Why is Fallout 3 so loved ?

[Harken]

^
At that point, they would've cut off so many heads fire would literally have to be on the map they were using especially for a half-orc party since those never really use magic well letalone at all.

That's part of what I like about RPGs. There's nothing more pleasing than solving a well thought out combat puzzle-in-disguise with many different planned solutions and even some unorthodox ones that a GM didn't or just downright couldn't anticipate.

I hate the rules against meta, though.

 

[zegh8578]

Fallout 3 is an excellent game, according to some gaming standards and expectations.

The setting, visually, is new and interesting, to many. The monsters are as well. Velociraptor-shaped deathclaws must be an epic encounter for many who have not met the prior designs, and so on.
Me and a friend often have this discussion, and I am constantly baffled at how baffled he is, when I bring up things like consistent story or immersive dialogue, he looks at me like I've lost my mind, like I should go read Shakespeare instead of playing a computer game.

And it kindov comes down to that again, I think: FO3 allows you to spray bullets at stuff that look like Velociraptors in environments that look like a Mad-Max themepark.

I understand FO3 fans, I understand them completely and entirely, it IS a game full of speed, bullets, explosions, Velociraptors, the whole shebang.

It's just not what old fallout-fans were expecting.

 

[TheVaultHunter]

Fallout 3 is a terrible Fallout game, a bad RPG and a ok Action-Adventure game which is what it should be seen as, a Action game with minor RPG elements played to pass the time.

 

[Harken]

Wrong thread. For criticizing FO3, feel free to head here:

http://www.nma-fallout.com/showthread.php?199490-Why-is-Fallout-3-so-hated

 

[Gizmojunk]

Wrong thread. For criticizing FO3, feel free to head here:

http://www.nma-fallout.com/showthread.php?199490-Why-is-Fallout-3-so-hated

But most of the reasons that FO3 is loved are the same reasons that make it such a bad Fallout game.

One could post reasons that FO3 is hated in that other thread, and many of them would be the omission of reasons posted in this one.

 

[naossano]

It's just not what old fallout-fans were expecting.

Getting you above points, but the last sentence tend to implie that the old fans were a specific group with a different kind of expectation.
The whole point is that people expected a Fallout game, which Fo3 isn't no matter if it is good or bad, it doesn't try to be what a Fallout game is.
It doesn't take high expectations to undertand it.

 

[zegh8578]

It's just not what old fallout-fans were expecting.

Getting you above points, but the last sentence tend to implie that the old fans were a specific group with a different kind of expectation.
The whole point is that people expected a Fallout game, which Fo3 isn't no matter if it is good or bad, it doesn't try to be what a Fallout game is.
It doesn't take high expectations to undertand it.

Remember the time that has passed between 2 and 3.
3 was not meant as a gift to those who knew the game, and waited for it.
Think economics, how many old-school FO-players world wide do you think were standing in line to buy this game?
Beth comes right from selling Oblivion to the entire planet, there's no way they're gonna dedicate an entire game to a tiny lil veteran fan base.

So, they counted on the "legend" of the game, the old veterans to talk about it, the buzz to grow.

So, in my observation, the core FO fans had a very specific expectation. The rest - the noobs to the game - expected something much less specific, they expected "the best game ever" and "awesome post-apocallyptia" and "scary-ass mutants!" and "dialogue" and "consequence" and they got ALL of it. They got everything that was promised to them - according to what they knew to expect. A bulk of veterans complain, this is history, the details are well known, and the new fan base stands perplexed "why are you so upset, this game is exactly what you anticipated and described to me."

In short - the new fans, the majority of the fans of FO3, had no clue what "A Fallout game" is supposed to be like, apart from anecdotes they heard from veteran players.
Ilustrated well by a friend of mine, who only played FO3, and always keeps trying to excite me with typical shooters, monster-shooters, post-apo-monster-shooters, telling me "look! now THAT is a REAL Fallout-game!!!" and I've long since stopped protesting it, cus he gets so confused each time.

 

[Gizmojunk]

Remember the time that has passed between 2 and 3.
3 was not meant as a gift to those who knew the game, and waited for it.

No kidding; it was a slap in the face with a spiked gauntlet.

