Fallout 2 & 3 side by side comparison

Skadoosh said:
4: Farms.

It's a wasteland? The kid's in lamplight scraped some edible fungus off the cave walls and used that for trade. If that's what you're looking for.
Sure, it is a wasteland. A wasteland that has had people living on it for 200 years. Scavenging food would have been more efficient when the bombs had just fallen, but that food would quickly run out, so farms should have been developed to sustain the population that survives. But in 200 years, only one or two farms have popped up in the entire capital wasteland. It's just not realistic.

The kids in Lamplight shouldn't even exist. How do they sustain their population? All the kids in Lamplight are the same age, or appear to be, except for that one guy who is kicked out when you arrive. And it makes sense for them to be the same age, since all the original lamplighters were from a class on a school trip. I assume that the kids push out more Lamplighters at the youngest possible age, which is around 12, right? I also assume they would start having sex at around the same time, given the pack mentality of children. That makes all the new kids 4 when their parents leave.

Not to mention the fact that kids generally learn by making mistakes. They don't do as they're told. In fact, kids often do exactly the opposite of what they're told. The wasteland isn't very forgiving. They make mistakes, they should be dead. Not to mention the fact that they're sat right on top of a super mutant infestation. Also, how do they get enough vitamins and minerals? The fungus can't provide everything they need. Lamplight would also make a lot more sense if the game was set a lot earlier. At the moment it just seems like a place to annoy the majority of players, because it's full of snot-nose little kids that you can't kill.

It's funny how a lot of the things people complain about in Fallout 3 would be a non-issue if the game was only set earlier. Even funnier is that I read on the Nexus that Bethesda had actually planned to set it earlier, but they wanted Harold in the game, so they pushed the year forward a century or so.
 
The Dutch Ghost said:
They wanted Harold so that they could ruin the character?

Nice going Bethesda.

Can you imagine?

The whole problem with the game is just because they wanted to turn one character into a tree...


Probably, it's a possibility, that FO4 will have something to do with Harold being a tree. Maybe thanks to him the wasteland will become a fairy tales' forest, with lots of life! Humans and glowing ghouls will create offsprings that will turn out to be elves! Super mutants and humans will get together and create other races, like Orcs!




And that will be the begining of the The Elder of Scrolls world...


The End
:mrgreen:
 
Public said:
Probably, it's a possibility, that FO4 will have something to do with Harold being a tree. Maybe thanks to him the wasteland will become a fairy tales' forest, with lots of life! Humans and glowing ghouls will create offsprings that will turn out to be elves! Super mutants and humans will get together and create other races, like Orcs!

And that will be the begining of the The Elder of Scrolls world...

The End
:mrgreen:
I really hope that everyone from Bethesda has long since been scared away from here, and no one will read that. Let's face it, that plot is almost as good as the current Fallout 3 one, and I really don't want them getting ideas.
 
Meat Axe said:
I really hope that everyone from Bethesda has long since been scared away from here, and no one will read that. Let's face it, that plot is almost as good as the current Fallout 3 one, and I really don't want them getting ideas.

So do you think the real plot for FO4 will be any better than that?

Speaking of FO2 vs FO3, I've recently discovered what FO3 has that FO2 doesn't. I'm talking about those cuties in sexy underwear. So it's not like just a mix of RPG/action/exploration... Bethesda provided players with a good way to enjoy sexy pixels, Sims-style, too.
 
pipboy-x11 said:
So do you think the real plot for FO4 will be any better than that?
Well, no. I think Fallout 4 will have rubbish writing like Fallout 3. But I'm a cynical guy, and I realise that I always think the worst of people until they prove otherwise. Logically, Bethesda should have realised from the practically universal agreement that their writing team sucks, and maybe now that they have so much money from Fallout 3 sales, they'll hire some decent writers. Unfortunately, due to Fallout 3's success, Fallout 4 will more than likely be more of the same.
 
Meat Axe said:
pipboy-x11 said:
So do you think the real plot for FO4 will be any better than that?
Well, no. I think Fallout 4 will have rubbish writing like Fallout 3. But I'm a cynical guy, and I realise that I always think the worst of people until they prove otherwise. Logically, Bethesda should have realised from the practically universal agreement that their writing team sucks, and maybe now that they have so much money from Fallout 3 sales, they'll hire some decent writers. Unfortunately, due to Fallout 3's success, Fallout 4 will more than likely be more of the same.

