Games You Probably Like, But Should Not: Fallout 3

[Dragula]

Found this amusing read while surfing around:

Games You Probably Like, But Shouldn’t <blockquote>"Now, before I fully break into this, I want to state that Fallout 3 is a great game. The problem lies in the fact that it’s a great game in the same vein as Oblivion. Morrowind was wonderful and was fully upgraded in every conceivable way to the level of Oblivion. What changed between Oblivion and Fallout? As I mentioned before, the only differences are the presence of guns and V.A.T.S. I think the best review of this game would be through my first person experience."</blockquote>

 

[TheWesDude]

what ever happened to the days of "investigative reporting" where reporters tore people apart for their fuckups and exposed them to the masses... and the masses listened?

this guy reminds me of a teacher shaking her finger at the bully who just beat up a nerd and broke his ribs and nose.

 

[Public]

Oblivion was better than Morrowind??

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

Still,

P.S. If you’re a Fallout fanboy crying about purism, you’re right in the fact that it would have been nice to see a game along the same vein; however, that does not mean you have to have a conniption over the fact that something’s changing a little. That’s like yelling about television being switched from analog to digital because it’s not the same.

Our problem wasn't that the gameplay would be updated as Fallout 1 and 2 had their flaws, what we had a problem with was that all the previous gameplay, reputation system, mature concepts, basically all intelligence was thrown out of the window in favor for a shooter with stat elements.

Television going from analog to digital was expected progress, Fallout turning into a stupid generic shooter is blunt cutting and gluing.

 

[Crni Vuk]

With the television it doesnt work, cause the change was a progress. In the case of Fallout 1/2 to Fallout 3 from Bethesda was not a progress or evolution but a retrogression since Fallout 3 is closer to Oblivion then Fallout 1 or 2.

I think no one here would cry about updated visuals, better graphic and improvement in gameplay. It could have been even made in a way that you can chooe between tourn based combat and real time gameplay. What happend though with Fallout 3 was a simple shift of the genre. Nothing more nothing less. Only cause something is in first person it doesnt mean it has to lool inherently "better" (cause that are just visuals and those can be changed or updated today very easily).

 

[SuAside]

i lol'ed.

but this made me cry...

P.S. If you’re a Fallout fanboy crying about purism, you’re right in the fact that it would have been nice to see a game along the same vein; however, that does not mean you have to have a conniption over the fact that something’s changing a little. That’s like yelling about television being switched from analog to digital because it’s not the same.

is anyone stupid enough to think that comparison is even remotely valid?

 

[Dragula]

Probably just the author. He do make some valid point though, such as it being closer to Oblivion than to Fallout, such as VATS being messed up and doesn't add anything to the gameplay and so on.

 

[Brother None]

is anyone stupid enough to think that comparison is even remotely valid?

Actually, yes.

It's noticeable that many people don't understand what innovations entails, and that progress is created by attempts to innovate that either succeed or fail. Radiant AI was a massive failure, yet it is still an innovation that moves the industry forward because people look at it and learn, knowing that this is not they way to do it. That's innovation, which isn't always a good thing per individual case even if it's always a good thing overall.

Same goes for change overall. It seems to be outside many people's conceptual framework that you can not file all change under one positive, progressive nomer, and that some change is in fact regressive, or really not change but outright replacement, such as Fallout 3's.

 

[fedaykin]

It seems to me that the analog vs digital TV comparison is invalid, because it's a change of technology, not content. Switching from analog to digital does not in any way alter the content of TV programmes. But the change from Fallout 1/2 to 3 is, apart from graphical improvement, a change (or a replacement, whatever you want to call it) of content.

 

[DexterMorgan]

and decently mapped facial expressions that Bethesda is now known for

Bethesda is known for decently mapped facial expressions? Would those be from Fallout 3, the same ones vastly inferior to Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines, a game five years senior to F3?

Or is there a Bethesda game that actually has this feature that I've missed?

Oh yeah, the PS makes no sense whatsoever. Logic man. Look it up.

 

[Public]

I present his first work of staggering genius: Fallout 3.

Oh yeah, a staggering masterpiece! Made by visionaries of today's gaming industry! Something like friggin' Michael Bay! AWESOMENZ!

Wide, open expanses cover the world with exotic scenery ranging from valleys, mountains, caves, and oceans

Oh yeah, exotic scenery, dark caves, wide oceans...ahh post-apocalyptic wasteland.

BTW, it's been done before many, many times and it's nothing new with today's technology even 10 years ago.

decently mapped facial expressions that Bethesda is now known for

Haha!

The face of that danger comes in the form of the environment, traps, monstrous beasts, and even other people.

But don't worry! With VATS, magical items, stupid AI and Nuclear Catapults laying around for no apparent reasons. Your character can possess god-like abilities (mainly thanks to VATS) and strength in a matter of few hours (or less).

Through gaining experience, you delve into a leveling system that is equal parts complicated and intrinsically beautiful.

With a wonderful sound "Ca-ching" and a smiley face of game's mascot "Vault-Boy"in the top-left corner of the screen.

