MercenarySnake
Kept you waiting huh?
You really think that? I think they would've still exploited it anyways resulting in them making a lot of money. Heh you really think they'd pass up an opportunity like that?
Are the Originals... Overrated?
- Thread starter Ben Soto
- Start date
Lucas9
Still Mildly Glowing
I'm LOVING Wasteland 2.
Fallout is outdated, but by no means overrated. The first thing I noticed I hated about Fallout was the way the camera worked against the player. To find certain items, you had to dig into the walls before you could see what was behind them, instead of showing it all at once so you didn't have to run like a moron into every corner before you saw what was there. W2's camera fixes this by allowing you to turn it around.
It really feels like the game Fallout 3 should have been, it's only missing the setting and polish a big-budget studio could give it, not to mention make it vastly bigger like any great RPG should be. Otherwise, it feels like you will play the same few quests with different builds.
Fallout 1 (the only one I've played so far of the originals) was entertaining, it had some great humor, and the gameplay was fun. It's impossible for me to judge the graphics because I've been spoiled with games like Skyrim and the newer Fallouts ever since I got my new computer, making me quickly forget of the days where I played with a Famicom (and I'm talking up to when I was 10, that is, 2002, that's FIVE years after a much better looking game like Fallout had been released).
Naturally I wouldn't have been able to play Fallout either back then since my mother language is spanish, but at the time the graphics would have blown my mind. Not to mention the gameplay and replayability.
Fallout is outdated, but by no means overrated. The first thing I noticed I hated about Fallout was the way the camera worked against the player. To find certain items, you had to dig into the walls before you could see what was behind them, instead of showing it all at once so you didn't have to run like a moron into every corner before you saw what was there. W2's camera fixes this by allowing you to turn it around.
It really feels like the game Fallout 3 should have been, it's only missing the setting and polish a big-budget studio could give it, not to mention make it vastly bigger like any great RPG should be. Otherwise, it feels like you will play the same few quests with different builds.
Fallout 1 (the only one I've played so far of the originals) was entertaining, it had some great humor, and the gameplay was fun. It's impossible for me to judge the graphics because I've been spoiled with games like Skyrim and the newer Fallouts ever since I got my new computer, making me quickly forget of the days where I played with a Famicom (and I'm talking up to when I was 10, that is, 2002, that's FIVE years after a much better looking game like Fallout had been released).
Naturally I wouldn't have been able to play Fallout either back then since my mother language is spanish, but at the time the graphics would have blown my mind. Not to mention the gameplay and replayability.
Last edited:
NotAcasul
meanie
Fallout 2 isn't really that great. The combat is frustratingly boring relying mostly on pure luck and running away from everything.
It was a pain in the ass when the wanamingos, Enclave troops, and the other shit-bringers were placed right next to the starting point. Because that makes so much sense that a weak-ass tribe will start right next to Mr. Fuckurshit.
And I hate the Shi. I think they're ridiculous.
Story was half-decent. Personally, I prefer Fallout 1 to Fallout 2. It has a better story and makes for a more enjoyable experience.
It was a pain in the ass when the wanamingos, Enclave troops, and the other shit-bringers were placed right next to the starting point. Because that makes so much sense that a weak-ass tribe will start right next to Mr. Fuckurshit.
And I hate the Shi. I think they're ridiculous.
Story was half-decent. Personally, I prefer Fallout 1 to Fallout 2. It has a better story and makes for a more enjoyable experience.
Mr Fish
Slippy sloppy, The
Right next to my ass.
You need to travel a good bit south for you to encounter that kind of shit. Fallout 1 also had Boneyard that was littered with centaurs and floaters. Fallout 3 had Rivet City, right next to super mutant central. Fallout New Vegas had Novac which was almost a stone-throw away from fire gecko's.
At least in Fallout 2 you had to travel several squares on the world map to the south to encounter those elite tier enemies.
Last edited:
Jogre
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
I always love seeing threads either criticising the originals, or complimenting the newer games. More often than not they result in civilized discussion, whereas if you showed an upopular opinion on pretty much any other Fallout fanbase they would say something among the lines of "STFU AND ENJOY THE GAME!"
As for your question, while I certainly see where you are coming from, you've got to remember that each of the negatives is kind of subjective, and there is a flipside for everything, so whether or not something is overrated highly depends on the player.
And besides, sometimes in games, when the graphics are decent, you are distracted due to too many things at once, and have trouble figuring out what everything is. In the original Fallout games, the art was just minimalistic enough that you could easily make out "Poor looking-guy", "Poor Looking Girl", "Guy in Suit", "Guy in Power Armor", "Zombie type mutant", "Big Green Muscly Mutant wearing rags as trousers". And for me anyway, I kind of focused a lot more on the dialogue because half the characters looked the same.
