Gamefaqs says FO3 one of greatest games of decade.

Stronger ? You mean "more popular". Again. All what you and others throw around. Numbers, popularity, things which give you the idea "strong sales" equal success. But I doubt that is how it really works.

I do not want to throw around semantics here. Just saying that one should really try to think somewhat about what he personally sees as "strong" and what Fallout 3 really is.

Marketing and hype helped here a lot.
 
Game of the decade? Fallout 3 is nowhere near the game of the decade.

I'd have to say it's either Half-Life 2, Civilization IV, or Bioshock. Those games are infinitely more deserving than Failout 3. :?
 
From what I've worked out, alot of people hate F3 simply cause it was made by Beth added on from the fact that you already got a crap game (CoughPOSCough)
Now just think, if F3 was the exact same game just made by the people who did F1 and 2, would you still hate it?

And look at the sales it got, what some of you are saying that you wished a game that saved your favourt game series, was never made.
You say you hate it for its inconstinacies and story.
It's fallout, the canon got screwed long before 3.
 
Millim said:
From what I've worked out, alot of people hate F3 simply cause it was made by Beth added on from the fact that you already got a crap game (CoughPOSCough)
Now just think, if F3 was the exact same game just made by the people who did F1 and 2, would you still hate it?
Click to expand...

Yes, yes we would. It doesn't matter who made that game, it would still suck. I'd rather see the franchise die than have another game as bad as FO3 be made.

Edit: FO: BOS didn't screw the canon because it's not considered canon. FO3 on the other hand is just as messed up but we're supposed to believe that it's canon to the series, I think that's the problem a lot of people have with it.
 
There are elements in FOBOS(FOPOS) I like such as the Vault Tec secret Vault and the idea of Attis and his Super Mutant followers.

The same goes for Fallout Tactics in which I really don't mind Vault 0 and the Calculator which IMO always sounded like a good idea for the Enclave's original plan to recolonize the North American mainland.

In general I am more positive about Tactics than most people (don't care about FOPOS), but I can understand that people have difficulty consider them canon or elements on them canon.

Regarding Fallout 3, the one Bethesda made and released, I have played this game and I just do not like what Bethesda did with the universe and the factions in it or their rewrite of elements.

A lot of people want Fallout 3 to be considered canon, including Bethesda's developers of course, but I honestly do not care about their opinion and arguments of it being popular and therefore a good game.

If Tactics and FOPOS is open for being declared non canon, I personally would like Fallout 3 in time as well.
Context wise it adds nothing to the Fallout universe and its only 'achievement' seems to be reaching a larger number of people than the first games did, most likely on the facts that they did not like the graphics and gameplay.
 
Quagmire69 said:
Is that intended to mean me.
Click to expand...

No, but if you find yourself to be in that group of people, then...

korindabar said:
I myself paid money to purchase these titles. I would never have bothered with them if I had not played Fallout 3.
Click to expand...

So have I.

But it would be better if there was a proper sequel (Van Buren) instead of a stupid, million-copies-selling knock-off, even if I'm not aware of the existence of the series because I wouldn't have heard of it. It's better that the series lives on in a proper way, than to have one fan more.
 
Well this shit bucket of a game brought me FO1&2. So in a way... It is deserving. And in an adventure, action way which caters for the so-called average gamer which is apparently 12 years old who isn't even allowed to play this game...
 
Millim said:
Now just think, if F3 was the exact same game just made by the people who did F1 and 2, would you still hate it?
Click to expand...

I'd hate it (though hate is excessive) even more.

And look at the sales it got, what some of you are saying that you wished a game that saved your favourt game series, was never made.
Click to expand...

Never mind that there were others interested in the license, you are asking if I'd prefer for the series to die or to become something that made me wish that the series was dead? Mh...decisions, decisions.
 
Fallout 3 is a fun free roaming fps with very very light elements of rpg, but its not a good Fallout game, and certainly is not the best game of the decade.
 
Walpknut said:
Fallout 3 is a fun free roaming fps with very very light elements of rpg, but its not a good Fallout game, and certainly is not the best game of the decade.
Click to expand...

Not to mention it isn't any good at being FPS, just as it isn't good at being RPG.
 
Quagmire69 said:
Lets get away from cannon, do mean to tell me you did not enjoy playing Fallout 3.
Click to expand...

Not really, after you get God-like powers about an hour through th e game it's not that fun anymore.
 
Millim said:
From what I've worked out, allot of people hate F3 simply cause it was made by Beth added on ...
Click to expand...
Ah I will simply blame it on the date of your registration so you might not know the fact how Iplay has been raped over this forum a long time before people even heard about Bethesda particularly after the release of Fallout 2 and the criticism with New Reno being somewhat alien to the Fallout setting. Not to mention the other games which got only a rather mediocre survey (Fo tactics being one of them and those Brotherhood of Steel shit). Seriously. The funny part is even that Bethesda received a somewhat pretty neutral stance over this forum from many users with some "unhappy" and "happy" voices. Much of the "negativity" came after people had collected some experience with Oblivion. And getting more information about the game play/plot in Fallout 3 from the official Beth forum (Fat man nuke launcher, blowing up towns, first person view etc. etc.).

I sure do not have much love for Bethesda. But that was because they have in my eyes ruined the Elder Scroll series already a long time before F3 (See the jump from Morrowind to Oblivion). So yeah. I am biased. But you can not say the same about the NMA community.

So regardless who made F3. It is still a very mediocre RPG in my eyes. And hate regarding Bethesda ? Well. Go around here and ask people about their opinion regarding Herve Cain
 
wasn't he like the lead designer for Oblivion though ? Seems not like he had always the best formulas for games either.

