Why fallout 3 is different then Fallout 1 and 2

[skinkrawl]

I think you're missing the point on the money comparison. A company like Bethesda is going to say "We want to make X dollars from Fallout" while a niche company is going to want a different X. The money has to come from somewhere to meet Bethesda's X. Either it's going to come from the consumer or by cutting costs, which would probably result in a lesser gaming experience.

And if you didn't want a Fallout past part one, then play other games out there. The series will continue on until it's no longer making money or people tire of it, just as most other things do. Who knows what will happen with Harry Potter; we all assumed in 1983 that Star Wars was done for. Now, I'm not saying what we got past that was any good, but I just ignore it and focus on the movies I enjoyed.

My whole point in posting is that it's unrealistic to expect any new Fallout game to be another Fallout 1. The games are going to have updated graphics and game play. They're going to have special editions in lunchboxes with bobbleheads and other assorted junk. I'm asking is what can reasonably be added to future additions (or could have been done with 3) that will adhere to the time we live in now, factoring in money, trends, updated graphics, different engines, etc etc.

 

[Sorrow]

I think you're missing the point on the money comparison. A company like Bethesda is going to say "We want to make X dollars from Fallout" while a niche company is going to want a different X. The money has to come from somewhere to meet Bethesda's X. Either it's going to come from the consumer or by cutting costs, which would probably result in a lesser gaming experience.

It's Bethesda's problem. They have decided to buy the Fallout licence, not us.
I don't think they would make anything like the original Fallout even if it would bring them the same amount of money as creating FINO3.

The first thing is that they apparently genuinely believe in their anti-Fallout propaganda.
The second thing is that judging by this, they should have bought a Dink Smallwood not Fallout .

And if you didn't want a Fallout past part one, then play other games out there. The series will continue on until it's no longer making money or people tire of it, just as most other things do. Who knows what will happen with Harry Potter; we all assumed in 1983 that Star Wars was done for. Now, I'm not saying what we got past that was any good, but I just ignore it and focus on the movies I enjoyed.

That's what I do. Still, it would be nice to see something fresh instead of recycling the same setting again and again. For example Arcanum based on improved SPECIAL could be a nice spiritual successor to Fallout.

My whole point in posting is that it's unrealistic to expect any new Fallout game to be another Fallout 1. The games are going to have updated graphics and game play. They're going to have special editions in lunchboxes with bobbleheads and other assorted junk. I'm asking is what can reasonably be added to future additions (or could have been done with 3) that will adhere to the time we live in now, factoring in money, trends, updated graphics, different engines, etc etc.

I wouldn't mind games being sold with "junk" as long as the "junk" has decent quality - actually, adding stuff to games is a pretty old tradition.
I would like to see updated graphics and gameplay in Fallout sequel/spiritual successor, as long as it keeps the core concept of the gameplay and works on my comp.

As for the trends - Fallout itself was against the trends.

 

[Big Feet]

I'm suprised no one has brought the fact that a lot of developers have bought into the belief that people don't want to play games that take more than 10-20 hours to complete.

Which helps explain why you can get most of the best weapons,armor,and have the story complete within 10 -12 hours of starting a game.The main ouest is also level scaled for that reason.Everyone is now busy pandering to the "casual gamer" and forget that there are still alot of people who want a good indepth game...even if it does take 100 hours to complete.

The rest of the world and quests are just there as filler for the people who don't want to complete the game right away.

Then there is the pandering in the game to certain segments of fans:Emo vampires?Check.Playing house?check.Playing dress up?check.Barbies hair cutting Adventures?Check.

I'm not hating on the game but i wish Bethesda would have spent their energies on things that would have enhanced the overall game,or playtesting,or correcting bugs,as they did on superflous crap like that.

 

[Sorrow]

I'm suprised no one has brought the fact that a lot of developers have bought into the belief that people don't want to play games that take more than 10-20 hours to complete.

Which helps explain why you can get most of the best weapons,armor,and have the story complete within 10 -12 hours of starting a game.The main ouest is also level scaled for that reason.Everyone is now busy pandering to the "casual gamer" and forget that there are still alot of people who want a good indepth game...even if it does take 100 hours to complete.

Personally, I don't mind short campaigns, but it's mainly because I mostly play iron man.
Also, Fallout 1 was one of the shortest cRPGs I've played so far - the main story could be completed in about 10-12 hours (assuming that the player doesn't know where the Water Chip/source of mutants is) and I doubt all the quests would be enough for 20 hours.

 

[Big Feet]

I can't really comment on Fallout 1.

Everytime i try to play it i keep getting random CTD's until i give up for awhile.I've only made it as far as the second town.

I'm just a fan of games that take a while to complete.I actually thought it was fun getting lost on the sometimes scanty,or wrong,directions in Morrowind and spending days in real life time trying to get back on track.

Speaking of Ironman,i've always thought more games should include that mode just like TOEE.

 

[Sorrow]

I can't really comment on Fallout 1.

Everytime i try to play it i keep getting random CTD's until i give up for awhile.I've only made it as far as the second town.

Oh .

I'm just a fan of games that take a while to complete.I actually thought it was fun getting lost on the sometimes scanty,or wrong,directions in Morrowind and spending days in real life time trying to get back on track.

Well, personally, I prefer more brevity from creators of cRPGs. Mainly because I don't have much free time - I'm busy with school, work, internet forums, modding, etc.
Also, I find stories more believable when they are kept short - a lot of ultra-long games assume that player will SFL through them.
When it comes to gameplay lenght, I like when cRPGs are short, but have huge replayability because different characters can do different stuff.

