I think Fallout 3 is better than Fallout 2

[UncannyGarlic]

What scares me the most about this thread is how certain people are willing to adjust their ideas and thoughts about FO3 simply because a Fallout veteran (what does that mean anyway?) like Saint Proverbius states that FO3 could have been better than FO2 if it had been iso + TB.
And I call myself wishy-washy. Bwahahaha! Compared to some of you, I'm the most stubborn cock on this farm.

Who changed their mind based on what that guy said? All I said was that it was more cohesive (though I think that's the wrong term as it's really more consistent) than Fallout 2 when it comes to it's own setting. The tone of Fallout 3 seems to be more consistent throughout the entire game than Fallout 2 was as it doesn't jump around as much (Fallout 2 bounced about a bit with New Reno, San Fransisco, and the rest of the game) but it's not more consistent with Fallout than Fallout 2 was as it's further off track throughout.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

That is pretty good in 10 months, even reusing assets.

Yup. I mean, look at Beth. 4 years and many millions, and they are doing the same thing: reusing assets. Not quite as successfully though, but that's maybe because the assets they are using are... *cesored*, ahem, I mean *Oblivion* ^____^

 

[gregor_y]

That is pretty good in 10 months, even reusing assets.

Yup. I mean, look at Beth. 4 years and many millions, and they are doing the same thing: reusing assets. Not quite as successfully though, but that's maybe because the assets they are using are... *cesored*, ahem, I mean *Oblivion* ^____^

So basicly F3 should have same engine,graphics,sounds just other content like quests and location...

Damn im gona make a gaming company and sell same thing over and over im fucking briliant and morons will buy...

 

[Critter]

Damn im gona make a gaming company and sell same thing over and over im fucking briliant and morons will buy...

You're already a few years too late and too many other big companies are now holding that same position.

Sorry bud

 

[Corvin]

Nobody said anything about EA!

 

[Ausdoerrt]

^ I think it needs no mention. Think the Need for Speed or FIFA or NCAA, ad nauseum, series.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I have a quastion for everyone

If you hate FO3, even as not Fallout game, do you like FPS games?

I love certain FPS games when I have the computer to play them. At least for me a lot of enjoyment comes from the visuals in a FPS, though not exclusively. I still play Half Life 1 today cause its just extremly "fun". Same to the Blood series, Doom 3, Far Cry, Fear etc.

I like those games cause I enjoy the diverstiy. When playing a shooter I am for sure not searching in them for the same experience I do with RPGs, or strategie games (like Supreme Commander). The more different ways of gameplay and settings one have the better. Doesnt mean that one setting is inherently better then the other.

Of course there are expceptions, but to say that I really dont share the imagination games like Deus Ex or System Schock 2 would be "RPGS". But they use certain aspects of it that I really loved a lot in those games (like a inventory of some sort for example, or some slight use of stats). That doesnt mean though I would want a Fallout sequel that plays like Deus Ex! (if Fallout 3 would have at least a Story that is as good like the story from Deus Ex 1 ...)

I have a quastion for everyone

If you hate FO3, even as not Fallout game, do you like FPS games?

I love them. And FO3 doesn't really accomplish either (RPG or FPS).

I can only concur. For a good RPG it has to many limits and a bad story. For a good shooter its just not fast enough.

 

[J Marcus]

I love FPS games. I practically grew up with them. The first game on the PC I played was a shooter, Doom. I'm also enjoying the newer FPS games. At least those games don't have an identity crisis like Fallout 3 nor pretend to be anything else.

Fallout 3
FPS or RPG? I can't tell. All I know is, it fails miserably at both. Reminds me of that auto Subaru made

Perfectly parallels what I think of FO3

 

[BloodyPuppy]

I really like FPS games, and wasn't a huge Fallout 3 fan. It didn't really pull of RPG or FPS well. And the FPS in question doesn't even have to be particularly complex. It doesn't even have to be in first-person, I'm fine with third-person shooters. Mercenaries 2 is a perfect example of a simple game that knows what it is and what it is trying to accomplish, and it works well. Fallout 3 does not.

 

[13BEAST]

I like shooter games. The first game I remember playing is Wolfenstein 3D. Duke Nukem 3D, Goldeneye64 and Gears of War (the first one) are 3 of my top 5 favorite video games of all time. FO and FO2 are the other 2

 

[Patton89]

I enjoy FPS or 3RD person shooters. Games like Max Payne, F.E.A.R, Far Cry , and Doom. Fallout 3 just doesn't work well, it is not that good FPS or that good RPG.
Combat is no-brainer easy ride with 0 tactic, and RPG part is severely lacking in depth.

 

[Zetsuei]

well, there's pros and cons which one is better.

F2:
+ epic storyline
+ loved the combat system and perks
- graphics

F3:
+ Post Apocalyptic wasteland is awesome
- storyline just mediocre
- PA got nerfed

oh well, just my 2 cents.

 

[Public]

I personally am a fan of RPGs and Shooters (FP or 3rd Person). The first games I experienced were actually FPSs: Wolf 3D, Duke Nukem 3D.
I enjoyed Max Payne for its story, the main character and then combat and Painkiller for its "style" of combat (because that was the main thing about it).

So by asking that quastion, I wanted to know how FPS fans (like myself) see Fallout 3 as being a FPS.
Looks like it fails at both- RPG and FPS, and it also fails at being a Hybrid game (FPSRPG) like Deus Ex.

