive movie.

I love depth, character, humour, meaning, reference and imagination. IMO, books are far better at these things than movies. FO3 to me seems much the equivalent of a cheap zombie/vampire/robot/ flick largely deviod of the things above that i love.... :(
 
lugaru said:
Yeah, but in all honesty the original fallouts are one of those crappy books with a dragon or starship on the cover at best, one of those garish things I would not be caught dead reading in the subway. The first two games are better than FO3, but they are swimming in clumsy racial stereotypes, bad jokes, fetch quests and campy pop references.

This argument is more like "I pitty those people going to see the Dragon Ball Z movie, they will never know how deep and magical the manga is".
Click to expand...

Hmm, while the argument is with merit, it misses the point somewhat, as what game has ever been more than the equivalent of a 'pulp' novel or Clancy techno thriller/military wankfest? The very essence of being a 'game' is that it is primarily for entertainment, and not some existential treatise on the suffering of man. This why unless the very idea of what constitutes computer entertainment changes, then games will always be at a disadvantage compared to books and films.

Oh and what RPG doesn't have fetch quests? Hell, if RPG's were built on real life, then there wouldn't be any 'side quests' at all, as if I had to rescue my family etc. from some evil, the last thing I would be doing is going up to every person and sorting out their problems. Ironically, Real Life RPG, would be much more linear than any RPG.
 
lugaru said:
I’m not trying to antagonize you guy’s .... They are all pop culture, good games, but having enjoyed the first 2 fallouts does not make me some elite genius… although maybe it is all some people have to be proud of.
Click to expand...

Ah, amusing. Fallout 3 does seem like it was made to avoid people hurting their brains worrying about complex things as weighted ammo, SPECIAL and are keen on sploshuns.
 
I'm having a hard time putting together a quick response to this since the subject really excites me but I think deep plots and interactivity are not mutually exclusive so long as the duration is kept realistic....

For me what makes a game into a game is the interactivity, while other people think it is the ability to lose or win. Some people get really frustrated when you cannot win or cannot lose, and turn it off.

Still for me take any movie and give me the choice as to what to say, where to go, the ability to look around... that would be really cool, even if it is over in 30 minutes just dont charge me too much and I'll check it out. Maybe that way we can get medical dramas, court battles, romantic comedies, horror... the stuff that usually does not get made into a game because of the need for a score. If your emotional response (fear, laughter, sadness) was your only reward then it would be closer to art.
 
lugaru said:
I’m not trying to antagonize you guy’s, but I love discussing genres and mediums and the differences between books, games, theater, movies and all that. I think games are very important culturally as a means of storytelling that allows you to discover the plot by interacting with the world and advancing at your own pace, something which RPGs do best. Still the argument that the first fallouts are beyond the understanding of the common man who would never pick up a book while Fallout 3 is made for people who has never read something other than a tabloid or a cell phone screen just does not ring true to me. They are all pop culture, good games, but having enjoyed the first 2 fallouts does not make me some elite genius… although maybe it is all some people have to be proud of.
Click to expand...
Except the original Fallout has much better writing than Fallout 2, and pretty much every negative thing you can say about writing in the first two Fallout games applies only to the sequel. Though I can see how it's convenient to lump the two together when posting with the agenda of Bethesda apologism, it's pretty naive to think that someone with extensive knowledge of Fallout (like most denizens of these forums) would fall for the ruse.
 
Only I'm not being a bethesda apologist (don’t cry wolf Ratty, I'm know they are out there but their existence does not end every discussion) so much as I'm saying that the analogy that the original fallouts are “a book” while fallout 3 is “a movie” is pretty deeply flawed since all 3 games are the exact same thing with varying degrees of quality in different departments. It’s just that people who are not accustomed to reading have this fetishized view of books, like a book will always be more challenging than a movie. Now I do barely remember fallout 1, so I’m not going to dispute that 1 and 2 are the same thing, but up to now I’ve done a good job of qualifying my comments as specifically about 2 since I’m replaying it right now. It is sad I lack fallout knowledge but hey, at least I have book knowledge.

On the commentary that Fallout 3 is dumber because ammo has no weight, that is what I’m trying to move away from. Dungeons and dragons has a million statistics, and it also has vampire lich dwarves. I would not call it smart… heck, a baseball game has more stats than pretty much any RPG. What I’m talking about and maybe the original poster was too was narrative, telling a story and how complex the story is.

