Impressions thread for negative impressions

[TheLastOutlaw]

In all honesty I'm probably one of the few players who liked FO1 better.

Though they used a nice story touch to explain having the main PC walk around in the same vault suit to me it always felt like somewhat of a cheap cop out and yea, the game does have it's flaws.

But the single biggest reason FO2 earned it's number 2 is that it took the same ideas and mechanics and expanded them, and once again had depth and replayability.

It also has going for it that it had the same core gameplay mechanics.

BS could have shifted game play mechanics and potentially still stayed in sequel worthy territory but they seriously seemed to think that sticking the 3 on in and copying some sounds and textures was enough. They didn't TRY. The game was half hearted, half finished and has no soul... I don't know what else there is to say about it really.

 

[Public]

Fallout 2:

1. humour
2. story
3. replayability
4. bigger world
5. more interesting characters you can attach to
6. an actual Role Playing
7. choices and consequences
8. the whole base of the game (not the mechanics) was an improvement from the first Fallout. Where Fallout 3 is an improvement from Oblivion.

 

[Tagaziel]

Don't think that I'm pulling your leg with this one - but what makes Fallout 2 a better sequel than Fallout 3 (ignoring TBC and ISO, just this once)? I mean if the vaults, the factions and creatures aren't fallout-defining, then what makes Fallout 2 a better sequel? There are some sections in FO2 which I sometimes think are 'worse' (in terms of Fallout-loyalty) than FO3's, such as New Reno.

* An expanded and balance SPECIAL system
* World expanded in a logical, mostly believeable and not lore-raping way
* Introduction of factions that make sense in the game world
* Choices and consequences further expanded
* Continues the themes from the previous game
* Feels like a real, living world.

To name a few.

 

[thefalloutfan]

Fallout 2:

1. humour

3. replayability

4. bigger world


7. choices and consequences

8. the whole base of the game (not the mechanics) was an improvement from the first Fallout. Where Fallout 3 is an improvement from Oblivion.

Yeah I agree with these.

2. story

5. more interesting characters you can attach to

But not with these. The story was really nothing special. And while no.5 does apply, this is something which Fallout 3 also had. Well actually interesting characters for different persons will vary, so I can't get into this.

* An expanded and balance SPECIAL system


* Choices and consequences further expanded

Yes.

* Feels like a real, living world.

Fallout 3 does too.

* World expanded in a logical, mostly believeable and not lore-raping way

Where does not Fallout 3 follow this?

 

[Brother None]

Fallout 2 is possibly worst of than Fallout 3 in terms of setting, but it makes it all up by actual superior execution of the pen-and-paper philosophy of Fallout 1. The choice and consequence execution in New Reno is better than in any location in Fallout 1.

And then you have to consider that Fallout just started as a pen and paper RPG, the setting was "slapped on" (so to say). That means that while Fallout 2 is controversial, it actually does hold on to what the core of Fallout 1 is - what Fallout 1 started as, a pen and paper emulating RPG.

Defining the sequel of a game that was meant primarily to express its design philosophy and only secondarily to have an interesting setting by its setting rather than its design is kind of missing the mark. Defining it by both works best, for which both Fallout 2 and Fallout 3 have their shortcomings, Fallout 3 just tilts them over the brink.

 

[TorontoReign]

thefalloutfan:

Fallout 3 does not feel like a real, living world because too much does not make sense. In the original Fallout's you had farms and communities that made sense. You could actually believe that they would survive in the wasteland. In F3 you have no farms, slaves with no demand for them, squirrel bites and no squirrels, plot rehashes from Fallout2, and many other problems,
Of course people love to eat 200 year old food. Makes sense. Farms to provide food for the cities of Megaton and Rivet City? Nah. Fuck that. Lets throw some yogi bears in the mix for good measure.
Fallout 3 raped the lore by throwing in "cool" material and not throwing in shit that makes sense.
Harold in Dc rooted to the ground like a fucking tree monster = raping of the lore.

BOS doing things that are not in there nature=raping of lore.

Thermonuclear warheads that are slung around like candy=raping of lore.

