Fot one of the underrated games?

Heh, if Tactics would be named different no one would buy it. And all ppl bought it because of "Fallout" in title. At least I bought mine Tactics because it was another Fallout. Damn, after couple hours of play I felt so cheated !

And no one ruined this title. It was ruined by it's own. It's natural that unhappy costumers complaining, isn't it ?

Besides I don't see a point why shouldn't complain that Tactics wasnt Fallout we expected. If this game recived title with "Fallout" it had to keep some standards ! Interplay simply cheated by giving players some crap hidden under well known (even worshipped) mark of Fallout.



(i tried to beat the game 5 times. i allways stoped at missions when robbots appeare. this crap is soooo boring. i never finished it)
 
Here I come to save the day!

I've played and finished Fallout Tactics SIX times! Yeah, that's right people: SIX times. So I love it. I don't consider it to be part of the canon (it's an alternative universe), but I enjoyed it immensely and am thinking about playing it for the 7th time real soon. One thing that is truly better than in Fallout and Fallout 2? The graphics. And I like the whole atmosphere of Tactics. Love the villages. The combat possibilities (sentry mode, stances, mines, remote-controlled bombs, *drools*...). Hm.

Never played JA2, so I can't compare. Never played X-Com either. But something tells me, I would like those games. Shame I can't find them that quickly over here.
 
FT sucked ass. I can't believe that these guys are even calling it
quite good and garnering a lot of critical praise
Click to expand...
. I'll give credit where credit is due.. i liked controlling a squad and kicking ass but i like my games with a storyline that is solid. Some fat guy at interplay took a big shit and called it the tatics storyline. for chrissake the final enemy is a bunch of brains!?! What the fuck is a beastloard!?! what the fuck are you trying to feed us? dont make a shit game with 'fallout' attached to us and blame us for flaming it. goddamn im pissed.
 
IMHO, Fallout Tactics is one of the most underestimated games I know of...

People who used to say that it's combat engine spoiled the Fallout spirit, seem to never check out "Turn based" mode instead of realtime.

The storyline may seem boring sometimes. And there are still some bugs in the game.

But I'm still having sleepless nights, tearing apart my friend's squads in multiplayer. :)
The fun I'm having with creating even better characters and performing action with them can't be compared to anything else.
 
Be that as it may, it still proves to be an inferior strategy title, and it botches the Fallout setting.
 
Robal said:
People who used to say that it's combat engine spoiled the Fallout spirit, seem to never check out "Turn based" mode instead of realtime.
Click to expand...


I hardly ever used "Real time" mode cos it sucks a lot. Most of combats I made were in "Turn based" mode. But it's not that. What spoiled Fallout's name were game's concept ( "tactic game" I mean where all what player could do was to follow stupid missions ) at all and crappy story to back it up.




One more reflection.
When I want some fun I play Fallout or Fallout 2 and when I want some tactics I just play chess.
 
But I'm still having sleepless nights, tearing apart my friend's squads in multiplayer. :)
The fun I'm having with creating even better characters and performing action with them can't be compared to anything else.
Click to expand...

The multiplayer was the most horrible part of tatics. How can you make a tactics game and only inlcude deathmatch? That game was begging for co-op.
 
I dunno if the Gamespy dude is doing it consciously, but regardless, Interplay people have very good spin control and psychological tactics, such that even Gamespy dude says what they want him to say whether he knows it or not, and it may be enough to warp many fragile innocent minds.

Interplay may not have any common sense, and may be evil evil people, BUT
they know how to manipulate their new target audience, however imaginary the audience may be and however damaging it could be for the future.

What I mean is, consider:
clearly PoS is intended for testosterone raged youths. not only that, but DUMB testosterone raged youths. I don't need to elaborate further as Interplay will provide the evidence to incriminate themselves.

Now, look at this Gamespy post. He manipulates his audience, casting the corporation as the victim, seeking sympathy from his audience in a kind of moral appeal. People so easily affected by this crap clearly 1] r dumasses or young 2] don't know the whole story. Whoever could these people be??

Interplay's new audience, young teenagers who r also dumb, will fall easily for this reasoning: that Fallout fans are a bunch of stuck up pricks, that Fallout fans did a terrible thing to Interplay in the past (a past which these dumasses will not know of), that here is Interplay trying to bring us a wonderful new game, to get fukin testosterone raged excited about, and these snivelling fans are ruining it for everyone. How dare they?

