The Fallout 3 That Should Have Been!

[Crni Vuk]

Every single member on this website should read this. You have won this forum.

Well, thank you. =) I just strive to make a point where it's needed, and to do my best that said point is always true.

I believe though, Gizmo isnt thinking so much about success or failure here, because honestly, Fallout 3 was a major success, for Bethesda no less! Depending on what you see as success here I guess. But lets not get to much in to that. I mean the game sold millions of copies, more then 13 milion I think.

You have to ask your self a simple question. Was Fallout 3, for someone who loves most of what F1 and F2 had to offer including the gameplay and design, a success? Fallout 3 could have been a perfect game, with excelent writting, a very engaging story, full of well done quests and a perfect shooter mechanic. But it would still not change the fact, that Fallout as franchise was never designed to be a shooter, it would still be just a Fallout game in name only, a great spin of, a very fun game, one that I would enjoy (I like Vegas a lot!), but I woul still hesitate to call it a Sequel. A lot of people argued, that its just the technology, the original Fallout developers would have done it as well in first person today. But that is far from the truth, as everyone can read the interviews and designdocuments today, after almost 20 years there is a pretty acurate picture about what Fallout really is as game, Brother None, Brios and many others had their chats with almost all of the original developers asking the real questions, I suggest everyone to read the NMA history article about F1 and F2. And really, it isnt that hard to destille what Fallout actually is about. As long as we stay with the core aspects, like the turn based gameplay or the story. Because honestly, you cant have the one without the other in the end. A Fallout game, to be a true sequel in the spirits of the old ones, simply has to be a turn based game, and that is a very unbiased view on it. Just as how you would not call a car the better bicycle. No matter how much more comfortable and faster it might be but a car will simply never be a bicycle, and thus not offer you the same experience. The developers didnt chose the TB mechanic by accident. They did it on purpose. And there is one very good example to prove that. Diablo 1. If someone knows a little bit of history here, then he might remember that Diablo 1s prototype actually was meant to be a Turn Based game, but in the end they decded to make it real time, that was when Blizzard got on board I think, no sure anymore. So they made a choice here. A choice that the team behind Fallout could have done as well. But they didnt. Also they didnt follow the same route like the Elder Scrolls.

We can argue about a lot of things, but not everything is just opinion, I am not going to call someone a Bethesda drone here, we are all Fallout fans after all. But seriously. You cant get closer to the core of Fallout then the real developers and what they had to say about the development BACK THEN some 20 years ago, and its all out there, here on NMA, for everyone to read. And the hard truth is. Fallout without TB, is just a Fallout game in name only. It might be a good game, but we are not talking about the quality of the game here.

 

[coldroll]

I wouldn't mind if they made another Fallout game turn based, but it would sell alot better if it was real time like Fallout tactics was. I just don't see it selling much other wise. The first Fallout games while excellent games didn't sell well in stores because alot of people pirated them back in the day.

 

[5545Trey]

Every single member on this website should read this. You have won this forum.

Well, thank you. =) I just strive to make a point where it's needed, and to do my best that said point is always true.

we are all Fallout fans after all. But seriously.

I am the exception. I love Fallout, but I will never be a fan of anything.

 

[SnapSlav]

You have to ask your self a simple question. Was Fallout 3, for someone who loves most of what F1 and F2 had to offer including the gameplay and design, a success? Fallout 3 could have been a perfect game, with excelent writting, a very engaging story, full of well done quests and a perfect shooter mechanic. But it would still not change the fact, that Fallout as franchise was never designed to be a shooter, it would still be just a Fallout game in name only, a great spin of, a very fun game, one that I would enjoy (I like Vegas a lot!), but I woul still hesitate to call it a Sequel.

No, that misses the point of what make a sequel a sequel. It could have been a shooter, and done well, and it would have still been a Fallout game in name only, but NOT because it was a shooter. If the appropriate direction of the game and the theme and the presentation was identical to FO1, whether it was a shooter or a point-and-click adventure game or another RPG would not change its validity AS a game deserving of the Fallout name. Those are just genres separated by defined game mechanics, and those don't make or break a game's "Falloutness". If books were written, and they were done well, appropriate to the same core elements that made Fallout great, would those be "Fallout in name only" because the original wasn't a book?

The medium isn't what matters, it's the direction. The method, not the perspective. The heart, not the body. Etc etc...

