Whats worse- Fallout 1 and 2 elitists or Fallout 3 fanboy kids?

A bit of your assessments seem a little off, possibly as a result of your detachment from the games' chronological releases. For one thing, while I too enjoyed the pseudo real-time combat choice offered in FOT, it was not Interplay's choice, necessarily, since they merely produced the title, and implementing it into FO1 and/or FO2 was impossible both because those games came first and due to technological constraints. Also I'm really not sure what you're getting at when you assert that the classic games were "cartoony" rather than "gritty neo-realism". The classic games WERE the peak of realism for their era; that's what all games were capable of and attempted to showcase "realism" with in their aesthetic design. The only exceptions to this rule were games like the Command & Conquer series which would utilize filmed cinematics instead of (poorly) rendered cutscenes. Regardless, I'd have to say that it's not the "gritty neo-realism" that makes titles show their age rapidly, but rather the attempt to achieve that realism dipping into the uncanny valley, something that's inherently jarring and discomforting to behold, by nature. The game's don't necessarily age poorly as much as their efforts were just flawed to begin with. For all their inferiority in visual representation of lifelike appearance, the older titles ironically don't suffer this because they're SO un-lifelike that the same discomforting phenomenon of the uncanny valley is never encountered.

Anyway, not that your perspective ought to be discounted, but it's all a bit... unrelated to the topic. It's not a question of "which game is better" but rather, among the die-hard supporters, which are the worse incarnations of insolent bigotry? That's a very different question from what the games themselves actually offer.
 
Why do Fo3 "fanboys" have to be kids lol. That right there in its own self seems like a stereotype created out of hatred of a particular, possibly more popular, group.

I think the whole fucking thing is stupid. Heated arguments of over which generation and creator of the same franchise did it better. Its almost like religious intolerance. Someone from one religion arguing with someone from another religion about why their religion is shitty and false. Personally I don't think Fallout 3 can come close to competing with Fallout, but that doesn't mean I don't play both. Just because I focus my religion beliefs toward the Baha'i Faith and Dharmic religions doesn't mean I don't occasionally read the Bible, Torah, and Quran, or even Atheist Philosopher's writings.
 
Last edited:
SnapSlav said:
A bit of your assessments seem a little off, possibly as a result of your detachment from the games' chronological releases. For one thing, while I too enjoyed the pseudo real-time combat choice offered in FOT, it was not Interplay's choice, necessarily, since they merely produced the title, and implementing it into FO1 and/or FO2 was impossible both because those games came first and due to technological constraints. Also I'm really not sure what you're getting at when you assert that the classic games were "cartoony" rather than "gritty neo-realism". The classic games WERE the peak of realism for their era; that's what all games were capable of and attempted to showcase "realism" with in their aesthetic design. The only exceptions to this rule were games like the Command & Conquer series which would utilize filmed cinematics instead of (poorly) rendered cutscenes. Regardless, I'd have to say that it's not the "gritty neo-realism" that makes titles show their age rapidly, but rather the attempt to achieve that realism dipping into the uncanny valley, something that's inherently jarring and discomforting to behold, by nature. The game's don't necessarily age poorly as much as their efforts were just flawed to begin with. For all their inferiority in visual representation of lifelike appearance, the older titles ironically don't suffer this because they're SO un-lifelike that the same discomforting phenomenon of the uncanny valley is never encountered.

Anyway, not that your perspective ought to be discounted, but it's all a bit... unrelated to the topic. It's not a question of "which game is better" but rather, among the die-hard supporters, which are the worse incarnations of insolent bigotry? That's a very different question from what the games themselves actually offer.
Click to expand...

What I mean by "cartoony" is the aesthetic they went with. If you look at the cinematics in the classic series -- hell, even at the screenshots from the two in-progress 3D Fallout games Interplay was working on that got cancelled because of Bethesda owning the franchise, you'll see a marked difference in presentation; certain physical characteristics are more exaggerated, eyes larger than they would be IRL, a lot more color to the surroundings, etc. I'm not knocking it, that's a design that works VERY well and would rarely require a graphics update in this day and age; one that, as I said before, I wish Bethesda had at least kept.

