Is there anyone left?

[KillerBee256]

Fallout 03 was my introduction to the series and I adored the wasteland/ruins feel.

I generally preferred that atmosphere over the one in New Vegas although I do think New Vegas was the overall better game.

I love downtown DC, but I feel like they phoned in most of the wasteland. By comparison I played Gothic 3 around the same time as fallout(steam sale) and I found it much more enjoyable to explore.

 

[Lexx]

With the limitations of the engine and the way they've chosen to handle overland travel"

Is it even possible to implement fallout 1 & 2 travel style in gamebyro (or creation or what ever that abomination is called now)?

Yes, I know of at least two mods who are doing it "the old way."

 

[Fitch3k]

We're quibbling over a technicality, I think. With the limitations of the engine and the way they've chosen to handle overland travel, there's no way that any Fallout can feel (or be) sufficiently desolate in its current form. They've got to cram an entire game's worth of content into an area that could've easily gone hidden in one corner of the map in Fallout 1 or 2. As in the original Fallouts, there's the implicit player/developer agreement that distances, areas and populations in F3 and New Vegas are compressed representations of what they should be. There's no way that the sparse handful of people you meet in New Vegas are the entire population of the city, or that you can run across The Hub in three minutes flat. No player wants to actually check three square miles of ruined buildings or thousands of vault bunkrooms for items and personages of significance, and no designer wants to spend the time mapping and writing it, which is convenient, as no computer could run it.

It's all about suspension of disbelief and establishing a "feel," and honestly, I don't think that any Fallout since the first has nailed that balance (Two might've come close, but New Reno and a few other glaring logical faults sort of screwed it up). New Vegas certainly didn't, but if you think Three did, with all due respect, you're either kidding yourself or you're not working from the dictionary definition of "desolate."

this is a very intelligent response! I never assumed that everyone I see in megaton or rivet city is everyone in megaton or rivet city, I don't need 700,000 NPC buggin up my game.

to the op, no, you're not the only one. FO 3 setting has been the best setting, I just hope so much of the pc isn't defined again and pushed in one direction. I would have liked my gameplay goals to be different too.

 

[Walpknut]

What? FO3 has the best setting? how? aren't you just confusing "setting" with Athmosphere?

 

[UnidentifiedFlyingTard]

Fallout 3's atmosphere wasn't that great.

 

[ZeusComplex]

Yes, I know of at least two mods who are doing it "the old way."

What are they called? I'm quite curious about this.

 

[Walpknut]

Fallout 3's atmosphere wasn't that great.

Yes, I know, but it would be more understandable to think it's the better atmosphere over thinking is the best setting when it has been already ripped to pieces by anyone tha analyzes it for a couple of minutes.

 

[LoneSpektre]

I love Fallout 3, the DC ruins, Capital Wasteland. That whole humanity hanging by a thread atmosphere.

 

[SouthboundSoul]

I think Fallout 4 should be decades later after Fallout New Vegas. Where the NCR, Legion, Brotherhood and basically all major factions have failed and the world has gone back to the dark ages with people in small settlements fighting over simple things, and the player is tasked with uniting the tribes.

Anyway back to the question, I like Fallout 3. I still do and always will even if it isn't anything like the other games. I thought it was the best game ever when I first played it, it got me into Fallout and for that, I will always love it. When I look back on it, it really has nothing on any of the other Fallout games. I'm actually hooked on Fallout 1 at the moment and it is really addicting. I think it would have been received better if it was it's own Stand alone game or a spin off.

I am also, in no way shape or form a Bethesda fanboy. Skyrim is an over rated piece of crap, and so are pretty much all Elder Scrolls Games, even if Oblivion was really enjoyable.

 

[CaveJohnson]

I think Fallout 4 should be decades later after Fallout New Vegas. Where the NCR, Legion, Brotherhood and basically all major factions have failed and the world has gone back to the dark ages with people in small settlements fighting over simple things, and the player is tasked with uniting the tribes.

Anyway back to the question, I like Fallout 3. I still do and always will even if it isn't anything like the other games. I thought it was the best game ever when I first played it, it got me into Fallout and for that, I will always love it. When I look back on it, it really has nothing on any of the other Fallout games. I'm actually hooked on Fallout 1 at the moment and it is really addicting. I think it would have been received better if it was it's own Stand alone game or a spin off.