Cars that explode when shot because nobody likes to scavenge nuclear cells in the harsh wasteland=raping of lore.

The dozens and dozens of other issues that hard working modders are trying to fix to make the game playable=a shitty game that could have been a hundred times better.

 

[LionXavier]

there are actually people there claiming they are Fallout fans, and that Fo3 is a worthy successor of Fo2! Makes no sense.

Well, proclaiming oneself to be a Fallout fan is as easy as to say/write: "I'm a Fallout fan"; but doing so doesn't make you automatically an actual Fallout fan. The people you mention are the perfect example of this.
You see, the statements "I'm a Fallout fan" and "Fallout 3 is a true Fallout sequel" simply are, by common sense, incompatible. Saying the two together is either lying about the first statement or lying about the second.

Yeah Yes, there are actually fallout fans who proclaim fallout 3 as a sequel. Yeah, that's my opinion of the game too.

If you, or anyone else, really believe that Fallout 3 is a true Fallout sequel then you aren't a Fallout fan. No matter how much you repeat to be one, you simply aren't. And that isn't an insult nor an intention of doing so; it is simply to stick to common sense and to the meaning of the word "fan".

Albeit not liking FO3 as much as FO1 and FO2, it's still a sequel in my books.

Note that this isn't about liking or not liking Fallout 3. A Fallout fan of course can like and enjoy Fallout 3. It is about considering it a worthy part of the Fallout main series. You see, a Chess fan can also enjoy soccer (even very, very much), but if they tell him that the next world chess contest is turning into a soccer game, then he won't consider it to be a "true chess contest", no matter how much he may enjoy the soccer games under the "chess" name. It's simply logic.

What's there not to understand? Something like this is very subjective, and it all boils down to tastes and preferences.

Uh... no, this has nothing to do with subjetivity. Fallout. A Post-Nuclear RPG is a very concrete thing: a top-down POV, point&click interfaced, character skill-based Pen&Paper inspired computer RPG with turn-based combat. To proclaim that a First-Person shooter with minigames (which is not only a different kind of game, but practically its antithesis) is a true successor of the former is everything but being a fan of it. Proclaiming that maintaining some details, names or any other baseless personal connotative feeling from its predecessor makes it a Fallout sequel for you only proves that you never where a fan of the game, but of those details. If Fallout 3 is a worthy sequel for you because it maintains the wasteland, some sounds, some empty names (empty because calling "SPECIAL" a system that has almost nothing to do with the original SPECIAL is just emptiness) and the Vault-boy images, then is logical to assume that you aren't a Fallout fan, but a Fallout's Wasteland/sounds/names/Vault-boy fan.
In my previous example, if someone says: "I'm a fan of chess and the new tournament is a true chess tournament because one team wears white and the other black", then he wasn't a fan of chess, but a fan of the colors of the pieces of chess... or, well, maybe he just wasn't a chess fan at all but a soccer fan that for some odd reason was very, very pissed off by chess fans not considering the "new world chess contest" a true chess game

 

[Tagaziel]

Fallout 3 does too.

I beg to differ. As VDweller wrote, it feels like an amusement park, not a real world. None of the cities have working amenities of any kind, there is no real reason any of them would exist, the characters are bland and one-dimensional, the world is static and devoid of real weight to your actions...

It doesn't even stay consistent within its own world.

Where does not Fallout 3 follow this?

Liberty Prime, BoS on the East Coast, Supermutants on the East Coast, miraculous GECK, miniature Vaults, Little Lamplight, uniformly cannibalistic raiders, Tenpenny Towers, Project Purity, Fatman...

 

[Public]

But not with these. The story was really nothing special.

Does Fallout 3 have special story? No. Even worse, it copies the story from FO 1/2.
At least, in FO2 the plot was driven and interesting and you felt like you were the main part of the story. Fo3's story doesn't do that, because you're following your daddy's footsteps, you're not making your own.

And while no.5 does apply, this is something which Fallout 3 also had.

Name them please.

* Feels like a real, living world.

Fallout 3 does too.

Why? Because people walk and talk?