..And so it begins. Radiating hatred and angst and energy, mindlessly spent by those who know no better. Polar alignment of us vs them divided between old skool and dumass. Between those who were there and those who are merely impressionable.

This is all assuming, of course, that interplay's new savior audience really does exist. Young teenagers who r also, very dumb.

it's too bad. I weep for the future
 
Historical Allusion

Historical Allusion

Kortalh say:

What does Socialism have to do with anything? And why are you using it as an insult?
Click to expand...

The text book example of "big lie" propaganda is most often the Nazi's
spin on the 1918 Armistice. The non German germans "stab in the back" of Kaiser Bill's Army.

The Nazi's masqueraded a "revolution" in german '20's - '30's politics by labeling their party as ""Nationalist Socialist"". A feature of this regime was favoring defense industries,
(corporations that developed in the competitive economy of the late 19th and early 20th centuries),
with sweet heart contracts. This may be referred to as ""corporate socialism"".

""Corporate" socialist", I am weaving an allusion to the Nationalist Socialists and "the party line'' they propagandized on the world.

As to "socialist" being an insult, that depends on the individual and their associations linked to "socialism". We all depend on funds and services provided by our ""Big Brother"" from time to time, so we may all be referred to as ""socialist"".

Usually our tax participation can color this possible taint, as our buying shares in this large cooperative venture, our governments. Perhaps you are fortunate enough that you'll never get yours ''back'' until your second bout of cancer in your 80's, when Medicare and Social Security pay the hospital bills, because your private sector provider has abandoned you as an unacceptable risk. When our private sector 'saints" abandon us to freeze in the dark......

My true venom is reserved for those that parody and parrot the "free market'' utopia and then heartily feed at the trough of the government pork barrel. ALSO those clueless that they are benefiting from back room influence buying, PAYOLA. AND particularly those blinded by the same lethal zeal that is usually reserved for the most rabid reds. Commies, fascists, McCarthyists, all sociopathic cadres march their victims to mass graves because" the end justifies the means". Hardly ethical high ground.

Perhaps this fits, in some way, the intent of the pseudo named writer of the Interplay Party Line. Equating this 'line" the moral equivalent of the Red Guard and the Hitler Youth may be extreme, but remember we are dealing with people with axes to grind and money to extort,
ya...extremists.

4too
 
risking all of any credibility I may hold at my early life here on NMA, I will comment on Fallout Tactics and probably been thrown back into the pit of fanboy.

I honestly bought it about a month ago for $4.95 off Interplay's website around the same time I started hitting these boards.

I'd bought Fallout & Fallout 2 the day they came out. When I had heard about Tactics coming out I was out of my video game daze and didn't rush out to get it.

So I think I went into Fallout Tactics without expectations or with fairly low since I had heard it was not a great game and very different from Fallout.

What did I think?

I thought it wasn't Fallout 3. It was Fallout Tactics.

The story worked for what it was doing. You were a soldier for the Brotherhood of Steel with missions not a wasteland wanderer with a large overquest. The "story" of Tactics is really about the legacy of the Brotherhood.

The combat was different, but not terrible. It had it's annoyances and loopholes (bugs) but overall it was especially interesting to play this game with Van Buren in mind. I think the combat could be very close relative to Tactics...

I enjoyed the hell out of this game. Had several cases of 4am eyes. BUT this game has low low re-playability in my opinion unless you rush out looking for "gamer made" levels and missions. (I have yet to find a game online to play it since everybody uses downloaded maps) I think that is its biggest fault and what is the biggest gripe that can be held against it.

Other comments...
I think the fallout tactics article does have a point. Fallout Tactics had expectations that were not met by the loyal fans. The loyal fans still bought the game, but the "flame war" probably impacted sales and the war only existed because people were secretly hoping Fallout 3 was hiding in that Fallout Tactics box. Can anybody really deny that? I can see the Gamespy dudes point. While I will only rent the console game coming out, look at the sh*t storm that has been generated around that already without anybody playing it. I think it doesn't look great and it certainly isn't trying to market itself as the next episode in the Fallout Series. Does that damage the Holy Label of Fallout? I don't think so and I don't think Tactics does either.