I am also, in no way shape or form a Bethesda fanboy. Skyrim is an over rated piece of crap, and so are pretty much all Elder Scrolls Games, even if Oblivion was really enjoyable.

FO3 was received extremely well, just not by Black Isle diehard fanboys.

 

[White Knight]

I think Fallout 4 should be decades later after Fallout New Vegas. Where the NCR, Legion, Brotherhood and basically all major factions have failed and the world has gone back to the dark ages with people in small settlements fighting over simple things, and the player is tasked with uniting the tribes.

Anyway back to the question, I like Fallout 3. I still do and always will even if it isn't anything like the other games. I thought it was the best game ever when I first played it, it got me into Fallout and for that, I will always love it. When I look back on it, it really has nothing on any of the other Fallout games. I'm actually hooked on Fallout 1 at the moment and it is really addicting. I think it would have been received better if it was it's own Stand alone game or a spin off.

I am also, in no way shape or form a Bethesda fanboy. Skyrim is an over rated piece of crap, and so are pretty much all Elder Scrolls Games, even if Oblivion was really enjoyable.

FO3 was received extremely well, just not by Black Isle diehard fanboys.

I think he was talking about the old Fallout fans, who were upset about the lack of moral ambiguity, bad story writing and massive change in gameplay.

 

[SouthboundSoul]

I actually think the change in gameplay was good. I hate games that don't evolve or change and stay the same game with different levels. And if Fallout 3 was made like the original Fallouts with the kinds of games that are around nowadays, no one else would play it. Expect old time Fallout fans. I admit the gameplay could have been a lot similar to the original, or have an option to play it like the original or as the Action First Person RPG.

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

snip

My, haven't we heard this before?

The thing is, us old school Fallout fans aren't against expanding the gameplay to be open to new gamers.
A fan beloved series does not survive if it doesn't attract new fans, that helps getting even more sequels and spin offs made.

What we old school fans object against is turning an official sequel into a whole different game that might as well be a spin off, and can not even keep consistent with the lore.

Despite what you may think, classic game franchises don't have to change their fundamentals to appeal to a new audience.

If an establish game franchise does not appeal to an audience with different tastes, you create a complete new franchise rather that molding and twisting something existing into a new shape.

 

[Crni Vuk]

FO3 was received extremely well, just not by Black Isle diehard fanboys.

By who?

Fans from Bethesda?

Old Fallout fans?

The Press?

The "usual" gamer which is neither a fan of Bethesda or Fallout?

Oblivion was once received extremely well as well.

Britney Spears as well with their music.

doesn't mean they had quality though. Just popularity. And that is what you have with Fallout 3 here. Its very "popular". But has it "quality" is the correct question here. Its like comparing Le Pétomane's performance with the great theater actress Sarah Bernhardt. The one was extremely popular. The other very talented.

I actually think the change in gameplay was good. I hate games that don't evolve or change and stay the same game with different levels. And if Fallout 3 was made like the original Fallouts with the kinds of games that are around nowadays, no one else would play it. Expect old time Fallout fans. I admit the gameplay could have been a lot similar to the original, or have an option to play it like the original or as the Action First Person RPG.

So by mixing Fallout 1 and Oblivion to make it basically a "shooter" of some sort tit is already a "change"?

I see that kind of argument thrown around a lot. Jus that its a fallacy. Fallout 3 was in no way a "change" or with better words an "improvement" compared to the old games. Just as how it would be no improvement to take Age of Empires, making some sequel, slapping some First person combat on it and calling it some kind of "evolution"

By making Fallout 3 the way how it was done they actually followed an very old formula that basically exists since Morrowind. How is that a "real" change? Thats something I cant really see here. All they did was a "shift".

If you or someone else personally does not like the gameplay of Fallout 1/2 thats alright. I don't like every game either. But I would never get the idea telling people that love for example anime-style games like Final fantasy that its outright "shit" or "outdated" and that I want it to completely change in something that is totally alien to the world and gameplay. Like making a top down strategy game out of doom or something.

 

[SouthboundSoul]

FO3 was received extremely well, just not by Black Isle diehard fanboys.

By who?

Fans from Bethesda?

Old Fallout fans?

The Press?

The "usual" gamer which is neither a fan of Bethesda or Fallout?

Oblivion was once received extremely well as well.

