How good is Fallout Tactics' story?
- Thread starter TamaNeko
- Start date
in a word: no (it's not good)...
There are so many problems with the story that it really isn't a good Fallout game and not a good tactical game either..
There are so many problems with the story that it really isn't a good Fallout game and not a good tactical game either..
Saint_Proverbius
Vault Senior Citizen
The big, bad boss enemy is a wading pool filled with human brains. What's that tell you?
Saint_Proverbius said:
A wading pool filled with human brains?
I was too smart to play Tactics at all, myself, but that definitely reminds me of a "TMNT in the future" episode. It's true, an alien tries to steal Hitler's brain and Leo and Don fight human brains in a pool.
I'm going to be branded a heretic for this, and I don't really blame people for that.
I liked the story in Fallout Tactics. Yes, the end game was incredibly corny. Hey, I've seen worse in worse games. Yes, there are gaping holes I could drive my car through. But I sat back, asked myself if I enjoyed the game itself, and whether or not the story increased my enjoyment by any significant factor. For me, the answer was yes to both questions.
One, I love tactical combat games like this even with all their flaws. (Not many out there this good. I rate this as being #3 behind XCom and the Jagged Alliance series. TFTD comes a definite fourth.
)
Two, being a quasi-fascist by nature and training I really liked the Brotherhood as a concept, especially when Barnaky (Ermey) was briefing. Hey, I got no moral qualms at all with butchering every savage who so much as looks at my supply columns cross-eyed.
To be honest, I was highly motivated during much of the game. I was either slaughtering those who would seek to stir up chaos and anarchy, or I was defending humanity's future. Hey, nothing wrong with a game's plotline being melodramatic!
Three, the story was actually in keeping with Fallout's (let's be honest) campy storyline in general. I saw FOBOS's plot with robots and Vault 0 as really just a logical continuation of Fallout's previous storylines, especially the idiotic machinations of the people who designed the vaults and how the new world was going to look like. Yes, it's campy. But hey, a LOT of Fallout's previous stuff was campy, but decidely in a good way and purposely done.
All in all? I found FOT's plot to be fairly good. Not great, good God no. But definitely adequate for the task at hand, and just interesting enough to keep me wanting to play more. I've seen MUCH worse.
I liked the story in Fallout Tactics. Yes, the end game was incredibly corny. Hey, I've seen worse in worse games. Yes, there are gaping holes I could drive my car through. But I sat back, asked myself if I enjoyed the game itself, and whether or not the story increased my enjoyment by any significant factor. For me, the answer was yes to both questions.
One, I love tactical combat games like this even with all their flaws. (Not many out there this good. I rate this as being #3 behind XCom and the Jagged Alliance series. TFTD comes a definite fourth.
)Two, being a quasi-fascist by nature and training I really liked the Brotherhood as a concept, especially when Barnaky (Ermey) was briefing. Hey, I got no moral qualms at all with butchering every savage who so much as looks at my supply columns cross-eyed.
To be honest, I was highly motivated during much of the game. I was either slaughtering those who would seek to stir up chaos and anarchy, or I was defending humanity's future. Hey, nothing wrong with a game's plotline being melodramatic!Three, the story was actually in keeping with Fallout's (let's be honest) campy storyline in general. I saw FOBOS's plot with robots and Vault 0 as really just a logical continuation of Fallout's previous storylines, especially the idiotic machinations of the people who designed the vaults and how the new world was going to look like. Yes, it's campy. But hey, a LOT of Fallout's previous stuff was campy, but decidely in a good way and purposely done.
All in all? I found FOT's plot to be fairly good. Not great, good God no. But definitely adequate for the task at hand, and just interesting enough to keep me wanting to play more. I've seen MUCH worse.
I agree with I/O, in that because this time it was a tactical combat game first and an RPG second the gameplay carried it through, despite the lacking story.
Still, it wasn't that bad. At least this time round you felt part of a group you joined. In Fallout 1 and 2, you could join all sorts of organisations but you never really felt like you were part of them. Fallout Tactics managed to make you feel like part of an army (especially the bunker bits.)
I haven't completed the game yet, (I'm great at technically playing games - I can work out controls and good methods of play - but I'm terrible at sticking with games till the end. Partly because I love replaying the beginning of mos games) but I liked the opening story bit and as it continued I didn't find myself reaching for handy sharp implements with which to slit my wrist.
I did hate fighting robots. That sucked because part of the joy of post-nuclear settings is how humanity turns on itself, so making the enemy a bunch of bad tempered nuts and bolts lessened the enjoyment of the later parts of the game (another reason I stopped before completing it)
Still, it wasn't that bad. At least this time round you felt part of a group you joined. In Fallout 1 and 2, you could join all sorts of organisations but you never really felt like you were part of them. Fallout Tactics managed to make you feel like part of an army (especially the bunker bits.)