 

[Gizmojunk]

No, that misses the point of what make a sequel a sequel. It could have been a shooter, and done well, and it would have still been a Fallout game in name only, but NOT because it was a shooter. If the appropriate direction of the game and the theme and the presentation was identical to FO1, whether it was a shooter or a point-and-click adventure game or another RPG would not change its validity AS a game deserving of the Fallout name. Those are just genres separated by defined game mechanics, and those don't make or break a game's "Falloutness". If books were written, and they were done well, appropriate to the same core elements that made Fallout great, would those be "Fallout in name only" because the original wasn't a book?

The medium isn't what matters, it's the direction. The method, not the perspective. The heart, not the body. Etc etc...

Bull. First off... The combat engine was first in the development pipeline. So you seem to honestly believe that the core experience of the game is made moot by the fiction they drape it in(!?), and that they could as well make it JRPG style FF or Pokemon, or even a Disciples 2 or 3 clone and it would be irrelevant so long as the fiction remained similar ~pure sequel material!


No.

Tactics. Fallout:Tactics is not close enough to be a Fallout 2 sequel. Even though its Turn Based combat engine would have been a fantastic component in a Fallout 3 sequel. The system was much improved.

*It has little to do with the engine, and everything to do with how they use the engine.

 

[SnapSlav]

No, that misses the point of what make a sequel a sequel. It could have been a shooter, and done well, and it would have still been a Fallout game in name only, but NOT because it was a shooter. If the appropriate direction of the game and the theme and the presentation was identical to FO1, whether it was a shooter or a point-and-click adventure game or another RPG would not change its validity AS a game deserving of the Fallout name. Those are just genres separated by defined game mechanics, and those don't make or break a game's "Falloutness". If books were written, and they were done well, appropriate to the same core elements that made Fallout great, would those be "Fallout in name only" because the original wasn't a book?

The medium isn't what matters, it's the direction. The method, not the perspective. The heart, not the body. Etc etc...

Bull. First off... The combat engine was first in the development pipeline. So you seem to honestly believe that the core experience of the game is made moot by the fiction they drape it in(!?), and that they could as well make it JRPG style FF or Pokemon, or even a Disciples 2 or 3 clone and it would be irrelevant so long as the fiction remained similar ~pure sequel material!


No.

I'm truly fascinated by your inability to understand a single word I say slash impressive ability to see something in what I said that I never even remotely said. I really am. It's remarkable.

That's all I can say about that, really. That it isn't what I said at all, so nothing more TO say in rebuttal.

 

[coldroll]

Wow you guys need to calm down.

 

[Gizmojunk]

I'm truly fascinated by your inability to understand a single word I say slash impressive ability to see something in what I said that I never even remotely said. I really am. It's remarkable.

That's all I can say about that, really. That it isn't what I said at all, so nothing more TO say in rebuttal.

What I find amazing (and I'm not slinging slights), is that I agree with a lot of your posts, and Tag's, and even Gromnir's... but not often when they are quoting me. It's a mystery; and kind of saddening a bit.
Please don't think I have any ill thoughts towards you just because we disagree (on some things).

 

[Crni Vuk]

You have to ask your self a simple question. Was Fallout 3, for someone who loves most of what F1 and F2 had to offer including the gameplay and design, a success? Fallout 3 could have been a perfect game, with excelent writting, a very engaging story, full of well done quests and a perfect shooter mechanic. But it would still not change the fact, that Fallout as franchise was never designed to be a shooter, it would still be just a Fallout game in name only, a great spin of, a very fun game, one that I would enjoy (I like Vegas a lot!), but I woul still hesitate to call it a Sequel.

No, that misses the point of what make a sequel a sequel. It could have been a shooter, and done well, and it would have still been a Fallout game in name only, but NOT because it was a shooter. If the appropriate direction of the game and the theme and the presentation was identical to FO1, whether it was a shooter or a point-and-click adventure game or another RPG would not change its validity AS a game deserving of the Fallout name. Those are just genres separated by defined game mechanics, and those don't make or break a game's "Falloutness". If books were written, and they were done well, appropriate to the same core elements that made Fallout great, would those be "Fallout in name only" because the original wasn't a book?

The medium isn't what matters, it's the direction. The method, not the perspective. The heart, not the body. Etc etc...

