Why is Fallout 3 called "Oblivion with guns"?

Do you think Fallout 3 is just gamebryo with guns?

  • Yes!!

    Votes: 24 85.7%

  • No

    Votes: 4 14.3%
  • Total voters
    28
If anything New Vegas is held back by Fallout 3. Mainly because it uses the same gameplay of Fallout 3 and it's crappy gameplay.

But that's it, it just has the crappy gameplay of Fallout 3. Just like Jogre said, everything else like the RPG elements, writing, characters and story have absolutely nothing to do with Fallout 3. Mainly because they are actually good.
 
DarkCorp said:
MFKD

The asshats who made FPOS also said that we should be thankful because if we gave them business, they might make a worthy successor. Guess what they were in the process of doing when they shut down? FPOS 2.

Bethesda bought the Fallout IP and pimped it out to its creepy uncles with bow, makeup, the works.

Like others have said, it would have been better if Troike, HELL, even if OBSIDIAN got its hands on it. ME was a pretty damned good game and if I HAD to make Fallout an FPS affair, I trust Obsidian more than I trust Bethesda.
Click to expand...

ME = Mass Effect?

Have the impression that you confused the balls and said Obsidian instead of Bioware.
 
Cobra Commander said:
ME = Mass Effect?

Have the impression that you confused the balls and said Obsidian instead of Bioware.
Click to expand...
Now I wonder what a Fallout game by old Bioware (pre-ME 2 but post KOTOR 1) would be like. It'll probably use the Bioware formula for the story but gameplay may be better than Oblivion with guns (or at least they would use the established settings without shaking up too much of established lore).
 
mfkndggrfll said:
I dont see how except for the gameplay change. Im damn glad Bethesda made F3 rather than some random low budget studio. If anything it brings an equal amount of good and bad. The New Vegas you people love so much wouldnt even exist if it wasnt for F3.
Click to expand...

They changed everything that mattered, everything aside from a superficial theme. In hindsight I would wager a low budget studio would have done a better job at making a Fallout game than what Bethesda did regardless of what individual merits Bethesda might've had at the time. And I wouldn't think twice to exchance every Fallout game from 3 onwards just for the chance to see what Troika (for example) would've done for better or worse - New Vegas is not that impressive.
 
Yes so sorry folks. I admit I am a bit lazy and tired right now to look but didn't both Obsidian and Bioware have people from the original Fallout dev team?

But yes, many a Beth apologist had said that Fallout 'needed', to transition to a FPS style game in order to stay relevant. If that was the case then yes, Obsidian or Bioware could have easily done a much better job without Bethesdas terrible influence.
 
Obsidian was founded by a member of the original Fallout team.
It has three or four of them employed there right now; and MCA used to work there; and did work on New Vegas.

____

Unrelated aside: @topic~ish
FO3_zpsrihh3rwc.GIF
 
lol

Like I mentioned in the other thread, but much more relevant here, is another reason for OwG.

Hey look, heavy armor = PALADUNS. All we gotta do now is turn them from a selfish, tech worshipping cult, into a bunch of heros with the lawful good alignment, YAYs.
 
Honestly even if you take out the combat in F3 and play it like a walking simulator its still a better sequel than F2. Sure they ruined combat but combat has never been the main focus in F1. Like people said its in the bottom tier in the turn based genre.

To me the 1 most important factor for a fallout game is the atmosphere, and F3 did a wonderful job at recreating it.

Think of all the video game series who did a much worse job when transitioning from 2D to 3D. This is why I am grateful for F3. Even the dumbest stuff in F3 tries to be serious stuff.

You say low budget studios are more able to take a direction but F2 proves other wise. You really cant say that F2 took a direction.
 
mfkndggrfll said:
Honestly even if you take out the combat in F3 and play it like a walking simulator its still a better sequel than F2.
Click to expand...

No it is not, it can't be. It's too different (in all possible ways) compared to the original material than what Fallout 2 is. There's no (or very very loose at best) continuation of any kind in mechanics, narrative or the experience. Whether you like one or the other better is your business and inconsequential to the question of "better" sequeldom.

Fallout 3 is more akin to FO:BOS and would be a great sequel to it - they have much more in common than 3 has with 1 or 2. But as a numbered Fallout game it's just lousy.
 
Last edited:
In the end you people are proving that all a sequel needs to succeed is to look like its predecessor, no matter how awful it is. F2 did a continuity of the narrative but strayed pretty far away from the spirit of the original by showing a world being rebuilt rather than being adapted to survive.

Pretty sure events in F3 happen closer to the war than F2, making it feel more post-apocalyptic by default. F2 is extremely lousy as a numbered fallout, im a diehard fan of old school games and couldnt even finish this one. I forced myself to play a lot of bad games to enjoy the good that they offer, in F2 I kept searching but couldnt find any.
 
mfkndggrfll said:
Pretty sure events in F3 happen closer to the war than F2, making it feel more post-apocalyptic by default.
Click to expand...

It does look that way, doesn't it? The game gives that impression. But it isn't the case. It's been a heavy point of contention for years that Fallout 3 takes place 200 years after the war and the place is still in the shape it is. Fallout 2 is 36 years earlier in the timeline.