I understand what the question at hand for this topic really is. I just don't think it can be answered reliably without slapping a blanket label on one side or the other. I was simply offering a different perspective than that which seems to be typical on these forums, in an attempt to avoid that, or at least educate others in that there's MORE than two types of Fallout gamers, and provide my own opinions and history with the franchise as backup of this claim. Sorry if my intent got lost in translation.
 
I think in general you do see a two-pole spectrum when talking about the games, here and elsewhere, but it's more a bell curve than a 2d straight-line progression from one to the other. There's room for a lot of variation in opinions, and there are almost as many outliers as those readily identifiable as one camp or the other, though the outliers tend to be a lot less vocal and the outspoken ones the most self-pigeonholing. So it is with any topic anywhere these days, though.

I actually kind of regret my first post in this thread. In hindsight, it comes across as a bit condescending to the stauncher fans of the new series. Fact is, I had not too long before posting that been in a discussion with my younger brother over the state of the franchise (bit of a favorite topic for my family, actually) and might have been reading specifically into his take when I wrote it. My brothers are prime examples of SMBComix' take on things, actually-- one of us an old-guard fan who pines for purity in canon and tone but openly acknowledges that ship had sailed as of 1997, one a staunch advocate of the originals who will openly argue that Bethsoft saved the franchise and that the Tactics PA is the coolest armor in all the wastes, and one a new-school Bethsoft adherent who mocks their writing on the series and readily bemoans the lack of character compared to the originals (which he couldn't even pony up the interest to finish). My father, a 60-year-old gaming vet and my gateway to the series, thinks F3 is the best one of the lot.

It takes all kinds to make a fanbase. As slow as things can get between releases or major news, it's actually one of my favorite times to be a part of the Fallout community. The hard lines tend to relax a bit, and on sites like ours you can find a lot of common ground with the "other camp," even if to outside (non-)observers stuck in the last decade we're all still bloody reactionary Beth-hating savages.
 
Last edited:
I'm not the type of person that likes to start debates here... but without the heavy influence of Fallout 3 and Bethesda's fan-base, the Fallout franchise would just be another GoG title collecting dust.
 
Loving or hating Fallout 3 might be a matter of taste.

It is often discussed between those who hate Fo3 and love the other Fo, those you love Fo3 and hate the other Fo, and those who love all Fo.
(those who hate all Fo generrally don't bother coming here)

Also, Beth publishing FoNV shows that they at least want to improve the franchise by bringing some worthy sequels. Considering their power as publishers and the worldwide praise FONV got, we might be thankfull that Bethesda/Obsidian brought the RPG formula (or a large part of it) to a wider audience, while not removing the trademark of Bethesda (the Open-world). Most of the new lovers of Fo1-Fo2 were attracted by FoNV (and Fo3, in some extend)

On the other hand, you can't say that withouth Beth Fo3 there would be no new Fallout 3.

There is the cancelled Van Buren, that develloped by Black Isles, the original team. That Van Buren inspired many plots of Fo3-FoNV and will be brought to life by some great modders. It was stopped by money issues, not the intent of killing the franchise.

There was also other interested buyers when Interplay sold the rights.
Troika Games, led by the original design team that created Fallout 1. (including Cain)
Bioware, that are aknowledged as great RPG makers, and have a very good relationship with Black Isles/Obsidian. They also let them work on franchise they started. So Bioware/Obsdian, two good devellopers would have worked in it.
Beth outbidded them, but it doesn't mean that they were the only one who could have bought it, who coult have continued the series.
So you can't say that Fallout would be dead without Beth.

Even after the franchise was semi-sold, Interplay & Masthead Studios tried to make a Fallout MMO and were actually working on it. That was Beth who prevented them to finish it. On that case Bethesda actually prevented a Fallout game to be made.

On the other hand, it is not sure that Troïka, while being the original makers, would have made the next Fallout a commercial success, considering they had to close later. (actually, we don't know) But we are 100% sure that they would have been faithfull to their own work.
Bioware, on the other hand, is the biggest RPG maker worldwide. They could have reached the same commercial success.

