Impressions thread for positive impressions

[BarackSays]

If it counts for anything, I first played Fallout 2 when I was like 6 (I'm 16 now), I played the shit out of both games for a decade. Did some mods, went through all the paths, basically explored every nook and cranny that I could.

I've played Fallout 3 over the past few weeks and I genuinely like it. I think it's a fun and great game. I like it as a game and as a Fallout game. I feel like I'm the only "Fallout Vet" that likes it but I never really got too up and worried about it either. I guess it's just different strokes for different folks.

 

[DeadEye001]

No, there's me. There's a lot of others who don't choose to post here. NMA has been known for being ferociously intolerant of FO3 since the property rights were snapped up by Bethesda. This was pretty much the expected response.

 

[M-26-7]

These threads always seem a bit pointless to me. If you want to argue a point, especially something you think has been overlooked, fine. But when you not only basely attack generalizations of arguements against aspects of the game and the userbase of this forum in general you accomplish nothing, because not only is it already unlikely that you will convert anyone, but people get angry when you generalize and make personal attacks and no one will listen to your subsequent arguements regardless of how rational they are (they aren't).

 

[Misanthropicus Grandiosus]

I'm going to be a really lazy camper here and not read through all of this, I'll just respond to the topic starter... here: http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=46773

In all honesty my opinion has changed since I wrote that, as I attempted to play it again, since I simply stopped after a while asking myself 'why?'... I started with completely different stats and ended up playing the same game with little to no difference... It's a good game compared to other titles out now, but it doesn't have the values of either earlier titles. (And no I don't care for the first person view OR the turn based play, both could've been done well.) Solid 6/10.

Oh and voice acting wouldn1t be a problem, if the conversations actually made sense... if you go up to random people and ask 'Have you seen my dad?" They'll just stare at you for long moments waiting for more information, not immediately say 'Of course he was here... you do look like him...'... (Excuse the typos if any remain.)

 

[citixensinister]

No, there's me. There's a lot of others who don't choose to post here. NMA has been known for being ferociously intolerant of FO3 since the property rights were snapped up by Bethesda. This was pretty much the expected response.

For many good reasons. FO3 is not the game we hoped for and wished for, hence the displeasure. If you don't know why, I suggest you read some of the articles to get a good idea why.

 

[Barbalute]

No, there's me. There's a lot of others who don't choose to post here. NMA has been known for being ferociously intolerant of FO3 since the property rights were snapped up by Bethesda. This was pretty much the expected response.

For many good reasons. FO3 is not the game we hoped for and wished for, hence the displeasure. If you don't know why, I suggest you read some of the articles to get a good idea why.

I don't think he's faulting you, but NMA is ferociously intolerant of FO3. I think some of that is justified, but in many cases it's a kneejerk reaction to FO3 having been made by Bethesda.

Anyways, I'm enjoying FO3 a lot too (yes, I've played the earlier ones as well and enjoyed them thoroughly) and in order to get a really balanced view of FO3 you should visit several different boards, not necessarily just NMA, although NMA should be included in your list of course. Since certain communities tend to be predisposed to a certain viewpoint (ex. NMA against FO3, the Bethesda forums for FO3) they push away people with very different viewpoints in general, which leads a lot to sort of skewed forum perspectives.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

I don't think he's faulting you, but NMA is ferociously intolerant of FO3. I think some of that is justified, but in many cases it's a kneejerk reaction to FO3 having been made by Bethesda.

It isn't and it hasn't been (official site policy was "wait and see" for a long time and SuAside and BN both thought that the demo that they saw Todd play looked like it was going to turn out far better than expected), there are just a lot of Fallout fans who don't like Fallout 3 here. Keep in mind that there have been a fair number of people who have gone from supporting the game no matter what to being less happy about it, some as information was revealed and some after playing the game.

