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

fevermario, that's a question which reeks of not having read this thread. The topic title isn't somehow stipulating, "There's only 2 kinds of 'Fallout Fan': those that like 1 and 2 but hate FO3 and FONV, and those that like FO3 and FONV but hate 1 and 2!" The question of the topic is merely addressing that there ARE extremists who like one side and not the other, and posing which is worse. You're new here, so you likely haven't seen much of it yet, but there's an ABUNDANCE of individuals here who see no merits in the 2 most recent titles, and have a one-sided love affair with the originals, with no room for compromise... also elsewhere on the net it's pretty much the opposite, fools who love FO3 and can't see the merit of the originals. ALSO your question doesn't address the many fans of titles such as FOT. There's been 6 official Fallout titles, not just 4. =P

 

I think I'm the only guy here who sees the merits of, and loves both. :-/

 

Why the hell NV is tangled with 3?
NV is far different from 3.
while NV is quest RPG, 3 is just poor dungeon crawler.

there are lots of reason for people who hate 3 especially fan of RPG.
they hate fo3 not only because they like Fo1,2 but it's totally disaster for RPG.
it's worse than jrpgs.

there is no actual quest but taxidermied one(I mean main quest) and tons of meaningless GTAtic small missions. and even the small missions are removed it's function as game by idiotic quest marker and journal system.

dungeons are also terrible, it's just aisle with chests and monsters.
there is no serious puzzles(doesn't mean small mini game puzzles) or complax struction.

rules are totally broken. no meaning of SPECIAL or skils.

so there is nothing works well as RPG in fo3.
but it is called a model of RPG. WTF?

so opposite side of fo3 fanboys are not only Fo1,2 fans but fans of true RPGs.
of course, F1,2 is also exaggerated as a RPG but at least, Fo1,2 is good RPG.
even Fo1,2 isn't better than superial RPGs like Ultima, Wizardry(actually, I don't know much of these games) and etc, it's RPG elements are works well unlike fo3.
so it's not strange thing to call FO1,2 as a model of RPG.

and for NV, it's RPG elements are not works well as FO1,2, but they works pretty well.
it's not like fo3 since it works as RPG.

 

This thread has officially become Fallout 1+2 versus 3+NV all the fuck over again. People cannot have a direct conversation without showing their allegiances, or ever coming anywhere close to terms that both companies made good games. Why can't we all just hate Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel instead, like normal people?

It's become a religious feud. The battle is on, Holy Bible vs. Quran. Except here at NMA it's BIS vs. Bethesda. Are you guys going to start throwing pipebombs through eachother's windows next? This argument is no better than the Playstation vs. Xbox feud.

 

for me, it's not about BIS VS beth but RPG VS fake RPG.
anyway, I don't think fans should be seperated into two fandom.
the starter of this thread doesn't have any good intention to start this thread but just want some conflict between fo3 fanboys and older NMA users.

and IMO, Fo1 is nothing to do with BIS but involved with Troika.

 

Yup. I was literally blown away by the vast amount of choices, when the situation in New Vegas escalated and Courier was finaly facing the tough decision making about factions. Actually, FNV is the only game I've played in last few years, where I was forced to use my brains for analyzing the whole situation and choosing sides.

 

It is more convenient for Fo3 fanboy.
Buy saying you hate Fo3-FoNV, they consider that you hate everything new.
If you hate everything new, you will hate the game whatever its qualities/flaws.
Taking that into account, they don't have any reason to read your lenghty answer.
They stated that you will be wrong no matter what you say.
So they happy to be right without even arguing.
Or maybe they just trolling you..

 

Another thing I love is Fallout 3 fans are classified as fanboys automatically, yet Fallout 1-2 fans receive more polite names.

Both are fanatics. Fanatic should be the word used here.

 

Netiquette should be used before any words.
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt

 

I rather be fanatic of real RPG than fake RPG.
I don't think there are much real fanatics of Fallout even in here.
but some of RPG fans hate here because lots of Fallout fanatics in here.(they are not fan of fo3 though)
but there are tons of fo3 fanatics who don't accept criticising fo3 and meta critics outside of here.

 

Oh Jesus Christ, hop the fuck down from your towering high-horse before you burn yourself alive in the fucking sun itself.

Yes, this topic goes back from time to time to the 2 extremes.... BUT THAT'S THE FUCKING PURPOSE FOR THE THREAT. The title is "What's worse- Fallout 1 and 2 elitists or Fallout 3 fanboy kids" NOT "Let's discuss the merits of all of the Fallout games fairly". It's a question ABOUT the extremes, and you're bitching that we're discussing the extremes? Seriously, fuck off with that. What's more, "elitists" is NOT a "more polite name" for a group of people. It's highly derogatory and inflammatory, inciteful and rude. To be called an elitist is to be likened to a class-separation type of bigotry, because for totally arbitrary reasons, a small group of people has designated itself as better than another. It's not polite to be relegated to that identification in such a manner.

