Do you think it's perfectly okay to dismiss Fallout 3...

[Korin]

If you aren't going to back-up your comments and reasonings, stick to lurking. Call it what you will, but the good folks here can give you dozens of solid reasons why FO is superior.

And their subjective reasons won't change my mind, anymore than mine will change theirs. I will "stick to lurking" whenever I choose to do so. This can of worms only opened when you and Thomas replied my original comment, so I would say that if you cannot discuss or respond to something about Fallout 3 without passive-aggressively insulting the poster, do not post at all.

My original post was sound, I merely stated that I liked Fallout 3 more than the originals, but indicated if you were an F1/F2 fan you would like NV more. You seem to want to disect my beliefs, which simply isn't going to happen.

 

[Korin]

Oh yeah, and child killing, prostitutes, mutant ballgags and fucked up dark situations are what MAKE a Fallout game. If they aren't to your taste then I'm sure one of the Lego games has something for you.

And those things stopped being amusing for me around the age of 15. You can like them, but I do not have to. I would take "assplosions" over needlessly over done sexual content any day of the week. Even NV was too much. I do not need a hooker thrust in my face every two feet on the Vegas strip. Stuff like this is part of the reason I liked Fallout 1 more than Fallout 2, which seemed almost ridiculous by comparison.

 

[Little Robot]

korindabar, I disagree with you but I appreciate the fact that you're not turning to ad hominem attacks.

Frankly, I think that the issue is that Fallout 3 really isn't very much like Fallout 1 and 2. It doesn't have the same gameplay, it doesn't have the same level of writing or quest design, it doesn't have the same amount of freedom, etc. For people who like Fallout 1 and 2, that's enough to really dislike it. For people who like Fallout 3, they don't really care. I think that that's all that can be said in this argument. I don't think that anyone is going to change their mind after 10 pages of forum arguments.

 

[Hroesvelgr]

And those things stopped being amusing for me around the age of 15. You can like them, but I do not have to. I would take "assplosions" over needlessly over done sexual content any day of the week. Even NV was too much. I do not need a hooker thrust in my face every two feet on the Vegas strip. Stuff like this is part of the reason I liked Fallout 1 more than Fallout 2, which seemed almost ridiculous by comparison.

I can appreciate that to an extent, and I agree that Fallout 1 was much more serious and austere in how it dealt with such topics, which is one of the reasons I tend to like it better than Fallout 2.

Still, If we're talking about a society that has been trying to wrest itself from the maw of a second stone age for the last couple of centuries I think that it's pretty fair to say there's a good chance they wouldn't be very bashful about things like prostitution. And anyways, there are only hookers in and in front of one casino and they are pretty central to the function of said establishment.

Edit: It just occured to me that one of my most cherised elements of a good Fallout experience is that you are often put into situations that are inherently uncomfortable, while still allowing you to impose your own moral standpoint. I guess that was my point with the final comment in my earlier post; the games are supposed to be about the harsh realities of a morally grey time and place. I don't play it and say, "aww hookers sweet!", I come across those things that I love to hate about the post war society and all of its endearing weaknesses.

One of the posters above put it exactly right. For people like me who grew up playing the old games, they became a shining example of wit, imagination and story-telling in video games. It wasn't just the hookers and the dark humor as I may have hyperbolically said before. The games put you in a place with a very interesting setting, characters and story and let you decide how things ended up for pretty much every individual you met. To me, Fallout 3 is an affront to the franchise because it pretty much lacks any of those qualities of writing, freedom, amoral situations and consequence that the other games have.

And as he also said we're not winning hearts and minds here, so I guess I have to agree to disagree but like I said before I just can't understand why anyone would say that Fallout 3 is a better *fallout* game than any of the others in the series. Maybe, if we're all really lucky, Fallout 4 will be able to satisfy both of us.[/i]

 

[Thomas de Aynesworth]

And their subjective reasons won't change my mind, anymore than mine will change theirs. I will "stick to lurking" whenever I choose to do so. This can of worms only opened when you and Thomas replied my original comment, so I would say that if you cannot discuss or respond to something about Fallout 3 without passive-aggressively insulting the poster, do not post at all.

