Why fallout 3 is different then Fallout 1 and 2

Still while they are commited to doing a first person game with the franchise I would love to see them contract another company for a "tactics" game, by which I mean full on turn based.

Obsidian could do this, although hopefully with a new engine since the NWN one is a little slow and clumsy. My dream developer would be THQ, they havent done anything turn based but they are masters of strategy games, I think they could make a really deep turn based game.
 
lugaru said:
My dream developer would be THQ, they havent done anything turn based but they are masters of strategy games, I think they could make a really deep turn based game.
Click to expand...

Mutant Strike, command thousands of mutants or survivors on the battlefield?
 
Danilh said:
A mere decade ago the quality was immensely better.
Click to expand...

No, but we only remember the greatest games, not any double dragon clone or generic space shoot 'em up
Click to expand...

We also don't remember quite a few innovative and awesome games that got lost in the shuffle but were miles ahead of anything that's coming out today conceptually.

You remember the original Seven Kingdoms?

Bet you don't.
 
My dream developer would be THQ, they havent done anything turn based but they are masters of strategy games, I think they could make a really deep turn based game.
Click to expand...
THQ don't make games, they're a publisher. You're thinking of their owned studios Relic Entertainment and Gas Powered Games, who make Dawn of War and Supreme Commander respectively.
 
It's funny, I went to wikipedia, confirmed that their name is Relic and still wrote THQ. I havent played their new WH40K game but company of heroes is incredibly respectful of battlefield conditions despite being an RTS... I can picture the Relic guys taking into account stuff like cover, visibility, terrain and all that... they are friends of micromanaging.
 
Truth be told, I don't like CoH. Well I do, but I really can't get into it properly, because it's too micromanagement based in a real-time game. Great game, but it's practically a real-time Jagged Alliance. That said, DoW2 is a good example, and they probably could make a good RT tactics-like game.

What was this thread about again?
 
Trithne said:
Truth be told, I don't like CoH. Well I do, but I really can't get into it properly, because it's too micromanagement based in a real-time game. Great game, but it's practically a real-time Jagged Alliance. That said, DoW2 is a good example, and they probably could make a good RT tactics-like game.

What was this thread about again?
Click to expand...

Just takes a little getting used to.
You don't really HAVE to get a burnout about each and every soldier being in the perfect position all the time.

I did however find playing with the brits to be a little... slow and uneffective
 
"Why fallout 3 is different then Fallout 1 and 2"

Fallout 1 and 2 were cool, and Fallout 3 is just...not?
 
This thread is full of fail.

I mean, sorry, but why did it start by saying that games like F1 and F2 will not sell because FOPOS didn't?

I mean, maybe I missed sth, but turn based games are still alive and well, be it Japanese SLG, or TBS like King's Bounty or Disciples, and I'm sure that games like TOEE minus the bugs would sell as well as any other niche game does these days.
 
I hate when people start threads and don't even bother coming back to defend their arguments.
 
Fallout 1 and 2 are good, yes. They could probably do decent in today's market, if not just for the fanbase.

Just, look at Fallout 3 for what it is. I think it's a great game. Probably the best console game I've ever played. Ever. I love it. I want to have it's children.

But, as a sequel to the others... We all know it didn't meet up to your expectations. And that's cool. You wait a long time for something to come out, and then something comes out that isn't what you wanted, or expected. A lot of people will say it sucks just because of that and not even go past the first quest.

I'm not saying that you guys are like that, but some are. Don't you think that's ridiculous?

Look at Fallout 3. Take out Fallout 3. Just, throw out the name. Re-name it "Frank Zappa and The Love Berries", I don't give a shit. Now, play it, not as a Fallout game, but just as a game.

It's a good game. Sure, it doesn't have as much humor, not the same style of gameplay, but look at it's good qualities. I've spent over 50 hours on my character, and I'm STILL finding new places and having a good time. The VATS system is pretty cool, though buggy. The weapons are nice. The enemies are awe-inspiring and magnificent.

If you would simply stop heightening it's bad qualities due to your shattered expectations and start looking at it for what it is, I think you'll at least stop telling those that do like it that it's a horrible piece of shit and to go play Fallout.

It's good advice, but leave the poor guys alone.
 
Y'know, I was about to write a large diatribe about Beth's FO, but in the end, you're just not worth it.

A simple analogy can do the trick just as well:

Public Enemy > 50 Cent
Fallout > Fallout 3



Also
Frank Zappa and The Love Berries
Click to expand...
That's even worse!
 
Thyclaine said:
It's a good game. Sure, it doesn't have as much humor, not the same style of gameplay, but look at it's good qualities. I've spent over 50 hours on my character, and I'm STILL finding new places and having a good time. The VATS system is pretty cool, though buggy. The weapons are nice. The enemies are awe-inspiring and magnificent.
Click to expand...

I didn't think it was good, even going by its own qualities; playable I suppose, not exactly bad, but very average. If that's the best console came ever, I'm glad I'm a PC gamer. I can not possibly see putting 50 hours in, I explored every location on the map in just over half that time. VATS is cool for about the first few times, longer then I expected even, but it gets old fast and really messes up game play. The weapons just aren't satisfying to use. And the enemies, IMO, far from being 'awe-inspiring' were bog standard FPS gribblies.
 