Not to mention how creative the art style is, with all this clunky looking technology, and these figures that look like they genuinely are from a new world, and not covered in Pre-War technology, and the whole Gothic style of buildings. I think that by improving graphics, you lose those aspects.
Fallout 3 occasionaly has a semi-dark atmosphere(Dunwhich Building for example), the rest just seems kind of dark and gritty in a non-atmospheric way. I never thought while playing it "Oh this is a dark atmosphere", I always thought, "God, another town with a depressing backstory, why can't anywhere have a happier theme to it?"
Fallout New Vegas feels very much Western, which is good, but it feels JUST Western. You don't think about how much the world has changed, you just think of it as being the traditional Cowboys VS Indians story.
Fallout 4 - I don't think it really has an Atmosphere. Gives too much of a pre-war feel to feel like the originals, and is nowhere near as gritty as 3. It has a kind of British feel to it, and feels very colonial, but that's probably just because Boston. Apart from that the atmosphere is kinda meh.
As for the originals, I always thought the atmosphere was quite good. Fallout 1 has an atmosphere of a world that has just fallen apart, and is only just being put back together, and you see all these communities starting to rise, each with their own flaws. It also has a kind of desert feel to it, with all these desert communities, which I think is quite good.
Fallout 2 has this atmosphere, that the only other game I think has been able to do effectively is Morrowind. It kind of feels like you are truly adventuring and exploring the world. You come across all these strange places, and the world feels kind of alien but at the same time still familiar. With all these Tribes, and the Slave Trade, as well as NCR expanding, as well as it kind of felt like it was this entirely new world, which was exotic, but at the same time resembled
what you already knew. Almost like a Fantasy game, but since it was set in a world with all the history to it, it kind of felt more real.
Almost every town had me wondering what I was going to find, and thinking how strange everything seemed, but not to a degree where it seemed unrealistic(*Cough Megaton being built around a f*cking Bomb*)
Also, it was one of the few games where I probably felt exactly how my character feels. Seeing this map with only 2 towns, and that being all the world you are aware of, everyone talking about all these towns as if everyone knew where they were, but you being an outsider having no idea, and while following the trail for the G.E.C.K and heading from Arroyo to Klamath to Vault City to NCR, it felt like you genuinely had been on this great long journey, and that you were in control of it, not following a linear questline.
I believe I have already explained why I think this is wrong above.
Anyway, if you feel the newer games are better, that's OK, it's a subjective opinion. Most of the aspects you mentioned aren't a matter of "This is better in this" or "This isn't as good as in this", every difference between The Originals and The Moderns is a two sided coin.
As for your question, while I certainly see where you are coming from, you've got to remember that each of the negatives is kind of subjective, and there is a flipside for everything, so whether or not something is overrated highly depends on the player.
It is incredibly hard for Isometrics to have good graphics. Look at Tyranny for example: Probably the newest Isometric out and it is barely any better than Fallout Tactics.
And besides, sometimes in games, when the graphics are decent, you are distracted due to too many things at once, and have trouble figuring out what everything is. In the original Fallout games, the art was just minimalistic enough that you could easily make out "Poor looking-guy", "Poor Looking Girl", "Guy in Suit", "Guy in Power Armor", "Zombie type mutant", "Big Green Muscly Mutant wearing rags as trousers". And for me anyway, I kind of focused a lot more on the dialogue because half the characters looked the same.
Not to mention how creative the art style is, with all this clunky looking technology, and these figures that look like they genuinely are from a new world, and not covered in Pre-War technology, and the whole Gothic style of buildings. I think that by improving graphics, you lose those aspects.
I'll admit, the mechanics are a bit shit, but they work. Even if they work very clunkily, they do allow you to customize your character and experience greatly. As for the combat, while most people say it's boring and repetitive, I would have to personally disagree. I really enjoyed the gameplay of FO2 especially. Like when you come across Raiders, and you take this whole risk of "Fight or Flee", and how there is always a risk of one of you landing a crit and insta-killing the other, I found it really tense, and with more challenging fights like the New Khans how you come up with your own tactics to fight them.
Lets for a second compare this to the modern games.
Fallout 3 occasionaly has a semi-dark atmosphere(Dunwhich Building for example), the rest just seems kind of dark and gritty in a non-atmospheric way. I never thought while playing it "Oh this is a dark atmosphere", I always thought, "God, another town with a depressing backstory, why can't anywhere have a happier theme to it?"
Fallout New Vegas feels very much Western, which is good, but it feels JUST Western. You don't think about how much the world has changed, you just think of it as being the traditional Cowboys VS Indians story.
