Would VanBuren have been better than FO, FO2?

First off, hello everyone, since this is my first posting here (and hopefully not my last) i would like to greet you all.

Alltough i am kind off scared that you might, lets say, smash me, firstly fpr my rather poor english skills, and secondly for my lack off knowledge on Fallout (I just stumbled over it about half a year ago, so i am in no way part off the "community" like most off you seem to be), I would like to ask something at this point:

Why do you stick so much to the 50ties theme? I only playes FO2 till now (seems to be a mistake by all I read here), but I didnt really see this theme. I mean there are mondern weapons all over the game, and even some futuristic ones, not to talk about the PowerArmors. The war seems to have happend some time in the future (I remember some holodisks about the war found in Sierra Army Depot, an alltough I dont quite remember the correct dates, I am pretty sure that it was something like year 2xxx), so why shouldnt there be some other more advanced products of technology left? And there was this space-shuttle the Hubos had, and it looked kinda like a modern one...I mean, i realise there was this all out war and years off decay, but as I mentioned before, there also are a whole lot of advanced weapons and technology...

So did I miss something in the game itself, or is all this 50ties thing comeing from sources I havent just read, for instance some developers interviews or something?

Oh, and sorry for the off-topic, but since this thread seemed allready out off hands and I think this is a direct question to some arguments here I thought it would fit...
 
PoT-SmOkEr said:
Why do you stick so much to the 50ties theme? I only playes FO2 till now (seems to be a mistake by all I read here), but I didnt really see this theme.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is a pity BIS didn't take more care of the design of the game, versus put all sorts of unseless/irrelevant crap, but that is generally what you should expect from Feargus' Slam Dunk™ development style - full price tag for only half-ass effort. What the original designers laid down before BIS' axe job is hard to see in Fo2, but it exists in small forms under all of the moronic Hollywood crap, and probably is the reason why the game isn't completely loathed.

Play the original Fallout, which has a much better example of the science-iction style of the 50's - versus the lame ad nauseum Star Strek/Monty Python/HHGTTG easter eggs that ceased to be funny sometime a decade previous to their usage in Fo2, but without any quality writing behind them that time around.
 
Sander said:
So, if I am understanding you correctly, we should not judge a game by the experience we get from it, but how well-made it is, which is very difficult to define and grasp. Ie. you want us to logically look at a game to see whether it is any good, and not at how much we enjoy the game.
That doesn't seem logical.
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying judge it by it's own merits, and by the merits of the game before it. But do NOT judge it by the emotional experience of the first game. That's a mistake, as nothing will ever seem to measure up to "the first time". Does this make sense?
 
Fallout 1 was the better
Fallout 2 was satisfatory
Fallout Tactics missed it's RPG part

what do you expect for Fallout 3? :cry:
 
Lazarus Plus said:
No, I'm saying judge it by it's own merits, and by the merits of the game before it. But do NOT judge it by the emotional experience of the first game. That's a mistake, as nothing will ever seem to measure up to "the first time". Does this make sense?
Click to expand...
I understand where you're going with this, but it isn't very logical. And besides that, you're wrong too. Planescape: Torment and Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines had the same kind of emotional experience Fallout had, something that Fallout 2 missed.
Fallout 2 isn't a bad game, but it doesn't measure up to Fallout emotionally speaking. And when I play a game, I look at how much I enjoy it, and that's something emotional.
Now to judge something, you need to have something to compare it to, and that's in this case all of the other games I've played. Including Fallout.
 
Sander said:
Lazarus Plus said:
No, I'm saying judge it by it's own merits, and by the merits of the game before it. But do NOT judge it by the emotional experience of the first game. That's a mistake, as nothing will ever seem to measure up to "the first time". Does this make sense?
Click to expand...
I understand where you're going with this, but it isn't very logical. And besides that, you're wrong too. Planescape: Torment and Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines had the same kind of emotional experience Fallout had, something that Fallout 2 missed.
Fallout 2 isn't a bad game, but it doesn't measure up to Fallout emotionally speaking. And when I play a game, I look at how much I enjoy it, and that's something emotional.
Now to judge something, you need to have something to compare it to, and that's in this case all of the other games I've played. Including Fallout.
Click to expand...

That's kind of the point, though. I know that Fallout 2 wasn't as "good" (an esoteric term at best). My concern is actually that FO3 wouldn't get the chance IT deserves. If they do right by it, then I hope people will see it's quality and not judge it primarily by the quality of it's forebears.
 
Lazarus Plus said:
That's kind of the point, though. I know that Fallout 2 wasn't as "good" (an esoteric term at best). My concern is actually that FO3 wouldn't get the chance IT deserves. If they do right by it, then I hope people will see it's quality and not judge it primarily by the quality of it's forebears.
Click to expand...