Britney Spears as well with their music.

doesn't mean they had quality though. Just popularity. And that is what you have with Fallout 3 here. Its very "popular". But has it "quality" is the correct question here. Its like comparing Le Pétomane's performance with the great theater actress Sarah Bernhardt. The one was extremely popular. The other very talented.

I actually think the change in gameplay was good. I hate games that don't evolve or change and stay the same game with different levels. And if Fallout 3 was made like the original Fallouts with the kinds of games that are around nowadays, no one else would play it. Expect old time Fallout fans. I admit the gameplay could have been a lot similar to the original, or have an option to play it like the original or as the Action First Person RPG.

So by mixing Fallout 1 and Oblivion to make it basically a "shooter" of some sort tit is already a "change"?

I see that kind of argument thrown around a lot. Jus that its a fallacy. Fallout 3 was in no way a "change" or with better words an "improvement" compared to the old games. Just as how it would be no improvement to take Age of Empires, making some sequel, slapping some First person combat on it and calling it some kind of "evolution"

By making Fallout 3 the way how it was done they actually followed an very old formula that basically exists since Morrowind. How is that a "real" change? Thats something I cant really see here. All they did was a "shift".

If you or someone else personally does not like the gameplay of Fallout 1/2 thats alright. I don't like every game either. But I would never get the idea telling people that love for example anime-style games like Final fantasy that its outright "shit" or "outdated" and that I want it to completely change in something that is totally alien to the world and gameplay. Like making a top down strategy game out of doom or something.

Well it was awarded Game of The Year so I guess that answers your first question. And I like fallout 1 and 2. I'm addicted to the first one at the moment. But the Isometric gameplay featured in Fallout 1 and 2 would not sell in todays market. Grand Theft Auto was a Isometric game that they changed to an Open World Third Person shooter. Would you say that wasn't a change?

Command & Conquer: Renegade was a First Person shooter game that came from an RTS that was received quite well. Duke Nukem was a side scroller that they turned into a First Person shooter. And Wolfenstein was Isometric also. Halo Wars was an RTS of a First Person Shooter.

So I have no idea what you are trying to say. It's been done many times in the past. While I'll admit it is an old formula, it was new for a Fallout game. I have actually said in another thread that Bethesda have been making the same game for ten years. If you don't like new Fallout games, fine. Fallout 3 is my least favorite Fallout game. Can't you just enjoy a game without whining about it. It's only a game. They make plenty every year.

Now back to my evolution argument, if someone made a film exactly like Day of The Triffids or The Thing From Another World scene for scene with modern technology, no one would watch it. They are to slow paced. But you can watch them in all their glory and respect them for what they are. And you can feel Nostalgic about watching them. Now I'm not saying they are bad movies, I love classic movies. But film as evolved. (Though alot of films nowadays, suck).

If someone made another Doom game, with the same mechanics as the original Doom game, no one would play that either. You can't look up, or down and you can't jump or crouch. But yet again you can respect the first Doom games for what they are. And really, you can't tell me Doom 3 is anything like Doom 1 or 2.

 

[Felspawn]

I enjoyed Fallout 3, I liked the immersiveness of the enviroment, i like the art style of places like Rivet City and Megaton. I liked that it was a Post apocolypic game, not Post Post apocolypse like New Vegas (even if i liked NV more overall) Sure it wasnt "Fallout" in the proper term and it seemed like Bethesda was trying to shoehorn their ideas into an existing IP (badly) but it was still a fantastic game overall and worthy of the attention.


and honestly if it got people to try FO1 and 2 (and Got us New Vegas) then more power to it.

 

[TorontoReign]

I actually think the change in gameplay was good. I hate games that don't evolve or change and stay the same game with different levels. And if Fallout 3 was made like the original Fallouts with the kinds of games that are around nowadays, no one else would play it. Expect old time Fallout fans. I admit the gameplay could have been a lot similar to the original, or have an option to play it like the original or as the Action First Person RPG.
So by mixing Fallout 1 and Oblivion to make it basically a "shooter" of some sort tit is already a "change"?

I see that kind of argument thrown around a lot. Jus that its a fallacy. Fallout 3 was in no way a "change" or with better words an "improvement" compared to the old games. Just as how it would be no improvement to take Age of Empires, making some sequel, slapping some First person combat on it and calling it some kind of "evolution"

By making Fallout 3 the way how it was done they actually followed an very old formula that basically exists since Morrowind. How is that a "real" change? Thats something I cant really see here. All they did was a "shift".