 

[TheRatKing]

I see Fallout 3 as a horrible mish-mash of FPSARPG. It is a horrible FPS, and a horrible RPG. I don't know if it is just my rig, but shooting in real time is next to impossible for me, I use only VATS. Enemy AI comes up short compared to other games. I have been playing FEAR, and the enemies constantly flank you and flush you out with grenades. They use cover effectively and sometimes make cover (push down a table to make a wall). F3s enemies do not do these things.The shortcomings in the RPG department have been stated previously, many, many times,

 

[Ausdoerrt]

So by asking that quastion, I wanted to know how FPS fans (like myself) see Fallout 3 as being a FPS.
Looks like it fails at both- RPG and FPS, and it also fails at being a Hybrid game (FPSRPG) like Deus Ex.

Hmm, I will dare to suggest that FPS fans think FO3 is an RPG, and RPG fans think it's an FPS =))

Fans of both genres see how it truly fails in both directions.

 

[Profit]

Hmm, I will dare to suggest that FPS fans think FO3 is an RPG, and RPG fans think it's an FPS =))

Fans of both genres see how it truly fails in both directions.

So then is it like... racing sim fans that are buying it in droves?

 

[Pretentious]

Me. Fallout 2 suffered greatly in design from a lot of "Wouldn't it be {'Kewl?' My native language is retard.} if.." and a general lack of communication between designers, and it shows. Fallout 3, even though it has some goofy things in it like the vampire wannabes, feels a lot more like a very cohesive design for the setting of the locations around the game. Fallout 3, in terms of the setting, feels a lot more like Fallout than Fallout 2 did.

Then again, I'm one of those wacky Fallout fans that puts Fallout on the pillar and puts most everything else, including Fallout 2, on the ground around it. I don't excuse Fallout 2's faults in the setting just because it's bigger and has more quests.

What? Fallout 3 was packed full of ridiculous "Wouldn't it be kewl if?" bullshit. Fire breathing ants, a giant battlemech, a cave run by kids, over the top and cliche Red Scare sattire, supervillains, behemoths, a vault full of Gary clones, mini nukes, cars exploding into a mushroom cloud, the ridiculous junk weapons, bullet time combat, Harold as a tree, and blowing up a town with a nuke to name just a few.

I dont understand the arguement that Fallout 2 isnt cohesive or is disjointed, especially in comparison to Fallout 3. I've played the game at least 9 times through since I was 10 years old, and I find the setting pretty consistent. Yes, it jumps around with San Fran, and New Reno but that makes sense to me considering in a post-apocalyptic world there's much room for variation between city-states seperated by miles.

Im also unsure if I should consider Fallout 3 a good game. I can hardly even bring myself to play it anymore, and I havent completed maybe....60% of it. I just find Fallout 3 incredibly dull, and actually pretty moronic. I dont get put off by it because its a bad Fallout game much anymore, so much as I find it a bad game by itself. The dullness comes from the absolute monotony of just wandering around a free roam environment fighting whatever, so I can go complete the quest of fighting whatever or picking up X item and returning it to Y person. I find it moronic because the whole damn atmosphere is like that of a cartoon, or of a "Fallout themed amusement park" like what the NMA review said. A few guys I knew were watching the movie Toxic Avenger and 3/4 of the way through the movie one of them yelled "THIS SHOULD BE THE OFFICIAL MOVIE OF FALLOUT 3". These guys had not played the other Fallout games, but the person who yelled that out was spot on I would say and if you've seen Toxic Avenger you'd probably have to agree even if you liked Fallout 3. Of course, Toxic Avenger isnt post-apocalyptic but it is an incredibly cheesy B-movie with over the top gore and vulgarity. Its an incredibly ridiculous and moronic film that manages to be fun in small doses. I would say that describes my feelings about Fallout 3 pretty well.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

Hmm, I will dare to suggest that FPS fans think FO3 is an RPG, and RPG fans think it's an FPS =))

Fans of both genres see how it truly fails in both directions.

So then is it like... racing sim fans that are buying it in droves?

Not racing... There is *waah* no transportation aside from teleport available in FO3.

 

[DOF_power]

well, there's pros and cons which one is better.

F2:
+ epic storyline
+ loved the combat system and perks
- graphics

F3:
+ Post Apocalyptic wasteland is awesome
- storyline just mediocre
- PA got nerfed

oh well, just my 2 cents.

IMO:

F2:

+ lots of fun weapons
+ more quests
+ cool but uninspired professions (porn star, boxer)
+ cool but uninspired/illogical places (New Reno ?!)
+ sell you wife to slavers



- stupid easter eggs
- stupid self reference
- more fetch quests
- combat was piss poor
(like all turn based games not call Total War)
- storyline average to mediocre with a bad broken ending
- drag the game mechanics
- ammo droping from the sky
- some locations are not fortified/protected at all making their existence non-sense
- too much importance given to the spreadsheet

 

[DOF_power]

What? Fallout 3 was packed full of ridiculous "Wouldn't it be {'Kewl?' My native language is retard.} if?" bullshit. Fire breathing ants, a giant battlemech, a cave run by kids, over the top and cliche Red Scare sattire, supervillains, behemoths, a vault full of Gary clones, mini nukes, cars exploding into a mushroom cloud, the ridiculous junk weapons, bullet time combat, Harold as a tree, and blowing up a town with a nuke to name just a few.

But it still couldn't even scratch F2 in terms or ridiculousness.

And some of your point aren't really valid,

TARDIS, Mad Max, time traveling, Monthy Python with the Holy hand grenade, self reference, New Reno, mafia, alien blasters, alien wannabes.

Junk weapons, Harold as a tree make sense.

Bullet time is more ridiculous then stop time TBS ?!

Fire ants make a lot more sense then those aliens or mafia families.

Blowing up a town with a nuke, what's wrong with that ?!



My language is retard true, but let's not forget those low INT dialogs or the gamebraker that you could complete the game with low INT.