Fallout Boy

Brother None

Brother None

This ghoul has seen it all
Orderite
An editorial from Sean Sands on the Escapist, in which he shares why he has a tough time embracing Fallout 3.<blockquote>Bethesda was unapologetic in saying that it wasn't really making Fallout 3 for Fallout fans, exactly. To be fair, the Fallout community, already known for being a tad on the unstable side, reacted with a kind of venom and incredulity that only reinforced the validity of Bethesda's decisions. Even now, combining the ideas of Fallout 3 dissatisfaction and being a Fallout fan runs the risk of seeming anachronistic and hysterical, so let me say this: Fallout 3 is not a bad game.

It's just not that great.

In the days leading up to Fallout 3's release, I replayed Fallout 2 and even Fallout Tactics, both games that hold up surprisingly well over the years, so when I entered the wasteland in the third person view I was well primed to play a Fallout game. On the other hand, exposure to the older titles also made the contrast that much more stark.
(...)
I don't mean to suggest that everyone who played earlier Fallout games should necessarily feel disillusioned with the latest iteration. I think perhaps that initial instinct of the past when the Fallout fanbase was up in arms over Bethesda's tenure was probably correct, that the less I cling to the past the better equipped I will be to enjoy the game. In the end, I wasn't really able to do that. The more the game tried to convince me it was a Fallout game, the less I believed it; mention of G.E.C.K.s and water purifiers didn't invest me in the gamespace, it transported me to the first time I played.

Nostalgia is a wonderful and terrible thing.</blockquote>
 
He has some points.

My biggest problem with FO3 is that it doesn't seem to have ANY re-play value.
No matter what your starting character is, you end up with a demigod, where Electric Weapons\Big Guns are the main thing and your social skills doesn't matter AT ALL.
And you can reach L20 by the middle of the game, from which point the game starts to deteriorate into grind.
 
Yes, I know that, but I tried to play it like the originals.
I started with a specialized character, tried to actually role-play, but I ended up with a jack-of-all-trade.
There weren't any meaningful choices for specialized character-development after a while. And I didn't even max everything.

BTW, is it inherent to any sand-box games that there's no re-play value?
Or is it just Bethesda's doing? (I only played Oblivion.)
 
syllogz said:
Yes, I know that, but I tried to play it like the originals.
I started with a specialized character, tried to actually role-play, but I ended up with a jack-of-all-trade.
There weren't any meaningful choices for specialized character-development after a while. And I didn't even max everything.
Click to expand...

I played it kinda the same way. I picked stats I always liked picking in Fallout (Speech, Char, Int, Per, SG), and tried to play it like previous Fallouts.
Ended up getting bored and felt that I picked the wrong stats, because they were useless.
 
The comments are what bugs me

Fallout 3 is just as much a rightful heir as one could ask for... Pip-Boy? check... rad scorpions? check... quasi-turn-based combat (a la Tactics)? check.... pitch-black humor? again, check....
Click to expand...

That's not how it works. And VATS is not quas-turnbased, it's bullet time. Tactics had real turn-based, and I much preferred playing it in that mode than continuous.
 
Anybody who claims that VATS is turn based in any way / shape or form needs to have their head checked.

I actually enjoyed this editorial, and find it quite refreshing that a video game journalist here is actually bucking the trend of "OMG, FO3 is so awesome."

I more or less feel the same of FO3. It's not terrible, but it's not great. It's just mediocre... which isn't what a AAA title should be in this day and age (or any for that matter.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top