Will Fallout 3 be remembered?

Will Fallout 3 be remembered in 10 years' time?


  • Total voters
    897
Gandar said:
Mikael Grizzly said:
Do you understand the difference betweem "spin-off" and "sequel"? A sequel is an entry in the franchise that continues the style, theme, setting and gameplay of previous titles. A spin-off is an entry that bases on previous titles, but does something completely different.

That's why Fo:T, Fo:BoS and Fo3 are spin-offs and Fo2 is a sequel.

I think this nails it on the head for me. FO3 should have been: Fallout: Capitol Wasteland. I was hoping that the first person perspective would have been utilized more as an option than as a redefinition. 3d RPG with optional turn based or real time action, a well rendered 3d world with options for any view you want. Instead, I got an FPS with a sprinkle of RPG =(

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=78ISaXxuzMo
 
I say it will be a minor footnote, slated as "Morrowind and Oblivion's quirky little cousin with guns."

Honestly though... With the game trend as it is, it probably will be remembered, and remembered as a great game. Personally, I wish it'd be buried right next to F:BoS.
 
Mikael Grizzly said:
Do you understand the difference betweem "spin-off" and "sequel"? A sequel is an entry in the franchise that continues the style, theme, setting and gameplay of previous titles. A spin-off is an entry that bases on previous titles, but does something completely different.

That's why Fo:T, Fo:BoS and Fo3 are spin-offs and Fo2 is a sequel.

I look at it from a narrative prespective. FO3's narrative is a continuation of Fallout 1 & 2 narrative as far as the universe as a whole, perhaps not the Vault Dweller/West Coast plotline. Tactics is a mid-chapter suppliment, barring the cannon discrepencies. BOS is a spin-off. Again, that's from a narrative prespective.

I've already concluded that as a product Fallout 3 feels more like a suppliment at best and a spin-off at worst, that's a conclusion I won't argue with and happily agree to. However I'd prefer people qualify that same opinion as just that, an opinion, rather than use just "Fallout 1&2 had it, therefore Fallout 3 ain't" reasoning, which I think is shallow. It's bias yes, we're all entitled to that, but only using Fallout 1&2 as the base of the "Fallout 3 ain't" arguement is limiting, considering Tactics does Fallout 1&2 the same and better minus story, diplomacy, and cannon, and only story seems to be the consistant point of contention in Fallout 3's fan irk.

And everytime I see that Troika tech demo or the Van Buren tech demo, it reminds me of one thing: Fallout Brotherhood of Steel. The 3D isometric view didn't help keep me playing that game, and didn't make me feel like the top-down presentation was the one thing it did right. Design intentions and goals and other saving graces of those projects are to me hindsight pipedreams and subject to opinion. Yes I would have loved to see those projects come to release, but I don't consider them to be anymore "Fallout" (the Van Buren project I'll be more subjective with, because it was a project approaching alpha stage and has some substance) than a fan-made mod.
 
Yes I would have loved to see those projects come to release, but I don't consider them to be anymore "Fallout" (the Van Buren project I'll be more subjective with, because it was a project approaching alpha stage and has some substance) than a fan-made mod.

Why? If anything, for me Van Buren was more consistent with Fallout than Fallout 2 was.
 
Gooscar said:
I look at it from a narrative prespective. FO3's narrative is a continuation of Fallout 1 & 2 narrative as far as the universe as a whole, perhaps not the Vault Dweller/West Coast plotline. Tactics is a mid-chapter suppliment, barring the cannon discrepencies. BOS is a spin-off. Again, that's from a narrative prespective.

I've already concluded that as a product Fallout 3 feels more like a suppliment at best and a spin-off at worst, that's a conclusion I won't argue with and happily agree to. However I'd prefer people qualify that same opinion as just that, an opinion, rather than use just "Fallout 1&2 had it, therefore Fallout 3 ain't" reasoning, which I think is shallow. It's bias yes, we're all entitled to that, but only using Fallout 1&2 as the base of the "Fallout 3 ain't" arguement is limiting, considering Tactics does Fallout 1&2 the same and better minus story, diplomacy, and cannon, and only story seems to be the consistant point of contention in Fallout 3's fan irk.

Fallout 1 defined Fallout. Why shouldn't we use it as a benchmark? You're not making sense.

And everytime I see that Troika tech demo or the Van Buren tech demo, it reminds me of one thing: Fallout Brotherhood of Steel. The 3D isometric view didn't help keep me playing that game, and didn't make me feel like the top-down presentation was the one thing it did right. Design intentions and goals and other saving graces of those projects are to me hindsight pipedreams and subject to opinion. Yes I would have loved to see those projects come to release, but I don't consider them to be anymore "Fallout" (the Van Buren project I'll be more subjective with, because it was a project approaching alpha stage and has some substance) than a fan-made mod.

You are aware that was a top-down action cam, not a proper Fallout isometric camera?
 
Not to mention that game was horrible. Van Buren was at least shaping up to be something worth playing.
 
F:BoS. The Playstation game they made. *shudder*

I wasn't talking about Van Buren. Obviously I have no idea if that game was going to be horrible or not, though everything I've read about it made it sound like something I'd have liked and enjoyed playing.
 