Bethesda, being a bigger publisher, have the ressources to port these games into console and increase the audience of those games and attract more gamers into the franchise. More fans of the franchise, even if divided, provide more hope for upcoming games.
On the other hand, the develloper itself seems still having troubles in understanding and applying the right formula to make proper RPG.
This is a current situation. Hopefully, it doesn't have to stay that way forever. People have to change if they want to overcome their flaws.
If they don't manage to do it, there is fortunatly an other team, ready to take (back) the torch.

So even if Beth bring some great things on the table (some could argue) you can't be 100% sure, that otherwise, the franchise would be dead by now.

Finally, what's the problem with games in GoG ? Are you aware that they are the second digital game distributor worldwide ?
It wouldn't be the case if their games were dusting. Regardless if you like it or not, there are billions of people still buying old games.
And millions of them are still playing and modding the original Fallout games, almost 20 years later.
The upcoming Van Buren is a proof of that.
 
Last edited:
naossano said:
Finally, what's the problem with games in GoG ? Are you aware that they are the second digital game distributor worldwide ?It wouldn't be the case if their games were dusting.
Click to expand...
Besides, Fallout is fucking flagship on GOG, according to the PR manager Lukasz Kukawski:
TechSpot: What is your best selling game since opening GoG?
Lukasz (GoG): Fallout games are the bestsellers and it's no surprise as these games are 110% classics. Duke Nukem 3D and Heroes of Might and Magic series, another very popular titles, have been in the offer for less time but are selling very well and are close on Fallouts' heels ..
Click to expand...

http://www.techspot.com/article/205-good-old-games-interview/

edit:
.. and 20 most owned games on Steam. Sadly, no Fallout 3 or FNV in this recent chart:
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/04/introducing-steam-gauge-ars-reveals-steams-most-popular-games/
 
Last edited:
Fallout:New Vegas, is on the list of the most hours played on steam, since 2009. (page two)
I get 137 millions of hours played. (unfortunatly, Skyrim is played six times more)

On the other hand, New Vegas is the only game that you could only play on steam. (amongs computer players)
Fallout 3 was initially on Microsoft Games Live as well, while all the previous games aren't (or weren't) steam exclusive, since they existed before.
 
Last edited:
valcik said:
naossano said:
Finally, what's the problem with games in GoG ? Are you aware that they are the second digital game distributor worldwide ?It wouldn't be the case if their games were dusting.
Click to expand...
Besides, Fallout is fucking flagship on GOG, according to the PR manager Lukasz Kukawski:
TechSpot: What is your best selling game since opening GoG?
Lukasz (GoG): Fallout games are the bestsellers and it's no surprise as these games are 110% classics. Duke Nukem 3D and Heroes of Might and Magic series, another very popular titles, have been in the offer for less time but are selling very well and are close on Fallouts' heels ..
Click to expand...

http://www.techspot.com/article/205-good-old-games-interview/

edit:
.. and 20 most owned games on Steam. Sadly, no Fallout 3 or FNV in this recent chart:
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/04/introducing-steam-gauge-ars-reveals-steams-most-popular-games/
Click to expand...

All the old fallouts were taken off gog a few months ago so I guess they lost their best sellers.
 
They were taken of GOG because Bethesda didn't want them making money off their own product. Then giving it away for free to anyone who signed up didn't help that cause either.

I keep trying to explain to people that Bethesda is first and foremost a BUSINESS. Pleasing your fan-base doesn't come first, and if it does in your book, your likely to make some shitty business deals and lead your company into the fucking ground (just like Interplay). Making money has to, and always will come first for Bethesda and any other succesfull company. I was surprised Fallout 3 held as much of the Fallout-universe lore and feel as it did. They could have completely changed shit around from top to bottom if they wanted to. "For this game... the Enclave are your FRIENDS. Yeah, and, and... it wasn't a nuclear war that destroyed the Earth, it was GLOBAL WARMING."