Where does not Fallout 3 follow this?

you tell us where it does.

 

[TorontoReign]

Fallout by Bethesda ... like George Lucas directing Lord of the Rings ... maybe ...

That would be funnier if Peter Jackson's LotR movies weren't apallingly bad.

I wouldn't trust Peter Jackson to direct a Billy Mays commercial.

If you don't mind me asking why did you not like the LOTR movies?

 

[LionXavier]

Are you serious? Like you're going to tell me what I am, and what other people are. Seriously, shut up.

I'll reply to the other posts tomorrow, but I couldn't let this one quote go unnoticed. I hope I'm not the only one who finds the above quote stupid. What do you think you are LionXavier.

... You know, I pretty much expected this answer. But it's simply the truth. You can say you are something all you want, but at the end your actions/opinions/statements will prove you right or wrong. No matter how much you say you are Superman, you still can't fly... and also no matter how much you want to take it as an insult; it isn't

 

[thefalloutfan]

Liberty Prime, BoS on the East Coast, Supermutants on the East Coast, miraculous GECK, miniature Vaults, Little Lamplight, uniformly cannibalistic raiders, Tenpenny Towers, Project Purity, Fatman...

Yes, you're right on this one. But I don't agree with the BoS, SM and GECK part. The GECK was miraculous in every FO game (well, FO2).

If you, or anyone else, really believe that Fallout 3 is a true Fallout sequel then you aren't a Fallout fan. No matter how much you repeat to be one, you simply aren't. And that isn't an insult nor an intention of doing so; it is simply to stick to common sense and to the meaning of the word "fan".

You are right, I'm not a fallout fan because you say so. Don't try to prove this point, don't. You are in no position to judge anyone whether they are real fans or not. I can't believe you vatted my post Michael.

EDIT: No you are not right on this one. I am a fallout fan, and whatever you say, whatever you may think, you won't prove me wrong. This isn't arguable. But of course, the millions of fallout fans who accept Fallout 3 are wrong, and you are right?

Moving on, I won't continue on 'real' fans.

Name them please.

The ghoul in Megaton is the first one which comes to mind. But you get to like a character simply because he interests you, and Ron did.

 

[TheLastOutlaw]

I would tend to argue that while FO3 had characters that had the potential to be interesting once you scratched the surface they really weren't.

There were snippets of visible effort, I'll give them that. Gob asking you to say hi to Carol in the Underworld and her dismay to learn that he a slave if you told her? Brilliant. Where was Carol asking you to do what you could to free Gob? Where was any other comment or reaction from either of them regarding the situation?

Princess and MacReady have a history of disdain and unrequited affection? And you can use it to make fun of Princess or completely ignore it? They tried, sort of. And that brings up another pet peeve. Tease Princess until she hates you like the anti christ but if you walk past you she still chirps "Good to see you again."

In Tenpenny Tower, you can assassinate Tenpenny before the Ghoul situation is sorted out and while the capt of the guard declares he's in charge now that Tenpenny is dead he still thinks Tenpenny is alive when you ask about the ghouls?

Every time Beth almost does something right you're slapped in the face with things that break the immersion.

FO 1/2 weren't perfect but they were immersive as hell and the world was much more consistent and better realized than FO3.

 

[Tagaziel]

Yes, you're right on this one. But I don't agree with the BoS, SM and GECK part. The GECK was miraculous in every FO game (well, FO2).

No, it was not. It's Beth's imagining.

The GECK was:

I don't see any parts about it "miraculously terraforming the terrain instantenously killing the user".

And the Brotherhood there is NOT fitting, no matter how you try to explain it. What was wrong with introducing a new, unique faction? Or use the Reavers from FOT?

You are right, I'm not a fallout fan because you say so. Don't try to prove this point, don't. You are in no position to judge anyone whether they are real fans or not. I can't believe you vatted my post Michael.

I vatted it because it was pointless. And stupid.

EDIT: No you are not right on this one. I am a fallout fan, and whatever you say, whatever you may think, you won't prove me wrong. This isn't arguable. But of course, the millions of fallout fans who accept Fallout 3 are wrong, and you are right?