 

[Igmon]

If there's anything that's different between Fallout 3 and Fallout 1 and 2...aside from the obvious gameplay mechanic; it's the sense of humor, story telling and quests.

Bethesda is run by a committee when it comes to game design as you have seen from their previous games...almost all of them feel very robotic, almost as if the company is run by an AI.

I don't blame Bethesda for trying too hard, but I think they should stop making RPGs. Fallout 3 captured the look and feel but that's about it.

It's not the game mechanics that made Fallout 1 and 2 great, it's the sum of its parts...just look at Brotherhood of Steel, it was ok but not great.

 

[Todd Howard's #1 Fan]

If there's anything that's different between Fallout 3 and Fallout 1 and 2...aside from the obvious gameplay mechanic; it's the sense of humor, story telling and quests.

Bethesda is run by a committee when it comes to game design as you have seen from their previous games...almost all of them feel very robotic, almost as if the company is run by an AI.

I don't blame Bethesda for trying too hard, but I think they should stop making RPGs. Fallout 3 captured the look and feel but that's about it.

It's not the game mechanics that made Fallout 1 and 2 great, it's the sum of its parts...just look at Brotherhood of Steel, it was ok but not great.

Personally, I thought the RPG aspects of FO3 were much more well-rounded than that of the predecessors. When I played FO1 there was no choice in my build, just max out agility, strength, and perception /w gifted. ALSO if fo3 ended up being a Van Buren-style game it'd sell terribly.

 

[SharkClub]

ALSO if fo3 ended up being a Van Buren-style game it'd sell terribly.

I'd like to know where you found the information to make this statement.

 

[Todd Howard's #1 Fan]

ALSO if fo3 ended up being a Van Buren-style game it'd sell terribly.

I'd like to know where you found the information to make this statement.

Common sense. FPS games = more room for innovation.

 

[Tagaziel]

If there's anything that's different between Fallout 3 and Fallout 1 and 2...aside from the obvious gameplay mechanic; it's the sense of humor, story telling and quests.

Bethesda is run by a committee when it comes to game design as you have seen from their previous games...almost all of them feel very robotic, almost as if the company is run by an AI.

I don't blame Bethesda for trying too hard, but I think they should stop making RPGs. Fallout 3 captured the look and feel but that's about it.

It's not the game mechanics that made Fallout 1 and 2 great, it's the sum of its parts...just look at Brotherhood of Steel, it was ok but not great.

Personally, I thought the RPG aspects of FO3 were much more well-rounded than that of the predecessors. When I played FO1 there was no choice in my build, just max out agility, strength, and perception /w gifted. ALSO if fo3 ended up being a Van Buren-style game it'd sell terribly.

First of all, you're an idiot.

Second, you're an idiot. Fallout 1 has at least three distinct character archetypes, a warrior, diplomat and thief. Just because you're too stupid to figure out how to make a Speech-centered build doesn't mean the system is bad.

Also, for your information, the ability to finish Fo3 with any point distribution is bad game design, not "well rounded".

ALSO if fo3 ended up being a Van Buren-style game it'd sell terribly.

I'd like to know where you found the information to make this statement.

Common sense. FPS games = more room for innovation.

And how is that?

 

[DexterMorgan]

Obvious troll is obvious.

 

[Sorrow]

Personally, I thought the RPG aspects of FO3 were much more well-rounded than that of the predecessors. When I played FO1 there was no choice in my build, just max out agility, strength, and perception /w gifted.

It's a feature of your build, not of Fo1.

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

ALSO if fo3 ended up being a Van Buren-style game it'd sell terribly.

You mean, it wouldn't appeal to the mainstream gamers of today.

Seeing as they already get enough games, I honestly don't see why it would be unfair if a Van Buren wasn't designed for them in mind.

 

[Sorrow]

Sales numbers aren't really relevant as long as development costs get returned and there's profit.

Obvious troll is obvious.

Well, at least there's some entertainment besides bashing Megan Fox .

 

[Todd Howard's #1 Fan]

And how is that?

In the FPS format Bethesda can add incredibly innovative gameplay mechanics (IE: VATS), which adds replayablility beyond anything the older games could whip up. Driving a tank in first person > third person.

Well, at least there's some entertainment besides bashing Megan Fox .

Speaking of Megan Fox, she'd be perfect for playing Amata in a Fallout movie (I hope they end up making one).

 

[UnidentifiedFlyingTard]

Megan Fox can't act, and VATS is not innovative at all, even Beth said it was a rip off of Crash Time in Burnout.

and Todd Howard creeps me right the fuck out.

 

[brfritos]

I wonder what you people can tell me about Doom 3 compared to I & II.

I liked FO3, but I see A LOT of really annoying problems in the game as a whole, some of wich make me really pissed.
But the game is not that bad, there's a lot of potencial for version 4.

I never played FO2, so I can't say anything about it, I downloaded the Triolgy pack and installed 3 days ago, you have to give me time, I'm still getting acostumated with the game. The story seems to be better tied, for what I've seen so far.

Damned radroaches!

[ ]'s

 

[Tagaziel]

And how is that?

In the FPS format Bethesda can add incredibly innovative gameplay mechanics (IE: VATS), which adds replayablility beyond anything the older games could whip up. Driving a tank in first person > third person.

VATS is incredibly innovative? You're an idiot.

 

[UnidentifiedFlyingTard]

I'm starting to think this is really Todd Howard in disguise, a very bad not so well thought out disguise, sounds like Todd to me.