An Honest and Fair Way to Look at FO1 vs FO3

[UncannyGarlic]

I'm not so sure that the book-movie comparison is the best. I think a specific book-movie comparison would be good, like Watchmen, a movie which took all of the action of the comic, added in some of it's own, and put in a minimal amount of the plot where it was needed.

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.

Yes, because no one here criticizes the flaws in Fallout 1&2... wait what? Ratty just said that Fallout 2 has worse writing than the original and most people think that Fallout 2 has more C&C and that New Reno has the best quest design of any Fallout game, while it also has a setting which doesn't fit the overall setting at all. Fallout and Fallout 2 are criticized for where they fell short and noted for where improvements could be made with the tools and money available in the modern industry. You also obviously haven't read the NMA reviews and reactions to Fallout 3, there are a lot of people who like the game for what it actually is and like specific parts of it. This crap comes up enough as is, lets keep it out of this tread.

 

[Eternal]

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.

If you have a degree in words than maybe you could tell me why you aren't making any attempt to understand mine.

Great, you are one of the good ones. See there you are willing to give a book a chance, as well as a movie. Sometimes you don't feel like reading a book and would rather watch a movie, that's called being HUMAN. I'm not talking about people who would rather watch a movie SOMETIMES than read a book. I'm talking about people who REFUSE to read a book and watch the movie instead. The people who watch "Fear and Loathing" and go "Hunter S. Who?"

These are people who WONT read books PERIOD if they can avoid it. The kind of people who pop in a complex video game and complain about how stupid it is because they can't figure it out since they didn't bother reading the manual, and then turn around re-sell the game and buy a copy of Madden.

....

Whatever I'm done trying to convince you, obviously you don't understand the difference between a person who "isn't really a fan of books" and a person who "wouldn't read A Christmas Carol unless there was a gun to their head literally."

Done, finished, finesimo, the end, last call, I don't care how you feel, or how you respond, or if you respond at all. Its blatant that you don't care what I say, or you are simply just skimming it.

 

[Trithne]

Done, finished, finesimo, the end, last call, I don't care how you feel, or how you respond, or if you respond at all. Its blatant that you don't care what I say, or you are simply just skimming it.

You really shouldn't do that. It's the debate equivalent of going home and taking your ball with you.

My point stands that you hold yourself as some kind of holier-than-thou entity because you read books and some people don't. And that's just dickish.

Kinda like taking your ball home with you.

 

[Dragula]

I think more game characters should be named Long Wang.

 

[Das_qDr]

Eternal, I'm with you mate, but, it's what modern society is, a bunch of dumbfuckish CONSUMERS. It's been what, 40 years, since the call "GET YOUR KIDS AWAY FROM TV" was cried out? And we have people, who not only admit, that they don't read at all, but rather are proud of it. That is sad and sick. That's the whole process of debilisation in it's best, nobody's gonna read anything, "'cuz zey haf a TEE VEE". I read a report on school's reading programme for kids, it's a fucking abomination really, featuring insane stuff like:

"A blue elephant sat on a frying pan and flew to the swampy star. One of the questions - how do elephants fly?"

For those of you, who "wouldn't read A Christmas Carol unless there was a gun to their head literally", think of Fallout and Fallout 2 as some major Marvel comic book, and Fallout 3 as a cheap faggy movie based on 'em.

 

[dip]

Eternal, I'm with you mate, but, it's what modern society is, a bunch of dumbfuckish CONSUMERS. It's been what, 40 years, since the call "GET YOUR KIDS AWAY FROM TV" was cried out? And we have people, who not only admit, that they don't read at all, but rather are proud of it. That is sad and sick. That's the whole process of debilisation in it's best, nobody's gonna read anything, "'{Beat me like a baby seal "cuz" I am STOOPID!} zey haf a TEE VEE". I read a report on school's reading programme for kids, it's a fucking abomination really, featuring insane stuff like:

"A blue elephant sat on a frying pan and flew to the swampy star. One of the questions - how do elephants fly?"

For those of you, who "wouldn't read A Christmas Carol unless there was a gun to their head literally", think of Fallout and Fallout 2 as some major Marvel comic book, and Fallout 3 as a cheap faggy movie based on 'em.

"faggy" ...really? I've seen you use that term in several posts now and the overwhelming irony of this particular post even compelled me to register just to point it out. Protip: When you're trying to express yourself intelligently... and even more importantly, when you're speaking about the intelligence of others, you might not want to use such juvenile vocabulary; it pretty much invalidates anything intelligent you might have had to say.

 

[Eyenixon]

I think more game characters should be named Long Wang.

That's Lo Wang from Shadow Warrior.
Low Wang.
Wang hangs low.

 

[generalissimofurioso]

Who wants some Wang?

I liked that game.

 

[Eternal]

I have the same opinion of people who wont watch a movie ever because books are always better. I feel that people who aren't willing to expand their horizons are people who should be held in contempt.

Not that my opinion matters, or is understood of course.