Then would you like to explain why they should use the Fallout name if they aren't going to be making a Fallout game? How about the emotional experiences from playing through the Ultima series? The strong points are there, and get better writing, yet the series starts to die off when the good design everyone came to know and enjoy is flushed in favor of supposed "more market appeal" (Super Avatar Brothers).

We are not here for the name tacked onto everything, that should have been obvious from F:POS taking shots from every Fallout fan known (including some very porno studio shots for Elara by dear ol' Chuck). Even Fallout 2 breaks down a bit with the erroneous setting elements, bugs, and filler content that isn't even finished itself.

If it's what people expect from a Fallout game, and makes them feel like they are playing a Fallout game, then what would be the problem? The industry and Fallout fans expect a Fallout game, cheap cash-ins and poor construction are not the answer at all. I know the press kit whores like Ed Lewis smile and verbally fellate whenever Interplay gives them a new item to post about, but I KNOW that they have to be itching for a real Fallout game instead. Yet they don't have the cojones to say so when their mouth is full of publisher rod.
 
Hideki Hitler said:
Lazarus Plus said:
That's kind of the point, though. I know that Fallout 2 wasn't as "good" (an esoteric term at best). My concern is actually that FO3 wouldn't get the chance IT deserves. If they do right by it, then I hope people will see it's quality and not judge it primarily by the quality of it's forebears.
Click to expand...

Then would you like to explain why they should use the Fallout name if they aren't going to be making a Fallout game? How about the emotional experiences from playing through the Ultima series? The strong points are there, and get better writing, yet the series starts to die off when the good design everyone came to know and enjoy is flushed in favor of supposed "more market appeal" (Super Avatar Brothers).

We are not here for the name tacked onto everything, that should have been obvious from F:POS taking shots from every Fallout fan known (including some very porno studio shots for Elara by dear ol' Chuck). Even Fallout 2 breaks down a bit with the erroneous setting elements, bugs, and filler content that isn't even finished itself.

If it's what people expect from a Fallout game, and makes them feel like they are playing a Fallout game, then what would be the problem? The industry and Fallout fans expect a Fallout game, cheap cash-ins and poor construction are not the answer at all. I know the press kit whores like Ed Lewis smile and verbally fellate whenever Interplay gives them a new item to post about, but I KNOW that they have to be itching for a real Fallout game instead. Yet they don't have the cojones to say so when their mouth is full of publisher rod.
Click to expand...

I see your point of view. I disagree with some of the particular details, but I think that's about as close to consensus as we will get.

And "better writing"? How many people use the term "esoteric" at all, much less in proper context? My English teachers are mortified at the slight!
 
Lazarus Plus said:
I see your point of view. I disagree with some of the particular details, but I think that's about as close to consensus as we will get.

And "better writing"? How many people use the term "esoteric" at all, much less in proper context? My English teachers are mortified at the slight!
Click to expand...
Please stop being so arrogant and flashy, it's annoying.
Whether or not your writing is any good, your reading apparently isn't. Roshambo wasn't commenting on your writing, but on the progression of writing throughout the Ultima series.
 
Sander said:
Lazarus Plus said:
I see your point of view. I disagree with some of the particular details, but I think that's about as close to consensus as we will get.

And "better writing"? How many people use the term "esoteric" at all, much less in proper context? My English teachers are mortified at the slight!
Click to expand...
Please stop being so arrogant and flashy, it's annoying.
Whether or not your writing is any good, your reading apparently isn't. Roshambo wasn't commenting on your writing, but on the progression of writing throughout the Ultima series.
Click to expand...

I apologize. Apparently I was mistaken.
 
kharn you are a moron if your still around i mean do you not get the hint the enclave was waiting to unleash the fev and how does vault 13 not give the fallout feel are you on crack vault 13 is probobly the most important location in fallout
 
Von vindicator, please don't bump up old threads without a valid reason. Also please don't insult the moderating staff or anyone else. This is your second offense, one more and you're banned.

von vindicator said:
kharn you are a moron if your still around i mean do you not get the hint the enclave was waiting to unleash the fev and how does vault 13 not give the fallout feel are you on crack vault 13 is probobly the most important location in fallout
Click to expand...

I know the Enclave was waiting to unleash FEV, what does that have to do with anything?

Vault 13 itself was fine, the talking deathclaws in it weren't
 
I have to disagree...even if society rebuilt itself..there would still be wars...cities and societies would rise and fall....the future would still be a bleak place.
Just because it's 200 years after the great war doesn't mean it's going to be a better place...
Not all progress is forward

Mutations and diesase would still be rampant....slavery, robbery would still exist...

Man will always find a reason to kill his fellow man....it's in our genes..

You have to remember that New Reno has ties to the Enclave..and that fortified towns would be the norm...only a fool would live in a unwalled town...with all those desesrt nasties crawling around...
All through history man has tried to keep the outside..outside!


Any design in the Fallout game makes sense to me....except the talking deathclaw thingee..tha's the just weird
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top