Did you all forget..

[ShatteredJon]

At this point, we are talking system abuse. All the games in the series could be exploited for system abuse and uber characteres. I am not talking about that at all. I LOVE the character creation system in all three games. That being said, I feel like in F3 I can make a more unique character that I can in F1/F2. Sure, in F2 I could make an alcoholic/abusive gambler, but what did it really mean? That I'd spend the whole game in New Reno? As I said, the first games had the options, but didn't have the gameplay to back them up. I'm already planning my 2nd charcter in F3 to be a female evil character, with a love for fire. I'm sort of picturing a female version of the Joker/pyromaniac.

I'm sorry, but are you serious? How is your character in FO:3 more unique than what you could create in the older games? The stats and skills have been heavily dumbed down. No more uniqueness, just the I can do everything dogma. Not only were there more choices in the older games, but you could actually affect the outcome of entire populations. (without slaughtering the town) This only occurs at the end of the game in FO:3. Nothing you do up until that point has hardly any bearing on the world.

Wait, forgot about Megaton. Other than that though, what kind of impact does your character have on the world that isn't already set in stone by Bethesda?

 

[chaosapiant]

As I said, you can make unique characters in both games, just that the original games didn't allow you to do too much with the characters. I do not consider F3's skill system "dumbed down." I consider it to be refined. In comparison, I do consider Oblivion's skill system dumbed down from Morrowind.

Ultimately though, I'll need to play through F3 at least a few times to see if my initial impressions are correct. I have not beaten it one time yet. Perhaps I will change my mind. My main point was that so far, F3 at least "appears" to offer more freedom in character choice. I am not saying that any particular character will have a different impact on the gameworld or not, I am referring to how fun it is/can be to play different character types. These are two different kinds of freedom.

 

[ShatteredJon]

I disagree with you. To use a term Sander used, I felt railroaded through the main quest, the side quests, even the dungeons. Character choice had little to do with things, as most rewards were the same, no matter what "choice" you made.

 

[BurkeAvenger]

I remember when Mario 64 came out, all the Nintendo fanboys were up in arms.

"3D??? THIS IS NOT A MARIO GAME"

"IT'S A GOOD GAME, It's NO Mario"

"3D is ruining everything".

"Mario 64 wasn't a platformerr TERRIBLE"

You'll always have a isolated radical fan base that takes ANY deviation from the original to be a heretic statement. Cry me a fucking river. So Fallout 3 isn't a pixelated text heavy isometric or GURPS or whatever. Deal with it. It's STILL a legit sequel. It's an amazing sequel. And they did a better job than Black Isle could ever dream of.

Prove me wrong. Because everywhere I look all the people whining about Fallout 3 have already bought their copy and I for one am glad the Fallout franchise is deviating from the archaic realm of turn-based RPGs.

 

[chaosapiant]

I think I'm seeing the pattern/disconnect here. I am not talking about choices/consequences in the games story. I haven't played enough of F3 to decide how well that is done. F1/F2 were VERY well done in that regard, but I can't compare it since I haven't beaten F3 yet. I'm referring strictly to character customization for the purpose of making fun characters to play. If you see the new dev diary on Bethesda's sight, you'll see what I'm talking about. Unique characters were very possible in F1/F2, but they didn't have much to "do" so to speak. I think the difference is that F1/F2 freedom meant "do what you want" where as Beth's freedom is more "be WHO you want."

 

[BurkeAvenger]

I think I'm seeing the pattern/disconnect here. I am not talking about choices/consequences in the games story. I haven't played enough of F3 to decide how well that is done. F1/F2 were VERY well done in that regard, but I can't compare it since I haven't beaten F3 yet. I'm referring strictly to character customization for the purpose of making fun characters to play. If you see the new dev diary on Bethesda's sight, you'll see what I'm talking about. Unique characters were very possible in F1/F2, but they didn't have much to "do" so to speak. I think the difference is that F1/F2 freedom meant "do what you want" where as Beth's freedom is more "be WHO you want."

This exactly. People whine about choices? ARE THEY FUCKING RETARDED. From the beginning of F3 you can

-Save Butch or kill him. He later joins your party.
-Kill the overseer although he dies anyway.
-Spare Megaton or blow it up
-Sell out the kids of Light Caverns to the slavers or rescue.

There's all sorts of cool stuff to do. If you have an active imagination the game is perfect. For some dull witted people who need the game to tell them everything and hold their hands, yeah I can see how F3 would be disappointing.

 

[ShatteredJon]

I remember when Mario 64 came out, all the Nintendo fanboys were up in arms.

"3D??? THIS IS NOT A MARIO GAME"

"IT'S A GOOD GAME, It's NO Mario"

"3D is ruining everything".

"Mario 64 wasn't a platformerr TERRIBLE"

You'll always have a isolated radical fan base that takes ANY deviation from the original to be a heretic statement. Cry me a fucking river. So Fallout 3 isn't a pixelated text heavy isometric or GURPS or whatever. Deal with it. It's STILL a legit sequel. It's an amazing sequel. And they did a better job than Black Isle could ever dream of.