Also note that pretty much every prediction made by skeptics has come true. It is a FPP, RT, Oblivion-esc ARPG with dumbed-down SPECIAL, level scaling, jack of all trades do everything characters, minimal choices and consequences, raped canon, bad animations, bad writing, sub-par voice acting, and I'm sure many other things that I'm forgetting to mention. Had even half of these predictions not come true the outlook would be a lot brighter but the truth is that the game is fundamentally flawed.

I thought that the game was going to be an average or mediocre Fallout sequel but a great game when I heard who had bought it until I actually played Oblivion, that changed everything for me.

 

[fireb0rn]

I don't think he's faulting you, but NMA is ferociously intolerant of FO3. I think some of that is justified, but in many cases it's a kneejerk reaction to FO3 having been made by Bethesda.

Well, the "Oblivion with Guns" statements didn't help. But I reserved my opinions for until I'd actually tried the game out. I'd even played it for 5-6 hours, by which time I fully realized it was exactly as I thought it would be, and stopped playing. So yes, the fact that Bethesda made it led me to be (very) suspicious of the game, but that doesn't change the fact that I played the game, and that my opinion that it sucks is based off of that alone. I think most here have shared in the same experience.

 

[UniversalWolf]

I don't think he's faulting you, but NMA is ferociously intolerant of FO3. I think some of that is justified, but in many cases it's a kneejerk reaction to FO3 having been made by Bethesda.

Generally the play goes something like this:

1) New Poster shows up and starts praising BS/"Fallout 3"
2) NMA Old-Timers poke holes in New Poster's praise
3) New Poster falls back on common fallacies that have been refuted many times - possibly hundreds of times
4) NMA Old-Timers get irritated and start rolling their eyes
5) New Poster either departs or gets angry and starts calling NMA Old-Timers names like "intolerant" and "kneejerk"
6) Repeat ad nauseam

The simple solution, of course, is for New Poster to spend some time reading the forums before he posts, so his opinion can be an informed one, and not redundant; contrary to popular belief, knowing what you're talking about is more important than having a passionate point of view.

The technology didn't exist in 1997=false.
We don't know what the original design intent was=false.
Being hugely profitable makes a game good=false.

And so on.

 

[Barbalute]

Or,
1) New poster comes in and bashes FO3 at every turn, sometimes justified but a lot of the time not.
2) New poster is agreed with, many times by people who haven't even played the game yet
3) Someone comes in, pokes holes in his argument
4) Massive argument ensues
5) Rinse and repeat

It goes both ways.

EDIT:

The technology didn't exist in 1997=false.
We don't know what the original design intent was=false.
Being hugely profitable makes a game good=false.
And so on.

Oh, and also:
1) Are you talking about the technology to render the Fallout world in acceptable 3D in first-person perspective? Because yes, first person games existed at the time, but Fallout's setting necessitates large, open spaces and the detail required to make it look good didn't exist in 1997. 2D would have yielded much better results at the time.

2) I remember seeing a link to something about Fallout's original design intent. It wasn't very long. Could you link it to me? From what I remember reading, it wasn't explicitly stated that a 2D isometric view was an inherent part of the Fallout world, but I haven't read it in a little while and I'd like to look at it again before I make any statements like that.

3) I can't remember anyone making that argument. I wouldn't take it seriously and I can see why you wouldn't as well. That said, I've never fallen back on that and the other people who enjoy Fallout 3 here haven't used that as far as I can remember.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

^ 1) Again, Daggerfall never happened. Neither did Robinson's Requiem, Die by the Sword, Half-life etc etc. Fallout setting does not force you to have everything on one map. Loading levels when going from one area to another would work perfectly well.

2) Why does everyone seem to think isometric=2d? Mario is 2d, Metroid is 2d, Fallout is a 3d game with an isometric perspective. Geez, get it right. As for the link, it was posted in the last few pages of one of the recent topics.

3)Maybe you didn't. Many other people did. I believe that post was a general statement.