Fallout 4 - I don't think it really has an Atmosphere. Gives too much of a pre-war feel to feel like the originals, and is nowhere near as gritty as 3. It has a kind of British feel to it, and feels very colonial, but that's probably just because Boston. Apart from that the atmosphere is kinda meh.
As for the originals, I always thought the atmosphere was quite good. Fallout 1 has an atmosphere of a world that has just fallen apart, and is only just being put back together, and you see all these communities starting to rise, each with their own flaws. It also has a kind of desert feel to it, with all these desert communities, which I think is quite good.
Fallout 2 has this atmosphere, that the only other game I think has been able to do effectively is Morrowind. It kind of feels like you are truly adventuring and exploring the world. You come across all these strange places, and the world feels kind of alien but at the same time still familiar. With all these Tribes, and the Slave Trade, as well as NCR expanding, as well as it kind of felt like it was this entirely new world, which was exotic, but at the same time resembled
what you already knew. Almost like a Fantasy game, but since it was set in a world with all the history to it, it kind of felt more real.
Almost every town had me wondering what I was going to find, and thinking how strange everything seemed, but not to a degree where it seemed unrealistic(*Cough Megaton being built around a f*cking Bomb*)
Also, it was one of the few games where I probably felt exactly how my character feels. Seeing this map with only 2 towns, and that being all the world you are aware of, everyone talking about all these towns as if everyone knew where they were, but you being an outsider having no idea, and while following the trail for the G.E.C.K and heading from Arroyo to Klamath to Vault City to NCR, it felt like you genuinely had been on this great long journey, and that you were in control of it, not following a linear questline.
I believe I have already explained why I think this is wrong above.
Anyway, if you feel the newer games are better, that's OK, it's a subjective opinion. Most of the aspects you mentioned aren't a matter of "This is better in this" or "This isn't as good as in this", every difference between The Originals and The Moderns is a two sided coin.
Ben Soto
Professional Salt Shaker
Time to clarify. I like NV the most, then 1 was pretty good, then 2 and 3 are real close together in my opinion in terms of quality for the exact opposite reasons (not counting the story. Both games have terrible stories for similar reasons.)
When I say bad graphics, I'm talking more about the style, not technical fidelity. For instance, Fallout 4 has really great style, but not very good fidelity. The originals have great fidelity for their time, but it's just so damn boring to look at.
When I talk about gameplay, I'm mostly taking about combat and exploration, neither of which are particularly entertaining in either of the originals.
When I say bad graphics, I'm talking more about the style, not technical fidelity. For instance, Fallout 4 has really great style, but not very good fidelity. The originals have great fidelity for their time, but it's just so damn boring to look at.
When I talk about gameplay, I'm mostly taking about combat and exploration, neither of which are particularly entertaining in either of the originals.
Irwin John Finster
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
This.
Fallout 4 has good combat and exploration but it is not comparable to a traditional RPG. Fallout 1 and 2 have good turn-based combat and the exploration is based around meeting new people in the world and interacting with the world rather than roaming around collecting coffee mugs for ceramic so you can build turrets for your robot settlers. Instead, the exploration in traditional Role Playing Games functions to let the player meet new people, find interesting quests with multiple angles for solving them, and interact with the game world in ways that have consequences later on.
Fallout 4 is fairly good in terms of exploration though. It attempts to make us investigate areas, read terminals/notes, and uncover new things in the environment, and that's a good direction. However, there's really no interesting conversations to be had, or interesting quests that can be completed in multiple ways, and as a result the exploration is usually rewarded only by loot - and that's a bad direction.
Fallout 1 attempted to make your decisions have real, sometimes unforeseeable consequences. In fallout 4, there really aren't any decisions to be made. The original games just aren't comparable to the direction of the new Fallout. It's like comparing KOTOR with Borderlands. Both are enjoyable in their own ways.
Last edited:
Dr Fallout
Centurion
Hahaha, they do actually. Mods fixed New Vegas (remember the bugs?) and yet we don't discuss that do we?
Izak
I Shot The ALBATROSS
That's one of the flaws of New Vegas, of course Obsidian have an excuse because the development time was miniscule but it's still a flaw.
Dr Fallout
Centurion
Exactly, and MODS fixed it. They also fixed the combat to a degree.
Izak
I Shot The ALBATROSS
But the mods will fix it argument is such bullshit, a game's quality shouldn't be left to modders, in that regard Fallout 2 and New Vegas failed, to a degree.
Dr Fallout
Centurion
A game will always have flaws, and mods fix those flaws. Also mods are free so...
Izak
I Shot The ALBATROSS
And those games flaws shouldn't be excused because of those mods. The modders should be praised for their work but that praise shouldn't be shared with the game developers, the game devs (or their managers) fucked up and, made the games worse, the game is being judged not the games modifications.
D
Deleted member 93956
Guest
In Steam Fallout 1 is translated, don't know the quality of it though.
