Kinda different topic from the rest here...

S

SAI 9to5

First time out of the vault
Hi, this is my first post on No Mutants Allowed (whats up with gmail not being accepted?), but I've been lurking for about three months.

I played Fallout 3 awhile back and absolutely loved it. The world and the characters were fresh, and different from anything I'd ever played. It definitely took a nice little chunk out of my life there for a bit.

So, about three months ago I googled looking for a fallout forum I could very casually hang out at whenever I had some down time. Lo and behold, I picked this place. Definitely the classiest of the fallout sites, and I checked out all the big ones.

Very excitedly, I headed into the Fallout 3 forum. It was like a nailgun pressed up against my testicles with the autofire turned on. EVERYONE HATED THIS AWESOME GAME I LOVED!!

Timidly I started hearing out all the arguments against it. Most of them seemed to come from the fact that the old Fallout games were apparently a billion times better.

Having this be the case in other franchises I liked, I took it that the other games were the holy grail of gaming. I thought Fallout 3 was so good, surely these others had to be on a whole other level.

Quickly I ordered them off of Amazon, and they came a brisk week and a half later.

Now if you have been paying attention to my tone and light sarcasm, this is the point where if I was a troll, I would say: "THEY SUXOR, haha Fallout 3 better graphicz and FPS!!!"

I'm not that guy.

I loved the Fallout 1, and I'm about 3/4s the way through Fallout 2 really enjoying it so far as well.

I was still confused though. As much as I enjoyed the old ones (mostly because of the depth of NPC interaction and the story) I still didn't think they were better than 3. Where the old ones were obviously groundbreaking for their time, the combat is really bad. Not the stats or system, just the pacing and execution. I don't need some trigger happy FPS to keep me happy, but this was just awkward. Now, it didn't hold me back as I could appreciate the system for what it was, and boosting my character was just too damn fun. Everything else was great except for a few little nitpicks here and there.

So, while playing it I came back to these forums to refresh myself on what everyone was so angry about, and I ran across the Fallout 3 development archive. The news updates basically. So I read the first one and got the whole story with the Van Buren and Interplay stuff. Obviously there is a lot of bitterness over that.

The big thing I noticed though was the negativity. At this point I was going through every post because they were so interesting, and with that I was seeing all the forum members posting. It was crazy. If a piece of concept art came up and it was a lighter shade of green than something was in the original game people flipped out. Any change whatsoever was met with ridicule and flames. (I was dreading the announcement that it was a first person view, whew)

So I watched as the hate machine was rolling and bringing on the few people who still held out hope all the way to launch and surprise surprise everyone hated it. It was surreal to watch all in one sitting let me tell you.

I was so amazed at a post awhile ago where a kid came on here and said Fallout 3 was a nice game, then when people started bashing, he quickly turned tail and started agreeing with everyone. It saddened me.

Anyway, I'm new. I really like Fallout 3, more so than the epic that was the first one. The main point I wanted to make here is that whether you like it or not Fallout 3 is a great game. It has a higher metacritic rating than both the first two games, and is generally regarded by people who arent on this site as game changing.

Hopefully through this first post I have shown that I'm not a troll, or an idiot who didn't play the other games "right," or someone who's trying to say what made the first game great wasn't dulled in the 3rd one, because I agree it was dumbed down a bit.

I'm just someone who wants to mix it up around here, and make it so other people who like this game (and there are a lot hiding in your ranks I'm sure) have a place where we can talk about what we liked about it.

Thanks for reading all that if you did.

() SAI ()
 
SAI 9to5 said:
The main point I wanted to make here is that whether you like it or not Fallout 3 is a great game. It has a higher metacritic rating than both the first two games, and is generally regarded by people who arent on this site as game changing.
Click to expand...

Saying that you liked Fallout 3 yourself is one thing and is your right.

Saying that Fallout 3 is a good game because loads of people say so and because it has a high rating is another.

I don't care if the Pope considers Fallout 3 holy.
I and many others on this forum like to consider ourselves 'individuals' from time to time, and not 'the masses', and we don't like Fallout 3 because it is Oblivion redressed as Fallout, with a lot of plot holes, missed opportunities, bugs and a half assed atmosphere in which we are forced to accept that freaking irritant children are 'divine/immortal' because shooting kids is immoral.
 
oh please not another one of those ...


look to make it short. You dont have to convince anyone about your love for Fallout 3 or why you think its the best game.

sometimes I have the feeling those people are like on a missionary trip or something.
 
I'm not trying to convert anyone here, just pointing out that no matter what game was made it wouldn't have held up to your first experience with Fallout.

If you look at every revolutionary or popular form of media (Fallout) you'll see the fanbase turn on almost every other extension of that series because it fails to give them the same high.

If Fallout 3 was a bad game period, then other people besides the fans of the original would have noticed don't you think?

It's obviously just not what the fanbase wanted. Does that make it bad?

Can we have a logical discussion without bias?
 
