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

[Crni Vuk]

I enjoyed the writing in Dragons Age to a large extent (with emphasis on the in-camp companion dialogs) but I guarantee that my opinion would have been much higher if the dialog was solely txt based (it would probably have been deeper as well)..

I dont think with the kind of visuals we reached now this would work novadays anymore. Already back, with either Fallout or Baldurs Gate for example you had voiced dialogues. They have been rare, uniquie I would want to say and usualy reserved to special situations. Everyone will for sure remember Gizmo, Seth (ghoul), Lynette or the Elder.

Point is with a game that needs much imagination like Baldurs Gate it is no problem afterall if a huge number of the NPCs have no voice because much is left to your imagination. A evil wizard, grabby merchant or noble paladin, all this has been part of your imagination, their faces, attitude and appearance have been not shown by the game as most if not all NPCs have been rather generic in their look beeing represented by a 2D sprite and texture. A raider in leather armor looked always the same regardless which one you are talking with same with a Brotherhood knight in Powerarmor as they shared the same models/sprites.

With games like Fallout 3, Dragonage or anything similar this would not work the same way anymore. They HAVE To achieve a form of personailty and individuality with almost any NPC beeing it the simple merchant or some randoom farmer even if its not good because but it simply has not the same feeling anymore with just text like it did 15 years ago.

compare it with a Silent Movie, would that work today with our technology like it did 80 years ago ? Without the artisticaly distincitve black-white visuals and known text images ? Would that have the same kind of feeling and reaction ? All with colour today ? Definetly not. Of course Silent Movies dont have a big market today, probably no one at all ~ not when thinking about the expensive entertaiment industry with block buster movies its more a style left to the expressionist or something. It would be like thinking to make a new citizen kane or casablanca with new HD colours pushing it to a new visual age would have the same feeling like the original

And to say the truth, I love those old games but I dont want to miss the new features some games have today. I just dont see them as that expensive. Maybe publishers like EA or Rockstar games should consider to spend just a "bit" more development then the marketing which is realy using most of the money they need for making games. At least in direct comparision. Like TV spots for CoD4. Here in Germany even. Now talking about expensive marketing ...

 

[Stanislao Moulinsky]

I dont think with the kind of visuals we reached now this would work novadays anymore. Already back, with either Fallout or Baldurs Gate for example you had voiced dialogues. They have been rare, uniquie I would want to say and usualy reserved to special situations. Everyone will for sure remember Gizmo, Seth (ghoul), Lynette or the Elder.

You never played Yakuza, haven't you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wL6kzPYJ0Ho#t=3m40s

 

[Nalano]

I still say the problem is simple and singular:

There is no monetary benefit for putting in the extra work for plot and dialogue.

As for the rest, I dare say even gameplay takes a backseat to stuff you can basically show on a 30-second ad spot: If CoDBlOps or MoH are any indication, people don't even want challenging or innovative gameplay - they want flashy graphics and gameplay that simulates challenge by throwing a lot at you visually.

Even if that means putting you on rails.

Or to put it another way, despite the fact that these things are still called "games," they are specially-made such that there is little to no work involved in actually winning - in fact, you'd have to put in a lot of work not to win, such that for the most part the game plays itself, and you're just an annoying sidekick that the programmers have to prod to continue every once in a while. (Herro, MGS4)

In a lot of ways, this means to me that the gaming industry has succeeded in making video and PC games a lot like movies, and have in doing so thrown the gaming industry in the same rut the movie industry's found itself in for 20 years: There is nothing new under the sun except the dead-horse beating of graphics and the same old A-listers of yesteryear trotted out for yet another hurrah.

Hell, we even have the same mental blocks: "Who will do the next Fallout," ask fans with their own opinions on Obsidian, Bethesda and whatnot. Screw that. Let's bury Fallout. Let Fallout take itself out like Hunter S Thompson before it gets old and zombified. Let's start something new.

Remember new? Like, stuff that doesn't have a number appended to it or stuff that isn't so formulaic that it's practically programming-by-numbers?

Yeah, I don't either.

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

It would have been nice if some of Tim Cain's other ideas for SPECIAL would have been followed up like that time travel RPG.

Perhaps taking inspiration from Meantime and an old Atari ST game called Time Bandit.

I would still love a few more good Fallout games but here is something that could have been made.

Skills, weapons and so on being different in every time period the player visits.
Recruiting historical characters like Werner von Braun and Amelia Earhart

 

[Arden]

True Words

Sadly you speak in a language that hardly anyone understands. Whats new in a culture where innovation means sticking something in a shitty FPS-Engine and be done with it? And immersion means that you stand in boulder city and look at new vegas and you can get there in a five minutes stroll? When "challenge" and "fun" are regarded as mutually exclusive? Why bother, if you can make money or have fun being lazy? happened to Music, Movies, TV, Food and Politics. I wonder when the casual, phlegmatic approach will reach sports and how this is gonna be solved.