There is no further discussing this, go read the design documents with comments by the DEVELOPERS OF FALLOUT1, its here on NMA, for everyone to read, the history of Fallout. If you think you are more right then the developers and what their idea about Fallout was. Then sure, just go ahead. I am not stating here something that I have invented out of the blue, its something that Fallout fans have collected over the years, like I said BN and others (which names I cant remember right now) have TALKED WITH THE DEVELOPERS ABOUT WHAT F1 IS. Sorry that I have to use caps, but I dont want to repeat my self more then once.

 

[SnapSlav]

Again, you're so hell-bent and fixated on this one idea that you can't see the bigger picture. I said that, hypothetically, a game could take the name of another game, be a good game on its own, be even a GREAT game on its own, but not follow the same mechanics as the name it has taken, and it would still be a great game, but it would only be that game in name only. I said that this ignores the SPIRIT of a game. When I criticize FO3 for what it's done wrong, I hesitate to use descriptors like "no soul" or "lacks the same heart" because those are so unquantifiable they threaten to be irrelevant upon their very evocation. But you know what? The FIRST words that come to mind are those very descriptors. The reason is they fit. FO3's problem was NOT that it was a different genre, and this is not some matter that you can make lofty claims of "there is no further discussion". Go fuck yourself if and whenever this idea comes to mind. That's not true, it will never ever BE true. If you took FO1, and transplanted EVERYTHING about the game, but placed it in first person perspective, would this have killed the spirit of the game? Well the drastic difference in perspective would have changed a lot, granted, but the answer is still no, it would NOT kill the spirit of what makes a game "Fallout", developer discussion and insight or otherwise. This is taking THE EXACT SAME THING to prove a point, a point which you can't seem to grasp because your definitions are too narrow-minded. The greater point is far more important, and far more relevant. FO3 could have been a great game (Note: it ISN'T) and still been a bad Fallout sequel, but you couldn't even accept that much, because so much as being a different genre classification was enough for you. That's just silly.

I've read the design docs on the original games. I've devoured EVERY little tidbit that I could about Fallout's history every chance I got, because guess what, I LOVE Fallout. Those mission statements, interviews, and panels still don't hold sway over large notions that define ANYTHING, not simply those strictly related to Fallout. You're missing the point in your simpleminded approach, an that's what I keep having to repeat to you. You're missing the point. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying you're wrong about WHY you're right.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Except that I never mentioned "soul" or "heart" of the game. Seriously. Do you really suggest that mechanics are not even playing the slightest role here? That they are of no importance to a well established franchise? I am not stating here something that I made up to annoy you or prove my point, I just follow what the original Fallout 1 developers said, sorry if I believe that they have more clue then you (or me for that matter) what the core aspects of a Fallout game are. And I can tell you, its not the setting. If you really read the material and understood it, then this should be actually not really much of an issue to grasp. Fallout could have as well been released as a medieval world after the apocalypse under the name "the shattered empire" following the same path like Age of Decadence, and we would today talk about a medieval world going to hell and not the 1950s vision of the future. For me Baldurs Gate would stop beeing Baldurs Gate if Baldurs Gate 3 would be released in a Sci-Fi setting like Mass Effect flying from planet to planet with your warp-drive and alien crew. Infact if I would make a Baldurs Gate in space I would make it a lot like Mass Effect, but I would never call it Baldurs Gate 3.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying you're wrong about WHY you're right

I am well aware that it can be difficult to get in a discussion with me, as I have a rather unique and sometimes outright anoying personality. But I have the feeling you are now arguing just for the sake of arguing - I love doing that too sometimes. And I noticed that you're actually doing basically the same thing with Gizmo right now and a few others in different topics, you basically agree with the people, yet you still argue about it for what ever reason.

FO3 could have been a great game (Note: it ISN'T) and still been a bad Fallout sequel, but you couldn't even accept that much, because so much as being a different genre classification was enough for you. That's just silly.

I am not talking about what a good game is but what a Fallout sequel is. A Fallout game could be a true sequel but still be a very bad game in its own right. I said that I liked New Vegas despite the fact that it was made on Bethesdas bugged engine and shooter mechanics. I never said I could not enjoy such a game. In fact, I did enjoy New Vegas, definitely enough to play it twice. But it still would not be a Fallout Sequel in my eyes, because it lacks the experience that I seek, which only Turn Based combat can give me.

If you took FO1, and transplanted EVERYTHING about the game, but placed it in first person perspective, would this have killed the spirit of the game?