I'm just saying. Bethesda didn't have to put half the fucking effort they did into making that game relatively close to an actual Fallout title, isometric or not. They knew it was going to fly off the shelves from the moment they announced it. They also had others fans to please, not just the hard-core Fallout fans. The original Fallout fans made up only about 20, 25 percent of Fallout 3's would-be fanbase and players when the game came out. Another 60% were Elder Scrolls fans, and the rest were people new to both Bethesda and Fallout. In my book, Bethesda did they best job they could to attempt to appeal to all fanbases that would be playing their game. But like I said. Its a business. Its the reason some French prick (no offense to French people) didn't buy the company years ago and is doing nothing with it right now (Interplay reference).

Also, Bethesda stuck to what they were good at. Can't blame them at that. Better to stick to what you know (first-person open world experiences) then doing something new with no experience in it (isometric). They had millions of people waiting eagerly for this game. I doubt the director was going to go in there and say "Alright, fuck what you know. Fuck what people expect. We're doing THIS".

So, here's what they did:

• Kept the gameplay "Elder Scrolls-like" (by this I mean non-isometric, non turn based) for Bethesda's own fanbase.
• Spent a lot of time incorporating lore into the game (BOS, Vaults, Mutants, Basically What Makes Fallout - Fallout) in order to keep it a "Fallout" game.
• Even though they completely changed the gameplay, they still built it around the Fallout basics (SPECIAL, Perks, etc.) and threw a ton of nods towards the old games (VATs system for turn-based lovers) in order to please the original Fallout fanbase.
• Attempted to make the game as interesting as possible for those who had know idea what Fallout was or those who were unfamiliar to Bethesda, all the while incorporating systems to help them along the way (VATs comes into mind again here.

So, as I said, they did a pretty good job attempting to keep all parties happy, which they didn't have to. They could have told themselves fuck the original fanbase (which made up possible less than a quarter of the would-be Fallout 3 consumers), we will just stick to what we know, and keep the Bethesda fans and newcomers to Fallout-Bethesda happy. Like I said, they didn't have to do half the shit they did. But, well, there goes the saying "You can make everyone happy".

Also, this is coming from someone who found Fallout 1 (in late 2005 I believe) before they played Fallout 3. I was reading through articles on Bethesda, and came across one about them acquiring the rights to "Fallout". So I decided to check it out. I purchased Fallout 1 online (back when buying shit online was still relatively new) from Amazon I think, and well long story short it's still my favorite of the series.
 
BigBoss said:
I keep trying to explain to people that Bethesda is first and foremost a BUSINESS. Pleasing your fan-base doesn't come first, and if it does in your book, your likely to make some shitty business deals and lead your company into the fucking ground (just like Interplay). Making money has to, and always will come first for Bethesda and any other succesfull company.
Click to expand...
That's kinda missing the point of what an ACTUAL business would want out of its customers if it was trying to be successful, and what Bethesda did that was anything but that. You DO put your customers (fans) first because that sells your product. It's not some happy coincidence that putting effort into your creation so that the fans will like it more also sells well. They're directly related. The reason Bethesda is "successful" is not because they followed good business principles such as that, but because of other reasons. It cannot be overstated while one rule determines a particular relationship that there are other, completely unrelated rules that can affect those same exact things. For example, brand loyalty also sells well, even if the business in question put next-to-zero effort into making their product ANY amount of good. The latest iterations in the Die Hard series are perfect examples of that, and FO3 sold a VAST majority of its copies because of TES brand loyalists. Some of them "migrated over" to the rest of the FO series, but most of them did not. It wouldn't have mattered if it was genuine to the original series, it still would have sold copies for that reason. It's not poor business practice at all to try and please your customers, and there isn't even ANY relationship between picking one strategy over the other and generating a massive profit vs generating a decent profit. The reason there's no relationship is because what drives consumption is a nebulous concept, the same as what drives us to eat. We can never know what will appeal to more people, because people are unpredictable. But that said, it doesn't mean that foregoing any attempt at pleasing the fans is a reasonable conclusion.