 

[NYHoustonman]

I don't think he's faulting you, but NMA is ferociously intolerant of FO3. I think some of that is justified, but in many cases it's a kneejerk reaction to FO3 having been made by Bethesda.

Generally the play goes something like this:

1) New Poster shows up and starts praising BS/"Fallout 3"
2) NMA Old-Timers poke holes in New Poster's praise
3) New Poster falls back on common fallacies that have been refuted many times - possibly hundreds of times
4) NMA Old-Timers get irritated and start rolling their eyes
5) New Poster either departs or gets angry and starts calling NMA Old-Timers names like "intolerant" and "kneejerk"
6) Repeat ad nauseam

It's incredible the bias some of you 'old timers' have. I've read enough of this forum over the past several weeks to have seen exactly the opposite happen - you must have missed those threads, I guess?

I've been lurking these forums for a while now, not really wanting to post because I know it just turns into arguments, but I don't want it to seem like those on this forum who like the game are that much in the minority. I'm sure it's the same for tons of people - they know there's no reasoning with a good deal of you.

I have no problem with anybody hating Fallout 3 based on its "Fallout-ness." I honestly never played the original two, and I can understand the frustration that comes with a change of game style (I've felt the same in the case of, as an example, Warcraft). But, among you 'old timers,' you'd think this game was about a 5/10 - I sure as hell hope the average gamer doesn't come here and decide not to buy the game because of all the BS. Is it flawed? Yes, if you sit staring at them for long enough, virtually every game ever made has flaws. But, in my book (not to mention in the minds of the vast majority of critics and gamers outside this forum), it's a great game.

I'm not saying everybody has to like it... Even the greats have people here and there who are totally convinced that everybody else is wrong. It'd frankly be awesome if you'd admit that you 'old-timers' are biased, or don't give Fallout 3 a fair chance. This is one of the highest-rated games of the year, far from the 'waste of time' so many of you make it out to be.

 

[Barbalute]

^ 1) Again, Daggerfall never happened. Neither did Robinson's Requiem, Die by the Sword, Half-life etc etc. Fallout setting does not force you to have everything on one map. Loading levels when going from one area to another would work perfectly well.

2) Why does everyone seem to think isometric=2d? Mario is 2d, Metroid is 2d, Fallout is a 3d game with an isometric perspective. Geez, get it right. As for the link, it was posted in the last few pages of one of the recent topics.

3)Maybe you didn't. Many other people did. I believe that post was a general statement.

Daggerfall didn't look that great. In fact, it looked pretty bad. The 2D Fallout had was much better. Robinson's Requiem:

Also not very good.
I can't remember DBtS ever having large open spaces that you could see straight out to, and, while it's been a while since I last played HL1, I also can't remember areas as large and open as a wasteland. The problem with loading levels is you still need a hell of a long draw distance for any 3D Fallout game, because it was mostly flat desert, which means you can't use fog really at all to mask distance. So even if you load a bit, there has to be something to block you from seeing too far, but there can't be, because it's leveled wasteland.

2) Uhhh... because isometric IS 2D? It's not a flat perspective, but it's rendered exactly the same as a 2D game. I'm talking about performance here, so it has a large bearing on what I'm saying. Also, I've been looking around and I can't find the link. I honestly would like to read it so that I can see if it's a definitive as everyone says it is.

3) Like I said, I can't remember anyone relying on that argument. Care to link to a couple people using it on these boards?

 

[PetrolMan]

The voice acting has never really bothered me too much. It's not great but I tend to ignore it for the most part anyway because it's too slow. I probably wouldn't miss it all that much except for a few characters, mainly Eden.

There have been moments where the implementation of the voice acting have been extremely annoying. When rescuing Dr. Li and the crew I would ask them to wait and whenever I would return she said "Well, what is it?" in probably one of the bitchiest voices I can imagine. That got quite irritating quite quickly and actually kind of ruined my experience there.