Think economics, how many old-school FO-players world wide do you think were standing in line to buy this game?
Beth comes right from selling Oblivion to the entire planet, there's no way they're gonna dedicate an entire game to a tiny lil veteran fan base.

That's an obscene and irreverent attitude, and very popular of late. It's why we have the same crap with Transformers, StarTrek, TMNT; Hitchhiker's Guide, and anything else they can reinvent for the modern [attention deficit afflicted] audience. These IPs were better left untouched, or worked on by people that understood them, and more interested in series/plot/gameplay fidelity for those that were actually fans; rather than damaging it in ways to make it palatable to the masses... It's like adding sugar and strawberries to Vegimite, and removing the yeast so US kids will eat it.

So, they counted on the "legend" of the game, the old veterans to talk about it, the buzz to grow.

That they did; and they played the Judas goat perfectly until it was too late.

So, in my observation, the core FO fans had a very specific expectation. The rest - the noobs to the game - expected something much less specific, they expected "the best game ever" and "awesome post-apocallyptia" and "scary-ass mutants!" and "dialogue" and "consequence" and they got ALL of it. They got everything that was promised to them - according to what they knew to expect. A bulk of veterans complain, this is history, the details are well known, and the new fan base stands perplexed "why are you so upset, this game is exactly what you anticipated and described to me."

In short - the new fans, the majority of the fans of FO3, had no clue what "A Fallout game" is supposed to be like, apart from anecdotes they heard from veteran players.
Ilustrated well by a friend of mine, who only played FO3, and always keeps trying to excite me with typical shooters, monster-shooters, post-apo-monster-shooters, telling me "look! now THAT is a REAL Fallout-game!!!" and I've long since stopped protesting it, cus he gets so confused each time.

Yeah... I've seen it too.

 

[naossano]

Is the target audience wasn't the same, why bother calling it Fallout ?
I mean, if Fallout was meaningless for them, why not calling it "After the Fall" or "The remnants" or anything that might not mislead the actual Fallout fans ?

 

[zegh8578]

Is the target audience wasn't the same, why bother calling it Fallout ?
I mean, if Fallout was meaningless for them, why not calling it "After the Fall" or "The remnants" or anything that might not mislead the actual Fallout fans ?

Because calling it "Fallout" would generate money through the hype exploited (the stories told between gamers, of FO1, 2, and the long but fruitless anticipation for Van Buren)

It was a cynical, capitalistical thing to do. Nothing surprising there ;]

 

[H3rw00d1]

Because calling it "Fallout" would generate money through the hype exploited (the stories told between gamers, of FO1, 2, and the long but fruitless anticipation for Van Buren)

It was a cynical, capitalistical thing to do. Nothing surprising there ;]

This is true. Using the Fallout brand name would bring in new fans as well as potentially old ones (but that obviously didn't work well) thus maximizing profit.

Also, no one would really care for an average post-apocalyptic game on it's own. Another post-apoc Bethesda game called Rage doesn't get much lime light at all, probably because it's an average stand alone title. Fallout 3 however could ride on the franchises curtain tails for popularity easily.

 

[BuffHamster]

It's just not what old fallout-fans were expecting.

Getting you above points, but the last sentence tend to implie that the old fans were a specific group with a different kind of expectation.
The whole point is that people expected a Fallout game, which Fo3 isn't no matter if it is good or bad, it doesn't try to be what a Fallout game is.
It doesn't take high expectations to undertand it.

Facts and Generalities

TRUE: "It's just not what [many] old fallout-fans were expecting."

"it doesn't try to be what a Fallout game is." You are going to have to define what you think a Fallout game is and should be, and even then you will find as much disagreement there as in the definition of what the Fallout Canon is.

The "Fallout Canon" is inconsistent because each of the Fallout games were created by different development teams, and even "Tim Cain and Chris Taylor have different views on the origins of ghouls." [source http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_canon]

The definition of what the "Fallout Canon" itself is, is contentious, ... a fact.

Another Fact: Generalities that the people who love Fo3 have never played Fo1 or Fo2, can never be true. A large portion of those who loved Fallout 3 may have never played the earlier incarnations of the Fallout franchise, but this does not mean all have never played or enjoyed them. The converse is also false: all who have played Fo1 and Fo2 do not enjoy Fallout 3.