Basic dates. And you say you're writing an analysis? You don't like Fallout 2, that's ok, you don't have to like it. But you not liking it is where it ends.
 
mfkndggrfll said:
In the end you people are proving that all a sequel needs to succeed is to look like its predecessor, no matter how awful it is.
Click to expand...
No, you need it to be a fleshed out world that expands concepts from the original, like Fallout 2 did.
mfkndggrfll said:
F2 did a continuity of the narrative but strayed pretty far away from the spirit of the original by showing a world being rebuilt rather than being adapted to survive.
Click to expand...
It's the natural evolution of the genre.

Sure the post-post apocalyptic feel is different from the post-apocalyptic feel, but why does that matter?

Fallout 2 shows further along the timeline. Sure it's not as desperate as 1, but that's the point. Times change, and the Fallout world grows and adapts. That's the whole point of it.
 
Kohno said:
And you say you're writing an analysis? You don't like Fallout 2, that's ok, you don't have to like it. But you not liking it is where it ends.
Click to expand...
Wait, he's writing an analysis of the series? So, based on how long this man has been arguing the same arguments over and over, trying to convince us that he's right and we are wrong. Even after we debunked most of his arguments with in-game examples, he's gonna try to pass his OPINIONS of Fallout 2 as FACTS?

:facepalm:
 
Last edited:
So, he could have just written his analysis of Fallout 2, give his thoughts on the game and be done with it. Why did he come here to ask if people still think Fallout 2 is better than Fallout 3? Did he expect to change people's opinions based on his OWN experience of Fallout 2? Because that would be stupid.
 
Norzan said:
If anything New Vegas is held back by Fallout 3. Mainly because it uses the same gameplay of Fallout 3 and it's crappy gameplay.

But that's it, it just has the crappy gameplay of Fallout 3. Just like Jogre said, everything else like the RPG elements, writing, characters and story have absolutely nothing to do with Fallout 3. Mainly because they are actually good.
Click to expand...
That is true. I wish they'd go back and remake New Vegas on a better engine. Just don't let it be any Bethesda funded or made engine. Maybe Creation would be okay. But nah, anything other than gamebryo
 
DarkCorp said:
lol

Like I mentioned in the other thread, but much more relevant here, is another reason for OwG.

Hey look, heavy armor = PALADUNS. All we gotta do now is turn them from a selfish, tech worshipping cult, into a bunch of heros with the lawful good alignment, YAYs.
Click to expand...
Well. Looking at New Vegas's ending with the BOS. Turning them into heroes like they were in F3 would served them better in the end, at least when you look at the West Coast BOS and them being a tech worshipping cult that was going to fade away and die off eventually due to their complex of "Sole inheritors of humanity". I mean F3 sucked don't get me wrong. But I liked how the BOS and the Outcasts were handled. It made sense to me that there was divide between the ideas of the BOS and where they wanted to go with either the original mission or just say fuck the Brotherhood codec and help people and actually do something meaningful instead of hording technology for ourselves. That's one redeeming quality for F3.
 
MFK

Keep in mind the original point of thread was OwG. I have given tons of examples of how F3 was OwG.

If you want to debate merits of F3 over F2, I will continue on the other thread.

Sniper

Remembe, the BoS wouldn't even go to the glow for new tech, forget a cross country trek on the mere 'potential', of finding new stuff. Also, the BoS got much of their tech pre-war, they do not however, have the industrial capability to produce new suits of PA, let alone construct some retarded airship. The resources needed for a trip to DC is mindboggling, and even if the Brotherhood had them, they wouldn't waste it like that.


I would have preferred the West Coast BoS, to become some sort of shadow government/very powerful, special interest group working within the NCR power structure, a nation within a nation so to speak.

Horde tech, become the primary R&D department of the NCR, and provide it with the necessary tehchnology to spread throughout Cali.
 
Last edited:
DarkCorp said:
MFK

Keep in mind the original point of thread was OwG. I have given tons of examples of how F3 was OwG.

If you want to debate merits of F3 over F2, I will continue on the other thread.

Sniper

Remembe, the BoS wouldn't even go to the glow for new tech, forget a cross country trek on the mere 'potential', of finding new stuff. Also, the BoS got much of their tech pre-war, they do not however, have the industrial capability to produce new suits of PA, let alone construct some retarded airship. The resources needed for a trip to DC is mindboggling, and even if the Brotherhood had them, they wouldn't waste it like that.


I would have preferred the West Coast BoS, to become some sort of shadow government/very powerful, special interest group working within the NCR power structure, a nation within a nation so to speak.

Horde tech, become the primary R&D department of the NCR, and provide it with the necessary tehchnology to spread throughout Cali.
Click to expand...
I see. That would actually look pretty good when I think about it. I only like the East Coast brotherhood based on philosophy in comparison to what I saw in New Vegas from the Mojave chapter. I feel the East Coast brotherhood would make sense to Veronica in some ways. At least they were taking in recruits, at least they were doing something else other than hording tech, at least they were doing something to change the wasteland. Even if it was a cheap power grab.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top