I haven't completed the game yet, (I'm great at technically playing games - I can work out controls and good methods of play - but I'm terrible at sticking with games till the end. Partly because I love replaying the beginning of mos games) but I liked the opening story bit and as it continued I didn't find myself reaching for handy sharp implements with which to slit my wrist.
I did hate fighting robots. That sucked because part of the joy of post-nuclear settings is how humanity turns on itself, so making the enemy a bunch of bad tempered nuts and bolts lessened the enjoyment of the later parts of the game (another reason I stopped before completing it)
axelgreese
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Reaper said:
I'm curious, have you ever played Jagged Alliance 2?
Let's not forget very little continuity in terms of story and setting. When there's full gas stations and other points of note that really fly back in the face of why the war even started and the rest of the setting.
The constant shit jokes and other misc. annoying parts weren't Fallout as well.
Compared to the tactical combat in a game, especially when FOT was billed as JA2 in the Fallout universe, this one does fall flat mainly for the insane amount of bugs and unfinished parts, along with the really crappy design that leads to most not bothering to finish it because it's too dead boring after awhile.
And nothing says "part of an army" than a doctor that won't bother healing you, and a supplier that will make you buy your own weapons, ammo, and armor.
axelgreese said:
Yeah, like JA2's plot was any less campy?
Evil Queen has taken over country, turning once wonderful tourist spot into evil fascist stronghold. Yeah, THAT made sense. Oh, and let's not forget the Crepitus, THERE'S a dash of reality! Heh heh...Really, JA2 is a perfect example of a really bizarre plot working really quite well. The entire Fallout series is like that, and it WORKS. I claim that trend continues into FOT, so the plot doesn't bug me.
Roshambo said:
The humor in FOT was a lot more "low key." I mean the whole "Nanook's little tribal" thing was lowest common denominator, but the CONSTANT plugins and references to other games/books/movies/etc was just flat out annoying in FO2. At least FOT turned the volume down on the bad humor a little. (FO had the right amount. In FO2 they killed the joke, resurrected it and then sent it back for more after a few stiff drinks.)
Yeah, exactly like Jagged Alliance 2.
Personally I love that game, and still play it now and again. But a lot of people? That game has so many game ending bugs and, yes, unfinished parts that I definitely know people who bagged it as a bad idea and moved on to greener pastures. In that respect it's not any different from FOT, I have to say. To be frank, I had fewer bug problems with FOT than I did with JA2. (Not saying much, of course.)I still laugh about voice files not playing with the right text, or the burst bug, or the other problems with JA2. I mean, I just don't see that many bug reports for FOT when I compare it to places like Bear Pit's JA forum!
Yeah, it's corny, no question there. But in terms of gameplay? Hey, it makes sense and it works. Like the basic idea of stimpacks makes any sense? Let's not point out logical holes where there's no better alternative to replace it. Healing a punctured lung in 10 seconds, or running around on a broken leg with a quick doctor's help? Come on... that's not any better, in fact it's worse. But we don't complain about THAT, do we?
Hey. I've known quartermasters almost as bad, LOL.
axelgreese
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Okay I guess I shouldn't have just skimmed it...
You liked the brotherhood because of descriptors that should not have been there. Go play Fallout and Fallout 2 again. How many times do they have that facist-expransionist mentailtiy?
ugh. *twitch*...
Actaully I asked that to make sure you understood what a *good* tactics game was.
I/O Error said:Two, being a quasi-fascist by nature and training I really liked the Brotherhood as a concept, especially when Barnaky (Ermey) was briefing. Hey, I got no moral qualms at all with butchering every savage who so much as looks at my supply columns cross-eyed.
You liked the brotherhood because of descriptors that should not have been there. Go play Fallout and Fallout 2 again. How many times do they have that facist-expransionist mentailtiy?
Mohammad Said al-Sahaf said:
ugh. *twitch*...
Actaully I asked that to make sure you understood what a *good* tactics game was.
axelgreese said:
The Brotherhood has always had that mentality of elitism. The only thing that has changed is the change from being more-or-less introverted to being extroverted. The basic attitude of the Brotherhood towards the outside world is EXACTLY the same.
Heh heh... oh what's wrong NOW?
I do indeed. Your opinion or understanding of a *good* tactics game differs how?
axelgreese
It Wandered In From the Wastes
I/O Error said:
No. They were isolantionist, which is still keeping in the 50's theme if memory serves.