I am NOT talking about the spirit of the game, I am talking about the experience here. You simply can not sell me first person shooter mechanics as turn based mechanics - VATS. You can not tell me that I will get the exact same experience with Call of Duty like I do with Jagged Alliance, with Mass Effect like with Xcom and so on, just because they eventually follow the same setting. The mechanics a game's using play as much of a role like story telling and visuals/design, and I do not mean the power of your graphic card, Fallout 3 got the visuals mostly right, the Design was close enough to Fallout thx to the great concept artists behind it but the mechanics and the story simply had not much in common with Fallout. Those are the big 3 pillars a game usually stands on. The gameplay, the story and the design. And all of those have to come together for a sequel to be a sequel. You can update the visuals but you can not simply change the design, throwing a Fallout 4 in to a Star Wars setting with the look of Crysis 3 or following the design of Lord of the Rings with Orcs, Dragons and swords. And you can not do a change from Turn Based to First Person real time shooter mechanics without loosing the experience you got from TB combat. The same is also true when you turn a First Person Shooter in a top down turn based gameplay, I do not want Half Life 3 to play like Fallout 1.

You can not ignore a medium and what the medium offers, about its advantages and disadvantages. A 2-3 hour movie simply cant replace the experience of a book, a car can not give me the experience of riding a motorbike. This has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the experience! Since I do enjoy a good book just as much as I do enjoy a good movie. But by declaring everying of equal experience, you kill the diversity which is what we see today with gaming a lot, because many developes and publishers follow every trend that is popular making mechanics and even the design of games uniform.

 

[SnapSlav]

Seriously. Do you really suggest that [certain things] are not even playing the slightest role here?

This just highlights what I mean. I SPECIFICALLY acknowledge that particular attributes have an impact, but my point is that they're not the sole importance, they're not the only thing to consider, it's wrong to focus on them and only them. Yet somehow, you see me stating the opposite. Just like much further into your post, you insinuate that I expressed "all things are of equal importance", when nothing could be further from the truth. You continue to miss the purpose of my posts, because you see me saying "A" and you come away from it with the impression of "not A". If THAT is what you mean by seeing the same thing going on with my interactions with Gizmo, then you're absolutely right. That's happening.

Also, AGAIN you're misunderstanding EVERYTHING I just said when you open your reply with "I never mentioned 'soul' or 'heart' of the game". I didn't SAY you did. I was illustrating a point. A point you missed.

But I have the feeling you are now arguing just for the sake of arguing - I love doing that too sometimes.

No. I genuinely feel like there's something important to say- that the point I'm conveying is important. What you're suggesting, assuming I didn't misunderstand, is what's called "playing the devil's advocate": You throw out either highly unpopular or ambiguous or otherwise "goes against the grain" ideas to provoke serious discussion where there otherwise would not have been any conversation. No, I don't do that.

To me, the one all-encompassing and infallible absolute is "the truth", and as such I am dedicated in my pursuit of what that is. That means if there are two people on two different sides of an argument, one of them is absolutely wrong. (This does NOT mean that the other is right, however.) That means that my singular driving force behind all of my efforts in understanding the definitive objective reality. That's an ambitious, and a deliberately impossible goal to achieve, but it drives me in a way towards something I think is a universal good. My pursuit of "the truth" will often make me come off as playing devil's advocate, because while I'll agree with a post's perspective, I'll still interject with an opposing thought or notion. This is not playing the devil's advocate, however, because I'm pointing out the relevancy of truth. The way this applies to the current topic is: OF COURSE mechanics have importance to the impact of a game, but that doesn't mean they're the ONLY important thing. I'm driving towards that universal truth, which fixating on one thing and one thing only happens to ignore.

Do I like to argue? DEFINITELY! But I do not "argue for the sake of arguing". If I did, I'd get a lot more joy out of EVERY spat I have with my sister. But the fact of the matter is, I don't. I argue to accomplish something: to achieve enlightenment.

Case in point:

I am not talking about what a good game is but what a Fallout sequel is.

A statement such as this fails to acknowledge that a Fallout sequel IS a game, and by virtue falls into the universal sphere of influence of "What makes a great game" discussion. Anything else is just denying reality. If you think a facetious statement like "Can be a bad game but a good X sequel", then THAT is being silly an argumentative. Cause really, how can a game be "a good sequel" if it's A BAD GAME? It can be a bad sequel and a good game, but the reverse is just not possible.