I have played the original Wasteland on the Commodore 64, Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 on the PC, and later I became entranced with the 3D virtual worlds that became popular after the technology that produced Fo2. I wondered what the suggested world of Fallout would look like in a virtual 3D world setting with simulated physics, ie; real time combat. I wasn't disappointed. Yes, the vanilla story was a bit mediocre, but the world space was intriguing, the ability to tell immersive stories was entrancing, ...

... I can put the stories to any music sound track I want? change radio stations? make new stations?(a minor modification)? Awesome! A gimmick to be sure, but I liked it.

PnP RPG vs cRPG

As for translating a table top, paper and pencil Role Playing Game, computers are hit and miss. Sure they can keep track of vast amounts of detailed information, and while the scripting keeps the single player "on topic" during the quests, computers can not recreate the social interaction of a group of people sharing a story and making it up as they go along, ... much to the chagrin of the Game Master:

"Okay people, lets get back to the Quest at hand!"

Ask a question and hate the Answer?

Yet when people try to inform others "Why is Fallout 3 so loved?", in here, they are met with disgruntled vitriol from a disappointed old school fan base about "Why it should be hated" and those who see the possibilities available in the game design, the ability for modification and immersive story telling quaalities are made out to have Attention Deficit Disorder and their tastes are likened to "fast food", ... Seriously? Do you even know how much work goes into today's game design and production? Let alone just putting together a good game modification?

Yet, here I am, defending the poor slobs who just happen to enjoy a particular computer game and happened to give the reasons why they did so. Truth is, I have broad and varied tastes, ... I enjoy a lot of computer games and styles, and there are certainly other games and styles that I just don't find appealing, but I don't think any less of the people who do enjoy them. To me, they just have different tastes. So why make the people who enjoy something you don't as foolish boobs who don't know what is good for them? Do I have to say what that sounds like?

Yes, we can compare what a real PnP RPG and a cRPG are, but they are two vastly different things that appeal to vastly different people. Fo1 and Fo2 were never intended to be Role Playing Games in the purest sense of the term. Single Player computer games, by their very nature, are linear story telling devices of adventure. Sure, the story can have multiple outcomes based on the scripted choices made available to the player, but they are not and can never be open ended Role Playing Games*. In that sense, Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 were originally meant to be just good computer games utilizing the hardware and software technology available at the time, nothing more, nothing less.

*exclusion: MMORPG can be open ended but are also constrained by the structure of the computer code and game world definitions. "Computers are strict and unforgiving when it comes to game structure and rules."

Reasons for hatred.

Too constrained.
Yeah, a little, but so was the original game. Instead, you still had all the same choices available in the original game, ie; character stats, dialogue forks, side quests, where you went in the game world, what you wore, what weapon you used, who your companions were, etc. You just had to follow a somewhat linear story, which was pretty much the same situation and format of the original game.

The Perks weren't the same.
Yup, but you were still able to choose which ones you wanted when you leveled up. The ones I chose worked just fine for me. If you want to quibble over the finer nuances of what a PERK should be, meh? I don't care, really I don't.

The old Fallout veterans spread the word, ... they played the Judas goat perfectly until it was too late.
Seriously? Cheese Louise, you only had to do a little research to see exactly what Fallout 3 was going to be like. You already knew that Black Isle Studios, Interplay, and the Van Buren Project were dead, and Bethesda Softworks had purchased the intellectual rights to the Fallout franchise, why on earth would you expect a totally different game studio with a completely different game engine would produce the same thing?

What moron would spread the word about something they know nothing about? And since that may have been the case, what moron would believe it?

Additionally, if Canon Purity meant that much, the consumer only had to show a little restraint, wait for the game to be released, read the reviews, maybe watch a game play example or two on YouTube, to see what Fallout 3 was really like, and if they didn't like it, why the heck would they buy it?

Mmmm, Cake.

Sure, Fallout 3 had things I didn't enjoy, but overall, I found it enjoyable and the game modifications just make it more so, like icing on the cake, yup CAKE, that is what all computer games are, frivolous entertainment for recreation, or sweet, yummy CAKE.