Everyone has their opinion. I myself started with Fallout 3, I liked it, but after playing the other two games (which I love much much more than Fallout 3), it saddens me that they just took Oblivion and slapped Fallout like stuff in there.

And you hit the nail right on the head: "It's obviously just not what the fanbase wanted. Does that make it bad?" The Fallout fans are fans because they love that style of game, the love the role playing, the story, interaction, immersion, etc. Does it seem logical to ignore a fanbase that made Fallout what it is? When acquiring the Fallout license, Bethesda had it chance to show that it wasn't a one trick pony, but they just ignored their opportunity, and catered to an audience who play their games (i.e. Oblivion, exclusively). They just completely ignored the already established fanbase in order to dish out a game relatively easy, and knowing the sales of Oblivion, they know that their TES fanbase would buy a game that is very similar.

"Does that make it bad?" In a way, yes. Look at it this way: You love to order french fries whenever you go out to eat, you have do so for years. You go to one restaurant, order your fries, and waiter comes back and gives you a salad. Is it bad? Would you ask for what you had ordered? Of course. I guess that is how the "veteran" Fallout fans felt; they established that they love the first two games, the prospect of a third makes them giddy. And they are handed a salad instead.
 
SAI 9to5 said:
I really like Fallout 3, more so than the epic that was the first one.

I agree it was dumbed down a bit.
Click to expand...
Contradictory much? how can you find it dumbed down and better at the same time? dumb = bad.

I'm just someone who wants to mix it up around here, and make it so other people who like this game (and there are a lot hiding in your ranks I'm sure) have a place where we can talk about what we liked about it.
Click to expand...

you can post positive stuff about fallout 3 in this subforum.
there's even a thread called "positive impressions".

also, if you read the NMA review, fallout 3 doesn't get bashed for being a bad game period, but for being dumbed down compared to the classic fallouts.
 
I said this in another thread, but its relevant here as well. The main reason Fo3 cops so much shit around here is because it tried to pass itself off as a sequel to the first two, which like one of the other posters have said, favored a immersive environment, dialogue options and a compelling story over mindless shooting. A game of that depth are what the Fallout fans were hoping for, but Fo3 simply does not deliver as a sequel.

IF Fo3 had not been branded and been released as something else like "Lolkillrats" or "Bethsnuclearadventure" it would have been let off the hook a hell of a lot easier and forgotten on these boards, remembered only as a average game.

The thing is, after waiting close to 10 years for a true sequel after thousands of modding hours and playthroughs, the fans of the series who kept the first two alive were presented with Oblivion 2.0. Its by no means a bad game. What it is is average. Mediocre. However, not even remotely close to a true sequel. Fallout 1 and 2 were not perfect, but their strengths far, far, far outweighed the flaws and the bitterness on this forum stems from Fallout 3 being expected to be a successor by Beth.
 
SAI 9to5 said:
I'm not trying to convert anyone here, just pointing out that no matter what game was made it wouldn't have held up to your first experience with Fallout.
Click to expand...
Then why bother to open a "new" topic when there are already enough about it? Seriously without the intention to sound rude or cocky. But nothing you mentioned here so far hasnt been already brought up a zillion times over this forum by a lot of people. Particularly after Fallout 3 was released.

SAI 9to5 said:
If you look at every revolutionary or popular form of media (Fallout) you'll see the fanbase turn on almost every other extension of that series because it fails to give them the same high.
Click to expand...
Thats the fate of sequels. It always been that way, regardless if Star Trek, Star Wars or even from Alien 1 to 2 and 3. Criticism is what one has to deal with when he tries to continue the work of others.

Its not always fair and sometimes the fans look like crazy people which I admit. But as said. Thats how it has been always. And I doubt this will change in the future. Its not just something with games in particular. But one should never forget that those "fans" are responsible that people even know about it. If no one would have cared no one would have known about it anyway.

Disspleasing fans isnt always the best route.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lv4Potdpjhw[/youtube]

And to be a bit serious. What people complain about are not just details. Many have a reason for their complains. Cause its exactly that what Bethesda did. They had "some" success with their old game (Oblivion) and all they did was basicaly squeze the Fallout setting in the Oblivion world. And now one would expect the fans that loved the old games to just swallow that without even a single complain? Bethesda has not changed the directoin of the game if they would really have done that I could at least say they tried to do something different at least. Now they did not went "forward" they just went to the "side". They just made a post-apoc Oblivion (basicaly).

SAI 9to5 said:
If Fallout 3 was a bad game period, then other people besides the fans of the original would have noticed don't you think?

It's obviously just not what the fanbase wanted. Does that make it bad?