They got lots of money from Oblivion, and the writing improved only a little bit.
 
TheMutantMe wrote:
Well the difference is, in the first 2 Fallouts, the violence is more to add to the gritty atmosphere. While in Fallout 3 it's used as a gimmick, the whole "violence is fucking funny" thing.

I simply can't agree with this. The bloody mess perk in both fallouts is depicted by a pipboy with a peasized gun blowing another person apart. And the punching holes through people thing, I have only ever seen in Kung Pow a parody of martial arts flicks. If the original two fallouts weren't trying to say "violence is fucking funny" well, it went over my head then.

TheMutantMe wrote:
A barter economy is still an economy and is exactly what is missing from FO3, no one produces anything to barter, and no one has any system to get the needed goods to survive. This is dubious even 20 years after the war, let alone 200. We not talking about people risking their lives to make money, just to get the what they need to keep their community going.

The major means of production in the entire fallout series is mainly scavenging. The only people who actually produce anything is the brotherhood of steel and the enclave. I don't care what game you're talking about. Any inventory item you pick up has been scavenged from pre-war tech. No one has any system to get the needed goods to survive? Simple hunting and gathering sustained the human race for more than 200 years. I don't understand what's so dubious about that.

TheMutantMe wrote:
If it's so blasted that nothing edible can grow, then humanity wouldn't still be around after 200 years. And the fungus is an example of farming of soughts, but it's the only example of any kind of industry in the game.

Something that's been overlooked is that the majority of edible items are in fact meat. Jerky, Iguana on a Stick, Brahmin Fries, Wasteland Omelet, with a very large consumption of rats. Obviously things can grow. But to complain about a lack of farms when there is, also obviously, not very fertile soilor stable growth left seems a bit outrageous.

TheMutantMe wrote:
They were part of the main plot of fallout 1, and part of a fairly major side quest in 2.

Having a part does not make ghouls important. If you're referring to necropolis in Fallout 1, you don't even have to talk to the ghouls to complete the quest, and in fact if you take too long the mutants simply wipe them out before you get there. As for Gecko, the place would have fallen apart without Harold [spoiler:3d58e7e3ad]and in the ending sequence Vault City simply enslaves them all anyway.[/spoiler:3d58e7e3ad]

To the people complaining about very small settlements. Remember the scope of the game. It all takes place in one city wheras the previous fallouts took place in an entire region. If gigantic cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles can be confined to three maps, little Big Town can have 6 residents. I find the lack of residents a good thing. Having 12 hookers on a corner screaming my stage name and nothing else would probably slow the 360 down and hurt the gameplay more than having static characters you can't interact with scream obscenities.
 
To quote the very intelligent and amusing Fallout 3 taunts:

''Ooh I love it when they fight back!''

Skadoosh said:
I simply can't agree with this. The bloody mess perk in both fallouts is depicted by a pipboy with a peasized gun blowing another person apart. And the punching holes through people thing, I have only ever seen in Kung Pow a parody of martial arts flicks. If the original two fallouts weren't trying to say "violence is fucking funny" well, it went over my head then.

Given, violence was funny in Fallout. But it was funny in a gory and almost realistic way. People do get turned into swiss cheese if you machine gun them, some may even burn in a slightly amusing way (anybody ever play blood? When you set the monks on fire with a flaregun? lol). But exploding heads every single time you headshot them is funny in a cartoon-ish way. There is no middle ground like the original fallouts. Its cartoon and full stop.

Skadoosh said:
The major means of production in the entire fallout series is mainly scavenging. The only people who actually produce anything is the brotherhood of steel and the enclave. I don't care what game you're talking about. Any inventory item you pick up has been scavenged from pre-war tech. No one has any system to get the needed goods to survive? Simple hunting and gathering sustained the human race for more than 200 years. I don't understand what's so dubious about that.

Im sorry, but you are wrong there. Did you even PLAY the original games? There was water collection and distribution, there was farming, there was bullet production, there was medical technology BEING PRODUCED and distributed, there was leather production, there was food trade, etc etc etc.

In Fallout 3 the ONLY means of production is scavenging, and that is exactly what is wrong with the game. Simple hunting and gathering? Well, over hunting leads to extinction, just in case you did't know, and that has happened numerous times before in real life. Also, give me one potable source of water in Fallout 3. Just one. Without water human's don't survive, and neither do the animals they hunt. Fallout 3 just doesn't make any sense.