I may or may not have purchased the game without the availability of the GECK. But when I found out it was FREE and experimented with it a bit, I found it to be such a wonderful story-telling resource and a big supply of mods, mod resources, gameplay tweaks and changes made it even better. Stick to the Fallout Canon? Why? I can tell any story I want and that is just one of many reasons why I loved it.

Do I think Bethesda is a bunch of money-grubbing-evil-capitalistic-retards who can't produce a decent game that people would enjoy?(like EA) No.

Capitalistic Game Companies are to blame.

No, they are not always to blame. The exception being EA winning "Golden Poo of the Year" over and over.
http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/04/05/ea-wins-worst-company-in-america-golden-poo-award/
http://consumerist.com/2013/04/09/e...-history-wins-title-for-second-year-in-a-row/

Yet it is hard to find anything about Bethesda winning the Golden Poo, let alone being nominated for it, quite the contrary in fact. Of course there may be blogs out there now crucifying Bethesda/Zenimax for what it did to the poor old Fallout franchise, ... yet they win "Game of the Year"?, not "Golden Poo of the Year"?

see: http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/EZacharyKnight/20130326/189316/What_Does_It_Mean_To_Win_Worst_Company_In_America.php

Blogs do not rate as highly with me because they are written by individuals with their own personal viewpoints and do not represent what the majority is actually saying with their wallets. Yet I fully understand why a niche group would be disgruntled over the changes made in a particular franchise, but how does that explain the games popularity?

Because it is likened to "fast food" in gaming style and preference? Huh? wut? Isn't that like calling someone who likes a black Corvette rather than a red Porsche, a crude boor? instead of just discussing the differences between the sports cars and letting others explain their preferences?

"You're a fat jerk who eats junk food 'cause you like a black Corvettes more than a red Porsche, neener neener neener." -sounds childish when put that way, don't you think? But the snarky attitude is still here.

Do I think Bethesda ruined a perfectly viable franchise and stole it away from the true Fallout Fans and ruined the established Canon? Nah, nothing so dogmatic, in fact, I think they are just a game publishing studio, a business entity, that had previously produced successful game title content (mmm, cake) and applied those resources to reinvigorate a game franchise that was, apparently to some anyway, getting stale* (yuk, stale cake).

*also not likely to grow beyond its niche market unless it underwent major changes.

[sarcasm] Consider the plain fact that otherwise they would have stuck with a winning formula and produced what Interplay's Van Buren project had already set up, I mean, the work was mostly done, why didn't they think it would sell as well as the earlier games did? Ah, I know, they saw a successful game franchise and they felt it was their capitalistic duty to knock it down and sell bad cake product to the weak minded consumers!, [/sarcasm]

... um okay, I'm just going to move on and figure out what makes games sell, so I can put together a decent game that many will enjoy and thereby it will pay for it's production team, marketing team, office staff, and legal fees, while making enough money to finance more games that I enjoy. Or maybe I can put together a small group of like minded individuals, produce a working alpha version or concept and see how well it does on KickStarter to cover the initial production costs?

Yes, yes, I already know about the legal issues Bethesda and Zenimax had with Interplay, but: "The lawsuit ended some time in early January 2012, with Bethesda paying Interplay $US 2 Million in exchange for Interplay dropping all claim to the Fallout brand." [source http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Interplay_Entertainment

Until Socialism takes over the game publishing world and governments finance the game producers with publicly acceptable and politically correct " computer games for the masses (blech, politically correct veggie cake)", this will always happen. The game publishers, being private entities, will only sell what the people want and will buy. Truth, the computer game world is market driven and the niches must be large enough to finance a venture or the publishers will not attempt it.

Where is my Cake!!!

Yet, they still have not made the game that I would like to play, ... not yet, but maybe ... someday, before I make it myself, the independents will hit upon exactly the flavor I want, ... maybe here? http://www.indiedb.com/

Now, I wonder what the true purpose of the topic title is, to get people to answer the question while the old guard promptly bashes them to pieces? a sort of bait and switch scheme? Judging from the replies and how my viewpoint will be torn apart (again) instead of being judged on its merits, it is apparent that the topic title is quite misleading.