Mikael Grizzly said:
Fallout 1 defined Fallout. Why shouldn't we use it as a benchmark? You're not making sense.

You are aware that was a top-down action cam, not a proper Fallout isometric camera?

I'm not saying Fallout 1 isn't the game Fallout 3 should be judged by, I myself judged Fallout 3 as a Fallout game by its past games. I'm saying all aspects of Fallout 1 are not what a Fallout game should be judged by.

And yes, BOS used an about 80 degree follow top down action cam, as opposed to a fixed angle isometric view, but it was just a slight pan down and attachment away from being isometric, which I feel wouldn't have given the game any better reprieve from being awful. But that's just my opinion of the isometric view simply being a presentation choice rather than an inseperable element.

Ausir said:
Why? If anything, for me Van Buren was more consistent with Fallout than Fallout 2 was.

Like I said, I'll be more subjective with Van Buren because there's more substance behind the demo than just a tech demonstration with the Dune Prophecy Theme music, but ultimately it is an unfinished product. Frank Herbert had a collection of notes and writing of his next Dune projects before he died, while the substance of the writings are specifically Dune congruent, a hotly contested arguement among dune fans is whether or not Brian Herbert's additions using his father's materials are Dune canon or not. As notes by themselves, they're canon because they come from the old man's hands and mind himself. Van Buren has design documents to back up its claim to the Fallout lineage.

However, if you judge the canon of a series by releases as opposed to developer explained lore, Van Buren isn't a release.
 
Hooh, I thought you were talking about Fallout 2 :P

I didn't play FO:POS, but from what I've seen it's...it's crap...
 
It is crap, which was part of the point I was trying to make: 3rd person prespective, isometric or not, does not redeem a game such as BOS in anyway, and therefore does not automatically improve another.
 
To be blunt, I voted "What, Fallout 3 exists?" since after playing and completing the game I have come to the same realization as many others in that this is not a Fallout game but just Oblivion with guns in a Fallout-esque coat. However, I still enjoyed the game itself. The scenery was repetitive, there as no actual Fallout elements except superficial ones but I still think of it as a good and enjoyable game.

But as noticed by my voting it does not have have anything to do at all with either Fallout, Super-Mutants, the Enclave, the Brotherhood Of Steel or anything else in the Fallout universe for that matter and thus should have been named "Bethesda's Post-Apocalyptic Sandbox" instead.

Also, you cannot children. What a fucking bugger. :facepalm:
 
Mikael Grizzly said:
Do you understand the difference betweem "spin-off" and "sequel"? A sequel is an entry in the franchise that continues the style, theme, setting and gameplay of previous titles. A spin-off is an entry that bases on previous titles, but does something completely different.

That's why Fo:T, Fo:BoS and Fo3 are spin-offs and Fo2 is a sequel.

If you get to decide Fo3 is a spin-off and not a sequel, then I get to say the same about Fo2. It did not continue the style of Fo1 in my mind... it was a vastly inferior game to the original. That's my view of it anyway... couldn't walk 2 inches without bumping into some stupid corny sex joke written by a 13 year old or a reference to some movie or another. The game didn't take itself seriously at all, Fo1 did.

to my eye, Fo3 is a truer sequel to Fo1 than Fo2 could ever hope to be.
 
I voted: "Rather not, it's a mediocre game that's fun, but forgettable."

I just hope FO3 wont be the final headbut to the Fallout games we know as FO1 & FO2. I wouldn't like it very much that the fallout legacy would end the same way the "footballer Zidane" ended his career http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAjWi663kXc .

What now? FO3 was nothing like FO1 & FO2 in terms of gameplay, so will their still be someone making a decent Fallout game (to Fallout FO1 & FO2 standards of gameplay)? I fear not, thx for the headbut Bethesda.


the headbut wich is nicely described here:
http://www.nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=47347
 
LOL, chicken meet egg, egg, meet chicken.

Are we still talking about how this game is memorable or not/or how AWESOME this thing is?

"I've played a lot of FO1,2,T,etc" "I am xx years old" "9.8 out of 10" "The more I play it the more I realize how great it is"

I am sorry Gooscar, what was your point again? :lol:

As for fan forums, doesn't Beth have their own forums? I wonder what happens if you mention NMA in there?

And I am surpised they get as much fanfare as it is these days, especially if you ask Daggerfall fans and Morrowind fans. But I digress.
 
Ausir said:
By the way, Bethesda did use some minor stuff from Van Buren in Fallout 3.

Let me guess... the rather choppily angled copies of the vault interior chair models right?... Cause that's abotu all the similarity I know of... only it looked like that in VB cause it wasn't finished... and the engine was in earlier times to put it lightly... where as Beth... ehh... what's the point....

This game will be remembered by the fans of the original F series as meh the thing that gave FOPOS a run for it's money....
THe drooling fanboys who don't know better will either forget it or drool over it for a few more years.... But it won't leave such a lasting impression as any of the earlier titles... especially as seeing the replay value is about the equal of two pounds of dogturd... except you had to pay for this...
 
Back
Top