Fallout 3 vs. others

[1nk]

Hi guys,
English is not my native language, so pls no yelling if you see poor grammar

I was a fan of fallout 1 back in '99-2000, played it several times, tried several character builds etc. I also played fallout tactics for some hours - never made it to the end though.
I somehow skipped fallout 2 - still i would say i am familiar with "classic" fallout atmosphere and gameplay.

So i've been playing fallout 3 lately, thats actually how i found this forum...
I enjoyed (and still enjoy) it.

And while i totally agree most of the criticism/bashing on Fallout 3 (main plot sucks, "fun park", weak dialogs, too easy, crippled RPG elements etc. etc.), i think its still FAR ABOVE AVERAGE compared to rpg's we've seen in the past few years.

Now i really hope to avoid another boring rant about how fallout ultimately sucks/owns.

But somehow people only seem to compare the "quality" of Fallout 3 based on Fallout 1/2 which came out A DECADE ago.
I mean - noone can expect bethesda making an isometric turn-based RPG like back in '97. They want to make profit after all...

Considering this i think Bethesda actually did a rather good sequel. Its flawed - thats for sure, and also there is (arguably) not much original fallout feeling to it. But ist IMHO still the best sequel FPS/RPG of 2007/ 2008, simply because all other sequels sucked way more. TES4:Oblivion/Gothic 3 anyone? wow, THAT was dissapointing.....
(Or consider Deus Ex vs. Deus Ex 2 . I found Deus Ex 2 entertaining, but just NOT comparable to the epic original)

My impression is that the whole Fallout 3 loathing is just about how RPG games were so much better a decade ago.

Thoughts?

 

[eternaut]

My impression is that the whole Fallout 3 loathing is just about how RPG games were so much better a decade ago.

I think you have a point there, most of today's games are quite dissapointing, in my opinion, and i find myself going back to classics, like FO1, Startopia, Deus Ex, Torment, or even SCUMMVM.

If only the payoff for the amount of $$ invested in hardware were proportional with the enjoyment you get from a game... frecuently i end up having much more fun with a game that worked in a 2mb 2D card or a 3dfx voodoo than with the latest-top-of-the-line-4-hour-total-gaming-time title.

 

[Ravager69]

Incredible. Yet another person skipping dozens of identical threads only to say something that was already debated to death. Thread lock down imminent.


Anyway, FPS and RPG rarely mix well and Fallout 3 is not an example of doing it properly. Combat has little to do with PC's stats, dialogues are extremely weak, world is inconsistent, quests are boring, too much dungeon crawl.

In my opinion - fail. It doesn't matter that other games aren't good as well, the game is still pathetic.

Oh, as for the "people criticize Fallout 3 too much because of the name". Well, take away the Fallout setting, What remains? A poorly executed FPP\RPG with pathetic story and dialogues.

 

[Slaughter Manslaught]

I SEE POOR GRAMMAR HOW DARE YOU RAAAAAAGEEEEEEEE RAAAAAAAAGEEEEEE WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRGGHHHHh!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111



Fallout 3 was actually the best RPG of the year, but that does not tell us how Fallout 3 is good, rather, it tells us about how the RPG genre is doing.

I think the problem is that today, due to l33t graphix, costs are too high and all games must be 'L33T AAA IMMERSIVE SHOOTERZ!!!11111", GTA and clones or Action RPGs to profit... or so the suits think. Oh, and all games must be crappy console ports, even though the PC is the better plataform.

Frankly, IMHO I don't want pretty graphics. I wish we had more of a push towards new gameplay ideas. There are many things the games of today don't do, while the games of yesterday already had them a long time ago. Destructive scenery, for example. In most games (SPECIALLY linear FPS), if you see a measly locked wooden door, you have to either either:

1. Blast the lock.
2. Find another way.

It does not matter if you have a crowbaw, rocket launcher, nuke or Gravity Gun. Nope, that wooden door was made with cloned kryptonian trees that are super-invulnerable when exposed to the yellow sun. On the other hand, X-Com players have been blowing everything to bits since '93, Fallout players have been blowing doors since '97 and Jagged Alliance 2 players have been exploding things since 98.

 

[Eyenixon]

Fallout 3 was actually the best RPG of the year, but that does not tell us how Fallout 3 is good, rather, it tells us about how the RPG genre is doing.