Let's clear things up: there are Fallout fans (ones who love the series because of Fallout 1) and Fallout 3 fans (those who love the series because of Fallout 3). The latter aren't in the group the former belong to.

It's quite a simple distinction. People loving the FPS won't (for the most part) appreciate quality RPGs like Fallout, preferring their watered down drivel.

The ghoul in Megaton is the first one which comes to mind. But you get to like a character simply because he interests you, and Ron did.

His name was Gob. Shows how memorable he is.

 

[BloodyPuppy]

Oh come on now, I really enjoy FPS games and RPGs. Fallout 3 isn't exactly a really great FPS either.

 

[Tagaziel]

I was not referring to you.

Note "mostly".

 

[BloodyPuppy]

Ah, just saw that. Sorry. I just get irritated when everyone seems to think every FPS is a mindless "SHOT EVRYTH1NG!!ONEoneUNObbq"-fest.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Let's clear things up: there are Fallout fans (ones who love the series because of Fallout 1) and Fallout 3 fans (those who love the series because of Fallout 3). The latter aren't in the group the former belong to.

Some are Fans of Fallout 1/2/3 cause of the setting mainly (and they are indeed long time Fallout fans then).

But the setting what some forget is just the icing on the cake. You cant have the one really without the other and call it a "true" sequel.

Part of Fallout WAS definetly its ISO/Turn Based mechanics. That is even said and backed up by dev quotes (anyone can read about it in history of Fallout). The mechanics were choosen before the setting even, and was some of the most important ideas behind Van Buren (or any Fallout 3 project before Bethesda bought the franchise).
Leonard Boyarsky: I don’t know how I would have felt about making FO3 anything but isometric and turn based. We did have an extremely high budget idea for another approach, but even in that scenario combat was isometric and turn based. (...)
Link

*Edit
Something I dont understand is how some can seriously argue about that Fallout 3 has good/excelent and voice acting in direct comparison with the talking heads of Fallout 1/2. I mean ... Myron baby ... MYRON!

 

[thefalloutfan]

Let's clear things up: there are Fallout fans (ones who love the series because of Fallout 1) and Fallout 3 fans (those who love the series because of Fallout 3). The latter aren't in the group the former belong to.

It's quite a simple distinction. People loving the FPS won't (for the most part) appreciate quality RPGs like Fallout, preferring their watered down drivel.

Yes, but I love both FO1 and FO2 also as I originally said, so him telling me I'm not a real fallout fan is offensive/[insert appropriate word].

His name was Gob. Shows how memorable he is.

You got me here /excuse: 2am in the morning.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Let's clear things up: there are Fallout fans (ones who love the series because of Fallout 1) and Fallout 3 fans (those who love the series because of Fallout 3). The latter aren't in the group the former belong to.

It's quite a simple distinction. People loving the FPS won't (for the most part) appreciate quality RPGs like Fallout, preferring their watered down drivel.

Yes, but I love both FO1 and FO2 also as I originally said, so him telling me I'm not a real fallout fan is offensive/[insert appropriate word].

It depends on how you approach it. No one is seriously disputing your status as "Fan" of Fallout (in general). But you have to accept at some point that Fallouts priciples was always around its pen and paper roots and not just the 50s-future-apoc-setting, which as said is just the "icing on the cake".

You cant have a complete bowl full with the icing only and call it a improvement over the cake. Thats not what I and many here see as sequel. And this is a point that comes as fact when you read about what the developers of Fallout trully wanted to create. And I think at least if anyone has some idea bout what Fallout it is, then it are the developers. At least much more then compared to the people at Bethesda which did noting more then buy the franchise.

*edit
you could just as well strat trying to sell Alien and Predator fans alike Aliens vs Predator as a "sequel" to Aliens and Predator (or prequel of some sort considering the time the movies are set in), and I asure you 90% of the fans will burn you for it. Most fans like me hate AvP in direct comparsion with the Alien and Predator movies. Fallout 3 is in my eyes a "spin off" from the past Fallout games just market as Sequel (sadly)