Your comparison with religion and the PS3/360 feud is simply ridiculous. In the case of the "Console Wars", 2 different products were released at very similar time tables (the 360 came out several months before its Sony counterpart) that covered almost identical services and established themselves in direct competition with one another. So "taking sides" was a natural result when you wanted to own a console and play games on that console between 2006 and 2013 and it was only practical, fiscally speaking, to own one of them. You'd want to make "the right choice", but you'd ultimately have obeyed the whims of a sales pitch, regardless of your personal study of the matter, and most people aren't so humble that they can admit years down the road that their decision may have been flawed. The arguments were petty and childish, but it was natural for them to take place, because these consoles set themselves up to be at odds with one another, and for the vast majority of owners, it was one or the other. Conflict was unavoidable. THAT has some decent similarity to religious fanaticism, except in that case choice is irrelevant because the fanatics are often born into their religious sect and simply obey out of tradition. They didn't choose their faith between 2 choices that established themselves as mutually exclusive but otherwise nearly-identical alternatives, however they are quite similar in the sense of the stubbornness of the "owners" ignoring common sense as the years pass them by out of some misguided sense of pointless pride in their "choice". But what does this have in common with the 2 extremes of "Fallout Fans"? Hardly anything at all.

There are sensible console owners, such as myself, who owned both the PS3 and 360, and owned up to the fact that the respective companies were screwing up both systems at different times in different ways, and that both systems had their strengths as well as drawbacks. There are sensible theologians who see other religions as different sides of the same coin, rather than aspects that are in eternal conflict with other another. There are Fallout Fans who recognize good qualities in all of the games that have been released with the name "Fallout". And then there are childish console owners who bicker, and religious fanatics who are narrow minded, and Fallout Fans who pick sides and see the only option is to demonize one while praising the other. If anything can be compared across the board between these groups, it's the shared quality of close mindedness, not religious fanaticism, not pride in console ownership.

When this topic ceases to have EVER been about discussing the extremists (that word was chosen weeks ago, long before you established just now that "fanatic" was appropriate) on either side, then you can complain that there's discussion about one versus the other. But the topic WAS about extremists on both sides, so it's ridiculous of you to feel so incensed that the topic is following its intended course.

 

I don't view Fallout 3 or New Vegas as real Fallout games. They just aren't as good. You can see they made it in first person view to drag in the Modern Warfare crowd. Fallout 3 and New Vegas fanboys are the worst. They are completely ignorant of the where their favorite game got its start. Yes I have seen many trash Fallout 1 and 2 for being old cr*ppy games with out dated graphics. Complete total ignorance is what it is. Fallout 1 and 2 did more with less than Fallout 3 or New Vegas did. Fallout 1 and 2 actually feel like a wasteland.

 

Agreed, there's too much consolitis riddled shit in FNV for my taste too, so I couldn't finishing it without serious teeth gnashing. Ugly and annoying user interface optimized for gamepad, retarded skill-check tags in dialogue system which insults your intelect more than average Hollywood produced movie, compressed map distances which completely killed for me that true Wasteland feel delivered by Fallout's world map, fucked-up and frenetic combat system, that map-cells loading times constantly torturing your hardware won't help either.. Beth's engine issues. That's why I wouldn't touch any future game created by Bethesda - Todd can't deliver anything different, this is his dream concept of money machine fueled by huge console market.

 

Complete nonsense. FO3 was designed as a primarily FPS-centric game because the TES series always was, which LONG predates the COD franchise- let alone its Modern Warfare derivative -by roughly a whole decade. Not to mention FO3 and Modern Warfare 1 were release at the SAME TIME, so arguing that they designed it to capitalize on that crowd is ridiculous and impossible.

FPS was super popular in the mid 90s (recognized under the monicker "shooter" at the time) because it was a newly developed perspective in gaming, and artists were exploring the opportunities it created for their games. Series that established themselves in the FPS genre predominantly stayed in the FPS genre, and TES was one of them. Series from other genres also sprouted up at this time, such as the "-Craft" series from Blizzard and plenty of other top-down RPGs such as Diablo and Fallout. If some other company had acquired the rights to the Fallout name then they would have more than likely created a game that would be anything BUT another FPS, despite the immense popularity of Halo at the time (again, because this all predates COD4). But Bethesda got their hands on it, and Bethesda had a successful but incredibly narrow track record of popular FPS games with RPG elements, which had for several years branched into the console gaming market, so that's why FO3 was designed the way it was, as a FPS game with RPG elements made for console controls.