Stop this, say "big budget" RPG of the year, every time someone posts something like this it just proves that far too many people don't know about Spiderweb Software.
Avernum V and Geneforge V were both released in 2008 and were much better than Fallout 3, sad that so few people know they exist.

Although I'm certain some you bastards would look at them and say "OMG I NO PLAY THAT IT LOOK LIKE 1997 LOL" you hypocritical ectoplasms.

 

[Meat Axe]

Fallout 3 was actually the best RPG of the year, but that does not tell us how Fallout 3 is good, rather, it tells us about how the RPG genre is doing.

Stop this, say "big budget" RPG of the year, every time someone posts something like this it just proves that far too many people don't know about Spiderweb Software.
Avernum V and Geneforge V were both released in 2008 and were much better than Fallout 3, sad that so few people know they exist.

Although I'm certain some you bastards would look at them and say "OMG I NO PLAY THAT IT LOOK LIKE 1997 LOL" you hypocritical ectoplasms.

I can't actually describe to you how happy it makes me that you pointed me towards these titles. I still have some reservations, but they have nothing to do with the graphics.

I, for one, am so damn tired of playing first person games. There's too many of them, and I don't particularly find them immersive. I mean, I jump when something goes "Boo!" in an FPS, but that's not the kind of immersion that I want. For me, first person will never be immersive, simply because I will always have this thought in the back of my mind that I can't actually be living in that world. At least when I can see my character walking around, I can get immersed in the way that he or she interacts with the world.

The other problem with first person is that nowadays, as has been mentioned, games need to look as realistic as possible with the current technology. That means big bucks need to be spent on graphics, leaving every other aspect of the game unpolished or dropped to the wayside completely.

 

[rcorporon]

Isn't there already a thread for positive impressions around here?

I really don't feel like re-arguing the same points over and over though...

 

[Public]

Although I'm certain some you bastards would look at them and say "OMG I NO PLAY THAT IT LOOK LIKE 1997 LOL" you hypocritical ectoplasms.

So now it's a bad thing when someone likes good graphics?

 

[Eyenixon]

No, I've met countless impostors who say that modern games are trash, only to shiftily say that they couldn't handle the simplistic graphics and interface of Avernum V or Geneforge V.

Purists are just as phony as the gaming morons.

 

[big brother]

Eyenixon: Fallout 3 was voted best RPG on pretty much every website I've seen. You can disagree but don't get mad because someone quote them.

Ink, you got something there about how RPG's and gaming in general are more of a problem than Fallout 3 ever could be. But then again, welcome to the 21st century. If you ask me, most movies today pale in comparaison to those made years ago. I have a hard time listening to recent music because... well... they're not close to Pink Floyd, Genesis, Metallica or Aerosmith in quality. And the videogame industry just follow the same pattern: they do the game that will net them money. And I can understand why: if they invested that much money in Fallout 3 and failed, they'd have to close their doors so they went with the smart, safe play.

And while you talked about the athmosphere and gameplay, let me tell you what really kills me from NMA: the hypocresy of what they call "a real fallout game". Fallout 1 was a somewhat funny, isometric, turn based, long, non linear, open world game with a time limit. Fallout 2 took a more violent and funny approach and added pop culture references that didn't make much sense since they wouldn't have happened in that different timeline and removed the time limit. Fallout Tactics was as linear as Mario Bros, not funny, with a mediocre storyline. Brotherhood of Steel was a linear, very short, bad action game.

Don't get me wrong, I liked all those games except BoS but the only real constant was the isometric view. The games evolved a lot from the first to the fourth one and all of those games are published by Interplay. Yep. All those games are interplay product and yet they have all those major differences in style, gameplay and have inconsistencies within their own lore.

 

[Ausir]

Because they were made by different developers? (as in people, not company).

 

[Brother None]

Avernum V and Geneforge V were both released in 2008 and were much better than Fallout 3, sad that so few people know they exist.

I haven't played Geneforge V (only out on Mac), but Avernum V was not better than Fallout 3. It was too long, its design was lacking near the end, and the story was mediocre at best. It was an ok addition to an RPG series that's run its course.
Geneforge IV was better than Fallout 3, but that's not the same year.

All those games are interplay product and yet they have all those major differences in style, gameplay and have inconsistencies within their own lore.

Wrong. Fallout 1 was Interplay TSR studio. Fallout 2 was the mostly similar but different in key ways BIS studio. Fallout: Tactics was Microforte. Fallout: BoS was Interplay console division. No Fallout has been created by the same studio let alone under the same lead as of yet.

