Impressions thread for negative impressions

[naossano]

I said that FONV was the first game in 13 years that actually tried to bring back Fallout.
It wasn't perfect, but there is an HUGE step toward the right direction. Simply put, it brought back hope, hope that was lost long ago.

I never said that FO3 brought back Fallout. It followed the thread started with FoT, to moving further from Fallout.
(even if FOT is a good game on its own, it started a progressive downfall, a downfall that got into its lowest point with Fo3)

 

[SnapSlav]

I'd care to disagree with you about FOT, almost entirely. I agree that it's a good game on its own, but I disagree that it started any "negative trend" in the series. You could argue FO2 did that, but I'd go so far as to say it was ONLY upwards until FOBOS came along. FO2 had its hang ups, but it was a solid game. FOT created new problems to bitch about, but it was still a solid game. FOBOS was the first in the series that was actually a terrible game no matter how you sliced it. If you compared it to its closest counterpart, the Baldur's Gate series, it was the CLEAR inferior in standing, but it was named "Fallout", and in that respect it was even worse by comparison. There was zero about FOBOS that was enjoyable (and I even replayed it recently to remind myself why I disliked it so strongly, in the event I may have just slipped into group think that "agreed" on the game being shit incarnate, and I was QUICKLY reminded that it was indeed practically shit incarnate XD) and it introduced many of the aspects that would later haunt the series. Installing the Vault Dweller or his apparition wherever or whenever the story went. Inserting Harold as a major characters regardless of how distant from the original story the current setting took place. Departing COMPLETELY from the previous model of game mechanics because "that's the direction games are heading right now, so let's just roll with it" sentimentality. Following trends, not adhering to your own sense of artistic creativity and presentation. FOBOS did all of these things wrong, and FO3 continued in that step. Not the steps that FOT put forth.

FOT broke the atmospheric aesthetic and tone of the series somewhat in its totally-grim and bleakly colored setting and inclusion of real-world-named weapons rather than fictional naming. But FO2 did exactly the same when it changed the colors of many of the maps (caves going from a distinct blue to an uninspired brown), tossed in many locations that felt out of place in the setting, and included weapons with real-world-names, yet these were tiny grievances compared to an overall wonderful game. FOT distanced itself from the previous conflicts, but so did every game, beginning with FO2, because it didn't want to retread the same places again and again. FOT introduced story elements that contradicted the established canon, but so did every game (even FO1 contradicting itself on a few occasions), such as the infamous "was it FEV or did radiation do it?" debate that couldn't be agreed upon by the creators. FOT made some mistakes, but it was not the start of the downward slope of the series. That award sits firmly on the shelf of FOBOS, and nowhere else.

 

[naossano]

It didn't say that FOT was bad, but that it started moving further, which FoBOS & Fo3 did on a far larger scale. You could argue that FoT didn't moved that far, but it started the path.
Fo2 had a tone change, but i don't see as a departure. Also, the woldbuilding on itself is great IMO, but we a few existing threads for that topic.
But the point is, that FONV is the first game since a long time that actually tried to be a Fallout, while Fo3 didn't at all.

PS: I am mostly talking about moving toward/further a proper Fallout, not necessary talking of quality. If we had an incredible FPS with the best storyline, but no RPG elements at all, not even the choice of weapons, the game could be good, but still even further than a Fallout.

 

[naossano]

Helpful indeed. It mentions a few things about the "teleport system"'s inherent flaws that I felt but couldn't quite articulate.
I take it you posted this on those boards? I just noticed a similar slightly-off-grammar trend in the wording, so since you didn't specify the source, I assumed it could be you.

Here the thread about it if you are intested in saying different kinds of players opinions on this.
http://forums.bethsoft.com/topic/1501764-fast-travel-in-continuous-gameworld/
(i feel i lost far too much time on it)

 

[5545Trey]

I am not sure you can say that Fo3 "killed" the Fallout franchise.

I don't intend to defend Fo3 in any way.
Also, i found Fallout:Tactics a very good game in its own way.

But since FoT, the franchise itself went further and further from its stenghts.
With FoT, it lost most of the RPG feature.
With FOBOS, it lost Turn-based, consistency and writting.
With Fo3, it lost isometric view, focus, the support of the original Fanbase.
FoNV in my opinion, is more than a breath, it is actually the first game in 13 years that actually tried to be a Fallout.
It IS, with no contest, a truly actual RPG, for the first time since 13 years.
It brings back many lost features (like reputation). It bring back the grey morality. It bring back the writting skills of Black Isles.
It is not Van Buren, it is not Fo1-Fo2, but coming after FoT,FoBOS, Fo3, it is a Revolution, it is a worthwile third game of the trilogy.
It sold millions of units, it is critically acclamed, and many of the NEW fans loved it.

Sure, it is not like the Fallout we used to play, but the spirit of Fallout is still there.
In my opinion, the franchise was dead before FoNV, the expetations were gone, but FONV brought hope back.

But although, i admit the game is still far from perfect.
I don't think i will replay it as much as i replayed the first two games.
Or at least, not as a completionist. Playing FoNV as a completionist is nighmarish, with all the useless places that come with that "Open World hiking wonderland".

I agree, New Vegas was a breath of fresh air compared to the other titles before the first two games.