But was the spirit preserved?

3

3rdRate

First time out of the vault
I've been a fan of this site for years, though I've only posted once or twice (note that my account wasn't created yesterday). I love F1 and F2, never cared to play Tactics and was one of the hated-BS-even-though-I-never-played-it crowd.

There's a massive amount of negativity toward the new Fallout, which isn't surprising given the property and fan base, but I guess the question I have is whether or not you think the spirit of the game was preserved.

To me, I feel like the spirit of the world was captured pretty very well, and my evidence is that I've quickly become addicted to the game in the way F1/2 sucked me in. I don't want to give away any spoilers, but I've run into element after element that strike me as distinctly Fallout. To call this a generic shoot-and-loot video game seems pretty incredible to me, because the world of Fallout seems to set it apart from anything generic.

I imagine the first responses to this question will not be the theme, world, story, etc., but the game play issues with RPG vs. shooter. On this count, I guess I never saw Fallout as being isolated to a certain type of game play. Fallout to me was a certain population of NPCs, a certain world, a certain type of quest, a certain type of humor and intelligence, and a certain type of narrative. A shooter done well is a great shooter, an RPG done well is a great RPG. I always thought that either can be set in the Fallout world so long as those core requirements are met.

So far - and I'm only a day or two into playing the game - it feels like I'm right back in the world of Fallout, which makes up for most of the failings I've read about on the board.

OK, back under the bridge for me...Looking forward to Fallout 4!
 
This is my first post here. I absolutely LOVE F3 so far. It clearly shows that Bethesda loves the Fallout franchise, and they did the game justice. It is a very addicting game.
 
3rdRate said:
There's a massive amount of negativity toward the new Fallout, which isn't surprising given the property and fan base, but I guess the question I have is whether or not you think the spirit of the game was preserved.
Click to expand...

Your question lacks context. From your post, I'm taking it you're defining spirit purely as setting and atmosphere and divorcing the game from its gameplay roots?
 
Your question lacks context. From your post, I'm taking it you're defining spirit purely as setting and atmosphere and divorcing the game from its gameplay roots?
Click to expand...

No, I definitely include gameplay, but I don't restrict the definition to strict categories like Shooter vs. RPG. Gameplay in this sense is really game progression, how new information is acquired, the types of challenges that are presented, how they're presented, the manner in which the narrative is told, etc. The way the game plays out.

In other words, my definition of gameplay should remove it from game mechanics i.e. the real heart of categories like action/rpg/strategy. Clearly, the game mechanics are worlds apart. But the game progression feels authentic to me, which is probably 85% of the reason I loved the original Fallouts.
 
New to forums, but certainly not to Fallout.

It's hard for me not to agree with OP. I've browsed these boards for awhile, but from my personal experiences with Fallout I think the mechanics in the game were great, especially for their day and age, but were largely flawed mechanics which were easily abused. This doesn't mean I don't love the games to death, I definitely loved the ability to solve problems in more than one way, and non-linear (I somewhat disagree with that also as the game always started and ended the same way - since my actions in F1 are largely ignored by the starting story in F2) storyline.

However, nevermind my qualms with F1, F2, and F3, I still agree that the spirit of the game is captured - and additionally the spirit of games that 'borrowed' ideas and themes from Fallout in their worlds (Stalker, Bioshock, etc) are also present in this game and simply add more to the excitement, I feel.

The largest complaints I see against this game is dialog (I agree, having an Intel check for a phrase that is almost exactly what my character would say anyway is simply stupid), ridiculousness of the violence (decapitating a man with a pistol, although blowing -half- of his chest and arm off is fine by F1 & F2 standards), bad AI (again, as though the enemies in F1 & F2 did anything remotely *smart*) and a combat system that doesn't match F1 & F2 (which were turn based on the same engine, so I understand that aspect but the differences in strategy or battle are largely unchanged).

I like what I've paid for and plan to enjoy it immensely, as Fallout.
 
Dude, even *I* was optimistic about what I would've experienced in FO3...

Unfortunately, Beth took that scoped .44 and stuck it right in my poopchute, and just before pulling the trigger, they told me that shit would've turned out this way anyways.

Dude, this game would've been a great standalone. But let's face it, the FATMAN isn't the only smartness nullifier in this journey across the destroyed and distended carcass of a post-nuclear-war U.S.A. Once you hit the end of the game, you'll see why.

Nevertheless, it's a whole lot of action, a lot of "fallout-y" "stuff" and a whole load of NOT being fallout in the least. The only thing that ties the original games to this one are arbitrarily placed references to "Maxon," "Mariposa," "FEV," "Nuka Cola," and "Vault Tec."
 
To me, the single most devastating change implemented in Fallout 3 is that some NPCs are unkillable.