Perhaps my statement was too indirect, for you. Tell us why, in your estimation, as a loyal lip service payer and fan of Fallout 3, is better than the first 2 games.

 

[Stanislao Moulinsky]

I'm sorry, but I haven't even mentioned sales. I'm talking about professional reviews, and not just a couple of them (which you could argue they are paid, but really not all of them, at this point is silly to say that).

Games like Mortal Kombat invalidate your point. The sad sad truth is that most "professional" reviewers nowadays don't know how to do their work. I mean, you heard for example IGN giving a 2.0 to Football Manager 2009 for being, basically, a management simulation?

 

[Black Feather]

If you aren't going to back-up your comments and reasonings, stick to lurking. Call it what you will, but the good folks here can give you dozens of solid reasons why FO is superior.

the dialogue really sounds as if the player is trying to rape her.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I'm sorry, but I haven't even mentioned sales. I'm talking about professional reviews, and not just a couple of them (which you could argue they are paid, but really not all of them, at this point is silly to say that).

And Diablo is an excellent game, and I'm not talking about sales. I'm talking about how powerful the game was, specially back at the days. This is of course Diablo 1, Diablo 2 was far hyped. Again, this other subject could use another topic. Gladly to discuss about it..

Which doesnt mean anything to me personaly as I played the game, and dissliked it as a bad RPG not "just" as a bad Fallout game. If all of the "professional" game reviewers would give Fallout 3 excelent critics it still doesnt mean anything for me.

Also are we talking about the same professionals that dont see it as necessary to mention the bugs and issues in F3 which have been already present since Oblivion. Or the same professionals which complained about Oblivion the moment Fallout 3 was out calling it the perfect game while they called Oblivion the perfect game when it was released a few years in the past ? ... Or those professinals which hand out awards for the writting in Fallout 3 ? I mean fighting for the good fight with your voice yeah. Or companions you saved (Fawkes anyone?) refuse to do the job for you even though they are imune to radiation as they dont want to steal your "fate" or something. Searching for a midle aged guy by the way ?

You know. If people think Fallout 3 is a great game so be it. But for me it simply isnt. I can explain my points but I dont expect anyone to understand or accept them. But dont tell me "fallout 3 is great cause the professionals say it's great".

 

[TheOverseer]

I think that Fallout 3 still has a lot to offer. The exploratory aspect of the game is totally awesome and the side quests like Dunwich and such (for those of you familier with the Necronomicon by H P Lovecraft) is really good fun to do. Even if you play the game and do no quests and just hunt around its worth buying for that experience.

 

[Requete]

the dialogue really sounds as if the player is trying to rape her.

I had a feeling that Miria (almost) "raped" my PC. Only "rape" is Francis in Broken Hill; but it's more rough RP/fetish sex as the result of voluntary bet. About children you can kill them but you're not forced or even gratified to this by game to this; all you got is bad rep, wanted posters and bounty hunt for this. In fact Unkilable snoty brats from F03 Little Lamp Light made me "childkiller"for the first and last time.

 

[Requete]

I think that Fallout 3 still has a lot to offer. The exploratory aspect of the game is totally awesome and the side quests like Dunwich and such (for those of you familier with the Necronomicon by H P Lovecraft) is really good fun to do. Even if you play the game and do no quests and just hunt around its worth buying for that experience.

I agree but you got all of this in FNV so unless you have to much money to spend buy only NV. Even scenery INMO is becouse I'm western/Viva Las Vegas fan.

 

[Nalano]

And those things stopped being amusing for me around the age of 15. You can like them, but I do not have to. I would take "assplosions" over needlessly over done sexual content any day of the week. Even NV was too much. I do not need a hooker thrust in my face every two feet on the Vegas strip. Stuff like this is part of the reason I liked Fallout 1 more than Fallout 2, which seemed almost ridiculous by comparison.