Tactics and "Sellout : P.O.S" are just spinoffs of a great game. Fallout is like a great sitcom that has spinoffs. I think Tactics is like the Fraiser, its not really all that great, it certainly isn't Cheers, but it holds its own. We'll have to wait and see if P.O.S. is as bad as the Friends spinoff "Joey" sounds. Both Friends and Cheers are still legendary sitcoms...
 
I enjoyed FOT and realized it could have been better but it was fine without all of the RPG elements of the originals. It was actually the first Fallout I bought even though I played 1&2 a lot before playing it. Don't worry, I have redeemed myself since then!

The real time mode was actually pretty fun and well balanced. It wasn't as much of a twitch fest as some people make it out to be. Most of the enemies hold their ground allowing for tactics to come into play without being overwhelmed. Kansas City was a well designed mission that really made the game shine. There was a learning curve in using it but once I got used to it there was no turning back. I never felt that I was as helpless as in some RTS games.

The editing capabilites were very impressive and there still remains a small but thriving community related to that. On the whole I'd give the game 6/10 and would have liked to see a better implemented sequel along the same lines.
 
no, no, no.

Interplay wanted to tie this game to the Fallout name to make some extra cash, but they don't want it panned because it doesn't live up to Fallout standards.

No. They can't have it both ways.

They pinned the "fallout" name on it. Therefore, if it is crap by fallout standards, it is crap. Period. They don't get to pump the money out of the name recognition, then ask to judge it by its own standards because they don't want to fulfill our expectations by delivering a Fallout-quality title.

If the company wants to milk some money out of the franchise by building our expectations up with the 'fallout' nameplatee, they have no right to act surprised when it doesn't live up to our expectations of what calibur a falllout game should be.

Metaphorically speaking, they took a moderately talented amatuer of a game and, by virtue of putting the name "fallout" on the box, put it into the professional leagues. They have no reason to act surprised when it strikes out.

So: no apologies are needed, except those we haven't heard and won't from Interplay.
 
I think that is a fairly weak assertion that if it is crap by fallout standards it is crap. The game holds the Fallout name whether Interplay pinned it on to make extra cash or it was just simply an idea that somebody had to make money in the same way Final Fantasy Tactics and a few other games have spinoffs. X-Com, Jagged Alliance and other tactical combat games were pretty popular and I think Interplay probably wanted to try and make an enjoyable tactical game that would sell. I don't think it was a malicious money making scheme it is made out to be. Fallout was one of the best RPGs, tactical games were getting popular, it makes sense to use the already rich world of Fallout as a setting for a tactical combat game. It was business, all they are trying to do is make a good game, I think they made a good game, but you are right it isn't Fallout RPG.

BUT Fallout tactics was not and never was intended to be a Fallout RPG. The little caption says "Post Nuclear Tactical Combat Game" not "Post Nuclear Role Playing Game" It is not an RPG & not intended to be one and it should only be judged in comparison to other tactical combat games, and in my opinion it holds up pretty well.

You have to judge every game on its own merits when it is outside of a series. If they wrote on the Fallout Tactics box "This counts as Fallout 3" so judge it accordingly that would be one thing, but they didn't they said "This IS NOT Fallout 3, this is Fallout Tactics, a completely different style of game, set in Fallout's popular universe."
I think this concept of "Fallout Standards" can really only apply to a Fallout RPG...
 
EraserMark said:
I think this concept of "Fallout Standards" can really only apply to a Fallout RPG...
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with you there. Any game in a series or setting is going to be judged by the games it shares that setting with, regardless of the particular approach they take to it. This happens with games, books, movies, music, etc., and it doesn't make much sense to say "don't judge it by the same standards because it focuses on a different aspect". "Fallout Standards" applies to all games that have "Fallout" in the title, just like any other sequel or spinoff would be judged by the standard set by the original.
 
When all is said and done, do you really give a shit whether or not a game is faithful to some imagined scenario? No, all that matters is whether the game is good and its something you like. I admit that I cut it some slack because the post-apocalyptic setting was something I liked even though the gameplay wasn't the best. If it was a fantasy game that played like that I would have burned it slowly over a bed of hot coals. Luckily I also didn't have the system crashes that killed some people's enjoyment.

I can imagine for people who are just searching for a great RPG game more than anything else that they would be disappointed with FOT. But compare the game with a bad sf movie. As bad as movies are like "The Omega Man" or "The Stand", I can still enjoy them for the cheesy concepts they try to explore. And similarly I enjoyed FOT for some of the things that it did that turned out alright.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top