Still two of the things in the title (honest, fair) are discouraged here if Fallout is concerned and one could throw intelligent on that pile as well, like if somebody has something bad to say about the first two games or something good about the third he is automatically wrong, no matter how eloquent he may be in his arguments.
 
Then I suggest you pick up Fallout 1 and refresh your memory. I personally find it to be one of the most intelligently written games I have ever played. Far superior to either FO2 or FO3 in the narrative department.
 
I can say with a fair amount of certainty you cannot have a vampire lich dwarf in any iteration of D&D made in the last 15 years. The vampire and lich templates are mutually exclusive.

On the commentary that Fallout 3 is dumber because ammo has no weight, that is what I’m trying to move away from. Dungeons and dragons has a million statistics, and it also has vampire lich dwarves. I would not call it smart… heck, a baseball game has more stats than pretty much any RPG. What I’m talking about and maybe the original poster was too was narrative, telling a story and how complex the story is.
Click to expand...

Except the narrative is balls. It's a bad mishmash of F1 and F2, doesn't make sense, and has gaping plot holes. In F3, the narrative takes back seat to the gameplay. Which is where we hit the weightless ammo and irrelevant stats problems. The game has all these elements that are part of rpgs, it describes itself as an rpg, but it cripples them in the name of streamlining, and we end up with an FPS. With side-quests.
 
Trithne said:
I can say with a fair amount of certainty you cannot have a vampire lich dwarf in any iteration of D&D made in the last 15 years. The vampire and lich templates are mutually exclusive.

On the commentary that Fallout 3 is dumber because ammo has no weight, that is what I’m trying to move away from. Dungeons and dragons has a million statistics, and it also has vampire lich dwarves. I would not call it smart… heck, a baseball game has more stats than pretty much any RPG. What I’m talking about and maybe the original poster was too was narrative, telling a story and how complex the story is.
Click to expand...

Except the narrative is balls. It's a bad mishmash of F1 and F2, doesn't make sense, and has gaping plot holes. In F3, the narrative takes back seat to the gameplay. Which is where we hit the weightless ammo and irrelevant stats problems. The game has all these elements that are part of rpgs, it describes itself as an rpg, but it cripples them in the name of streamlining, and we end up with an FPS. With side-quests.
Click to expand...

I say piss poor FPS might I ad.

I own it. I enjoy it but I know what it is.

I say FO3 is a somewhat good Idea that was just butchered to make it something else and was botched all the way there.

The game tries to be tomany things and once, and with the Scitzo way of making a game of trying to be many things at once it doesn't end up good at any of them.

I say the game's world looked good, but to bad it was the same 4 areas over and over again. Now some will bust out the OG FO's tile set. Yeah FO 1-2 had places that looked the same, But remember they are 12 years old and where made by a handful of people. And they still wrote the damn thing better.

If you try to to many things at once you end up becoming John McCain and fail horribly at whatever you are trying to do.
 
Trithne said:
Can I ridicule you for not being able to spell ridicule? And blind ignorance?
Click to expand...

Angry troll is angry.

I didn't say books are always better, I didn't say movies are always worse. You however chose to read extra deep into what I said without actually comprehending it and then had to find a reason to try and cause a fight (namely misspellings).

I said that I have known people who under any circumstance would watch a movie version of something than read the book. This means if they had the book in hand, and the movie cost them 300$ and was shot with a cellphone camera in the dark without night vision they wouldn't read the book.

I have seen the movie Fightclub. Have I ever read the book? No. Am I interested in reading the book? Yes. Did I feel that the movie was very good despite having read up about the differences between the two? Yes.

My statement is like pointing out the stupidity of the kid who refuses to eat something just because he didn't like the name. He doesn't know how good it tastes, he doesn't even know what it looks like yet. However he has already made his decision and damned be the consequences.
 
I just like nitpicking. And have a degree in Words.

In all honesty, there are times I'd much rather just watch a movie of something than read its print form. And sometimes I just won't bother with the print form. Because inbetween the two, you get different experiences. And if I'm satisfied with the movie experience, then I don't necessarily need to witness some allegedly greater prose format version. Just like I don't tell people who like F3 that they must play F1. Some people just don't like reading, but they don't chastise you for not being like them. In short, the intolerant one here is you, unfortunately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top