In my opinion Fallout 3 is truest to Fallout 1.

Atomkilla said:
korindabar said:
Atomkilla said:
Are The Elder Scrolls games
Click to expand...

Atomkilla said:
I have played Oblivion
Click to expand...

Then why did you ask? :shrug:
Click to expand...

There is a difference between singular and plural form.
Click to expand...

You asked whether they were "just as crappy" but were already familiar with 25% of the series and had brushed off the other 75% because Todd Howard and Pete Hines were involved. That's not a straightforward question, that's a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

It's not weird that you might not like the series, but weird to ask whether it was crappy when you seemingly had arrived at that conclusion already. The games are there and free, if you want to try them and see what they're actually like. They're not bad games.
 
Loaded or not, question was whether it was "more crappy", or "less crappy" than Fallout 3, regardless of my attitude towards Bethesda's games because of you-know-who. More appropriate would be if I've just asked people to compare the two, which I, in some shrewd context, have. And got the answers.

On a side note, I am not familiar with 25% of the series. Ten minutes in Oblivion are far, far less than that.

Although I have arrived to some conclusion myself, my lack of proper knowledge on the subject is the thing that can easily prove me wrong, so that's the reason I asked the question in the first place. And to see other people's opinions on that matter.

And if those games were free, you can bet I'd have tried them already. But thanks.
 
And if those games were free, you can bet I'd have tried them already. But thanks.
Click to expand...

The first two are freeware, the third can be found for few dollars everywhere. You would miss only the last one, but would it be a loss?
 
Ten-penny tower
Click to expand...

Tenpenny Tower is a functioning settlement? I don't see it. Their out in the middle of know where, with no food source other than trading and even that's a bit of a stretch. I certainly agree that Rivet City and to a less extent Megaton can be seen a functioning towns.

Personally, place like Arefu could have been potentially interesting if they were designed better. Arefu had docks near the water. Honestly, Arefu should have used the bridge as a look out and built building to house a militia unit, while having the town under and around the bridge with crops and water purification or would that make to much sense for FO3?

As Atomkilla stated, the west coast has had bigger problems for years and they have managed to rebuild. In FO3 it's 200 years later and people are still living in shanty towns/utter dumps with no food production other than Rivet Cities hydroponics and small scale Bhramin meat supplies. That's not a sense of Desperation, that's just stupid.
 
@ Atomkilla

Back during the Morrowind days, ol' Toddy was just the project lead, the lead designer was an award winning PnP designer named Ken Rolston, and the PnP influence in the Morrowind mechanics are apparent. When Oblivion was in production and Todd was promoted to exec. producer, Ken was more or less pushed to the side and disagreed with the choice to go from text-based to fully voiced dialogue because it wouldn't allow the same depth in the game.

Morrowind was my first RPG, and I loath Oblivion with a burning passion. Give it some time and give it a try. It's also the only recent Beth game I can play without any mods. :)
 
I don't think so... Fallout 3 seems a little random. Nothing makes sense. Big town, the place with the two cannibals families, grayditch, nuka cola quantum lady and her bitch, dave's republic. Slavers could enslave them in an instant. Deathclaws could have a tasty snack. Nothing is guarded to the extent which it needed to be. Also, there seem to be magic invisible food which people on the CW feed off. Fallout 1 had crops, enough protection where it was needed and a decent plot. The only similarity I see with being truest is that you need to fix some kind of water purifying machine.

EDIT: IMO the only reason why EVERY town looked like shitty was because Bethesda is lazy and needs to stick with making large empty cities *coughOBLIVIONcough*.
 
As fan whose favorite game is the first Fallout, I couldn't disagree more that fans of the first game would like Fallout 3 better. One of the biggest strengths of Fallout is how logically and cohesively the game world, story, characters and quest fit together. By creating such a well put together world, it provides your character the ability to interact with it different, interesting and logical ways. Fallout 3 is absolutely dreadful in this respect, its game world, factions and characters make no attempt to be logically consistent and the areas and quests are mostly disjointed and have nothing to do with each other. Fallout 2 has issues with this a well, but not nearly as much as Fallout 3; New Vegas on the other hand does an excellent job in at creating consistent, functional world, and that is probably the main reason I prefer it to Fallout 2.
 
Quagmire69 said:
Just seemed like that to me, more villages and shanty town, mutants are still bag guys instead of being misunderstood, player comes from a vault, Brotherhood plays a central role. Vegas seemed truer to fallout out 2. I think that's whats the fights about on whether fallout 3 is really cannon, the people who liked fallout 1 loved 3, the people who liked 2 love Vegas.
Click to expand...

I think the problem here is that Fallout is a cult game. As such, it's very easy to wind up with gamers split into two distinct camps:

Camp A love the Cult Game, and believe it to be the pinnacle of Gaming Excellence.

Camp B, who are the significant majority, don't even know the Camp Game exists.

Myself, I would never have known Fallout 1 or 2 existed where it not for the fact that Fallout 3 must, logically, have had two prequels. I seriously doubt I was the only one in this situation. In that sense, Fallout 3 IS truer to Fallout 1; both games are essentially trying to convey the universe to a first time audience.

New Vegas, by the same token, is much truer to Fallout 2. New Vegas clearly assumes you have already played at least one Fallout beforehand. Ideally, you've played all three (and perhaps even some of the titles which I am assured do not, nor ever did, exist). Fallout: New Vegas is, therefore, a game for Fallout fans, just as Fallout 2 is a game for Fallout fans. Fallout 1 is not for Fallout Fans, because there weren't any. Fallout 3 is not for Fallout fans, because it is for making NEW Fans, and hopefully the old ones can have a good time as well.
 
I believe that atmosphere is a essential role. I think Fallout 3 was great athesiticly. I particularly like the DC ruins and the Pitt. They did a great job of making the PL and andale creepy as hell. My main citique of vegas is the shitty atmosphere.
 
Quagmire69 said:
I believe that atmosphere is a essential role. I think Fallout 3 was great athesiticly. I particularly like the DC ruins and the Pitt. They did a great job of making the PL and andale creepy as hell. My main citique of vegas is the shitty atmosphere.
Click to expand...

New Vegas has an atmosphere like the first two games. If Bethesda had removed every Fallout reference from Fallout 3, it'd be just any other post-apocalyptic game and maybe it would be more acceptable. For Fallout though, it's piss poor.
 
THat is mostly bells and whistles Quagmire, atmosphere isn't worth shit if the content is not great, your main critique of New Vegas seems to be a very superficial thing that you can't even word properly.
 
UnidentifiedFlyingTard said:
I thought New Vegas had a damn good atmosphere I think, I think why Fallout 3's atmosphere is bad is because nothing in the game is believable.
Click to expand...

I agree, whilst I didn't mind Fallout 3's atmosphere all the stupid shit just kept breaking the immersion; like the 'super-heroes' and the other niggling facts like the lack of any progress since the war or the completely untouched store shelves.
 
UnidentifiedFlyingTard said:
I thought New Vegas had a damn good atmosphere I think, I think why Fallout 3's atmosphere is bad is because nothing in the game is believable.
Click to expand...

Agreed, New Vegas had a much more consistent and overall better atmosphere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top