Anything else I can overlook, and I have to say that, that aside, I'm actually enjoying the game and having good Fallouty memories all through. Alas, I've ecountered four unkillable NPCs so far, and they broke the dream a bit.

Not because I wanted to kill them (it was only the case with one of them), but because they were actually "killed" by enemies and then got up as if nothing at all had happened, talking merrily.

This applies to children as well, naturally.
 
My 2 cents: I can't call Beth's FO game a sequel. It's a spin-off, like BOS. Will I play it? Yes. Will I enjoy it? Yes. Can I bring myself to call it FO3? OH HELL NO!!! I simply refer to it as Fallout: DC. Some people wonder what game I'm talking about when I mention it, then I enlighten them. It's not much, but it eases my conscience about playing the game. As far as I'm concerned, FO3 still hasn't been finished and is most likely rotting in one of Todd Howard's many boxes of aquired software from Interplay. I pray that one day a TRUE FO fan will infultrate Bethsoft and leak all the code and dev kits that were being used on the real FO3 before the bankruptcy of Interplay.

You guys think that if everyone here donated like $10 to Brian Fargo and all the original team, that they would make an exclusive NMA Fallout game??? Now THAT would rule!!!
 
The spirit of the original Fallout's is long gone in this game. All you are left with is the decaying body of Fallout. This series (much to my chagrin) died many years ago with the cancelation of VB. You can put as many shiny things and good smelling perfumes as you want on a corpse, but it doesn't change the fact that its dead. Inteplay was the last chance for a Fallout ressurection. All Bethesda did was take the dead body of Fallout, give it some plastic surgery, a nice suit, and some formeldahyde and tried to convince us it was still alive.

Oh, btw, sorry for the lack of literal talking, I couldn't put this talk in any other way.
 
+1 to that.

I don't know how Beth can say they're fans when they outbid the original creators!!!! That move got them the "child killer" tag on their karma.

Oh, and did you see the lies Todd Howard was spitting out on the "making of" DVD??!! "Interplay wasn't doing anything w/ the franchise and eventually gave us the ok." WTF!!!! And then later the one guy saying that "Elder Scrolls and Fallout are our children.." You want "Nerd Rage", I'll give you nerd rage!!!!!

Oh, I havn't played Beth's abomination just yet, but I heard that Bethsofts ruins are in the game... If I have the canabal perk, can I feast on Todd's chared corpse???
 
Just an old mans opinion here but like some others have mentioned I happen to be enjoying the heck out of FO3, and I'm a huge fan of 1 and 2 (I still am playing a FO2 game on my laptop). I respect any opinion regarding how much they may dislike this continuation, I just happen to disagree.

There are some common problem themes I agree with (speech/CHA/INT need to have more of an impact on conversations, all NPC's should be killable with story work-arounds where needed, some minor tweaks to the economy could be made)....and there are some themes I don't agree with (graphics look great to me, enemy AI seems responsive - they pick up dropped weapons off the dead and use them, toss grenades, baited me into a few mines, run toward or call for help, respond to noises I make while sneaking if I kick a can, and the world is a huge desolate wilderness with pockets of activity and hidden surprises - as it should be).

But as far as the spirit of the game is concerned, I think its been preserved pretty well. If you take out the mechanics argument (First Person vs Isometric) it definitely feels like Fallout. But here is the kicker...I never really got into Morrowind or Oblivion (I had a brief stint with Daggerfall that I enjoyed before the bugs took my heart out of playing an awesome open do anything style game). So I don't really have a familiarity bias when comparing FO3 to Morrowind/Oblivion. To me, the game is just Fallout in first person.

It goes with the first person territory that there are certainly going to be gameplay differences, but I don't feel like I'm running around in some alternate "fantasy" universe toting guns with a few Fallout replicas slapped on like Nuke Cola and Vault Tec. It feels like I'm in some alternate science fiction fantasy timeline that is almost exactly what I imagined Fallout 1/2 would have looked like in first person.

Its got a storyline but already I have a shared experienced of four distinctly different games (myself and three friends, one real two online, are currently playing and chatting on vent). All four are about 25 hours in and playing a good karma style game. All four have some very unique variations (some of which are with key NPC's). Sure there are a few common threads here and there as in any game, but I must say the game is so far proving to be very malleable. I don't feel pigeon holed or forced to do anything, and the amount of chat between us regarding the different things we are experiencing in our "good karma" games proves to me this is a worthy successor.

We all cant wait to try out the neutral and evil karma sides of the game.
 
If you're really so willing to believe that Fallout is dead as a franchise then pretend Fallout 3 isn't a Fallout sequel or even an FO game at all, just think of it as a game loosely based on FO, sheesh how can people get emotional over a franchise, it's just video games not a subprime mortage loan.
 