Skadoosh said:
Something that's been overlooked is that the majority of edible items are in fact meat. Jerky, Iguana on a Stick, Brahmin Fries, Wasteland Omelet, with a very large consumption of rats. Obviously things can grow. But to complain about a lack of farms when there is, also obviously, not very fertile soilor stable growth left seems a bit outrageous.

No, they are a minority. I could post a list here of samplings from places and peoples shelves in Fallout 3 and you would see the majority is actually pre-war food that is somehow still edible and available, despite, as we have already discussed, the only source of production and survival in Fallout 3 being scavenging, this 200 years after the war, which in itself is illogical.

Skadoosh said:
Having a part does not make ghouls important. If you're referring to necropolis in Fallout 1, you don't even have to talk to the ghouls to complete the quest, and in fact if you take too long the mutants simply wipe them out before you get there. As for Gecko, the place would have fallen apart without Harold
and in the ending sequence Vault City simply enslaves them all anyway.
There are more solutions available to that particular quest. The fact is Ghouls have steadily been a rising faction/group in the Fallout universe, not to mention they bring the whole 'racism' issue to the forefront of Fallout, which fits the whole 50's thing well if you ask me.

Skadoosh said:
To the people complaining about very small settlements. Remember the scope of the game. It all takes place in one city wheras the previous fallouts took place in an entire region. If gigantic cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles can be confined to three maps, little Big Town can have 6 residents. I find the lack of residents a good thing. Having 12 hookers on a corner screaming my stage name and nothing else would probably slow the 360 down and hurt the gameplay more than having static characters you can't interact with scream obscenities.

The idea of the original games is that while you were confined to 2-3 maps, there was still more to the city than you could see/visit. Fallout 3, which its vastly superior graphics, actually lets you see the whole town. I would have imagined they would have took that into account and make the cities large. This is, after all, 200 years after the war and not only 10 or 20.

Also, how do these cities, with their 5-6 inhabitants, defend themselves against the better armed and more numerous raiders, mercenaries and mutants that roam the wasteland? Little Lamplight is a joke. A 'city' of 10 children with pistols, rifles and a flimsy gate can hold back the hordes of mutants (which are located a walk's away) that the Brotherhood of Steel in their 'good fight', with lasers, power armour and whatnot, take a beating to do?

Does not compute.
 
Skadoosh said:
I simply can't agree with this. The bloody mess perk in both fallouts is depicted by a pipboy with a peasized gun blowing another person apart. And the punching holes through people thing, I have only ever seen in Kung Pow a parody of martial arts flicks. If the original two fallouts weren't trying to say "violence is fucking funny" well, it went over my head then.

Alright, you have a point that there was a fair bit of humour to the violence in the first two as well. I guess the problem is more that Fallout 3's violence is mostly just cartoony, verses 1 and 2s ironic contrast of bloody violence to the whole upbeat 50s vibe.

Though I don't feel the violence is to bad in fallout 3, and I certainly wouldn't complain if it was the games only problem, it was more just that it got repetitive, and the slow-mo made it feel like the violence was supposed to be funny in itself, rather then in the context of the world.

Skadoosh said:
The major means of production in the entire fallout series is mainly scavenging. The only people who actually produce anything is the brotherhood of steel and the enclave. I don't care what game you're talking about. Any inventory item you pick up has been scavenged from pre-war tech.

As was said above me, that is pretty much totally false, farming and basic industry were the main means of production in the first two, even in the smallest towns this was true, not speaking of places like Vault city and NCR, I can't believe you've played the first two if you think those two got by on scavenging. And I remember pre-war tech being very rare in the first two, at least early on.

Skadoosh said:
No one has any system to get the needed goods to survive? Simple hunting and gathering sustained the human race for more than 200 years. I don't understand what's so dubious about that.

Which would sense if everyone was living in hunter gather tribes. But they aren't, everyone in Fallout 3 is living in fairly modern societies. Someone has to be producing clothing, building materials, tools, firearms, ammunition, electricity and everything else needed maintain anything more then primitive existence. Not
As was said above me, that is pretty much false, not by along shot were the brotherhood and enclave the only ones producing anything.

Skadoosh said:
Something that's been overlooked is that the majority of edible items are in fact meat. Jerky, Iguana on a Stick, Brahmin Fries, Wasteland Omelet, with a very large consumption of rats. Obviously things can grow. But to complain about a lack of farms when there is, also obviously, not very fertile soilor stable growth left seems a bit outrageous.