The topic title is, in reality: "Tell us why you love Fallout 3 so we can tell you what a stupid jerk you are and how rotten Bethesda is for taking our franchise away." (But don't let them know that, it will scare them away and you need to vent, so get it all out, and then enjoy the CAKE!!!. nom nom nom)

 

[naossano]

It's just not what old fallout-fans were expecting.

Getting you above points, but the last sentence tend to implie that the old fans were a specific group with a different kind of expectation.
The whole point is that people expected a Fallout game, which Fo3 isn't no matter if it is good or bad, it doesn't try to be what a Fallout game is.
It doesn't take high expectations to undertand it.

Facts and Generalities

TRUE: "It's just not what [many] old fallout-fans were expecting."

"it doesn't try to be what a Fallout game is." You are going to have to define what you think a Fallout game is .

Me ? Or rather everything single person that enjoyed Fo1-Fo2, every single other dev that try to inspire themselves from those two, everyone that read the dev vision statement at least once, that seen interviews of original dev, that played those games in sequence and factually seen they were entirelly different animals, and all the reviews and tons of internet discussion over the years that confirm it. It is as subjective as the water getting you wet.

I don't try to argue that Fo3 is bad/good (at least here), but being faithfull to the strenghts of the franchise, being faithfull of the dev original intents, being faithfull of what made that franchise so unique, still played decade late, clearly wasn't the battle they intended to win. They took TES and replaced the skin with post-apo feel (actual a little more than that) and called a day. Fallout wasn't their inspiration. TES was.

 

[woo1108]

People enjoying stupid games like GTA and CoD, why can't they love fo3?
while GTA and CoD are like rotten unhealthy french fry, fo3 is just like unhealthy almost rotten hamburger.

for me, they are all same crap but it's better for GTA or CoD lovers.

 

[Gizmojunk]

Facts and Generalities

TRUE: "It's just not what [many] old fallout-fans were expecting."

"it doesn't try to be what a Fallout game is." You are going to have to define what you think a Fallout game is and should be, and even then you will find as much disagreement there as in the definition of what the Fallout Canon is.

Fact: Arcanum is a better Fallout game than FO3.

The old Fallout veterans spread the word, ... they played the Judas goat perfectly until it was too late.
Seriously? Cheese Louise, you only had to do a little research to see exactly what Fallout 3 was going to be like. You already knew that Black Isle Studios, Interplay, and the Van Buren Project were dead, and Bethesda Softworks had purchased the intellectual rights to the Fallout franchise, why on earth would you expect a totally different game studio with a completely different game engine would produce the same thing?

Yes seriously; and as to why expect it? Because they had the blueprints to what the Fallout series was, and they announced that they were making "Fallout 3" ~not "Retro Post Apocalypse TES".

As to them being 'a totally different game studio'... Paid professionals design to suit the project, they don't whine about something 'not being what they do well'. I looked at Oblivion [having never heard of this studio before], to see what they were capable of with their own IP, and I was impressed; and I even thought they would make good use of the same engine for Fallout 3. When I saw the first screenshots, I thought (and told them) that it looked about as close to Fallout's world as Blade Runner did to the original novel. But I had no idea that all they planned to do was re-skin TES with whatever they could grab from the original two games ~including the plots! No... what they did was shameful, and they cannot even fathom why; let-alone care.

*But that's not the developers... that's management. I'm sure that the developers did exactly as told; the art design is (with some exceptions) spot on perfect... the gameplay [ie the most crucial aspect] was a cruel joke instead of what it should have been. And if they could not sell the thing without completely altering it into something else entirely, then they had no excuse for touching it and Interplay be damned for ever licensing it out to them ~then selling it.

Does anyone doubt that if they had created TES:40k or the like, that it could have sold just as well? (And not cost them millions for the rights, and them never have tampered with the FO IP.)

 

[Kalasanty11]

I'll post a response to BuffHamster in another thread, for it will be offtop here.

 

[H3rw00d1]

People enjoying stupid games like GTA and CoD, why can't they love fo3?
while GTA and CoD are like rotten unhealthy french fry, fo3 is just like unhealthy almost rotten hamburger.

for me, they are all same crap but it's better for GTA or CoD lovers.