Can we have a logical discussion without bias?
Click to expand...
Aaah, now here its going in a direction. Most people are not some that care about quality content. While I dont want to call the big "casual" crowd or consumers now "dumb" and "us" smaller one inteligent cause we are all just part of it it though speaks for it self when artists like Britney Spears are famous and popular, make a shit load of money and sell a few million CDs. But does that say anything about her quality or skills as "artist" ? Thats left for you to decide. Fame or financial success is not a equal measure for "quality". Quality content can be very popular but bad content as well. Even if now 5 Million people would have bought and "loved" Fallout 3 it would mean nothing for me cause It doesnt change the flaws in the game only cause a game is popular. Letz say they would decide now to make cars that are missing brakes it would not suddenly start to become a "good" or even "save" car only cause the majority of people still buy it and never complain. It would just mean they dont care enough.
 
verevoof said:
Everyone has their opinion. I myself started with Fallout 3, I liked it, but after playing the other two games (which I love much much more than Fallout 3), it saddens me that they just took Oblivion and slapped Fallout like stuff in there.

And you hit the nail right on the head: "It's obviously just not what the fanbase wanted. Does that make it bad?" The Fallout fans are fans because they love that style of game, the love the role playing, the story, interaction, immersion, etc. Does it seem logical to ignore a fanbase that made Fallout what it is? When acquiring the Fallout license, Bethesda had it chance to show that it wasn't a one trick pony, but they just ignored their opportunity, and catered to an audience who play their games (i.e. Oblivion, exclusively). They just completely ignored the already established fanbase in order to dish out a game relatively easy, and knowing the sales of Oblivion, they know that their TES fanbase would buy a game that is very similar.

"Does that make it bad?" In a way, yes. Look at it this way: You love to order french fries whenever you go out to eat, you have do so for years. You go to one restaurant, order your fries, and waiter comes back and gives you a salad. Is it bad? Would you ask for what you had ordered? Of course. I guess that is how the "veteran" Fallout fans felt; they established that they love the first two games, the prospect of a third makes them giddy. And they are handed a salad instead.
Click to expand...

that is pretty much how I feel about Fallout 3 at this point.
 
The main point I wanted to make here is that whether you like it or not Fallout 3 is a great game.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. And if you understand the strong points of the first two you'd understand it too. Overly simplified mechanics paired with poor execution can't make a great game. FO3 isn't bad, but isn't certainly great.

It has a higher metacritic rating than both the first two games
Click to expand...

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox360/mortalkombatvsdcuniverse
http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps3/mortalkombatvsdcuniverse

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUYiXWP81sM[/youtube][youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-pIwcoEURI[/youtube][youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5DQiqeHaJc[/youtube][youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IThtsIIkO8[/youtube]

What were you saying about metacritic?
 
Run! It's another preacher!! :P

Seriously, get over it. You love the game, great, but you don't need to convince other to love it so you can feel better about your choice. You will probably feel better in the Beth forums with people who enjoys it as much as you do. Trying to get approval from people have shown to have a somewhat critical view on the game is kinda ptless.

In the end, I still call it a generation gap. This generation is obviously not jiving with last generation's choices and needs. Another thing could be age related, I've always felt that FO 1, 2 are meant for older people to enjoy( not because of the mature content) because of its realistic consequences and choices for characters and stories. When one is young, one has a easier time to accept certain things to be seen as real and unique.
 
Stanislao Moulinsky said:
The main point I wanted to make here is that whether you like it or not Fallout 3 is a great game.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. And if you understand the strong points of the first two you'd understand it too. Overly simplified mechanics paired with poor execution can't make a great game. FO3 isn't bad, but isn't certainly great.

It has a higher metacritic rating than both the first two games
Click to expand...

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox360/mortalkombatvsdcuniverse
http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps3/mortalkombatvsdcuniverse

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUYiXWP81sM[/youtube][youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-pIwcoEURI[/youtube][youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5DQiqeHaJc[/youtube][youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IThtsIIkO8[/youtube]

What were you saying about metacritic?
Click to expand...
I don't get it. You show that it has average scores and show stun-locking? What, you disagree with giving an average game an average score because somebody found the inevitable stunlock shit you can find in any fighting game and beat you up with it online?
 
OakTable said:
I don't get it. You show that it has average scores and show stun-locking? What, you disagree with giving an average game an average score because somebody found the inevitable stunlock shit you can find in any fighting game and beat you up with it online?
Click to expand...

No, I'm showing you that Metacritic is flawed.
First, MKvsDC is bad. It's not terrible and fun in it's own way, but is a bad game. Those combos that you call "stunlock shit" are actually infinite combos found in less than a week after the release. Infinite combos that can be done everywhere, anytime, with a number of attacks involved varying between 1 (!?) and 4. And do you know what an infinite combo is, right? Get hit once and you are dead.
And those are just example, the game is full of shit like that. Not to mention other minor problems, but in a fighting game balance is one of the most important things, and this game severly lacks it.

Second, MKvsDC has ratings between 100 and 40. How can that be? A game can't be at the same time perfect and terrible, especially considering that, as I said and shown, it's a bad game. If reviewers knew how to do their work the highest ratings shouldn't go anywhere over 70 (which of course would greatly lower the average), and even that would be stretching it, and yet...

So the point is: never ever use Metacritic in your arguments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top