It's to much for my suspension of disbelieve to think these people get by on hunted food. There just aren't enough hunters, everyone is a retailer or a mercenary or a mechanic. Who does the actual hunting, I can't believe society is supplied entirely by a few hunters who never show up in the game while everyone else just leeches of them and contributes no actual resources of their own of their own. A society supported only by hunting isn't going to be able to maintain a capitalist society, which all the ones in game are.

Skadoosh said:
Having a part does not make ghouls important. If you're referring to necropolis in Fallout 1, you don't even have to talk to the ghouls to complete the quest, and in fact if you take too long the mutants simply wipe them out before you get there. As for Gecko, the place would have fallen apart without Harold [spoiler:95dedc8108]and in the ending sequence Vault City simply enslaves them all anyway.[/spoiler:95dedc8108]

You don't have to talk to anyone to finish the quest. But this seems like a pointless discussion, as I don't think we're going to have the same definition of 'important'. In the end, they weren't a major plot element like the super mutants, but they weren't an very obscure part either.

Skadoosh said:
To the people complaining about very small settlements. Remember the scope of the game. It all takes place in one city wheras the previous fallouts took place in an entire region. If gigantic cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles can be confined to three maps, little Big Town can have 6 residents. I find the lack of residents a good thing. Having 12 hookers on a corner screaming my stage name and nothing else would probably slow the 360 down and hurt the gameplay more than having static characters you can't interact with scream obscenities.

I tried to think like this playing the game, and it worked sometimes, but usually didn't. A lot of the towns actually have the problem that when you ask a towns person about the town they'll tell you about every single person, all 4 of them. I imagine it's tricky to make a slice of a town so it feels like something bigger, but Fallout 3 often doesn't seem to try, with a few exceptions (Rivet City, Little lamplight, paradise falls, to a lesser extent the Republic of Dave and post head of State Lincoln Memorial.
 
TheMutantMe said:
Who does the actual hunting, I can't believe society is supplied entirely by a few hunters who never show up in the game while everyone else just leeches of them and contributes no actual resources of their own of their own.

In all fairness, there were most certainly hunters making the rounds in F3... they even went so far as to differentiate between "good" hunters selling the wares of more conventional wasteland critters and... other... hunters, who could usually be found selling an abundance of "Strange Meat."

(Of course, it's all still utterly ridiculous-- Fallout 3 only makes the barest pretenses at trying to represent The Capital Wasteland as a viable society. As has been detailed here by many, there's far too much happening to far too many people who're facing far too much opposition in far too small an area, and AT BEST we're left to assume that the logistics and necessities for sustaining life and society are all taken care of behind the scenes. The original Fallouts weren't perfect in this regard, but they at least presented a much more plausible veneer.)
 
Chancellor Kremlin wrote:
Im sorry, but you are wrong there. Did you even PLAY the original games? There was water collection and distribution, there was farming, there was bullet production, there was medical technology BEING PRODUCED and distributed, there was leather production, there was food trade, etc etc etc.

Water collection and distribution were in the first fallout not the second, and even in the first I don't believe it was ever really explained where the water was actually collected from. If by bullet production you're referring to the dude in Adytum, I believe he simply recasted the bullets in his explanation. He didn't actually make them. Where was medical technology being produced? I really don't remember that one. If you mean anti-venom to radscorpion stings, that's rather weak. The closest thing to actual industrialization and production outside of the Enclave and BoS was Jet in New Reno. (This actually makes me wonder how the hell jet reached the east coast.)

I hurt my argument when I said pre-war tech. I didn't mean robots and the like. I simply meant things like stimpaks and assault rifles.

TheMutantMe wrote:
It's to much for my suspension of disbelieve to think these people get by on hunted food. There just aren't enough hunters, everyone is a retailer or a mercenary or a mechanic. Who does the actual hunting, I can't believe society is supplied entirely by a few hunters who never show up in the game while everyone else just leeches of them and contributes no actual resources of their own of their own. A society supported only by hunting isn't going to be able to maintain a capitalist society, which all the ones in game are.

Trapper Town, and random encounters with trappers. They exist. I think the major problem with this whole discussion on economics and production is that the fallout world is built around vastly different societies being right next to eachother, as someone previously said. Arroyo is vastly different from Klamath, and Klamath is vastly different from Vault City. Remember the scope of the game. It only covers the DC area, what works for one people would not work for everyone.