Three Dog has good and bad moments. Sometimes he sounds like a parody of a radio announcer, sometimes he sounds the part.

I really like the idea of the radio although the implementation is kind of poor in my opinion.

---

I just read NYHoustonman's post. If you haven't played the first two Fallout games then you cannot understand why this game is disappointing. FO3 has its issues but I doubt many people on this board would say it is a terrible game that should be avoided like airborne super herpes. I, not wanting to speak for others, am mainly disappointed in what is lacking from FO3. The first two games had their bugs and were diamonds in the rough. FO3 is more like cubic zirconium in the rough.

Also, popularity does not mean that something is good. Just because FO3 has sold so well does not mean the game is good. I would also say that as far as critics go the reviews may depend on how far you are in the game. I really enjoyed Fallout 3 for the first 10-15 hours. I have become increasingly disappointed since then. Also, I don't really know how many of the critics played FO/FO2 originally.

FO3 looks bad in comparison to not only its potential but its source material as well. I can overlook bugs and mistakes but I can't overlook a supposed sequel that is lacking the heart and soul of the series.

PetrolMan

 

[NYHoustonman]

^ 1) Again, Daggerfall never happened. Neither did Robinson's Requiem, Die by the Sword, Half-life etc etc. Fallout setting does not force you to have everything on one map. Loading levels when going from one area to another would work perfectly well.

2) Why does everyone seem to think isometric=2d? Mario is 2d, Metroid is 2d, Fallout is a 3d game with an isometric perspective. Geez, get it right. As for the link, it was posted in the last few pages of one of the recent topics.

1)Frankly, that runs parallel to the voice-acting argument - why do it if it's going to be half-baked? Open-world games the likes of Fallout 3 are really just gaining momentum now that the technology is there - I'm sorry, but the original Source engine (for example) would not have done much of anything with the kind of landscapes you need to render in a game such as this. You wouldn't be able to see nearly far enough to give the feeling of a truly continuous game world, and I don't see loading screens between chunks of land as an acceptable compromise.

2)As I mentioned, I haven't played the originals... But they're 2D, sprite-based. In the sense that you can move in 3 dimensions, they are 3D, but that's not what we're talking about.

 

[Buxbaum666]

Or,
1) New poster comes in and bashes FO3 at every turn, sometimes justified but a lot of the time not.
2) New poster is agreed with, many times by people who haven't even played the game yet
3) Someone comes in, pokes holes in his argument
4) Massive argument ensues
5) Rinse and repeat

Examples?

Oh, and also:
1) Are you talking about the technology to render the Fallout world in acceptable 3D in first-person perspective? Because yes, first person games existed at the time, but Fallout's setting necessitates large, open spaces and the detail required to make it look good didn't exist in 1997. 2D would have yielded much better results at the time.

2) I remember seeing a link to something about Fallout's original design intent. It wasn't very long. Could you link it to me? From what I remember reading, it wasn't explicitly stated that a 2D isometric view was an inherent part of the Fallout world, but I haven't read it in a little while and I'd like to look at it again before I make any statements like that.

http://www.nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=35764
Using 3D to emulate a Pen&Paper/Tabletop RPG doesn't make much sense to me. The original developers obviously agreed.

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. Of course, it’s easy for me to say I wouldn’t have done a paused real time FO3 now, but I don’t know what I would have said if the offer was made.

3) I can't remember anyone making that argument. I wouldn't take it seriously and I can see why you wouldn't as well. That said, I've never fallen back on that and the other people who enjoy Fallout 3 here haven't used that as far as I can remember.

It has been argued that isometric games aren't profitable, that Bethesda has thus made the right choice, that our expectations are way too high and that we should live with it.

It's incredible the bias some of you 'old timers' have.

