Is it wrong to compare Fallout 1+2 with 3 in terms of story?

T

The Lost Hills Paladin

First time out of the vault
I said that Fallout 1 makes 3 look like shit(the story does is what I mean't). But several people who prefer Fallout 3 said that was stupid. One even said that comparing them is ignorant because they "were a completely different class of games". When I wasn't even comparing gameplay(turn based vs real time).


I replied back to them and said What I meant by that was that Fallout 3 lacked any form of Moral Ambiguity. It was too black and white for my tastes. Moral Ambiguity is necessary for Post Apocalyptic Games. Take a look at The Last of Us for instance, Moral Ambiguity and grayness is necessary for story to be so profound. To take a quote from that amazing game "Either hold on to your morals and die, or do what it takes to survive."

In Fallout 3 they forced you to do good in the Main Quest they didn't let you join the Enclave. In Fallout 1 they gave the players the option of helping the Mutants in fact thy even made an ending for it. New Vegas did this as well by letting you join Caesars Legion.
Fallout 1, 2, and New Vegas recaptured that spirit.
 
Let's be honest, comparing is the only way to evaluate whether something is good or bad. I wouldn't argue with Fallout 3 fans if I were you though. It's pointless.
 
Sub-Human said:
Let's be honest, comparing is the only way to evaluate whether something is good or bad. I wouldn't argue with Fallout 3 fans if I were you though. It's pointless.
Click to expand...

Exactly. One even said "a more wrong sentence has never been said"
 
You can always compare the story / setting, as this does not depend on a games genre.
 
Just don't discuss about RPG about story.
most important thing is you experience.
Fallout and TES( I count fo3 as TES 4.5) are in same genre,
Quest RPG.

The quest is basically none linear feature.
The first game that brings Quest RPG is Ultima4.
at Ultima 4, there's nothing given to you to do but "doing good to be Avatar." but actually, there's a mainquest like other game but just hidden. what you have to do is get some information, doing some good thing, get companion and other things. nothing is linear but every features are ready to beat main goal.
and how about Fallouts?
basically, Fallout gives you a goal directly.
but how to accomplish the goal is not given.
so finding what to do, do something accidently and method you choose to achieve the goal affects your final goal. NV is little bit different from Fo1,2 for finding Benny(it's quite linear) but dealing with minor factions are included in main quest, and even you didn't know it was mainquest, you can do it and it's non-linear.
what is good point of non-linear quest RPG?
it's unique experience. you gain your own unique experience that other people didn't. and that's the spirit of Quest RPG.

but what about fo3? all you have to do is linear
and other subquests don't affect each other.
it's just dump of small lines. same for TES4 and 5.
in these games, every gamer experience same thing.

So there aren't any specific story for fa1,2 and NV
since your experience is story itself.
but fo3, all people experience same story. so
it's just waste of time to convince fo3 fanboy about story of Fo1,2 and NV.
but as a "Game" and specifically "Quest RPG", fo3's story is bad. the most important thing of Quest RPG is every gamer have different experience.
 
why not comparing ? criticism is the thing which possibly brings improvements in .. i tell you, i passed thru wastelands in fo1 and fo2 several times .. i played this gem over years since late 90's .. but this is what will never happen with fo3, which i played split to two parts (one block to the half, then month or two rest and finishing it after this pause) and i can tell, i'd never replay fo3 anymore .. it's just different fallout, insteadly i started replaying fo1 and fo2 to make the aftertaste of fo(3) on my receptions better

i don't say that fo3 is bad, wrong, unorthodox, whatever .. it's just different kind of game missing crucial elements which fallout series should kept .. it's simply too correct and too childish .. no more junkies, no more miserable bandits (well, bandits on wasteland in fo3 are rather yet another enemies in the list to kill with no soul or heart), also difficulty of fo3 is arguably easy and skills system is different in not very lucky way making the game easy and removing character development strateginess

but as i said, i don't tell or shout that fo3 is bad .. it's different and it did not met my tastes, nothing less, nothing more ..

be kind
 
Re: Is it wrong to compare Fallout 1+2 with 3 in terms of st

The Lost Hills Paladin said:
I replied back to them and said What I meant by that was that Fallout 3 lacked any form of Moral Ambiguity. It was too black and white for my tastes.
Click to expand...
Fallout has always been about black and white. Just look at the karma system.
 
Re: Is it wrong to compare Fallout 1+2 with 3 in terms of st

NatureDruid said:
Fallout has always been about black and white. Just look at the karma system.
Click to expand...
it was act like commom reputation than black-or-white meter.
 
Re: Is it wrong to compare Fallout 1+2 with 3 in terms of st

NatureDruid said:
The Lost Hills Paladin said:
I replied back to them and said What I meant by that was that Fallout 3 lacked any form of Moral Ambiguity. It was too black and white for my tastes.
Click to expand...
Fallout has always been about black and white. Just look at the karma system.
Click to expand...
So master was black or white? Or BoS? Or Vault City? Or for another pointless example, water merchants?
 
The karma system was just a carry over from the roleplaying games that they were trying to simulate.

But the Master wasn't that Morally Grey (hurdurhur grey, geddit?) at least in my opinion. The thing that made it not be so Black and White was that your choice weren't either Absolute Chaste Saint and Mustache Twirling Baddie, yo ucould be those 2 but you had other choices too and they all had different effects.
 
I think it is absolutely fine to compare 1 and 2 to 3 as Bethesda INTENTIONALLY labelled it as a direct sequel rather than a spin-off.
 
Fallout 3's story tries too hard to feel as if it was Fallout 1 and 2 in 3D because most of the story elements are recycled from those two games. It makes the story of Fallout 3 even more unoriginal than it already is.
 
Personnally, regardless if it is loving it or hating it, i find more relevant to compare Fo3 with Fo1-Fo2-Fo.etc that to compare it with the TES series.
The latter would be off-topic IMO. (and i don't want to play TES to be part of the discussion)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top