You don't have to talk to anyone to finish the quest. But this seems like a pointless discussion, as I don't think we're going to have the same definition of 'important'. In the end, they weren't a major plot element like the super mutants, but they weren't an very obscure part either.

Agreed. To be honest the only games where I felt ghouls were important were the true abominations to the series. Fallout tactics and the console game The Brotherhood of Steel. In tactics you could have almost an entire squad of ghouls, and in the console game, not only was a ghoul playable, they were critical to the story advancement. But... they weren't canon, or all the good. To Chancelor Kremlin on that matter, if racism is the reason why ghouls are important, then I would argue Fallout 3 does a better job of that than the other two games.

TheMutantMe wrote:
I tried to think like this playing the game, and it worked sometimes, but usually didn't. A lot of the towns actually have the problem that when you ask a towns person about the town they'll tell you about every single person, all 4 of them. I imagine it's tricky to make a slice of a town so it feels like something bigger, but Fallout 3 often doesn't seem to try, with a few exceptions (Rivet City, Little lamplight, paradise falls, to a lesser extent the Republic of Dave and post head of State Lincoln Memorial.

I feel like this problem is more cosmetic than anything. While cities "felt" larger because of all the sprites of common town folk there were just about as many interactable NPCs.

Chancellor Kremlin wrote:
Also, how do these cities, with their 5-6 inhabitants, defend themselves against the better armed and more numerous raiders, mercenaries and mutants that roam the wasteland? Little Lamplight is a joke. A 'city' of 10 children with pistols, rifles and a flimsy gate can hold back the hordes of mutants (which are located a walk's away) that the Brotherhood of Steel in their 'good fight', with lasers, power armour and whatnot, take a beating to do?

They don't? These aren't cities, they're more like neighborhoods. How can a "city" be five houses? DC is a city. Just like you probably refer to the citadel as a "city" when it's just one building.

The whole point of little big town is that it's getting ravaged by mutants. And they're constantly enslaved by slavers. Also, the brotherhood of steel in the game (which I don't like) doesn't have lasers and plasma rifles, that's why they envy the enclave in that regard. And the beating they take is more due to the schism in their faction.

Let me state I like the original fallouts better than the third, possibly even one better than two. I just think this is the best direction the game can go unless interplay decides to reform and take control of it. I don't foresee that happening though.
 
why is this the best direction it can go?

the problems aren't a matter of its direction per se, but a matter of the implementation. "making smaller towns, with no visible means of production" isn't a direction, it's a blunder.

The problem is when people start acting as though this was the best that could be done given the new look and setting of the game. There's nothing about the game engine preventing large numbers of NPC's. I've been modding Morrowind for years, and you can render 30 NPC's without breaking a sweat.

Another problem is that the design team treated the world development the only way they know how - like a fantasy world. In fantasy worlds, there is little or no emphasis on making the world 'believable', because by it's nature it is trying to escape the restraints of reality. Myst is a wonderful example.

Fallout is NOT supposed to be fantasy. It's science fiction. And in science fiction, a very important part of the world design is in explaining its own plausibility (elsewise it's science fantasy).

Bethesda wasn't doing anyone but themselves a favor in making the game, and there are many other companies which would have been ten times better suited to make the game than them.
 
Skadoosh said:
Water collection and distribution were in the first fallout not the second, and even in the first I don't believe it was ever really explained where the water was actually collected from.

80 years after the war, most water is pretty much safe for drinking. Anywhoo, you have wells in Shady Sands and Adytum (and since both of these communities come from Vaults, it's not a stretch to say they used a GECK), a water tower and an oasis in the Hub, which is the primary supplier of water and food to other settlements.

Shady Sands has it's own crops and brahmin herds, Hub is surrounded by farms and herds. Adytum also has it's own agriculture and brahmin (as stated by Miles).

If by bullet production you're referring to the dude in Adytum, I believe he simply recasted the bullets in his explanation. He didn't actually make them.

That is production. Miles collected brass casings and manufactured gunpowder, while Smitty casted bullets and refilled the casings. There was enough material available to create a sustainable economy - the primary export good of Adytum was ammunition.

They were abused by the Hub, though, as when the hydroponic farms broke down, Miles lost an important source of chemicals needed to create gunpowder.