I can appreciate that to an extent, and I agree that Fallout 1 was much more serious and austere in how it dealt with such topics, which is one of the reasons I tend to like it better than Fallout 2.

Still, If we're talking about a society that has been trying to wrest itself from the maw of a second stone age for the last couple of centuries I think that it's pretty fair to say there's a good chance they wouldn't be very bashful about things like prostitution. And anyways, there are only hookers in and in front of one casino and they are pretty central to the function of said establishment.

Edit: It just occured to me that one of my most cherised elements of a good Fallout experience is that you are often put into situations that are inherently uncomfortable, while still allowing you to impose your own moral standpoint. I guess that was my point with the final comment in my earlier post; the games are supposed to be about the harsh realities of a morally grey time and place. I don't play it and say, "aww hookers sweet!", I come across those things that I love to hate about the post war society and all of its endearing weaknesses.

One of the posters above put it exactly right. For people like me who grew up playing the old games, they became a shining example of wit, imagination and story-telling in video games. It wasn't just the hookers and the dark humor as I may have hyperbolically said before. The games put you in a place with a very interesting setting, characters and story and let you decide how things ended up for pretty much every individual you met. To me, Fallout 3 is an affront to the franchise because it pretty much lacks any of those qualities of writing, freedom, amoral situations and consequence that the other games have.

And as he also said we're not winning hearts and minds here, so I guess I have to agree to disagree but like I said before I just can't understand why anyone would say that Fallout 3 is a better *fallout* game than any of the others in the series. Maybe, if we're all really lucky, Fallout 4 will be able to satisfy both of us.[/i]

I think the important bit is that the writers of the originals had a talent and an advantage:

- Their talent was that they wanted to create a world that was internally cohesive and interesting. They succeeded.

- Their advantage was that PC gaming overall was still something of a niche genre and as such they did not have to censor or adulterate their world.

Hence, it's not so much that hookers and child-killing was there, but that they made sense in the game, were an integral part of the world and were NOT just tacked on because "it's cool."

I mean, the 15-year old me wasn't playing Fallout to sleep with e-hookers (that's what internet porn is for) but because the "communities striving to survive in a nuclear wasteland" setting was appealing to me and didn't insult my intelligence.

Like reading Douglas Adams or Terry Pratchett, while the world may primarily be satirical and even a bit silly, it's still cohesive, makes internal sense, is presented intelligently and has characters that are themselves interesting, witty and smart - and for that matter, have them react to situations (even silly situations) as rational human beings would.

I'm looking at you, Moira.

Why Bethesda thought they could make an RPG - even an action RPG - without half-decent writing is beyond me. Why people bought it in droves is even worse.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Why Bethesda thought they could make an RPG - even an action RPG - without half-decent writing is beyond me. Why people bought it in droves is even worse.

I have 2 ideas about it, first they either simply could not do it better or second, which would be far worse they simply didnt cared about it to do it better as how the game has shown in the end you can sell it AND(!) win masses of awards with as lidle effort in writing and NPCs as possible.

 

[Hroesvelgr]

Why Bethesda thought they could make an RPG - even an action RPG - without half-decent writing is beyond me. Why people bought it in droves is even worse.

Definitely a good point that the old games were created in a different kind of atmosphere. I guess it's like anything else when the bottom line is concerned - think of all of the great books and comic books that were written by talented people for a small audience, then bastardized by big screen adaptations which in spite of having more resources end up being shadows of the original material. They difference is in whether or not the work is done more for the satisfaction or profit of the creator. And when it comes to big movies and video games there are a hundred different people in the corporate chain of command who can justify any kind of pandering or concession if it means they have the "lowest common denominator" factor that will be at least somewhat acceptable to a large amount of people and tastes - instead of exceptional if somewhat controversial.

Which brings us to the last statement you made. In this good ol' world of ours, the shit rises to the top. In cases like this it is a slap in the face to see that the game that made me say "wow, video games can be so much more" was in no matter of thinking any where near as successful or widely accepted as what is basically its pandering, mediocre Mel Bay spin off. The markets love to be wowed with overwhelming 'coolness' and they will always prefer a superficial but glitzy experience to one that challenges them in any way, even when presented with what is an obviously superior product.