If you or someone else personally does not like the gameplay of Fallout 1/2 thats alright. I don't like every game either. But I would never get the idea telling people that love for example anime-style games like Final fantasy that its outright "shit" or "outdated" and that I want it to completely change in something that is totally alien to the world and gameplay. Like making a top down strategy game out of doom or something.

Well it was awarded Game of The Year so I guess that answers your first question. And I like fallout 1 and 2. I'm addicted to the first one at the moment. But the Isometric gameplay featured in Fallout 1 and 2 would not sell in todays market. Grand Theft Auto was a Isometric game that they changed to an Open World Third Person shooter. Would you say that wasn't a change?

Command & Conquer: Renegade was a First Person shooter game that came from an RTS that was received quite well. Duke Nukem was a side scroller that they turned into a First Person shooter. And Wolfenstein was Isometric also. Halo Wars was an RTS of a First Person Shooter.

So I have no idea what you are trying to say. It's been done many times in the past. While I'll admit it is an old formula, it was new for a Fallout game. I have actually said in another thread that Bethesda have been making the same game for ten years. If you don't like new Fallout games, fine. Fallout 3 is my least favorite Fallout game. Can't you just enjoy a game without whining about it. It's only a game. They make plenty every year.

Now back to my evolution argument, if someone made a film exactly like Day of The Triffids or The Thing From Another World scene for scene with modern technology, no one would watch it. They are to slow paced. But you can watch them in all their glory and respect them for what they are. And you can feel Nostalgic about watching them. Now I'm not saying they are bad movies, I love classic movies. But film as evolved. (Though alot of films nowadays, suck).

If someone made another Doom game, with the same mechanics as the original Doom game, no one would play that either. You can't look up, or down and you can't jump or crouch. But yet again you can respect the first Doom games for what they are. And really, you can't tell me Doom 3 is anything like Doom 1 or 2.

Quit whining about it? Really!? Can't you just enjoy a game without whining about it? Seriously dude. Go fuck yourself.



This forum was made with the intent of discussing shit that we are interested in. Crni wasn't whining about anything, he was discussing the fucking issue at hand. Ya know, the whole fucking purpose of message boards to begin with? Not to mention that your comparison to movies is completely retarded, holds no relevance to the issue at hand, and you are dead wrong about a few other things - which White Knight has mentioned, so I'm not even sure where to start.


In reference to some of the other things you said. Arguing about if it was a "change" or a "shift" is completely irrelevant. The fact is that Fallout 3 was a POS not because of the First Person view and other "Immursion" elements - even though those were done poorly to begin with - the real issues have been discussed to death in dozens of other threads, so it is almost pointless to debate it anymore. You mentioning games evolving is actually typical. Fallout 3 was a FPS because isometric is sooooooo 1990's right? What about the recent Kickstarter craze? People basically frothing at the mouth to play isometric games.....yeah. Believe what you like though.

 

[White Knight]

But the Isometric gameplay featured in Fallout 1 and 2 would not sell in todays market.

Really? Would like you explain the massive interest in Wasteland 2 then?

 

[Rev. Layle]

But the Isometric gameplay featured in Fallout 1 and 2 would not sell in todays market.

Really? Would like you explain the massive interest in Wasteland 2 then?

80,000 - 100,000 backers is not MASSIVE interest. It is a lot of people throwing in money for a game to be made (myself included).

We'll see how well the game sells. If a million people buy, still not sure if that is MASSIVE interest - but it is a great indication that publishers do completely miss a market that has people ready to "SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY"

 

[TorontoReign]

But the Isometric gameplay featured in Fallout 1 and 2 would not sell in todays market.

Really? Would like you explain the massive interest in Wasteland 2 then?

80,000 - 100,000 backers is not MASSIVE interest. It is a lot of people throwing in money for a game to be made (myself included).

We'll see how well the game sells. If a million people buy, still not sure if that is MASSIVE interest - but it is a great indication that publishers do completely miss a market that has people ready to "SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY"

No, but the other dozen similar projects do appear to be thriving as well. There is a market that has not been touched yet, and the recent "old school" Kickstarter movement is doing quite well. Some people say isometric games are out of date/dead/suck, yet I see tons of isometric games coming out. Just wait and see. After Wasteland 2 rocks out with its cock out, many will follow in it's steps. Double Fine started a craze. NMA is practically Kickstarter advertisement by now. I know they have my money/caps/nuyen....