Where was medical technology being produced? I really don't remember that one.

The Brotherhood and (probably) Children of Cathedral, plus an unknown number of people who know chemistry and how to refill Stimpaks (as proven by Myron, who can whip up a Stim from Xander Roots and Broc Flowers).

In Fallout 2, the primary manufacturer and exporter of premiere medical technology was Vault City. Chances are, if it's medical, it's from Vault City.

If you mean anti-venom to radscorpion stings, that's rather weak.

That's not the only product.

The closest thing to actual industrialization and production outside of the Enclave and BoS was Jet in New Reno. (This actually makes me wonder how the hell jet reached the east coast.)

Just because it's not seen directly, doesn't mean it's not there. The Hub is the economical and commercial center of Fo1, the heart of the world and a pretty big city in it's own right.

It's not far fetched to assume they have their own factories - after all, the Gun Runners came from the Hub and are expert machinists, specializing in weapons and ammunition.

In Fo2, the bulk of industrial production is off screen, in the New California Republic, where the Hub, Adytum and the Brotherhood are.

I hurt my argument when I said pre-war tech. I didn't mean robots and the like. I simply meant things like stimpaks and assault rifles.

The Hub, Gun Runners, Adytum, Brotherhood, likely Junktown (although lower tech weapons).

In Fo2, pretty much every bigger settlement has gun shops. Bulk of the real industry is located southwards, in the NCR, though.

Trapper Town, and random encounters with trappers. They exist. I think the major problem with this whole discussion on economics and production is that the fallout world is built around vastly different societies being right next to eachother, as someone previously said. Arroyo is vastly different from Klamath, and Klamath is vastly different from Vault City. Remember the scope of the game. It only covers the DC area, what works for one people would not work for everyone.

This is not an explanation.

A world where 200 years have passed and people only managed to create a handful of settlements, without any meaningful ties between each other?

If anything, the smaller distance would foster development and reemergence of civilization, especially in a non-nuked area the DC seemingly is.

Agreed. To be honest the only games where I felt ghouls were important were the true abominations to the series. Fallout tactics and the console game The Brotherhood of Steel. In tactics you could have almost an entire squad of ghouls, and in the console game, not only was a ghoul playable, they were critical to the story advancement. But... they weren't canon, or all the good. To Chancelor Kremlin on that matter, if racism is the reason why ghouls are important, then I would argue Fallout 3 does a better job of that than the other two games.

I thought ghouls played an important role in previous Fallouts, Harold, Necropolis, Gecko.

Vault City/Gecko conflict is much better than Tenpenny/Philips, to be honest, as the latter doesn't really make sense, considering that the ghouls could've moved to the Underworld easily.

I feel like this problem is more cosmetic than anything. While cities "felt" larger because of all the sprites of common town folk there were just about as many interactable NPCs.

It's the size itself. The towns are simply freaking small.

They don't? These aren't cities, they're more like neighborhoods. How can a "city" be five houses? DC is a city. Just like you probably refer to the citadel as a "city" when it's just one building.

You're dodging the point. Don't do that.

Settlements in Fallout were fairly large and self-susainable, after 80 years. Settlements in Fallout 3 are miniscule. Explain that.

The whole point of little big town is that it's getting ravaged by mutants. And they're constantly enslaved by slavers. Also, the brotherhood of steel in the game (which I don't like) doesn't have lasers and plasma rifles, that's why they envy the enclave in that regard. And the beating they take is more due to the schism in their faction.

They have lasers and powered armor, more than enough to destroy the East Coast mutants.
 
dingohunternigel said:
why is this the best direction it can go?

the problems aren't a matter of its direction per se, but a matter of the implementation. "making smaller towns, with no visible means of production" isn't a direction, it's a blunder.

The problem is when people start acting as though this was the best that could be done given the new look and setting of the game. There's nothing about the game engine preventing large numbers of NPC's. I've been modding Morrowind for years, and you can render 30 NPC's without breaking a sweat.

Another problem is that the design team treated the world development the only way they know how - like a fantasy world. In fantasy worlds, there is little or no emphasis on making the world 'believable', because by it's nature it is trying to escape the restraints of reality. Myst is a wonderful example.

Fallout is NOT supposed to be fantasy. It's science fiction. And in science fiction, a very important part of the world design is in explaining its own plausibility (elsewise it's science fantasy).