Heh heh... oh what's wrong NOW?
I'd give you three guesses, but if you have half a brain, you're only gonna need one.
JA2 is quite a good Tactics game. Fallout: Tactics is not.
I/O Error said:Yeah, exactly like Jagged Alliance 2.
I still laugh about voice files not playing with the right text, or the burst bug, or the other problems with JA2. I mean, I just don't see that many bug reports for FOT when I compare it to places like Bear Pit's JA forum!
Most of which are problems arising from people who play it with other stuff running at the same time, and also the Gold version, which was a questionable piece of software to run on XP.
Most of the problems relate to a certain title that was published by Interplay and has their own brand
About the sheer number of problems, I really do have to laugh. The boards at V13.net had easily a hundred times that of many JA2 sites about all three JA2 related titles. The official forums for Ja2 weren't nearly as virulent and flooded as those for FOT.
Yeah, it's corny, no question there. But in terms of gameplay? Hey, it makes sense and it works. Like the basic idea of stimpacks makes any sense? Let's not point out logical holes where there's no better alternative to replace it. Healing a punctured lung in 10 seconds, or running around on a broken leg with a quick doctor's help? Come on... that's not any better, in fact it's worse. But we don't complain about THAT, do we?
Hey. I've known quartermasters almost as bad, LOL.
Rationalizing a doctor not giving services or how where a quartermaster requiring you to buy your own stuff by using a part of the setting's fictional design is pretty weak.
No, they were isolationist and hoarded their tech/presence from the outside world except in small doses, which was quite different from that in FOT. They used the "splinter faction" as an excuse to botch the setting and have weak story, etc. They were also based a good bit on a piece of fiction written in '56-'59, but I'm still trying to piece together the full title of it.
axelgreese said:
Isolationist, as well as hateful and distrusting of the outside world. The expansionist idea is the only change. And to be honest we DID see the occasional reference to "maybe the Elders are wrong" about the idea of admitting new members to the Brotherhood back in FO.
Also remember that the idea of isolationism doesn't jive with the fact that the war starts because China invades Alaska, we annex Canada, we battle amongst to China's capital... this is isolationist how? It's not.
That would be the case if I agreed with your opinion at all. We disagree, so basically that's all there is to it.
Half agree. Personally I like FOT as well, and consider it a decent tactics game. As good as XCom or either of the JA games? No. But still worth my time and money to play. And again pal, remember this is my opinion. You can stick with yours, I'll just continue being happy with my choice of game purchases.
Roshambo said:
That I'd have to disagree with. I've seen a great many people have problems well before they tried to run it under XP, or the Gold version was even an idea being given serious consideration.
For this, I'd have to see the boards in question. (Not familiar with the site you're talking about.) Then I can compare.
So is ignoring basic game concepts that are actually far more unrealistic.
Roshambo said:
Hmmm... I'll try again, with simpler words this time.
greese said the Brotherhood was isolationist, "which is still keeping in the 50's theme". That theme of isolationism does not match with the causes of the war presented in the games and the way in which it was fought. (The 50's we know were a time of almost complete disarmament, so much so that by the Korean War the Army had effectively forgotten all the lessons of combat.) It was NOT a time of brinkmanship, material gains overseas, or military buildup, which is how the game presents the pre-war time.
The game's theme is purposely set up as a hodge-podge of eras.
I/O Error said:
One is part of the universe (stimpacks), whether you find them unrealistic or not. The other is making your troops pay for their equipment and ammo from whatever they might find to barter with, and then expecting them to able to perform the task you put in front of them.
If you might also remember, the real BoS gave you equipment for helping them.
Oops, didn't remember that, did you?
I'll try to get it through your thick skull, since in the three years or so that you've scrubbed your stupidity onto this forum, you've never seemed to have managed to get it. Fallout was based upon 50's era sci-fi fiction and propaganda.
That you try to parallel real-world and game setting really proves that you have no clue.
Roshambo said:
And did ANYONE in the previous Fallout games heal your characters? Hell, why would the doctor in this game really need to offer services anyway? He/She is a good source for material, and since you automatically heal anyway the idea of, "Well, I've given you your shot, you're now instantly at full health!" would just be idiotic and redundant.
And I hate to tell you this Ro, but the whole thing about making troops pay for their own equipment? Uh, that's been done before. Many, MANY times before in fact. I'm also not refering to "rabble" armies, I mean standing professional armies. We find it unreasonable because we're used to an Armed Forces that supplies everything up to and including goddamn bubble gum in its rations. That's only been the norm relatively recently, with massive industrial strength making it possible. What's an "army" going to do when it's reduced to scavenging?