I think I'm getting tired of Fallout

Personally I found a lot of Fallout 3 blunt copying and pasting.
If Bethesda was really set on making a Fallout of their own they could have gone with complete new factions, mutants, etc, and definitely better story telling.
Not "Lets bring back the BOS, and the Super Mutants, and the Enclave etc."

Instead they are one of the best examples why I think other people in general should not be allowed to work with beloved classics because despite their claims of being fans of it they often show that they have no clue what it is actually about.
 
The Dutch Ghost said:
Personally I found a lot of Fallout 3 blunt copying and pasting.
If Bethesda was really set on making a Fallout of their own they could have gone with complete new factions, mutants, etc, and definitely better story telling.
Not "Lets bring back the BOS, and the Super Mutants, and the Enclave etc."

Instead they are one of the best examples why I think other people in general should not be allowed to work with beloved classics because despite their claims of being fans of it they often show that they have no clue what it is actually about.
Click to expand...

See I think that Fallout 3 was way more original than the Force Awakens but it still had the same job: convince long-time rabid fans the franchise was in good hands. For Fallout 3 they had to play it relatively safe. I will say the writing isn't very good, but only in the main quest The side quests are all right, and Point Lookout was a great add-on despite having only a handful of NPCs.

Would Obsidian have done a much better job with Fallout 3? Well in terms of environmental storytelling and atmosphere, no. And those are big elelments, I play with green mods and realistic sky and even with those, the Capital Wasteland is the most forlorn, empty, desolate and lawless place I've ever seen in a game. And I don't think Obsidian's game would have sold as well as Fallout 3 did, even if they were working on the same engine and budget. The writing would have been fantastic, the combat would have been better.

Honestly, if Boston had been nuked to shit in Fallout 4, I would have way less of a problem with the game. The game wastes its premise in every way, but if you ignore the premise it's merely mediocre. But it's very clear that Fallout is a test bed for what they're thinking of for Elder Scrolls. They're willing to take chances (perhaps in a way that's irresponsible for Fallout) to see what they can do to innovate Elder Scrolls. And given the fact that Elder Scrolls is their baby, and Fallout is not, I really can't blame them.
 
if bethesda just didn't water fallout down for gen z kids and normies it would still be good
 
I have no interest in a "real" apocalypse. I want the theme park version because the whole concept of the human misery and horror of something like Metro, let alone the "real" apocalypse is depressing for my escapist entertainment. I like the idea humanity is broken, never going to get better, and that it'll be a Dark Age for a thousand years.
 
CT Phipps said:
I have no interest in a "real" apocalypse. I want the theme park version because the whole concept of the human misery and horror of something like Metro, let alone the "real" apocalypse is depressing for my escapist entertainment. I like the idea humanity is broken, never going to get better, and that it'll be a Dark Age for a thousand years.
Click to expand...

You want it, you got it

Fallout-76-beta-release-date-When-is-Bethesda-Fallout-76-out-Do-you-need-to-sign-up-972577.jpg
 
0wing said:
Creative potential is nearly limitless, I think Fallout is far from dead. It's just not licensed by Bethesda.
Click to expand...
THANK YOU.
I wish more people would adapt this mindset instead of focusing only on the negatives and slowly turning into that annoying grandpa/father in law that turns every conversation into a political discussion.
 
Charwo said:
I don't like open world games for Fallout because I want the scale Fallout 2 had...
Click to expand...
It could have trivially been both, but they don't want to make an RPG, they make timeless reactive environment sims. From what I've heard (from a Tod Howard speech), was that they cut moths of landscaping work out of the game.

The original Fallout world was depressing as hell, and manageable because of the humor, and the player detachment from the PC, but with Bethesda, the players ARE the PC, and walking around in it in FPP can (not surprisingly) be depressing as hell. :lol:

FO3 could have had all that it came with, and a procedural landscape in between the major locations; just like Fallout did.

The players could have interacted with a world map—or explored it all in realtime. Did they not do this with Skyrim, in effect?
 