Bethesda wasn't doing anyone but themselves a favor in making the game, and there are many other companies which would have been ten times better suited to make the game than them.

That is one of the things that I just dont understand. I mean if one just looks over to Morrowind, which is a game I really enjoyed for its qualities in a nice world less for beeing a RPG since in my eyes at least it was no one. Anyway, Morrowind at least shows that Bethesda is indeed capable of creating a world that at least seems to have a runing economy and politic in the background, even if it all is just artifical and somewhat not explorable cause its just parts of the surface. Slavery for example which seemed to have much sense in Morrowind and beeing a important part of the isle and economy while on the other side in Fallout 3 has almost no place.

I think this is a very good sign that the people which at least worked with Morrowind are not around anymore and it was the last time they managed to come up with own imaginative gameworlds.

Fallout 3 is only better compared to Oblivion cause they had for their development one of the best examples, the "old" Fallouts. I mean if a mediocre artist making "new" art would take Michelangelo or Da Vinci as example for his work he will definetly learn the one or other thing and probably do things that look in quality better then his past work. But that still doesnt make him a better artist. Its still mediocre, just better then his usual work.

They want to make a new Elder Scrolls game as well. Time will tell if Bethesda REALLY learned a lesson from Fallout or not and will just return to the boring Oblivioneske gameplay ...
 
GeneTheMean said:
In short: F3 compared to F2 has nothing else common than the name before the number. Very thoughtful comparisons!
but when its the truth? I mean in all seriousness where has Fallout 3 much in common compared with Fallout 1 and 2, visuals and artistical values aside, speaking about the design. Neither SPECIAL or parts of the gameplay resemble much to Fallout and are closer to Oblivion if anything. Take away the name and you have a generic post apoc setting. Fallout was not defined by its post apocalyptic nature. That was just the icing on the cake.
 
***Spoilers Below***
So I just beat FO3 last night. And I have to say, great game.

Fallout 3 was amazing, just with some holes. While I never noticed the lack of farms (I suppose I just assumed they were there) I did notice the lack of knowledge on the part of the town inhabitants. For the most part, gone was the option of asking, "Do you know of any other settlements nearby?", "Whats new in town?" among other things.

Also the lack of dialogue in general was a little sad. I really enjoyed asking people about their town's history and such (In FO1 & 2), all that reading really helped to flesh out the Fallout world and define it in my imagination. And though there are some people who do talk about their history they are few and far between. I find myself moving through the options looking for more to ask. This was especially true with Harold, I wanted to ask lots of questions about how he got there, find out some history.

I know that part of this is due to things being spoken now rather than read, but I would gladly give up voice overs if it would allow more depth to the characters I am meeting.

The other complaint I have is that the main story was a bit too linear and simple. I would have preferred the option to bypass the brotherhood if I wanted or just had more choices... maybe double cross them and let the outcasts take over, I don't know. It just seemed like I relied too much on other people.

It would have been better, IMO, if I had found my father dead in Megaton and then had the quest of finding out was he was trying to do then maybe try to finish his work for him and find his killer.

Also in the end when you are fighting along the BoS to stop the Enclave. What exactly are we doing? The Enclave there have really already turned on the President, they aren't going to poison the water, just purify it. So what, we are slaughtering all these people to...stop them from giving free, clean water to all? Or because we want to be the guys that push the button? It seems if we just waited then everything would have worked out heh.

Now if the President were the "Good Guy" and felt that the virus was too strong a measure and Autumn revolted due to that and was going to poison the water, then yah, you would have a good reason to go in guns blazing. As it was, you were rushing in to stop the good guys who revolted against the president.

Shrug, Ah well.
 
Don't think that much. It isn't necessary while playing bethesda games. Just... don't think at all! Enjoy the awsum!!

--On topic--
I think Fallout 2 pretty much pwns fallout 3...
Even sprite animations were more "normal
then F3's crappy robot-like ones.
 
Ovg said:
Don't think that much. It isn't necessary while playing bethesda games. Just... don't think at all! Enjoy the awsum!!

--On topic--
I think Fallout 2 pretty much pwns fallout 3...
Even sprite animations were more "normal
then F3's crappy robot-like ones.

Well Said. Your Homeland security advices.

To the children, already your beloved Hero Optimu ... uh Liberty Prime says: "Every time you dont play Fallout 3 AND do not enjoy the game, you're supporting COMMUNISM!"

bethesdafan.png
 
Back
Top