Offtopic here but I don't GTA is stupid or rotten, people having different tastes than you does not make a game stupid or rotten by any means.

CoD however has been getting stale lately and the fanboys are horrible, but still...

 

[BuffHamster]

It's just not what old fallout-fans were expecting.

Getting you above points, but the last sentence tend to implie that the old fans were a specific group with a different kind of expectation.
The whole point is that people expected a Fallout game, which Fo3 isn't no matter if it is good or bad, it doesn't try to be what a Fallout game is.
It doesn't take high expectations to undertand it.

Facts and Generalities

TRUE: "It's just not what [many] old fallout-fans were expecting."

"it doesn't try to be what a Fallout game is." You are going to have to define what you think a Fallout game is .

Me ? Or rather everything single person that enjoyed Fo1-Fo2, every single other dev that try to inspire themselves from those two, everyone that read the dev vision statement at least once, that seen interviews of original dev, that played those games in sequence and factually seen they were entirelly different animals, and all the reviews and tons of internet discussion over the years that confirm it. It is as subjective as the water getting you wet.

I don't try to argue that Fo3 is bad/good (at least here), but being faithfull to the strenghts of the franchise, being faithfull of the dev original intents, being faithfull of what made that franchise so unique, still played decade late, clearly wasn't the battle they intended to win. They took TES and replaced the skin with post-apo feel (actual a little more than that) and called a day. Fallout wasn't their inspiration. TES was.

It does not matter what the original Vision Statement was, it was not written by the current owners of the Intellectual Property. Why would you expect otherwise? Bethesda spent a lot of money upfront for it, of course they were going to use the Gamebryo engine to cut costs.

You are more than welcome to YOUR viewpoint, but, you still miss my point.

People enjoying stupid games like GTA and CoD, why can't they love fo3?
while GTA and CoD are like rotten unhealthy french fry, fo3 is just like unhealthy almost rotten hamburger.

for me, they are all same crap but it's better for GTA or CoD lovers.

And you are welcome to your viewpoint, but does it answer the topic question? Why make people who like something you do not like to be inferior? Can you understand what that sounds like?

I am sorry, but, you miss the point as well.

Facts and Generalities

TRUE: "It's just not what [many] old fallout-fans were expecting."

"it doesn't try to be what a Fallout game is." You are going to have to define what you think a Fallout game is and should be, and even then you will find as much disagreement there as in the definition of what the Fallout Canon is.

Fact: Arcanum is a better Fallout game than FO3.

The old Fallout veterans spread the word, ... they played the Judas goat perfectly until it was too late.
Seriously? Cheese Louise, you only had to do a little research to see exactly what Fallout 3 was going to be like. You already knew that Black Isle Studios, Interplay, and the Van Buren Project were dead, and Bethesda Softworks had purchased the intellectual rights to the Fallout franchise, why on earth would you expect a totally different game studio with a completely different game engine would produce the same thing?

Yes seriously; and as to why expect it? Because they had the blueprints to what the Fallout series was, and they announced that they were making "Fallout 3" ~not "Retro Post Apocalypse TES".

As to them being 'a totally different game studio'... Paid professionals design to suit the project, they don't whine about something 'not being what they do well'. I looked at Oblivion [having never heard of this studio before], to see what they were capable of with their own IP, and I was impressed; and I even thought they would make good use of the same engine for Fallout 3. When I saw the first screenshots, I thought (and told them) that it looked about as close to Fallout's world as Blade Runner did to the original novel. But I had no idea that all they planned to do was re-skin TES with whatever they could grab from the original two games ~including the plots! No... what they did was shameful, and they cannot even fathom why; let-alone care.

*But that's not the developers... that's management. I'm sure that the developers did exactly as told; the art design is (with some exceptions) spot on perfect... the gameplay [ie the most crucial aspect] was a cruel joke instead of what it should have been. And if they could not sell the thing without completely altering it into something else entirely, then they had no excuse for touching it and Interplay be damned for ever licensing it out to them ~then selling it.

Does anyone doubt that if they had created TES:40k or the like, that it could have sold just as well? (And not cost them millions for the rights, and them never have tampered with the FO IP.)