Further:

I am NOT talking about the spirit of the game, I am talking about the experience here.

And I'd argue that they're one in the same. Think about it. In a hypothetical possibility where a copy of yourself plays a copy of the same game both copies experience the exact same thing from both identical copies of the game (hypothetical, because this isn't physically possible, which is why scary games lose their impact after being played once, and difficulty games lose their challenge after being played once, etc, so taking a single person and trying to "replicate an experience" is therefor physically impossible), then wouldn't that mean that one copy WOULD NOT live out an identical "game experience" if the "spirit" of the game were different? This extends to ANY difference, and that has been my recurring message this entire time. Change one thing, it changes everything, and this is an absolute that we MUST acknowledge. In saying that, it follows that no sequel can be "just like its predecessor", and in that vein, this is where we can extrapolate our qualifiers for what makes a great game, what makes a great sequel, what's important to a sequel relevant to its predecessor, what makes a great Fallout game, and so on. All important questions, notions, and principles, and all equally viable and necessary to explore via discourse. Saying "there is no further discussion" on a matter like this, a matter which NECESSITATES discussion, is just absurd. And fighting that absurdity is reason enough to warrant me arguing a point.

 

[Crni Vuk]

A statement such as this fails to acknowledge that a Fallout sequel IS a game, and by virtue falls into the universal sphere of influence of "What makes a great game" discussion. Anything else is just denying reality. If you think a facetious statement like "Can be a bad game but a good X sequel", then THAT is being silly an argumentative. Cause really, how can a game be "a good sequel" if it's A BAD GAME? It can be a bad sequel and a good game, but the reverse is just not possible.

I am trying it this way:

*Salami and *Steak can both be awesome *meat . But a *salami will never be an awesome *Steak. Why are you trying to sell me *Salami as *Steak?

*salami = first person shooter
*steak = Turn based combat
*meat = games

 

[Gizmojunk]

If you took FO1, and transplanted EVERYTHING about the game, but placed it in first person perspective, would this have killed the spirit of the game?

Of course!

*How do you have a turn based GURPS (or PnP style) implementation using a first person realtime combat system? Could it possibly not have been an awkward mess if it was tried?

a point which you can't seem to grasp because your definitions are too narrow-minded.

But it could be said that yours is far too inclusive.

FO3 could have been a great game (Note: it ISN'T) and still been a bad Fallout sequel, but you couldn't even accept that much, because so much as being a different genre classification was enough for you. That's just silly.

Who says FO3 is a bad game? I would think that most ~even dyed in the wool Fallout fans can appreciate that FO3 does what it sets out to do pretty decently... And in some cases exceptionally; it just was never intended to be a good RPG or a decent Fallout sequel. Those don't sell as well and servile pulp empowerment fantasy. (Which describes what FO3 and the last few TES games are.)

I've read the design docs on the original games. I've devoured EVERY little tidbit that I could about Fallout's history every chance I got, because guess what, I LOVE Fallout. Those mission statements, interviews, and panels still don't hold sway over large notions that define ANYTHING, not simply those strictly related to Fallout. You're missing the point in your simpleminded approach, an that's what I keep having to repeat to you. You're missing the point. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying you're wrong about WHY you're right.

Here is one for you then: http://www.nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=9564

Would you have made Fallout 3 isometric and with Turn Based combat or would you have followed the same principle that you're using on this PA title ?

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.

 

[SnapSlav]

A statement such as this fails to acknowledge that a Fallout sequel IS a game, and by virtue falls into the universal sphere of influence of "What makes a great game" discussion. Anything else is just denying reality. If you think a facetious statement like "Can be a bad game but a good X sequel", then THAT is being silly an argumentative. Cause really, how can a game be "a good sequel" if it's A BAD GAME? It can be a bad sequel and a good game, but the reverse is just not possible.

I am trying it this way:

*Salami and *Steak can both be awesome *meat . But a *salami will never be an awesome *Steak. Why are you trying to sell me *Salami as *Steak?

*salami = first person shooter
*steak = Turn based combat
*meat = games

In that case, it appears we're just talking about completely different things, because I ultimately don't care what's in a name, I care about what I get. Finding myself at odds with "false expectations because of labeling" is a small gripe next to finding myself at odds with "this is a terrible game, I was promised a good game", something that can't be dressed up.

Also you're drawing lines in the sand where I don't see there being any, but that's a separate issue.