 

Not just the mid-90s.
All the 90s were an FPS heavy era.
Wolfenstein 3D came in the beginning of the 90s and was a Revolution on the first person perpective genre.
(try to play the FPP games that came before Wolfenstein3D and you will see that the differences are huge)
Then, you have Doom, that every gamers in the world had tried, which defined the gameplay of modern FPS.
You had the golden era of sprites based FPS with Duke Nukem3D/Shadow Warrior/Blood, with the early era of 3D based FPS like Quake/Unreal.
And the very end of 90s, very beginning of 2000s, you have story heavy FPS like Half-Life, local damage with Soldiers of Fortune.
Since the 90s, the only improvement was the HD.

 

The difference is Fallout 3 and New Vegas both have guns. So they are basically FPS. That is why everyone says they are Oblivion with guns.

 

I disagree with that. All of the Fallout games have guns, not all of the Fallout games are focused purely a theme-park style romp through an interactive wasteland where the customer is always right ~and can do no wrong. "Oblivion with guns" means a straight up empowerment fantasy; with bad AI, and insignificant reactions to the PC ~all across the board.

It can also point out that they start in almost [but not quite] the exact same way... with the PC in a room that they must escape from, that leads to an underground tunnel with a round exit, where they are then offered the option to completely revoke any and all of their previous commitments, before exiting on to a hillside, a stone's through from a nearby town... sent on a mission to find this one special dude; a quest that can be utterly ignored with no consequence. Also: the skills of the game are not proficiency enabling a task ~they are bonuses to standard tasks that anyone can do.

The core activity between Oblivion and FO3 is all but identical ~as these are the same game with minor cosmetic difference.

 

FPS doesn't mean cosole or non-RPG.
games like Ultima underworld, System shock, Deus ex are great RPG but not for console.
even between same FP view RPGs, there are many difference between TES Arena and Morrowind which are dungeon crawling and quest RPG.

 

This makes me recall the skill challenges in Fable II, which were very simplistic in design but brilliant and appropriately difficult in execution. A dot zips back and forth across a semicircular-shaped bar, and a shrinking band within the bar is your target. All you (the player) do is hit a button, and you score points for timing it while the dot is within the band, and you get more points for the longer you wait and the smaller the band shrinks to, but that also makes timing the button press harder. So simple, yet challenging, and the more points you get, the quicker you level up that skill. How would you feel about tasks like that if they were included in the modern Fallout games? Not just fetch quests. Not just directions to follow, but being granted the opportunity to exercise SOME form of skill, regardless of whether that skill actually bears any relevance to the activity being performed in the game.

I mean, I always think about things that could have been transplanted from other games into the modern FO titles which might've heavily improved them, but this is the first time I recalled that skill leveling system from Fable II and I personally think it would've been nifty if a few of these were present in the game. =)

FPS doesn't mean non-RPG, but FPS also DOESN'T mean RPG.

The common complaint about "consolitis" is that the controls for a console are a single handheld object containing less than 20 inputs, compared to a PC game where your inputs are a mouse (upwards of 4 inputs) and a keyboard (upwards of 100 inputs). Most PC games made use of the number keys for subsections of their control schemes (weapon inventory in shooters, your action skills in Fallout, etc) and still had over 80 other keys to make use of, and this is already most of the inputs you can make use of from a console controllers. So console games, perfectly reasonably, would consolidate (please pardon the pun) its controls into fewer and fewer actions.

For example: Sneaking, Lockpicking, and Pickpocketing would be separated into 3 different actions on the keyboard, in addition to other actions such as observing and/or "interacting with", in any combination you see fit, in the original Fallout games. In Tactics even more controls are added that further interact with these in the form of Standing, Crouching, or Prone. yet in the modern games all of these are narrowed down to the binary state of standing or crouching and what object you're interacting with depending on your binary state determines what your interaction choices are. You can't speak to someone while you're sneaking, you can't try to nonchalantly pickpocket while standing incognito, you can't just "interact" with a character unless they have the option explicitly programmed into them.

Restricting all of the action options as a result of the number of inputs being so drastically limited on console controllers is the cause for the so-called "watered down" effect, which is largely justified, but in plenty of cases offers the game creators a situation to creatively exceed (as I've mentioned before, elsewhere, "provide a 'box' to think outside of"). Games made for consoles offer far fewer options for players to explore because of the fewer control inputs, and players transitioning from games with a greater abundance of options/actions/etc to games with far fewer will feel the impact of these restrictions in almost exclusively a negative manner, and understandably so. But just like the topic of this thread to begin with, extremists on any end of a matter, many take it too far and consider it a blight upon all things without exception. I feel that console controls offer plenty of things that the mouse and keyboard don't, and that approached appropriately and creatively the lack of inputs doesn't have to be restricting at all. In short, that it's not always a bad thing. But that impulsive notion that it IS always a bad thing is "consolitis". At least in the case of FO3 (and by extension, FONV) it's definitely a bad thing, and the limitations weren't handled well at all.

 

.. besides of the number of inputs on control devices, it's also in-game user interface designed for particular control device which matters a lot. That's why those console ports with all its circle menus, side-sliding submenus and so, are a pain in the arse to control with mouse/keyboard on PC.