If you wanna remind people of something, remind them that Bethesda is a business that's out of its element, like EA execs who come into the games industry with zero experience in the games industry. Bethesda had a few fans of Fallout in its ranks, but they were a company that was adept at making their particular approach to RPGs, so that was all they were ever going to do, just like EA will never (at least not while it's heading in its same direction) take leaps of faith to invest in new product ideas and will never stop homogenizing their games because that's what they're familiar with. Taking leaps of faith and relying on art for the sake of art is just not what EA does. Pleasing the fans and putting genuine effort into their product is just not what Bethesda does.
 
Well said. A few things I wanted to comment on:

1) When your first starting out, you need to attract customers, so you do everything you can to attract customers. Later when you have customers, you do what you can to please them. Even later your game studio has become really more of a business than 'just a game studio', so your first concern is making and pushing product in return for money. You need money to create games, and games to attract customers, and the cycle goes backward then repeats. Therefore the money should be first on your mind. I'm not saying at all, that you shouldn't do anything to please your customers. But for many gaming companies, Bethesda included, its a business, and a business goes to where there is more money to be made, not where EVERYONE is kept happy. In order to do that, you have to appeal yourself to the largest consumer market (in Bethesda's case, TES fans and Fallout new-comers). By trying to please the original Fallout fans by doing things nearly exactly like the last gaming company though, chances are you are going to upset your existing fanbase and possibly even your new customers in order to keep a product you purchased-s' original fans happy. If you get what I'm trying to say. This will ultimately be a bad business deal. Bethesda is out to make money, not to be people's friends (if you catch my drift). By that I never meant to imply that they were out to make money by screwing everyone over and doing whatever they wanted, I was implying that it IS still a business and they will head toward what makes the most money, rather than what can keep a certain faction of fans happy.

2) Again, never did I really state it was a poor business practice to keep your customers happy. What I was attempting to say was, in the view of making money, it's better to focus on pleasing the largest group of consumers instead of attempting to please smaller separatist factions. Bethesda however went out of its way to attempt to please all parties (even the group of consumers that never liked Fallout because of its isometric turn-based gameplay, by introducing a "repackaged" Fallout to them). Like I said, Bethesda had to focus on what was going to make money. And by this, I mean they had to focus on attempting to please their original fanbase all the while attempting to attract new customers.

3) Leaps of faith are a good thing, no doubting that. We need new, fresh ideas. However, again stating my original point that these are businesses, and they will stick to how they make money best, instead of investing in something that may barely make enough money to pay off its own overhead, or worse, lose money. Not saying that businesses will never take a leap of faith for something new, but they only do it when they know for a fact they will at least make their money back (for instance, Bethesda buying Fallout. A product with seemingly way different gameplay than Bethesda's own TES). For the big CEO's and board members at ZeniMax its a very simply Money = GOOD, No Money = BAD!. And as such, they will do what it takes to keep a couple bucks in their pocket.
 
Last edited:
John McDonnell said:
Yes, FO1+2 vs FO3+NV! Right! So, to answer the question of whether the "Elitists" are right or not, we need to understand what Fallout 1 and 2 are, and whether or not 3 and NV are true to that.
I will say right now that bringing up stuff like "isometric vs first person" is nonsense. In fact, it's flat out stupid. The visual style of the originals was as much due to technical limitations of the time as anything...
Click to expand...
Bull.
They worked on Stonekeep before Fallout, and Fallout shipped concurrently with FPS titles published by Interplay.

I say be glad that this wasn't our alternate past, and the Fallout we all remember: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVAyhlgYSc4

__

What many don't understand is that they designed that game the way it was on purpose... they coded the combat engine first. What you propose implies that the game presentation & mechanics are somehow irrelevant to the game; as though a game like "Dawn of War", could be followed up with a game like SpaceMarine as its direct sequel. ~That's nuts... SpaceMarine uses the Warhammer license, but it's not DoW series gameplay. Even if it picked up the DoW story from the day after the end... it would still be a spin off title ~not appropriate sequel material for DoW.