Frankly, stats don't do much to your character, but who cares? It's fun to click on "+" buttons to get something higher and "imagine" that it does something/your character progresses. There are no negative consequances for anything (for perks too), so yeah...it's beautiful to have everything at once.

No, not Cyrodill my friend. You’re not standing at the gates of Oblivion.

No? I thought it's Oblivion with Guns as Bethesda said it once.

warped turn based system

People still haven't learnt what's the difference between Turn Based combat and Real Time with Pause and Slo-Mo effect?

Damn. I'm not even THAT dumb.

the only differences are the presence of guns and V.A.T.S

Finally, something smart.

That’s like yelling about television being switched from analog to digital because it’s not the same.

No.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

is anyone stupid enough to think that comparison is even remotely valid?

Actually, yes.

It's noticeable that many people don't understand what innovations entails, and that progress is created by attempts to innovate that either succeed or fail. Radiant AI was a massive failure, yet it is still an innovation that moves the industry forward because people look at it and learn, knowing that this is not they way to do it. That's innovation, which isn't always a good thing per individual case even if it's always a good thing overall.

Same goes for change overall. It seems to be outside many people's conceptual framework that you can not file all change under one positive, progressive nomer, and that some change is in fact regressive, or really not change but outright replacement, such as Fallout 3's.

Well, you're completely right. But then, under this logic, Fo3 should be praised for bringing change but not innovation, and certainly not for being a masterpiece just because it brought change.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But, still

it’s entertaining to shoot someone in the head and have all of their body parts explode into gore.

There's nothing to get from the article after this. I wonder how the guy who loved the asploding heads even conceived of writing something bad about FO3. Anything from calling the levelup system "complicated" to the graphics "amazing", etc etc was laughable.

Well, the only thing he got spot-on was the music. The rest of the article lacked any serious analysis, was full of errors and whining about similarity with Oblivion, which wasn't even that important (not for me anyway, some other stuff was much worse, like the broken levelup system etc.)

Still, Bethesda's propaganda that the old fanbase is a bunch of mindless purists who hated FO3 for no reason seems to have been successful.

 

[Brother None]

Still, Bethesda's propaganda that the old fanbase is a bunch of mindless purists who hated FO3 for no reason seems to have been successful.

Huh? When did Bethesda propagate that?

 

[DexterMorgan]

I think that every pre-release interview, each with a conveniently placed and almost always identical questions about fans of the series, hinted as much.

 

[Ulysses]

I always saw that as coming from the *ahem* journalist giving the questions, the backhand remarks about "those Fallout fanatics" and so on. Mind you I didn't read every preview, but I doubt even Bethesda would so lousy to mock fans openly.

 

[UncleSlappy]

Didn't they do just that with that cat character in Oblivion?

 

[Ausdoerrt]

Still, Bethesda's propaganda that the old fanbase is a bunch of mindless purists who hated FO3 for no reason seems to have been successful.

Huh? When did Bethesda propagate that?

Well, no open claims, of course. But there have been a lot of backhanded remarks, from the aforementioned interviews to the policy of completely ignoring any negative remarks, especially from a fanbase so old and sturdy as NMA.

Call it speculation, but I doubt every Bethesda fan could come up with the very same articulated opinion about the old fanbase completely without a hint here and there.

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

And don't forget that journalist who wanted us all to die a horrible death.
That pretty much set the tone.

 

[Sir GlowaLot]

Well, no open claims, of course. But there have been a lot of backhanded remarks, from the aforementioned interviews to the policy of completely ignoring any negative remarks, especially from a fanbase so old and sturdy as NMA.

Call it speculation, but I doubt every Bethesda fan could come up with the very same articulated opinion about the old fanbase completely without a hint here and there.

In my Country we have a saying about people that put on a Shoe that fits.

Fallout 3 is a good game, even a potentially great game if you add custom mods, but it is not Fallout 1 or 2. It shared the background story of the previous Fallout Games but otherwise it is its own Game. Yes I would personally love more dialogue options and even a few more options to customise a Character.

About the ignoring of the old Fanbase, well Bethesda does things different than Interplay did once or Bioware still does. There is a lot less developer communication which is kind of sad, but on the other hand, what would happen if a Fallout 3 Developer would join NMA? They would probably flamed by some people.

I personally think the Combat System is fine. The Vats System could be balanced a bit more, but in general there is nothing wrong with it. For balancing I would reduce the availability of Perks, so that you can only get them every 3 Levels like in Fallout. I would also bring back the option to train Skills above 100% and make it even useful to do so, to force more Specialisation, but overall Fallout 3 is fine. Also a few more RP Perks, even if they are only Semi-Useful would be nice.

It is also a good sign that the game already has a very active modding community and some of their projects look very promising.

 

[Per]

what would happen if a Fallout 3 Developer would join NMA? They would probably flamed by some people.

If you'd study the track record of designers and journalists coming here to talk to us instead of falling back on sayings, you'd find it's less likely than you think.