So what? Again, Bethesda spent a lot of money upfront for it, of course they were going to use their proprietary Gamebryo engine to cut costs. Why would you expect anything different? Are you angry that you got it wrong? Accepted, you feel misled, but why take it out on those who knew what was coming?

You too, are more than welcome to your own views, I really do not care, as I accept that you have a different opinion and preference when it comes to computer games. But why make people who have different tastes than your own to be so inferior than your own lofty ideals of what they should like?

And you too, miss the whole point of what I was saying.

I'll post a response to BuffHamster in another thread, for it will be offtop here.

I am sorry, but I will not read it, perhaps others will. I am sure it will be informative, but not convincing.

You too, are more than welcome to your own viewpoint and opinion on the game. I give you credit as you do understand that negative opinions do not answer the question posed by the original author of this topic. (I smell irony there, but it is what it is.)

You almost had it, until you felt the need to present a counter-point in another topic to what you perceived as my main point. Sorry, you too, missed the point I was trying to make.

Sadly, I would have thought that more than one person would have seen through to the main point. H3rw00d1, you have seen through it. Commendable.

Another point that many did not see was that it was Interplay who sold you out, not Bethesda. Bethesda is an entirely different company with an entirely different interpretation of what a Fallout Game is. Did they get it wrong? Probably, and according to some people's opinions, definitely.

Maybe you can view it like this; it was like asking the Toltec artists to reproduce 2nd Dynasty Egyptian Art.

In the long scheme of things in the gaming world, it really doesn't matter as they view it as a success. A whole new group of game buyers decided they liked the new interpretation of Fallout that was presented to the them, ... oh well. What are you going to do?

What you could do is go out and bake your own cake and use the alternative titles you came up with and try to sell or distribute it amongst those who feel the same as you. In lieu of that, you could inform others about titles you think they may like better.

The main point was summarized in the last two paragraphs under "Where's my Cake!!!" I have already given you the reasons why so many enjoyed the game and continue to do so. Yet, as I predicted, you still could not judge what I was trying say on it's merits, you had to cherry pick the statements and quotes to press your own negative views and opinions of the game, ... which is completely off-topic.

Again, in my opinion, Bethesda kept as much of the charm of the old franchise while introducing new elements of game play, that appears to me the reasons why it was popular. They did miss the tongue-in-cheek humor of the original games, but, it was still enough of a success that they felt that they could hand it over to some of the original development people (Obsidian) who in turn put the humor back and gave us Fallout: New Vegas.

 

[zegh8578]

Again, in my opinion, Bethesda kept as much of the charm of the old franchise while introducing new elements of game play, that appears to me the reasons why it was popular. They did miss the tongue-in-cheek humor of the original games, but, it was still enough of a success that they felt that they could hand it over to some of the original development people (Obsidian) who in turn put the humor back and gave us Fallout: New Vegas.

Put the humor back? That's a bit of missing the point, for someone who likes to point out how people are missing the point :]
NV did a lot more than just add a bunch of gags to the game.
Gags are, in fact, not what we are missing here.

Also, nobody asked Bethesda to do a damn thing. Your arguments and examples are rather condescending and hostile, and you seem to want to make us all just stop disliking and start liking this game.
"oh well. What are you going to do?" Bitch and complain, what else? As consumers it is our right.

 

[Gizmojunk]

So what? Again, Bethesda spent a lot of money upfront for it, of course they were going to use their proprietary Gamebryo engine to cut costs. Why would you expect anything different? Are you angry that you got it wrong? Accepted, you feel misled, but why take it out on those who knew what was coming?

I did expect them to use Gamebryo; I thought a perfect choice, and well suited. But the engine was never the point, it's how they used it that was the problem.

Any competent studio can make a mechanically good Fallout game ~certainly Bethesda... but they chose not to. They chose to make a mechanically good TES game, and dress it up with trappings of the Fallout IP.

Again, in my opinion, Bethesda kept as much of the charm of the old franchise while introducing new elements of game play, that appears to me the reasons why it was popular.

IMO they kept nothing but the mascot's appearance, and a few [reassigned] names.

Art-wise, (with a few obvious exceptions) it was a nearly perfect simulation of the year 2090 in the Fallout world.