 

[Das_qDr]

2 dip, taken into consideration.

 

[Andy-Spacetrain]

I think people using this interpretation of the difference between the games depends entirely on the person.

Whilst I see what the OP is getting at, I can't help but disagree. Movies can be immersive, or not so. Books can be immersive, or not so. I found all of the fallout games to be very immersive. I enjoyed every minute of Fallout 3. Yeh, it wasn't the most well written game ever, but it certainly had atmosphere, pacing and an overwhleming sense of freedom (queue obligatory flaming war). Those factors for me are what makes the fallout games good, not the writing. I don't think a game need to be written by a philosopher with an IQ of 213 to seperate it from a movie. I never played the first 2 fallout games for the writing, but for the game.

I guess what I'm getting at is people have different tastes in entertainment, you don't need to find reasons or explanations. I'm quite open to other forms of entertainment that aren't intellectually stimulating. I'm not stupid either, like most of you seem to think of people who enjoy Fallout 3 are. I enjoy what I enjoy, I don't enjoy what I don't enjoy. I don't strictly enjoy something because it's clever, I don't strictly dislike something because it isn't clever. Most people on these forums that don't hate Fallout 3 share the same opinion as me. Fallout 3 is a game, not a movie, Fallout 1 and 2 were games, not books. If you choose to view them as such then so be it, but you're missing out on some pretty good entertainment in the process :/

Unfortunately entirely story based games (Torment for example) might never truly come back again, as the industry is too big now. Torment and Fallout 1 were relatively small projects at the time of their creation and release, and became big through word of mouth. That sort of thing just doesn't happen anymore. Profit stifles creativity. The difference between fallout 1 and 2 and fallout 3 is simply that the industry has changed since then, as did the film industry and music industry before it. You can sit around moaning about it, or you can just enjoy what is available, it doesn't make you stupid.

The comparison should be more like comparing classical music to modern music. It's pretty different, and by no means as well written, but both can be enjoyed as music. People who choose not to are missing out.

 

[TheMutantMe]

Whilst I see what the OP is getting at, I can't help but disagree. Movies can be immersive, or not so. Books can be immersive, or not so. I found all of the fallout games to be very immersive. I enjoyed every minute of Fallout 3. Yeh, it wasn't the most well written game ever, but it certainly had atmosphere, pacing and an overwhleming sense of freedom (queue obligatory flaming war). Those factors for me are what makes the fallout games good, not the writing. I don't think a game need to be written by a philosopher with an IQ of 213 to seperate it from a movie. I never played the first 2 fallout games for the writing, but for the game.

I feel the same, I definitely liked the first two fallouts more for their design and especially atmosphere, rather then for the writing (though i enjoyed that too). Problem is, I those just as lacking in Fallout 3 as the writing. Plenty of people have already commented on how poorly designed a lot of the mechanics are, combat is too easy and not much fun, quests are usually linear, so on and so forth. The atmosphere was worse though; I think Fallout 3 is one of the least immersive games I've played, single player anyway, I was always well aware I was playing a game. This isn't bad on it's own, I have enjoyed "gamy" games in the past, but usually it's because they have deliberately sacrificed immersion for better game play.

Apparently you got a very different experience from the game then me, and I kind of wander why.

The comparison should be more like comparing classical music to modern music. It's pretty different, and by no means as well written, but both can be enjoyed as music. People who choose not to are missing out.

"Choose" not to enjoy it? didn't you say above

I enjoy what I enjoy, I don't enjoy what I don't enjoy.

Other people are the same you know, some people prefer intellectual games. No one has a problem with 'mindless' games existing, but its a different story when intellectual series start being turned into brainless ones. You're comparison with music above is a good one; it's fine to have modern music, different from classical; but classical music fans would probably be pretty annoyed if big music companies started buying the rights to classic pieces and releasing pop rock 'squeals' to them.

 

[Andy-Spacetrain]

but classical music fans would probably be pretty annoyed if big music companies started buying the rights to classic pieces and releasing pop rock 'squeals' to them.

It happens pretty often to be honest, and I think it's probably a good example. I personally quite like William Orbits take on Barber's Adagio for strings (although not strictly classical), for example, but die hard classical fans might think it has been destroyed by it. I like both, in different ways. My point being that some people are very direct in what they enjoy, and other people have a more broad taste. It doesn't mean that either is bad however.

 

[Ausir]

Torment and Fallout 1 were relatively small projects at the time of their creation and release, and became big through word of mouth. That sort of thing just doesn't happen anymore.

It does, just not among AAA titles. Not all games are AAA games, nor should they be.

 

[Das_qDr]

It is bitter to admit, but Fall 3 has a major advantage over older titles - it brought CASH. Even if it is worse then Canon in certain aspects, it brought that filthy money Interplay so desperately needed. That said, seems gamers go graphics\ Devil Box these days. Plot, atmosphere and that special feeling Classics like Arcanum, Falls, Torment, Baldurs and many others confered us on are doomed to extinct in future games. Sadly, RPG's as we knew them, are no more but relics and follow once loved Quests that perished from existence into oblivion. Games like books and movies in their time were cursed with "Industry" and are not some old fashioned pieces of art anymore. There will not be another Grim Fandango or Space Quests, or proper Fallout, instead "deep" games like TES Oblivion will dominate the market, dazzling gamers like fireflies with blistering graphics and low to no intelligence. " That was a little offtopic, wasn't it?