The only bright side is that eventually even war will be too much of a bother and the potential to loose will deter people from taking part in it.

/rant mode off

 

[Nalano]

True Words

Sadly you speak in a language that hardly anyone understands. Whats new in a culture where innovation means sticking something in a shitty FPS-Engine and be done with it? And immersion means that you stand in boulder city and look at new vegas and you can get there in a five minutes stroll? When "challenge" and "fun" are regarded as mutually exclusive? Why bother, if you can make money or have fun being lazy? happened to Music, Movies, TV, Food and Politics. I wonder when the casual, phlegmatic approach will reach sports and how this is gonna be solved.

The only bright side is that eventually even war will be too much of a bother and the potential to loose will deter people from taking part in it.

/rant mode off

It's already been solved for sports: We invented spectator sports.

Football players are surprisingly nimble creatures who somehow run like they don't each weigh nearing three hundred pounds. They're masters of their craft, and their craft requires going from nothing to full sprint in a quarter second, while taking down a man-mountain three feet in front of you, sixty or seventy times a game.

Football FANS are fat blobs who can't be bothered to go from the couch to the fridge to refill their Amer-- err, Belgian piss-water enough times not to resemble said fridges in size, stature and musculature.

 

[Ultraviolet]

And play this one instead? I haven't played Falluot 3, but if this is gonna feel like a better sequel to Fallout 2 I might save the money to buy New Vegas.

Wow, I've read through some of the recs and I am way in the minority. I probably don't belong here.

Fallout 3 wasn't Game of the Year for nothing. I personally love it. Sure it has it's faults, just like Fallout: New Vegas has it's faults.

It really boils down to what you like. Do you like a storyline with lots of options or do you like a pretty straight forward storyline and like to do a lot of exploring.

I'm just saying, I wouldn't totally write off Fallout 3. For one thing, the music is waaaaaaay better.

 

[Little Robot]

I'm just saying, I wouldn't totally write off Fallout 3. For one thing, the music is waaaaaaay better.

I really hope that that emoticon signifies that you're joking.

 

[Ultraviolet]

I'm just saying, I wouldn't totally write off Fallout 3. For one thing, the music is waaaaaaay better.

I really hope that that emoticon signifies that you're joking.

No, it doesn't mean that I'm joking. I'm perfectly serious. there are a lot of great things about FONV, but I like the music from Fallout 3 better.

 

[Little Robot]

Wow, really? I have always felt that most of the music from FO3 is basically rehashed Oblivion music. If you listen to the FO1 and 2 music it's a lot more expressive, less generic, and more listenable.

But that's just my opinion, I guess.

 

[Ultraviolet]

Wow, really? I have always felt that most of the music from FO3 is basically rehashed Oblivion music. If you listen to the FO1 and 2 music it's a lot more expressive, less generic, and more listenable.

But that's just my opinion, I guess.

I've never played Oblivion, or Fallout 1 and 2. I guess I enjoy Fallout 3 so much because my view is not colored by having played those games. I'm actually glad about that.

People say FO3 doesn't take off where Fallout 1 and 2 left off and it's so different and then when something in FO3 is like those games they are accused of copying or not being original. I just don't get all the animosity I guess. *shrug*

Like I said I probably don't belong here.

EDIT: I just had a thought. Are we talking background music or the in game radio stations? I'm talking about the in game radio stations.

 

[Nalano]

Fallout 3 wasn't Game of the Year for nothing.

Only serving to prove just how far the standard has fallen.

 

[Little Robot]

Perhaps I don't understand how this works--

but as far as I've always understood it, Game of the Year is not a single game. There are at least 25 publications that give out Game of the Year awards, and there can therefore be up to 25 different GoTYs. Saying that Fallout 3 was the Game of the Year only means that it was among the top 25 games of the year. I'm actually willing to give it that title. Even though the writing and voice acting was crappy and it was an awful Fallout game, I played it. And I enjoyed the exploration and "phat lewt" of the jam-packed wasteland even if it didn't make much sense. So I'd say that giving it the "Top 25" award makes sense.

 

[Anarchosyn]

It really boils down to what you like. Do you like a storyline with lots of options or do you like a pretty straight forward storyline and like to do a lot of exploring.

Fallout isn't supposed to have a straight forward story line. That, you know, what made this series unique -- it was a trademark which helped define it (structurally speaking) against the deluge of titles, both before and since, which trudged mindlessly down a linear progression.

Don't get me wrong, Fallout 3 had its moments -- I couldn't have spent 80~ hours in the world without some sense of enjoyment. Those weren't "fallout" moments though.

I've never played Oblivion, or Fallout 1 and 2. I guess I enjoy Fallout 3 so much because my view is not colored by having played those games. I'm actually glad about that.

