I just want to know...

D

Dark

First time out of the vault
Why do alot of people dislike this game..?
I mean, don't get me wrong, I know its nothing compared to Fallout 1 and 2.
But still, it's a fun game. challenging at times to.
But apparently, just because they put the Fallout name on it, used the Fallout setting, it pisses people off that its like this.
I know the story strays, and they have a few things wrong or screwed up.
But think of it this way, if Fallout 1 and 2 never existed (*shudders*) and this game was released, what would you think?
 
You are right, it is a nice game, but most of us had higher axpectations.

Compare it to the volkswagen new beetle. It is a nice car, but old-beetle owner hate it. Just because they hoped for something better.

If you played Fallout 1 or 2, you probably did it because of almost total freedom to do quests. Tactics is linear and you know you eventually did exactly the same others did while playing the game. Where did the role playing go?

You see? I liked the game, but it shouldn't be named some name that resembles Fallout.
 
I didn't mind it and like alot of the innovations that were in the game that were improved over the original Fallouts. It wouldn't have taken much to improve it to the point where more people would have liked it. Having played around with the editors I know what the game is capable of and I see it could have been much better not only story wise but even playability wise too. Most of the maps that people are making are a vast improvement over the original game.
 
The Dude said:
You are right, it is a nice game, but most of us had higher axpectations.
Click to expand...

it's not that ppl had high expectations... they had the wrong one's

everyone expected a ROLE PLAYING game... and when they got a post nuclear tactical game (with RPG element) got disapointed
 
LMAO

but it's cool to write ppl

why would I want to write people

I am in a hurry!


:!:


:D
 
JJ86 said:
{I said "peeps". Beat me like a baby seal, please.}

{It's "people". You can write legibly. Don't bother crying about it.}

:roll:

Little chickens go "{I said "peeps". Beat me like a baby seal, please.}".
Click to expand...


LMAO!!!

what are the other "censored" words?
 
Ixian said:
it's not that {It's "people". You can write legibly. Don't bother crying about it.} had high expectations... they had the wrong one's

everyone expected a ROLE PLAYING game... and when they got a post nuclear tactical game (with RPG element) got disapointed
Click to expand...

Nice assumption.

Incredibly wrong, however.

It's also one that has been proven to be full of shit countless times.
 
Ixian said:
it's not that {It's "people". You can write legibly. Don't bother crying about it.} had high expectations... they had the wrong one's

everyone expected a ROLE PLAYING game... and when they got a post nuclear tactical game (with RPG element) got disapointed
Click to expand...

No, most people were expecting a game that lived up to the name "Fallout", and didn't get it.
 
I got into a huge argument with Rosh about this.

I liked the game despite the various mistakes that were made.

It was not exactly Fallout but it still had a fallouty feel (not the real thing but it tided me over in lieu of Fallout 3 making an appearance)
 
Roshambo said:
Nice assumption.

Incredibly wrong, however.

It's also one that has been proven to be full of shit countless times.
Click to expand...


please prove it to me (not trying to be a thickheaded idiot here... just want to see other aspects on things)
 
Ixian said:
please prove it to me (not trying to be a thickheaded idiot here... just want to see other aspects on things)
Click to expand...

In my time on the Fallout fansites, general gaming boards, and Usenet, saying that "everyone expected a ROLE PLAYING game... and when they got a post nuclear tactical game (with RPG element) got disapointed" is a grotesque and naive fallacy at best would be kind.

Some points brought up about it can be seen here.

Since the game came out, I'd have to rate the gripes as the following:

90% Had gripes with bugs/incomplete status of the game, issues that were quickly dropped by IPLY
70% It just isn't Fallout in the setting, the story is shit because it basically ignores the setting and story points of the backstory and history
50% Of those who had gripes with the game have played better, e.g. Jagged Alliance 2
10% Someone did buy it and expected it to be an RPG, not having done research on the game
 
Well I don't judge FoT by looking at the SP (it just well... sucks), I judge it by looking at the MP part... and that's what kept me playing it for a very long time.
 
Ixian said:
Well I don't judge FoT by looking at the SP (it just well... sucks), I judge it by looking at the MP part... and that's what kept me playing it for a very long time.
Click to expand...

Oh, yes. The horribly imbalanced part where all you really need is trauma packs and other drugs, where there's only a few guns anyone ever uses because many are just plain worthless?

The made-up rulesets by the fans aren't there for novelty, they are there for some much needed balance.
 
I liked playing the Single player mode. I enjoyed trying to complete the missions, gaining in rank and karmic titles etc.

Even in single-player there were only a few weapons that were really worthwhile (AK 47, hunting rifle, Garand -not great because you only get it once you start going up against mutants who can shrug of sniper attacks.)

Still, the gameplay and tactics part was good + I loved seeing my character carve through the enemy with flechette loaded shotguns.
I love the character part of the game (the same reason I loved the Fallout games - the character system was really good - though I normally play Combat/speech characters in the earlier Fallout games. Talk when you can, fight when you have to.)
 
Hey,

I would rather say it isn't even a Fallout game it's just a whole other game! But most people that don't know Fallout 1 or 2 like it... All the people that do know 1 and 2 are rather dissappointed... That's just what I heared and I think about the game...

Grtz, Fire Sprite
 
Yeah, I've been hearing that a lot lately. Me, though. I liked the game for what it was, regardless of the Fallout inaccuracies (I liked the post-nuclear fallouty setting even if it wasn't accurate enough to please die hard fans - and I loved FAllout 1 and 2)

I see what you mean about that it didn't need to be called Fallout but with Fallout ruling the post -apocalyse genre I cannot really blame them (the developer) for trying to sneak this game under the wire. There was the risk of creating a really crappy, second rate fallout knockoff setting that made the barest attempt to be different but I think they used enough Fallout ideas to keep the setting reasonable and interesting for any fans of the genre. It is a shame they couldn't make it properly Fallout but given that two of the main designers left the company before Tactics was made, it is no great surprise the remaining people could not get across the brilliance displayed in the earlier games.

I know Rosh may ban me for saying they didn't completely destroy the Fallout setting but that is just a clash of opinions. Hey, that's going to happen on a forum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top