 

[Danilh]

-snip-

That would be the sad truth if there weren't guys like these.

http://www.irontowerstudio.com/

 

[Stabby Joe]

I like all the main Fallout games, but for different reasons... I'm not sure what I fall into then lol!

 

[Crni Vuk]

Torment and Fallout 1 were relatively small projects at the time of their creation and release, and became big through word of mouth. That sort of thing just doesn't happen anymore.

It does, just not among AAA titles. Not all games are AAA games, nor should they be.

Well one should note that in that time Fallout 1 and 2 have been pretty succesfull in their own terms compared next to games realised in the same time and particularly same genre.

I think once cant really just simply compare a 15 year old game and its success with AAA titles today since in those time the definition of what makes AAA titles and what not wasnt even that clear, not that its today a hard defintion, but its somewhat easier to make a difference today which is a game somewhere from the side or a game with massive hype, advertising and big development team. From some point one could say back then quite many games have been some kind of niche title but still succesfull. How many knew about Jagged Alliance, and still it was good enough to spawn a second game.

It is bitter to admit, but Fall 3 has a major advantage over older titles - it brought CASH. ...

Which means what? If the benefits from the selling are high enough to affirm the survival of the company then it doesnt play really that much of a role.

It only plays a role if you have publishers and leaders behind you responsible for the project that cant stop filling their pillows with money and know about the true value of the product and thus need to use a lot of the money for building a nice hype around the game with comercials in TV and what else is needed to make it a "must have" title (or at least let gamers think that they cant survive without the game).

One has to make a difference between the value in success. A game does not need to sell 4 Million copies with every release to be "successful" for the company itself.

 

[Sir GlowaLot]

I remember having played Fallout in 1998. Back during that time the Genre of RPG was considered dead. RPG Elements were present in other Games, even in Ego-Shooters, but the Genre as a whole was dead. Games like Diablo, Warcraft 1 and 2, Dungeon Keeper, Jedi Knight could not be considered RPG, but at least the genre was not completely forgotten.

I remember it as a good but overall short game. With lots of pop culture references in sidequests. The NPC and Dialogue was also something new, since in all previous games, NPC were only Quest-Givers for the next Kill- or Fetch-Quest. Fallout was the first game were you could actually talk the Final Boss into giving up.

Overall the Fallout Gameplay was linear, but you were given the illusion of choice and in the end you could see the Consequences of your Choices.

Fallout 2 was a game that expanded on Fallout 1. There was more interaction with the party NPC and even a marriage ( I think I nearly died laughing about the Shotgun-Wedding ) But overall Fallout 2 was disappointing, because of lots of Bugs. Also the decision to remove all Children from my version of the game (why?) and so making it impossible to complete Quests, were bad game design.

I still consider Fallout Tactics a good game, even with all of its shortcomings and poor balance. _I did not care about lack of 50s references in design, but it was disappointing that the Missions were very linear and that explosives had no effect on the environment for example. Even in JA2 I could cut my Way through a fence, shoot people from Rooftops and blow holes into walls with explosives, but all this was non-existent and the Cloth of a Tent was always as hard and bulletproof then a Vaults Concrete Walls. Also the Quartermaster of the Midwestern Brotherhood rarely had equipment available you could not loot on the Battlefield.

I also think Fallout 3 is a good game. In some aspects it is a step back into the Age of RPG were a Sword or a Shotgun is the Solution for everything. It is much more focused on combat then Fallout 1 and 2. Sometimes I would like to see more Diplomacy Options, since most Speech Checks are only there to avoid small Side-Quests or get an additional reward. Does that make it a bad game? Certainly not. Most Game Magazines give it a 8/10 or even a 9/10 and despite the games shortcomings, the rating is justified.

Compare Fallout 3 to Fallout 1/2 like the Original Star Trek Series and Next Generation to the new Star Trek Movie. With Fallout 3 the Series was reinvented for the good or bad that comes from it.

Star Trek needed something new and fresh and the same goes for the Fallout Series.

Disclaimer: No, this is not an attempt at trolling. I just recently registered on the Forum but I followed the Fallout Series for Years. I was also skeptical about Bethesda creating a Fallout Title, but I admit I was wrong. It is a good game and I am actually looking forward to Fallout: New Vegas. Please be gentle to an old Fanboi.

 

[Trithne]

For the most part, your argument is solid, except I have to disagree with one part:

Star Trek needed something new and fresh and the same goes for the Fallout Series.

.
A series never needs a reboot. And changing the focus of a series is doing a disservice to the people who liked it in the first place purely to increase profit margin.