Prove me wrong. Because everywhere I look all the people whining about Fallout 3 have already bought their copy and I for one am glad the Fallout franchise is deviating from the archaic realm of turn-based RPGs.

Wow, angry much? Not once have I brought up the points "turn based isometric pixilated heavy text gurps game". I have actually played and beaten the game. In fact I have put over 30 hours into it. It's not a bad game in the realm its in, but its a horrible Fallout game, which is why I critique it so much. Oh btw, you little example with mario is irrelevant because it was produced by the same people. Your entitled to your opinion true, but I think you cross the line when you try make it fact while being a dick.

EDIT: Wow burke, either or decisions really make for good choices. believe it or not, other than megaton, theres not one deviation from the plot with those choices. So why don't you come down off that arrogance chair and talk like an adult.

 

[Per]

I think the difference is that F1/F2 freedom meant "do what you want" where as Beth's freedom is more "be WHO you want."

OMG Fo1-2 are Shadows and Fo3 is a Vorlon

 

[chaosapiant]

I have NO idea what that means.

 

[Sander]

I think I'm seeing the pattern/disconnect here. I am not talking about choices/consequences in the games story. I haven't played enough of F3 to decide how well that is done. F1/F2 were VERY well done in that regard, but I can't compare it since I haven't beaten F3 yet. I'm referring strictly to character customization for the purpose of making fun characters to play. If you see the new dev diary on Bethesda's sight, you'll see what I'm talking about. Unique characters were very possible in F1/F2, but they didn't have much to "do" so to speak. I think the difference is that F1/F2 freedom meant "do what you want" where as Beth's freedom is more "be WHO you want."

This exactly. People whine about choices? ARE THEY FUCKING RETARDED. From the beginning of F3 you can

-Save Butch or kill him. He later joins your party.
-Kill the overseer although he dies anyway.
-Spare Megaton or blow it up
-Sell out the kids of Light Caverns to the slavers or rescue.

There's all sorts of cool stuff to do. If you have an active imagination the game is perfect. For some dull witted people who need the game to tell them everything and hold their hands, yeah I can see how F3 would be disappointing.

Here's what you can't do: kill your girlfriend, kill the Brotherhood, don't help the Brotherhood. Kill your father, kill the science team. Hell, the entire main quest is completely railroaded and only doable in one way, until you get to the very end of course.

Most choices are also false choices that have almost no real impact in the gameworld. See Harold. He wants to die. You can kill him, help him grow, or stop his growth. Whichever way you choose, he likes it. It's ridiculous.

Also strike for your trolling rant on Mario 64. Go read some actual arguments as to what the core design of Fallout is and why we feel that way instead of going 'oh noes you all hate change you whiny change-haters'.

 

[BurkeAvenger]

Here's what you can't do: kill your girlfriend, kill the Brotherhood, don't help the Brotherhood. Kill your father, kill the science team. Hell, the entire main quest is completely railroaded and only doable in one way, until you get to the very end of course.

//What are you a serial killer? Isn't the fact that you can blow up an entire town good enough? Would you prefer it if you could kill your dad in the name of realism even if it meant you couldn't quest any more? Don't you understand they chose to make some characters impossible to kill for YOUR sake? Even more so, mods are sure to come out to fix this. There are multiple ways to approach the mission. You make Fallout 2 like some crazy insane sandbox type game. No. It had a main quest line that was pretty much rail roaded. Even worse, you could accidentally kill an important npc and fuck up the entire game.


Most choices are also false choices that have almost no real impact in the gameworld. See Harold. He wants to die. You can kill him, help him grow, or stop his growth. Whichever way you choose, he likes it. It's ridiculous.

//So you're telling me no matter what you do, he likes it? That sounds boring. In Fallout 3, if the character doesn't like what you say, he'll let you know. Also, how does Harold affect the ENTIRE WORLD? There are a bunch of missions that are better done in Fallout 3.


Also strike for your trolling rant on Mario 64. Go read some actual arguments as to what the core design of Fallout is and why we feel that way instead of going 'oh noes you all hate change you whiny change-haters'.

//Not trolling.

I'm saying, the people who hate Fallout 3 just because of the shift in direction are being unreasonable. If anything, all the nerd rage should be directed at Interplay for dropping the ball. I cited Super Mario. A franchise that switched from 2D to 3D and still carried on the spirit.

Fallout 3 does the same thing.

 

[ShatteredJon]

Except you know, the fact it's no longer produced by same company. That and it's not faithful at all to the lore and cannon of the originals. I have nothing against the move to RT FPS, but its their lack of respect for the originals that leads me to criticize it so rampantly.