Last edited:
Gizmojunk said:
The original Fallout world was depressing as hell, and manageable because of the humor, and the player detachment from the PC, but with Bethesda, the players ARE the PC, and walking around in it in FPP can (not surprisingly) be depressing as hell. :lol:
Click to expand...

Yes, but Fallout 2 was superior in every way to Fallout 1.

It lightened the mood considerably.
 
CT Phipps said:
Yes, but Fallout 2 was superior in every way to Fallout 1.

It lightened the mood considerably.
Click to expand...
I don't see it the same. Fallout 2 was made by people, many of whom did not seem to understand the setting; and we got the bespectacled lock picking scorpion, and the talking plants... and Brain sans Pinky. Also Arthur and his knights, and Melchor the spell casting supermutant.

The Fallout franchise has a disturbing parallel to the Highlander franchise IMO:
As each title is comparable to their counterpart in the other series.

(1:1/2:2/3:3)
 
Last edited:
CT Phipps said:
Yes, but Fallout 2 was superior in every way to Fallout 1.

It lightened the mood considerably.
Click to expand...
Which is good because...?

As much as I love Fallout 2, one cannot make a proper argument for it being better than Fallout 1 in terms of atmosphere, story and world design. Hell, they made the locations independently from each other and it definitely shows in the later parts of the game. It's not that much of a deal because Fallout 2 still follows Tim Cain's vision of what Fallout should be about, but these points can't simply be swept under the rug.
 
MPPlantOfficial said:
Mate, it's the same game with the same sprites and assets + more
They're equal in this parameter at the very least.
Click to expand...
Mechanically, I'd say that Fallout 2 is better. Story & atmosphere-wise no. IMO Fallout 2 was a lot less credible than Fallout, lacking in suspension of disbelief—but it was still pretty good.

Fallout 2 incorporated the supernatural occult as a real presence in the world. It's one thing when the PC can be plausibly hallucinating, it's another when they get killed by magic.

Oddly enough, Fallout 2's tag-line was: "A classic RPG —minus the faeries, spells, and other crap."
...some of which, it had.
 
Last edited:
Carmelita Fox said:
Which is good because...?

As much as I love Fallout 2, one cannot make a proper argument for it being better than Fallout 1 in terms of atmosphere, story and world design. Hell, they made the locations independently from each other and it definitely shows in the later parts of the game. It's not that much of a deal because Fallout 2 still follows Tim Cain's vision of what Fallout should be about, but these points can't simply be swept under the rug.
Click to expand...

I can, certainly.

Fallout 2 has a distinct focus on world building as we see where the food is created, where resources are distributed and the kind of distinct cultural relationships between major powers exists. Vault City, New Reno, NCR, and the conflicts over annexation/joining up. The worldbuilding was much more defined as well.

Plus, the Enclave is objectively superior to the Biomass/Evil Church/Mind Control group of the Master.
 