I think it is quite natural to be biased against a supposed RPG and sequel to a franchise you love if it turns out to be a mediocre first person shooter with RPG elements, messed up canon, crippled SPECIAL system, very limited dialog options, linear main quest, repetitive dungeon crawling, black&white karma system, a lack of choice&consequence and a mini-nuke launcher.

they know there's no reasoning with a good deal of you.

That's a non-argument. I could say there's no reasoning with all those people who come here, telling us that Fallout 3 is a great game and that we are all biased and hate the game just because we want to hate it.

But, among you 'old timers,' you'd think this game was about a 5/10 - I sure as hell hope the average gamer doesn't come here and decide not to buy the game because of all the BS. Is it flawed? Yes, if you sit staring at them for long enough, virtually every game ever made has flaws. But, in my book (not to mention in the minds of the vast majority of critics and gamers outside this forum), it's a great game.

Opinions - everybody has them. In my book, all those 10/10 reviews are most unjustified. It's beyond me how many of those reviews mention major flaws and proceed giving the game 10/10 anyway. The same thing happened with Oblivion.

It'd frankly be awesome if you'd admit that you 'old-timers' are biased, or don't give Fallout 3 a fair chance.

Nonsense. There are quite a few people here who like the game. Mind that liking the game doesn't mean ignoring it's flaws.
See http://www.nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=47007

This is one of the highest-rated games of the year, far from the 'waste of time' so many of you make it out to be.

Do you like the game because you actually like it or do you like it because it is "one of the highest-rated games of the year" and thus can't be less than awesome?
And you accuse NMA members of being biased and not to reason with but you think that your opinion is the right one? Sweet.

 

[Deadman87]

It's funny that people actually bothered trying to counter prove an ignorant troll for so long.

I mean, there's probably going to be another one tomorrow, doing the same routine

 

[Starseeker]

Where is rosh when we need him? If any new comer doesn't know who he is, he hasn't bothered with the "search" button at all.

Reading this play repeated ad nauseam is listening to people claiming the Italians invented pasta. Of course, they have only eaten "Italian" pastas before, telling them otherwise is darn near impossible. The generation gap is apparent.

 

[Tessera]

This thread has been an interesting read.

Some of you may know me... most of you probably don't. In any case, I'm firmly aligned with the "Fallout 3 is cheesy dumbed-down crappola" camp. I've already posted a lengthy preview and then later, an actual review on my own site... so I won't bore anyone with three pages of redundant opinions. Many of you have already mentioned most of the same shortcomings with F3, anyway.

As a texture artist and modder, I am obviously going to be extra aware of the visual shortcomings in this game. I find it almost impossible to accept that Fallout 3 has come from the same company which visually astounded us all with Oblivion two years ago. It's even more incredible when you consider that F3 is the *newer* of the two games... and yet it looks absolutely abysmal in comparison. The meshes are sloppy, the textures are amateurish and overall, it's an exceedingly uninspired mess. That may be good enough for the kiddie konsole krowd, but PC users deserve better. A lot better.

Predictably, lots of excuses are being made all over the web by a smattering of F3 fanboys. None of those excuses bear up under close scrutiny, however. Neither does Fallout 3. In my estimation, this game was a sloppy rush job, vomited forth by lazy devs chained to proverbial oars, and being whipped from behind by cigar smoking leeches in polyester suits. F3 has "shake your money maker" written all over it. How this POS ended up with an "M" rating is beyond by ability to fathom at this point. It's probably just another marketing gimmick... because overall, the actual content of F3 is ridiculously tame (and lame) in comparison to its legendary predecessors. Whatever you may call it, this is NOT a Fallout game. Not so far as I am concerned.

Anyway... before my very first post on this board turns into another "TLDR," I'll just cut myself off by saying:

Fallout 3 sucks rancid goat balls. Three cheers for Bethesda Slopworks.

 

[Roflcore]

It's beyond me how many of those reviews mention major flaws and proceed giving the game 10/10 anyway. The same thing happened with Oblivion.

Money I'd say