People say FO3 doesn't take off where Fallout 1 and 2 left off and it's so different and then when something in FO3 is like those games they are accused of copying or not being original. I just don't get all the animosity I guess. *shrug*

.

The animosity came from the removal of elements which defined the series beyond the superficial bounds of power armor, iconic "monsters" and violence. The game had nuance. 'Course, this has to also be taken in the light that -- even when Fallout was originally released -- few titles were aiming for the range this series exhibited, especially in the categories of dialog depth, player choice and available playable character builds (in the originals different builds really gave different play experiences). So, when Bethesda took one of the only series even trying these things and stripped it of those elements it wasn't any surprise the fans shouted foul.

It was a fun spin-off.. but all the things which defined Fallout were missing (especially the dialog depth).

p.s. Here's some Fallout 2 music http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHp8ukYGuGA

p.p.s. The original Fallouts didn't have radio stations (that I remember anyhow.. I never listened to the handful included in Fallout 3 either, though).

 

[Stanislao Moulinsky]

Sure it has it's faults, just like Fallout: New Vegas has it's faults.

Er...excuse me, but what kind of argument is that? Of course every game has flaws but that doesn't mean that every game has the same number of faults or problems of the same gravity.

 

[Ultraviolet]

Sure it has it's faults, just like Fallout: New Vegas has it's faults.

Er...excuse me, but what kind of argument is that? Of course every game has flaws but that doesn't mean that every game has the same number of faults or problems of the same gravity.

Not an argument ,just a statement of opinion. AS to your second sentence I have no idea how to respond to that.

 

[Ultraviolet]

It really boils down to what you like. Do you like a storyline with lots of options or do you like a pretty straight forward storyline and like to do a lot of exploring.

Fallout isn't supposed to have a straight forward story line. That, you know, what made this series unique -- it was a trademark which helped define it (structurally speaking) against the deluge of titles, both before and since, which trudged mindlessly down a linear progression.

Don't get me wrong, Fallout 3 had its moments -- I couldn't have spent 80~ hours in the world without some sense of enjoyment. Those weren't "fallout" moments though.

I've never played Oblivion, or Fallout 1 and 2. I guess I enjoy Fallout 3 so much because my view is not colored by having played those games. I'm actually glad about that.

People say FO3 doesn't take off where Fallout 1 and 2 left off and it's so different and then when something in FO3 is like those games they are accused of copying or not being original. I just don't get all the animosity I guess. *shrug*

.

The animosity came from the removal of elements which defined the series beyond the superficial bounds of power armor, iconic "monsters" and violence. The game had nuance. 'Course, this has to also be taken in the light that -- even when Fallout was originally released -- few titles were aiming for the range this series exhibited, especially in the categories of dialog depth, player choice and available playable character builds (in the originals different builds really gave different play experiences). So, when Bethesda took one of the only series even trying these things and stripped it of those elements it wasn't any surprise the fans shouted foul.

It was a fun spin-off.. but all the things which defined Fallout were missing (especially the dialog depth).

p.s. Here's some Fallout 2 music http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHp8ukYGuGA

p.p.s. The original Fallouts didn't have radio stations (that I remember anyhow.. I never listened to the handful included in Fallout 3 either, though).

See this is the thing. I don't care what Fallout is supposed to have. This feeling probably comes from the fact that I never played Fallout 1/2. So I was perfectly happy and enamored with Fallout 3. I do wish they'd added more voice actors and I wish there had been more dialog options and story options, but I still love it.

Thanks for the link to the Fallout 2 music. Will definitely have to give that a listen. I listen to "Seriously Sinatra" on XM. This morning they played a different cover of "Easy Living" I hadn't heard before. Love that station.

I guess I was expecting more from the Mr. Vegas radio station. But I can understand that they probably couldn't get the rights to a lot of songs that would have fit well into New Vegas. "Luck Be a Lady Tonight" would have been perfect.

One of these days I will go back and play Fallout 1/2 and it will probably change my mind about everything. Or not.

 

[Stanislao Moulinsky]

Not an argument ,just a statement of opinion. AS to your second sentence I have no idea how to respond to that.

I thought you were directly comparing the two games. And I read too many times people trying to defend the flaws of Game A by saying that Game B has flaws too.

 

[Tworken]

Wow, I've read through some of the recs and I am way in the minority. I probably don't belong here.

Yes I know how you feel. However, it's nice to see some Fallout 3 fans sticking to their guns in this thread. I thought it was fantastic myself.

 

[vanzizzle]

I thought Fallout 3 was great. Although, I didn't play F1 and 2 until after.

Admittedly, I probably would have hated Fallout 3 if I played the latter first.

Fallout 3. Good game. Shouldn't be dismissed just because it didn't stand up to the expectations of people that played FO1 and 2.