BigBoss said:
2) Again, never did I really state it was a poor business practice to keep your customers happy. What I was attempting to say was, in the view of making money, it's better to focus on pleasing the largest group of consumers instead of attempting to please smaller separatist factions. Bethesda however went out of its way to attempt to please all parties (even the group of consumers that never liked Fallout because of its isometric turn-based gameplay, by introducing a "repackaged" Fallout to them). Like I said, Bethesda had to focus on what was going to make money. And by this, I mean they had to focus on attempting to please their original fanbase all the while attempting to attract new customers.
Click to expand...
This is true... and the [self-righteous] logic they display is mind numbing... as it could equally apply to a company like 'Sarah Lee' buying 'Kraft' foods and selling all future Vegemite ~with more strawberries and added sugar... because "they gots to keep their cheesecake fans happy".

Thankfully there are at least SOME respectable developers that will take on a forign project with respect for the source material and try to create a title in keeping with the established series; for the fans of that series ~and anyone else who'd like to come along for the ride.... As opposed to using the name's reputation and making a game for anyone ~and any original fans who care to add to the pot.
 
Last edited:
All I can say is that I started off with Fallout 3 and instantly fell in love with the tone and setting. I played the hell out of it and wanted more of Fallout. I bought the original games and after some difficulty with some well known glitches on newer hardware and installing some patches, I quickly got my ass handed to me. I wasn't one for giving up so I did some research, came back with better knowledge of what I was dealing with and I got better at it and fell in love with Fallout a second time. Unfortunately when I got to the Master my save file crashed and I lost everything. I got bummed out and stop playing for a bit. By this time Fallout: NV was coming out and I got excited for that. When I played it I recognized some of the atmospheric music they used in NV was also in the original game as well and I started wanting to play the original again. After I finished NV and it's DLC I got back to the original and was able to finish it successfully the second time around. With my knowledge of the first game, I started up the second and spent a collective 40 hours on the game before completing it.

I've played all the main Fallout games and I love every one of them for their own different flavor they give you. So when I see people hatting the newer games while praising the old, I understand where they're coming from but I feel like their missing out. When I see those who claim are big Fallout fans but only played the newer ones and won't even consider touching the older ones, I'm tempted to call them out on the hypocrisy of they're statement.

All in all, I have a pretty balanced opinion of the Fallout franchise as a whole and of what each game offers, and I think they're all just awesome games.

But this old vs. new argument just leaves me with one burning question:

Can't we all just agree that Fallout: BOS should of never happened?
 
FOBOS could have been an amazing game............ if it was done right. FOBOS isn't (nor SHOULD it be) demonized because it was made, but because what was made was just so..... so bad. It's the exact same with FO3, and defenders just haven't come to terms with that notion yet. FO3 didn't fail NEARLY as catastrophically as FOBOS did, of course, but the problems with the game are not a matter of "new vs old" but entirely a matter of "bad vs good", and the defenders falsely label those complaints as a matter of nostalgia. If you like FPS gameplay compared to top-down gameplay, that's not an issue of age. Wolfenstein 3D predates the first Fallout by half a decade, and the mid-90s were filled with perfections of the FPS model as created by Wolf3D and expanded upon by Doom 2 years later, so enjoying top-down gameplay rather than FPS gameplay is not a matter of preferring old over the new. The Elder Scrolls series likewise predates the Fallout franchise, so if you enjoy the general gameplay mechanics and presentation of a TES game over what Fallout did, it's not a matter of preferring new versus old.

FO3 is not some kind of poor stepchild that gets undeservingly looked down upon because of misguided association with something it deserves so such contempt for. It's a highly successful mainstream game from a noted company known for a popular game series. There's plenty of irrational hate aimed towards FO3, but over here the great mainstay of contempt that the game earns isn't born of that irrationality but from perfectly reasonable assessments that the game, objectively speaking, was just bad. It had bad things. It did bad things. It made bad things. It took good things as source material and perverted them into bad things. It's not a matter of appreciating the game because it added it's own "unique flavor" to the series and that we shouldn't fight over old versus new; it's a matter of establishing transparent standards for what makes a game good or bad and not flinching when a game such as Fallout 3 very clearly lands itself in the latter category.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top