 

[Sander]

//What are you a serial killer? Isn't the fact that you can blow up an entire town good enough? Would you prefer it if you could kill your dad in the name of realism even if it meant you couldn't quest any more? Don't you understand they chose to make some characters impossible to kill for YOUR sake? Even more so, mods are sure to come out to fix this. There are multiple ways to approach the mission. You make Fallout 2 like some crazy insane sandbox type game. No. It had a main quest line that was pretty much rail roaded. Even worse, you could accidentally kill an important npc and fuck up the entire game.

No, you can't. It's impossible to do that.
That's what's called good game design. You cannot break the main quest by killing people in Fallout 2.

Fallout 3, on the other hand, is littered with random unkillable characters. Why do I have to leave the Brotherhood alive if I could just raid the information I want from their computers (it's there for fuck's sake)? Why do I need to keep Amata alive even though she has no bearing on the storyline?

These are perfect examples of how Fallout 3 misses the spirit of Fallout: freedom, choices and consequences. If you made a mistake in Fallout, you had to bear the consequences. Fallout 3 prevents you from making a mistake in the first place.

Also, the main quest wasn't railroaded in the slightest. There were exactly 2 places you had to go to in Fallout 2. Vault 13 for the GECK and FOB, and the Oil Tanker to finish the game. What's more, you could do whatever you wanted along the way.

It's what's extremely important to Fallout. The fact that you don't get this shows that you don't understand what Fallout was about.

//So you're telling me no matter what you do, he likes it? That sounds boring. In Fallout 3, if the character doesn't like what you say, he'll let you know. Also, how does Harold affect the ENTIRE WORLD? There are a bunch of missions that are better done in Fallout 3.

It's examplary of how this game was created.

//Not trolling.

I'm saying, the people who hate Fallout 3 just because of the shift in direction are being unreasonable. If anything, all the nerd rage should be directed at Interplay for dropping the ball. I cited Super Mario. A franchise that switched from 2D to 3D and still carried on the spirit.

Fallout 3 does the same thing.

Go read the forums and see how Fallout 3 captures nothing of the Fallout spirit. You go 'you just hate change losers' without familiarising yourself with anything relevant. It's a troll.

I find it hilarious how someone who's only played Fallout 2 once can claim to know that Fallout 3 captures perfectly the Fallout spirit.

 

[chaosapiant]

I have to disagree that F3 does anything to break canon. It does some questionable things with the lore, and and take some liberties. But I think Beth did that to make the game more enjoyable for fans of the originals, not less enjoyable. There is certainly nothing as canon breaking as anything from FOT.

 

[Sorrow]

No, you can't. It's impossible to do that.
That's what's called good game design. You cannot break the main quest by killing people in Fallout 2.

You can .
Have you never started a fight with Arroyo ?

I think the difference is that F1/F2 freedom meant "do what you want" where as Beth's freedom is more "be WHO you want."

OMG Fo1-2 are Shadows and Fo3 is a Vorlon

 

[Sander]

You can .
Have you never started a fight with Arroyo ?

Ah, forgot about that. Still, that's the only one, and hell they could've made that work with a little effort.

As for canon, Fallout 3 may not contradict it directly anywhere (although I believe their treatise of FEV is pretty much a contradiction, as is the apparent omnipresence of fuel-based(fuel scarcity anyone?) floating robots with a fully-functioning AI), it contradicts the spirit and reality of the original games almost everywhere.
While they attempt to explain the change to the BoS, however you look at it it's still an organisation with people talking in ye Olde English that could've been ripped straight from Oblivion.
Suddenly, you need training to use a Power Armor (the only way they could figure out to make Power Armor lootable yet not available in the early game apparently). Suddenly, the Enclave changed from a shadowy (and may I add nuked) organisation to an everpresent organisation making radio broadcasts. Suddenly, some people are immortal.
It's filled with stuff that may not break canon, but simply doesn't fit the setting.

 

[ShatteredJon]

Ha, I remeber when I first did that. Unfortunately I forgot to save that character.
I remember not playing for the rest of the day because I did not want to do the Temple of Tediousness again.

 

[DForge]

Whee, a whole "you shouldn't complain that it's bad, because the previous games were bad too" thread.

naah, it's a "stop praising F1/F2 for excellent mechanics because they were far from those" thread

I understand this game (Fallout 3) may be worse than shit but I don't think if it's fair to use completely incorrect arguments against it



Btw

Enclave getting broadcasts?

rotfl. Omg. Not the Enclave please. One of the bests "villain faction" of all times, mainly because their undercover nature and their completely twisted logic... ruined ? :/

 

[Per]

naah, it's a "stop praising F1/F2 for excellent mechanics because they were far from those" thread

Ah, but then it would be in the wrong forum. Also,

I also think F3 should have never become a FPS, but come on. The previous Fallouts weren't flawless in game mechanics.

 

[DForge]

But it's not a "bash F1/F2" thread. Just a simple reminder that F3 may not be a step back in terms of game mechanics (if it is, it's really pathetic because F1/F2 weren't the best at it).

Soon i'll play F3 and see for myself.