 

[Ravager69]

Don't get me wrong, I liked all those games except BoS but the only real constant was the isometric view. The games evolved a lot from the first to the fourth one and all of those games are published by Interplay. Yep. All those games are interplay product and yet they have all those major differences in style, gameplay and have inconsistencies within their own lore.

That still doesn't make Fallout 3 a better game or justify the way it bastardized the idea of a Fallout game. Games need to evolve, sure, but if your ideas for evolving a franchise are simply bad or badly executed, then one can complain about it. Right now people come here and expect us to accept every change Bethesda makes to Fallout only because there's 10 years diffrence between the games and they bought the title. What if I simply don't like the game they've made? Need I blindly recognize ALL changes as cool and immersive even if I really don't think so? You want to expand something - alright, but make sure you do it in the spirit of the previous title, instead of making your own game and slapping a borrowed title on it, so it will sell better.

Aside from the typical Fallout 1\2 vs Fallout 3 discussion, I'll only add that games nowadays DO havea serious crisis when it comes to creativity of gameplay. Perhaps this is due to the progressive retardation of our societies (and the people making the games), or perhaps the industry hahs been completly taken over by unimaginative suits, following the path of profit, unwilling to make any risk. Perhaps there's too much money pumped into making the games and developers are scared shitless that they'll bankrupt if it won't sell in 100 million copies.

 

[Public]

Fallout Tactics was as linear as Mario Bros, not funny, with a mediocre storyline. Brotherhood of Steel was a linear, very short, bad action game.

Tactics wasn't an action game, it was a tactical game (as the title says), and it made a good (I'm not saying great) job as a spin-off.

 

[Slaughter Manslaught]

the industry hahs been completly taken over by unimaginative suits, following the path of profit, unwilling to make any risk.

That's the problem. This is why we are seeing so many sequels and few original ideas. No one wants to risk trying to make a game better than Fallout 2, even though Obsidian, Bethesda and Bioware could do that with enough money and good writters.

Fallout was never a AAA game, and it was never supposed to be. Fallout was a B game that had incredible, unexpected sucess. It was a risky game, and a sucess at that.

 

[Ad Astra]

I think you have a point there, most of today's games are quite dissapointing, in my opinion, and i find myself going back to classics, like FO1, Startopia, Deus Ex, Torment, or even SCUMMVM.

All the best games are old games.

Wonderful turn-based RPG: Fallout
Amazing real-time RPG: Daggerfall
Superb real-time-with-pause RPG: Baldur's Gate
Incredible point-and-click adventure game: Sam and Max
Painfully great turn-based strategy: Buzz Aldrin's Race Into Space

I'll stop there.

 

[Eyenixon]

Avernum V and Geneforge V were both released in 2008 and were much better than Fallout 3, sad that so few people know they exist.

I haven't played Geneforge V (only out on Mac), but Avernum V was not better than Fallout 3. It was too long, its design was lacking near the end, and the story was mediocre at best. It was an ok addition to an RPG series that's run its course.
Geneforge IV was better than Fallout 3, but that's not the same year.

I disagree, but I can obviously tell you're not into straight hack & slash games that are entirely focused on creating an optimized party and killing things with tactical grace.
That's all Avernum is good for, the series has always been that way, you'd enjoy Geneforge V much more than Avernum V.

Avernum V at the least had a decent combat system and required a modicum of thinking, which I cannot say for Fallout 3.

 

[phildog]

And while i totally agree most of the criticism/bashing on Fallout 3 (main plot sucks, "fun park", weak dialogs, too easy, crippled RPG elements etc. etc.), i think its still FAR ABOVE AVERAGE compared to rpg's we've seen in the past few years.

What? Have you ever heard of Mass Effect? The duologue, combat, animation, and overall boldness of the series was riveting. It is written better than fallout 3, looks better than fallout 3, sounds better than fallout 3, and it is better than Fallout 3. I'd dare say in many departments it is easily on par with fallout, and in many others better.

 

[Tagaziel]

Yes, Mass Effect trumps Fallout 3 in every possible way. Though it's hardly a classic RPG - from the beginning to the end you animate Shepard, not a character you create, but Shepard.

 

[phildog]

I would disagree. You have control of the character's past, their attitudes towards others, and their romantic lives if you chose to give them one, and all these things are interconnected and effect how your game plays out.