And I know it's a superior product not based upon my own subjective reasoning, but rather because I'm applying critical thinking - end of story.

I think that Fallout 3 still has a lot to offer. The exploratory aspect of the game is totally awesome and the side quests like Dunwich and such (for those of you familier with the Necronomicon by H P Lovecraft) is really good fun to do. Even if you play the game and do no quests and just hunt around its worth buying for that experience.

I totally agree with you, there is a great environment for the most part with the Fallout face on it, and some fun gameplay that is very enjoyable. Still, that at best makes it a "Post-Apocalyptic Exploration Simulator" - it is still completely devoid of the kind of intelligence, charm and player choice that for me define what a Fallout game should be. If they sold it as an exploration simulator, great. My opinion of it would be a lot better. But I'm the kind of person who played Fallout 1 & 2 in his early teens, which was a life changing experience for me as far as games go, and I've been hopelessly waiting ever since for another good Fallout game to come out.

Lo and behold - when Fallout 3 finally sees realization it is something that completely lacks every one of the qualities that I feel made the originals so great, and that is why I hate Fallout 3. It's like hearing that one of my best childhood friends got captured by Somolian pirates and sold into prostitution somewhere around Asia, where he takes huge dicks in his ass daily from people who don't care what they have sex with as long as it's human and they get off in the end.

 

[gongos]

I'm sorry, but I haven't even mentioned sales. I'm talking about professional reviews, and not just a couple of them (which you could argue they are paid, but really not all of them, at this point is silly to say that).

And Diablo is an excellent game, and I'm not talking about sales. I'm talking about how powerful the game was, specially back at the days. This is of course Diablo 1, Diablo 2 was far hyped. Again, this other subject could use another topic. Gladly to discuss about it..

Which doesnt mean anything to me personaly as I played the game, and dissliked it as a bad RPG not "just" as a bad Fallout game. If all of the "professional" game reviewers would give Fallout 3 excelent critics it still doesnt mean anything for me.

Also are we talking about the same professionals that dont see it as necessary to mention the bugs and issues in F3 which have been already present since Oblivion. Or the same professionals which complained about Oblivion the moment Fallout 3 was out calling it the perfect game while they called Oblivion the perfect game when it was released a few years in the past ? ... Or those professinals which hand out awards for the writting in Fallout 3 ? I mean fighting for the good fight with your voice yeah. Or companions you saved (Fawkes anyone?) refuse to do the job for you even though they are imune to radiation as they dont want to steal your "fate" or something. Searching for a midle aged guy by the way ?

You know. If people think Fallout 3 is a great game so be it. But for me it simply isnt. I can explain my points but I dont expect anyone to understand or accept them. But dont tell me "fallout 3 is great cause the professionals say it's great".

As I said, I never took into consideration ONE review, but a good pack of them (hence GameRankings and Metacritics).

If the vast majority consider the game outstanding, and considering it's success, maybe, just maybe, could you consider that Fallout 3 is, at least, NOT crap.

Many people here hate the game for what it's not, but can't appreciate for what it is.

The main story in F3 is just terribly wrong, true, but there are plenty of side quests and events around that has descent story by itself. The main missions are just a small part of the entire game.

But it isn't only the story, but how it delivers it, much MUCH more vividly than classic Fallouts. Take one example: the beginning. Fallout 3 first steps are millon times better than getting thrown into a cave with rats without a single explanation of... anything.

In Fallout, you role play, but it doesn't get you into the character. In a regular shooter, you may get into the character, but you don't really have decition over them. Fallout 3 combines both on great levels.

 

[Innawerkz]

I have 2 ideas about it, first they either simply could not do it better or second, which would be far worse they simply didnt cared about it to do it better as how the game has shown in the end you can sell it AND(!) win masses of awards with as lidle effort in writing and NPCs as possible.