Nodder said:
If you're really so willing to believe that Fallout is dead as a franchise then pretend Fallout 3 isn't a Fallout sequel or even an FO game at all, just think of it as a game loosely based on FO, sheesh how can people get emotional over a franchise, it's just video games not a subprime mortage loan.
Click to expand...

It could be the fact that some of has have developed a passion for video games. Ever watch football? (american football) How do you think fans of a team will react if the the team switches owners, he trades players, and demands a re-written playbook. They will react the same exact way us Fallout afficiandos react when Beth destroyed the series. It isn't as easy as pretending this isn't a Fallout game, because it is. Some people love movies, some people love sports. I just happen to love CRPGS. Why do you think I would get so "emotional" when one of my favorite series of games is thrown in the gutter in the name of currency? It's called love of the game, love of the series. Maybe it's because I came into these games at a young age. Maybe it's because the predecessors were so awesome in my eyes that I view it totally acceptable to judge this game on those said games. I have alot of passion in life, and this is just one of many avenues. To deride someone because they care for something you don't is not a good way to go about things.
 
I disagree on the preserved spirit. There is no major influence or background story for each town. afterall there are only little "towns" at all. no new reno with crimelords, no the den with gangfights, no hired raiders to push vault city to the ncr. nothing like that. and even the style is broken. 1990 riot cops and uniform. some dude in a perfect suit? a cake/sweetroal in the vault? your gun and the powerarmor look like modern sifi and has nothing in common with the 1950 sifi-theme. androids, supermutants, the enclave and a brotherhood which doesn't act like the brotherhood. I proberly miss something, because the game is filled with mistakes. you notice them every two meters, I already describe it as watching a porn which shows me a picture of sigmund freud and my mother every 3 seconds.

nope, spirit is broken. Personally thats even worse than the combatsystem, because fixing that will be easier then removing all the mistakes and actually make a decent world map with towns and background story n shit. Broken spirit means I can't even enjoy this simple egoshooter because it lacks immersion.
 
I'd have to say no as well, just seems a shell that hasn't been fully populated.

Could have been much deeper.

Guess that marketing money took up a lot of the creativity budget, IMO.
 
I'd have to say both yes and no.

yes, as in the world feels like part of the Fallout world. it's a harsh environment with some real assholes and you always have to watch your back. little things like names, weapons, items etc make it feel like I'm playing a Fallout game. so I'd say that atmosphere-wise, they've kept the Fallout spirit pretty intact.

but then there are the obvious things that make it feel not as Fallout-y as it could have. quests and dialog mainly.

if you're ok with it not playing like the old games but want to set your foot into the Fallout world again, then I suggest you give it a try.
 
It's a mutated version of the sillier, less focused world of Fallout 2, which is not where I wanted to see the series go. I really admired the meticulous attention to the creation of histories for persons and locations in those Van Buren docs or the more cohesive world of the original Fallout. There are an awful lot of areas in Fallout 3 that seem to exist in isolation; it's not credible, for example, that a place like Little Lamplight could continue to survive at all when it has so much contact with the dangerous world outside (or that the residents who migrate away somehow end up halfway across the map.)

I also would have liked to see more originality, or even attempts at originality. Elements from the earlier games are included regardless of logic; weren't the Deathclaws originally mutated desert lizards? What are they doing in D.C.? The B.O.S., Enclave, the mutant army are all major players and you visit the headquarters of most every fictional company mentioned in the original games (all located in this region for some reason.) It's like the "greatest hits" of Fallout without a lot of new ideas added; you'll run into a quest that's a Phillip K. Dick derivative, or a quest that's a copy of a Harlan Ellison story.

As an open-world sandbox Bethesda game, it's fantastic. It's like an Elder Scrolls game with the worst elements of that series removed/improved. I've spent a long time just wandering the map, scavenging, exploring, and fighting, while barely touching the quests. In Fallout or Fallout 2, I would have spent most of my time pursuing the questlines; I wanted to know why places like Vault City or Necropolis existed and the reasons supplied were interesting. Places like Megaton, Tenpenny Tower, or Rivet City have far sketchier origins and I've stopped expecting locations to have coherent relationships with their surroundings.

It resembles Fallout and they put a lot of effort into duplicating what the original Fallout teams did. To a degree, it has the look and feel of the old games. What I really wanted to see were:
more progressive ideas for detailed, flexible quest/location designs
and
a return to the themes and aesthetics of the original game--Fallout as a kind of nasty, austere sci-fi Western.
The first expectation would require a lot of R&D into ways of adapting roleplay ideas from the pen and paper world in ways that would be new to the CRPG world. This is not what Bethesda does and I don't think it's something they're even interested in.
As for the second, I can absolutely see how Bethesda could look at what I felt were missteps in Fallout 2 and interpret them as definitive traits. I think a lot of people feel Fallout 2 is the definitive entry. I can understand where they're coming from, but it's still disappointing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top