All the dialogue in Oblivion is voiced. How did that affect your approach to writing dialogue? Did it reduce the variety of dialogue you could write? If so, do you prefer fully-voiced dialogue or text dialogue with more branching?

I prefer Morrowind's partially recorded dialogue, for many reasons. But I'm told that fully-voiced dialogue is what the kids want. Fully-voiced dialogue is less flexible, less apt for user projection of his own tone, more constrained for branching, and more trouble for production and disk real estate.
Click to expand...

Interesting what Douglas Goodall had to say about Morrowind though. I mean *GRASP* ZOGM! Talking about "not enough RPG elements!" like ... different dialogue ... and such ! - You konw this is the reason why I love the Codex so much. Or the Internet in general. Things once said over the world wide web are not really loost. Not for some at least

Douglas Goodall:
The thing that surprised me the most was also what disappointed me the most: procedural content. Arena and Daggerfall had more in common with random games (Rogue) than with traditional RPGs (Ultima et al.). Arena and Daggerfall were way ahead of their time, perhaps too far ahead of their time. I felt Morrowind was a step backwards in some ways.

I was also disappointed with the main quest in Morrowind. Frankly, the main quest never made sense to me, and I felt it contradicted too much existing lore. I couldn't get emotionally involved in the main quest or discern the motivations of the key players.
......
Could you enumerate a few of the design decisions that you disagreed with?

Douglas Goodall:
I didn't like the combat at all. I won't claim that the "move the mouse to control your sword" combat of Arena and Daggerfall was perfect, but at least it felt interactive. Morrowind's combat was too simplified, too automatic.

I liked the dialogue system on paper, but in practice I think it makes it too hard for players to develop their characters (in a roleplaying sense). I don't like "putting words in the player's mouth," which is what all but the simplest dialogue choices require. But when playing more traditional RPGs, I noticed that I connected with my character more when I had to choose different dialogue responses. Am I playing a goody two shoes? A greedy bastard? Do I always choose the sarcastic response, even if it gets me in trouble? Light side or dark side? Lawful good or chaotic evil? Paladin, Fire Mage, or Mercenary? I felt Morrowind lacked even binary character development choices. I could be very good in Morrowind, and I could be very bad in Morrowind, but I rarely had the chance to tell anyone about it. The game didn't react to me being good or bad, except when I was caught committing a crime.
Click to expand...
 
Still, you could see during Morrowind that the effort was at least made to make Character skill more important than player skill. It was flawed, yes, but I think any combat system in a first person game claiming to be and RPG would be. In Morrowind, build mattered, unlike Oblivion, in my longblade skill was 15, odds were I was not hitting jack-shit. And while you could become a jack of all trades, tedious effort would of been needed to accomplish such a feat. And while, it was not perfect in the C&C area, there were still choices as far as opportunities per playthrough, for example, the Great House quests: If you join one, the others are locked out. Join the mages guild and telvanni is locked out. More choice than the following Beth games.
 
Millim said:
From what I've worked out, alot of people hate F3 simply cause it was made by Beth added on from the fact that you already got a crap game (CoughPOSCough)
Now just think, if F3 was the exact same game just made by the people who did F1 and 2, would you still hate it?

And look at the sales it got, what some of you are saying that you wished a game that saved your favourt game series, was never made.
You say you hate it for its inconstinacies and story.
It's fallout, the canon got screwed long before 3.
Click to expand...

I probably would like it if it were made by the same team... since they know how to freaking write. It's not Bethesda I hate. It's that they don't know how to make a game worth playing beyond pretty visuals. When they handed NV to Obsidian I loved what happened there because I could enjoy the story. The story wasn't mundane. There were genuine moral questions that couldn't be answered a right way.

NV was interesting. Fallout was interesting. Fallout 2 was fairly interesting. Tactics was intriguing but under developed.

F3... You computer are bad because I say so. You should destroy yourself.

By golly gee you're right! *pop fizzle boom*

Honestly that killed me. I stopped playing for a while after that.

Quagmire69 said:
Lets get away from cannon, do mean to tell me you did not enjoy playing Fallout 3.
Click to expand...

pop fizzle boom.... the whole thing was pretty lame and easy. No I didn't enjoy it until I modded the fuck out of it just like oblivion.
 
Courier said:
Game of the decade? Fallout 3 is nowhere near the game of the decade.

I'd have to say it's either Half-Life 2, Civilization IV, or Bioshock. Those games are infinitely more deserving than Failout 3. :?
Click to expand...

Great list you have there. I would probably add in Red Dead Redemption for its setting, soundtrack and nuanced, emotionally driven plot, or perhaps Mass Effect for creating a rich and comprehensive science fiction environment; however, if I were to give the title to one game, I couldn't.

For me, the two best games of the decade -and indeed most important games of the decade- are Half-life 2 and Civilization IV. Half-Life 2 delivers a mature and brilliant narrative experience at a flawless pace and revolutionized physics engines in games. Civilization IV is an intelligent and deep game that manages to be mature and intriguing without a brown color scheme and endless violence, in addition to having near limitless replay value.

Unfortunately for faithful Fallout fans, Fallout 3 is bound to be popular because it provides instant gratification. Bethesda gave the people exactly what they want when they shoved out an illogical, needlessly violent and mindlessly simple shooting game rather than challenging the player to think and rise to the challenge of complex narrative. It hardly surprises me that the younger gaming demographics ate Fallout 3 up like pigs eat slops; it gave them everything and they had to do nothing. Fallout 3's success, to me, speaks to greater issues with people -specifically young people- because it doesn't require effort for reward; it breeds entitlement and conceit. All of Fallout 3 and the philosophy behind it can be summed up accurately by Father Elijah: "RobCo piece of trash... dulls your mind".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top