Pd. La fuente de texto se jode bastante, por lo que he visto.
Ben Soto
Professional Salt Shaker
I've never understood why the mods will fix it argument works for BIS/Obsidian games but not for Bethesda games.
NotAcasul
meanie
The Boneyard is literally miles and miles away from the starting point. It's right next to the Cathedral. You know, the end game boss? Emphasis on 'end', there. Fallout 3 isn't that good either. Rivet City was also a massive supercarrier with weapons, a drawbridge, and tons of people to support it. It even has a moat! Can Supermutants(do we capitalize this?) swim? That's the real question.
Fallout New Vegas also did not have a perfect map. Are you not going to talk about how Obsidian did the EXACT same thing with Cazadores and Deathclaws? (and a few invisible walls)
Okay, you've got me on the elite tier enemies being too close to the start of the game. At least for the Enclave troops.
But, you've got nothing on my Shi complaints. Everyone thinks the Shi are stupid, right? Right?
Jogre
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
To be fair, the Mods will Fix it arguement is an OK arguement if the game is playable by itself, but not perfect.
Take Fallout New Vegas for example: Perfectly good game, has all the features it needs. Yes the game was unfortunately cut down, New Vegas looks a bit empty and divided up, Legion isn't as fleshed out as they could be, yet still you find out everything that you need to, and you still get the feel of what New Vegas is supposed to be like, even if it is a little underwhelming.
Fallout 2: I am aware you have issues with it, but I personally think the game is fine on its own. There are mods that restore unincluded content, but most of the content is just extra stuff they could have added as well.
Fallout 4 has barely any legitimate settlements, there are so few non-combat ways to solve quests its ridiculous, you are limited to 4 dialogue options at the time(That you don't even get to see all of), areas that could have very well been fun little challenges were turned in to mindless monster dungeons, and not to mention no permanent consequences for actions, and a limited number of perks all focused on killing shit.
FO2 and FONV is broken in a way that it mostly lacks things that while they should have been in the original game aren't necessary, Fallout 4 is broken in the way that it lacks the basic things that make a Fallout game a Fallout game.
Jogre
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Wanamingos and Centaurs are only major random encounters around San Fran. Since there are so few major settlements in that location, and you only learn about nearby areas after Arroyo's destruction, it's assumed that you won't travel there until late game.
I don't see why you think the Shi are stupid. Apart from the subtle stereotyping, I don't see why you dislike them so much.
Lucas9
Still Mildly Glowing
Not only that, but there are a lot of things mods CAN'T* fix. How can mods possible fix Fallout 4? Mods can easily fix New Vegas unstability, but Fallout 4 ditched so many things and the dialogue system is so ridiculous that it will never be fixed.
Balance? Sure. Graphics? Right on. Making the game an RPG again? No way in hell it will ever happen.
*as in, "nobody will ever fix it". Technically you can fix anything with mods, but the chances of someone rebuilding a game from the ground up are extremely slim to none, and God knows Fallout 4 needs a complete overhaul to be a good Fallout experience.
ZigzagPX4
The Swiftness of the Ranger
uh
I think a lot of people here will disagree with you on that
Modders don't have as much resources and potential feedback to work with as writers and designers in dev teams do, which means they can't create complex questlines with multiple choices, proper voice acting and complete lore consistency. However, both modders and developers have shown to be almost equally matched when it comes to adding new modes, features, weapons, apparel, etc. Case in point, Skyrim and XCOM 2.
As such, let's say Game A has below-average gameplay value and excellent writing, and Game B has excellent gameplay value but below-average writing. Modders can add to the gameplay value with new simple quests, equipment, and features, but not to the writing. As a result of modding, Game A ends up with both excellent gameplay and excellent writing. However, Game B's writing stays below-average. In the end, Game A ends up with a better overall experience.
Now, apply this scenario loosely to New Vegas as Game A and Fallout 3 as Game B - okay, not entirely accurate, but I'm trying to make a point. Before you say this means Fallout 3 gets double gameplay value - that's not how it works. Not unlike terminal velocity or saturated solutions, there exists a maximum point of fun modding can supplant onto a game. Both first-person Fallouts have gameplay value that maxes out close to each other because they have near-identical gameplay on identical engines.
We end up with Game B on the disadvantage here, which in this case is Fallout 3, which is why the "mods will fix it" argument works with Obsidian. Alright, now we get back to the central issue - most people don't care about writing, so in this case, why care? Fallout 3 and New Vegas should be interchangeable. The issue here is that Fallout is first and foremost an RPG, and their fans aren't "most people", which means the writing should be a primary focus, and it isn't. That's a problem.
So that's pretty much it. Somewhat equal gameplay but one has poor writing, and modders can't fix writing.