Superior marketing trumps superior quality, talent - or even common sense - everytime.

Exhibit A: McDonalds. By far not the best hamburger on the market, however easily the most consumed 'meat' sandwich in North America.

Exhibit B: Justin Bieber. A low-rent, pretty boy 'singer' that heavily outsells infinitely more talented & creative producers. I.E. Beck.

Exhibit C: Coca-Cola. The most popular beverage in the United States. A high-sugar product that affects obesity, diabetes, tooth decay and many other diseases. People line-up to pay for this product despite the widespread availabilty of a significantly cheaper & healthier alternative: water.

Add Fallout 3 to this list.

 

[Thomas de Aynesworth]

Many people here hate the game for what it's not, but can't appreciate for what it is.

I think you have it backwards.

The main story in F3 is just terribly wrong, true, but there are plenty of side quests and events around that has descent story by itself. The main missions are just a small part of the entire game.

The side quests are too few and mediocre. Many of them simply do not make sense. I won't reiterate the arguments here. This forum has a handy search function to show you as to why most of the side quests are just not that good.

But it isn't only the story, but how it delivers it, much MUCH more vividly than classic Fallouts. Take one example: the beginning. Fallout 3 first steps are millon times better than getting thrown into a cave with rats without a single explanation of... anything.

I don't think so. In Fallout 3 you could exit the poorly designed vault and enter the poorly designed wasteland, find some poorly designed super mutants with half-decently designed, albeit retconned miniguns, and shoot them to death with the 10mm pistol. Try doing that in Fallout 1, if you've even played it.

Much more realistic, and despite the graphical antiquation of Fallout 1 and 2, the game is much more "immerse". I still play Fallout 1 and 2 and will most likely be doing so when I'm 40. I haven't touched Fallout 3 since NV was launched as NV made Fallout 3 completely obsolete. Something Fallout 3 was not capable of doing to her predecessors.

In Fallout, you role play, but it doesn't get you into the character. In a regular shooter, you may get into the character, but you don't really have decition over them. Fallout 3 combines both on great levels.

Are you kidding? Fallout 1 and 2 lets you make specialists, whereas a late level Fallout 3 character is practically on God Mode. Shooters don't get you into the character any more than Fallout 1 and 2, maybe it's just your aversion to reading that you can't get into your classic Fallout characters?

 

[Nalano]

Why Bethesda thought they could make an RPG - even an action RPG - without half-decent writing is beyond me. Why people bought it in droves is even worse.

Definitely a good point that the old games were created in a different kind of atmosphere. I guess it's like anything else when the bottom line is concerned - think of all of the great books and comic books that were written by talented people for a small audience, then bastardized by big screen adaptations which in spite of having more resources end up being shadows of the original material. They difference is in whether or not the work is done more for the satisfaction or profit of the creator. And when it comes to big movies and video games there are a hundred different people in the corporate chain of command who can justify any kind of pandering or concession if it means they have the "lowest common denominator" factor that will be at least somewhat acceptable to a large amount of people and tastes - instead of exceptional if somewhat controversial.

Which brings us to the last statement you made. In this good ol' world of ours, the shit rises to the top. In cases like this it is a slap in the face to see that the game that made me say "wow, video games can be so much more" was in no matter of thinking any where near as successful or widely accepted as what is basically its pandering, mediocre Mel Bay spin off. The markets love to be wowed with overwhelming 'coolness' and they will always prefer a superficial but glitzy experience to one that challenges them in any way, even when presented with what is an obviously superior product.

And I know it's a superior product not based upon my own subjective reasoning, but rather because I'm applying critical thinking - end of story.

Therein, I believe, lies the problem.

Said problem I can best explain thus:

Amount of money the average consumer would pay for the greatest movie ever to grace the silver screen in the entire history, past, present of future, of cinema:

$10

Amount of money the average consumer would pay for various explosions, half a dozen one-liners, and Angelina Jolie's tits, for want of anything better:

$10

Or, to put it another way, commercial viability and artistic creativity are not the least bit related.