Well just my 2 cents :
I've always been a gamer and i tend to prefer strategy / tactic games (Im a big fan of CIV series FE).
I discovered Fallout an unexpected way : cant remember exactly but i think my sister got it for free buying some other shit in a package. So i saw the CDs and : let's try it .
And Bam ! Fun fight with the ants at start etc ... insane story, insane atmosphere, smartest dialogues/interactions/story/quests/wtfever , not so good graphics but who cares... Never played it again cause i lost the CDs and never bothered to DL it but I'll remember it as one of the best gaming experience i got. OK it was more than 10 years ago ( I think ).
So i bought Fallout 2. Even better. Jeez, New Reno (DIE TYSON DIE), real epic CHOICES, factions, San Francisco (DIE LO PANG DIE, i leveled melee only to fight him and Tyson). I played it over years like 5 times, trying to achieve different things, especially cause of New Reno (Ah, New Reno ....).
So ofc i was waiting for fallout 3, and let's be honest they did a fucking nice work on the first person real time shooting part : the map is nice, good areas, overall good ideas for places, world buildup etc (500% better than the stupid dull oblivion boring piss of shit pew, so i hope they thank Black Isle or whoever owned it, every fucking day for selling them the franchise).
But what about the story ??? the quests ??? the choices ??? They probably think they did all the work once they made up the megaton shit : SEE WE ARE BADASS : YOU CAN KILL 30 GUYS AND MAKE THEM GHOULS LOLZ: BETHESDA 1 , BLACK ISLE 0. Then what ? nothing , see you byebye.
Now you just shoot, or you talk with 3 options : good (aka ok i'll help, me=dumbass) neutral (aka ok i ll help but still i dont care, I'm a dumbass) , bad badass (aka dumbass 12 y.o badass, but i'll still help lol i'm a badass, surely not a dumbass).
Some talk about money, is it fucking so expensive to buy a couple guys with humor and brain to write dialogs,and to make up a decent story line? Please..
Whatever , what about New Vegas ? I've read they hired some guys from first fallouts, maybe they can build something WITH FALLOUT 3 engine, AND a decent storyline and RPG side.
Now make me dream again pls.

PS: fuck 15 y.o kids


Sorry if it's long, but the point is : fallout 1/2 is the past, fallout 3 a half success, what now ?
 
Don Mikey said:
Its pretty obvious. a new version of a game like fallout 1 or 2 would never sell in todays gaming world.
Click to expand...

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/58609

Still, there's one surprise tucked away in there: Interplay's recent "Fallout Trilogy" bundle--packing Fallout, Fallout 2, Fallout Tactics--popped up as #7 on NPD's chart.

1.World Of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King / Blizzard / $32
2.The Sims 2 Double Deluxe / EA Maxis / $20
3.Left 4 Dead / Valve / $29
4.World Of Warcraft Battle Chest / Blizzard / $39
5.Empire: Total War / Creative Assembly / $50
6.World Of Warcraft / Blizzard / $20
7.Fallout Trilogy (Fallout, Fallout 2, Fallout Tactics) / Interplay / $20
8.Demigod / Gas Powered Games / $39
9.The Sims 2 Apartment Life Exp. Pack / EA Maxis / $20
10.Spore / EA Maxis / $50
Click to expand...

But thanks for this interesting and original thread anyway...
 
well its not like that Fallout 1 is that old that all its gamers died suddenly from senility. And now as the market is biger then ever (when it comes to numbers of players) its just fair to say that a game with the same complexity and interesting story like Fallout 1 definetly would at least make the same kind of success as it did back then.

And with the right visuals like really good graphics I would assume it could attract a lot of gamers even.
 
Let's keep it simple, guys...

Right now : Fallout 1,2 and Tactics are selling more copies than Fallout 3.


Problem solved.


I know that if they are selling so much copies it's mainly BECAUSE of Fallout 3, but the thing is that they ARE selling, 10 years after the release of the first game.
 
Thyclaine said:
If you would simply stop heightening it's bad qualities due to your shattered expectations and start looking at it for what it is, I think you'll at least stop telling those that do like it that it's a horrible piece of shit and to go play Fallout.

It's good advice, but leave the poor guys alone.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I see your point. Still, let me use an analogy. Should we give a generic boring chick-flick tons of Oscars, and tell anyone who disagrees to "stop heightening the bad qualities" and take it for what it is? Remember that many people here not only dislike FO3 for the rape of canon and its unremarkable averageness, but also for the "this game is perfect in every way" reviews that were bullshit upon bullshit.
 
MrBumble said:
Let's keep it simple, guys...

Right now : Fallout 1,2 and Tactics are selling more copies than Fallout 3.


Problem solved.


I know that if they are selling so much copies it's mainly BECAUSE of Fallout 3, but the thing is that they ARE selling, 10 years after the release of the first game.
Click to expand...
The only thing I hope is that people will learn something about it and in future demand more games in the spirit of Fallout speaknig of "meaningfull" choices and some more content with moral ambiguity and complex gameplay in general.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top