MPPlantOfficial said:
Mate, it's the same game with the same sprites and assets + more
They're equal in this parameter at the very least.
Click to expand...
Sure it uses the same things, but it utilizes those in a better way. The shared sondtrack fits Fallout 1 locations more naturally and Fallout 2 has no place which feels utterly terrifying like the Glow.
MPPlantOfficial said:
Mate, it's the same game with the same sprites and assets + more
I would say FO2 has the edge a little more with locations spread out more and branching quests that affect the fates of different locations (Gecko-Vault City, Modoc-Ghost Farm...)
Click to expand...
That's the problem with Fallout 2 locations, there are certain routes that you will religiously walk over and over again before switching to a different one and doing the same thing with it. While Fallout 1 has a rather fixed progression, in Fallout 2 you go straight to Vault City, maybe go back for the car, then make your way around the world to the NCR and San Francisco, after which you spend literal in-game months casually strolling in the NCR - New Reno - Vault City triangle with the occasional trip to Broken Hills. You have literally one incentive to revisit old places which is checking on Arroyo (and maybe going back to the toxic caves for the Bozar) and one quest in San Francisco that sends you to a different place, Navarro. With the RP installed you get a few more options there, but otherwise it's rather secluded from the rest.
Also, I had that one run where I was casually carrying out a genocide on the Oil Rig when suddenly realizing that I completely forgot to go to Redding. While being connected to New Reno and Vault City story wise, there's just no real incentive to go there if you somehow forget it exists.
CT Phipps said:
Fallout 2 has a distinct focus on world building as we see where the food is created, where resources are distributed and the kind of distinct cultural relationships between major powers exists. Vault City, New Reno, NCR, and the conflicts over annexation/joining up. The worldbuilding was much more defined as well.
Click to expand...
Like the distinct focus on how Shady Sands and Adytum grow food and the Hub runs caravans around the region to distribute recources? I'll give you the last point here, the NCR - New Reno - Vault City power triangle is very well done and lets you have a significant impact on the outcome while conflicts in Fallout 1 are more localized and don't interconnect.
Like I said above, the worldbuilding is very divided and features 3 routes you repeat over and over again while almost completely excluding the western part of the map without the Slaver camp and Umbra Tribe added by the RP. Also, running between Vault City and NCR at least four times to please that bitch Lynette is kind of a chore, don't you feel? The only thing I'm looking forward to even less when replaying a Fallout game is all the running between casinos and around Freeside for the respective quests. That whore Joana can rot in hell for all I care, I'm not making another trip from the Gomorrah to Vault 21. ...who am I kidding, my completionist OCD doesn't allow for skipping quests...
CT Phipps said:
Plus, the Enclave is objectively superior to the Biomass/Evil Church/Mind Control group of the Master.
Click to expand...
You mean the all evil government that has an FEV freak supersoldier and plans to eradicate all the muties is objectively better than a creature with a distinct vision for the betterment of humanity through the supermutant race which can actually be talked to and convinced of their inevitable failure? Alrighty then.
 
Carmelita Fox said:
You mean the all evil government that has an FEV freak supersoldier and plans to eradicate all the muties is objectively better than a creature with a distinct vision for the betterment of humanity through the supermutant race which can actually be talked to and convinced of their inevitable failure? Alrighty then.
Click to expand...

I think the Myth of the Master being a deep and intelligently written character is something fanon because at the end of the day, he's a big huge bio-mass cyborg that controls an EVIL church that worships radiation and has an obviously evil cackling cult leader as his voice.

Wiping out the mutants is also a very good plan for restoring the human race to supremacy over the wasteland. Certainly better than turning them into lemon colored orcs.

Was it a ruthless plan? Yes. But it was our best hope for an age of freedom.

72a32c626cf974f77a3e8ac57178a92f.jpg
 
CT Phipps said:
Plus, the Enclave is objectively superior to the Biomass/Evil Church/Mind Control group of the Master.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't.

Also, let's look at his plan: he wants to turn people into beings that are immune to radiation, in a wastleland filled with radiation. That honestly sounds like a great plan to me. He basically wants to make humanity into beings that are immune to radiation and are far stronger than a regular human. Also unify everyone under one banner instead of humanity being scattered through different factions that often fight each other. The problem with the Master is that he uses brute force instead of trying to convince people to do it willingly.

The only major flaw with his plan and the reason you use to convince him to stop his plan through diplomacy, is the fact Super Mutants can't procreate.
 
Last edited:
CT Phipps said:
I think the Myth of the Master being a deep and intelligently written character is something fanon because at the end of the day, he's a big huge bio-mass cyborg that controls an EVIL church that worships radiation and has an obviously evil cackling cult leader as his voice.
Click to expand...
Gritty as it is, Fallout has some deliberate farce to it. The Master, the Unity, and the plot are all fitting B-movie fodder, in keeping with the pop-50's aesthetic—surely this is by design; unless one of the (original) devs would post to say otherwise?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top