 

[gongos]

The side quests are too few and mediocre. Many of them simply do not make sense. I won't reiterate the arguments here. This forum has a handy search function to show you as to why most of the side quests are just not that good.

Let me guess, Fallout 1 side quests are better? Please... don't make me laugh. And Fallout 1 is actually short. It just takes longer than it should due to the (VERY) slow combat system.

I don't think so. In Fallout 3 you could exit the poorly designed vault and enter the poorly designed wasteland

Are you seriously saying Vaults and the wasteland in F3 are "poorly designed"? I mean, what is the wasteland in F1? An overviewed map where you move around having "random encounters". And are you calling
THIS a better designed vault?
If there is something where Fallout 3 CRUSHES the classics is in the atmosphere, and how well the retro-futuristic world is presented.

find some poorly designed super mutants with half-decently designed, albeit retconned miniguns, and shoot them to death with the 10mm pistol. Try doing that in Fallout 1, if you've even played it.

They are not poorly designed. You just hate them because they are not EXACTLY like classic Fallout. Once again, you hate the game for not being like classic fallout, but you never stop thinking maybe this mutant looks just as good now, or pehaps even better.
And please, Fallout 1 is just as easy once you get the hang of it, and the combat system can easily be abused.

Much more realistic, and despite the graphical antiquation of Fallout 1 and 2, the game is much more "immerse". I still play Fallout 1 and 2 and will most likely be doing so when I'm 40. I haven't touched Fallout 3 since NV was launched as NV made Fallout 3 completely obsolete. Something Fallout 3 was not capable of doing to her predecessors.

More immerse? ha, how is it that a slow, over-the-top, bad graphics (even by 1997, damn), little voice acting, and completly obsolete combat, is more immersive than a fully 3D world, fully explorable (for real, not as in Fallout 1), with full voice acting on every dialogue, and more intense vividly action?

Are you kidding? Fallout 1 and 2 lets you make specialists, whereas a late level Fallout 3 character is practically on God Mode. Shooters don't get you into the character any more than Fallout 1 and 2, maybe it's just your aversion to reading that you can't get into your classic Fallout characters?

It's simple, how is it easier to pretend being a vault dweller?:
a - By looking from above, and giving orders and having to fight by turns.
b - By seeing what the Vault Dweller actually sees, hearing what he/she hears and fighthing in real time, with stats effecting on a second plane.
There is a reason why gaming is aiming towards involving more and more the player into the situation.


======

Therein, I believe, lies the problem.

Said problem I can best explain thus:

Amount of money the average consumer would pay for the greatest movie ever to grace the silver screen in the entire history, past, present of future, of cinema:

$10

Amount of money the average consumer would pay for various explosions, half a dozen one-liners, and Angelina Jolie's tits, for want of anything better:

$10

Or, to put it another way, commercial viability and artistic creativity are not the least bit related.

The issue with your analogy is, that critics would never consider the "various explosions, half a dozen one-liners, etc..." a great movie. Something to pass the time at best.

Whereas Fallout 3 has been received even better than Fallout 1. Not just commercially, but also CRITICALLY.
And thats where your analogy with Fallout 1 being a "Godfather" and Fallout 3 being an "Agent Salt" falls apart.

 

[generalissimofurioso]

After all, it's a lot easier to WOW the player than actually come with something that challenges them, am I right?

The problem with claims of immersion is that nothing is truly immersive, after all nobody finds the same things entertaining or immersive.

First person viewpoints are especially not a selling point for me personally because regardless of what's going on, I miss things like peripheral vision or looking down and seeing my feet. Though, my personal favorite is how every fucking first person game has everyone running around with their weapons held in a particularly asinine and tiresome manner, arm held forward gun raised, at all times NO EXCEPTION.

No game can immerse with it's mechanics alone, that's why it's a game, we are aware of the rules and therefore cannot treat it like something that is physically happening. The only reason first person is so popular is because it offers the illusion of immersion and offers many of those wow factors that people love despite no first person game really advancing the mechanics or doing anything new in a looooooong time.