Would you have accepted it as a Spin-Off?

E

Eternal

Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
Similar to how Fallout: Tactics is relatively accepted by the FO community. If this hadn't been sold to us as 'Fallout 3' but instead as Fallout: Survival, or Fallout: Capitol Wasteland ect ect. Would you have accepted it into the Fallout family? Or would it still be considered 'Eh, least its not BoS' quality?

I never played BoS myself and I adamantly refuse to (though I have considered buying all the 5$ copies of the PS2 version at my local used game store JUST so I could destroy them to make sure that less have to suffer its wrath) and I personally have enjoyed my experience in the DC Wastes, but I can't accept this as a true sequel in my heart. It is a good game, but it is not a great game, nor is it a true sequel to the franchise.

I do believe FO3 has earned its spot in the FO Canon that they so agregeously(god I can't spell worth crap) destroyed at times, and hopefully bethesda opens up to the Fallout fanbase and lets them in on their plans for the next installment and maybe uses some of the feedback from this version to change how they approach the next one, but if they don't then I fear all hope is lost for a TRUE fallout sequel.
 
Remove any and all references to the previous Fallout games.

Remove the Fallout name entirely from the title - call it "Wastelands" or something (yes I do remember the classic RPG "Wasteland.")

What you're left with is a Post-Apocalyptic advanced FPS that lacks polish, uses a rather dated engine, lacks challenge yet is a veritable gore-fest, but can pass as a really decent Half-Life sequel. In other words, perfect console fare.

And I still wouldn't care for it. The only real thing going for FO3 is the scenery. And I'm not paying $50+ CDN for scenery.

FO3 in name, license, and in-game references stands as a sequel, yet Bethesda claimed that it has nothing to do with the first two. That just goes to show that if WE are confused while playing this game, THEY were even more confused while developing it.

The real deal would have been Van Buren. **sigh** . . . so much promise. But Bethesda got the rights to the Fallout franchise, and then proceeded to throw up Oblivion all over it. The first clue that something was terribly, terribly, wrong, was Bethesda's public presentation of FO3. Whats-his-name from Bethesda took the stage and spent most of his time talking about the combat aspects and the most interesting (if not unrealistic) ways to see blood.

Bethesda killed the franchise. It's just that simple.

Is there any hope? Maybe . . .

http://www.towerofcreation.com/

Hopefully this will see the light of day soon. But don't hold your breath.
 
It's a good game.

But definitely more appropriate as a spin-off, being that it doesn't actually continue the story of the previous two games.

Fallout: DC
 
Apocalyptic Oblivion...any day. any interest in fallout-like atmosphere (or rather setting) is good.
 
FarGo Traders said:
Remove any and all references to the previous Fallout games.

Remove the Fallout name entirely from the title - call it "Wastelands" or something (yes I do remember the classic RPG "Wasteland.")

What you're left with is a Post-Apocalyptic advanced FPS that lacks polish, uses a rather dated engine, lacks challenge yet is a veritable gore-fest, but can pass as a really decent Half-Life sequel. In other words, perfect console fare.

And I still wouldn't care for it. The only real thing going for FO3 is the scenery. And I'm not paying $50+ CDN for scenery.

FO3 in name, license, and in-game references stands as a sequel, yet Bethesda claimed that it has nothing to do with the first two. That just goes to show that if WE are confused while playing this game, THEY were even more confused while developing it.

The real deal would have been Van Buren. **sigh** . . . so much promise. But Bethesda got the rights to the Fallout franchise, and then proceeded to throw up Oblivion all over it. The first clue that something was terribly, terribly, wrong, was Bethesda's public presentation of FO3. Whats-his-name from Bethesda took the stage and spent most of his time talking about the combat aspects and the most interesting (if not unrealistic) ways to see blood.

Bethesda killed the franchise. It's just that simple.

Is there any hope? Maybe . . .

http://www.towerofcreation.com/

Hopefully this will see the light of day soon. But don't hold your breath.
Click to expand...

Decent Half Life sequel? I don't get what that even means. To compare Fallout to Half Life is pretty lame man. The Half Life franchise is nothing like the games Bethesda makes. So lets not get silly here...please. The only thing they have in common is guns and a FP view. The fact that you're canadian brings a tear to my eye (I live in Toronto)...

His name is Todd Howard... just so you know. And In my opinion you're a bit dramatic mate.

IMHO the game is fine as Fallout 3. Its in the hands of a different company now, we just have to see where they take it.

I can hear the screams and lashings on their way...
 
I started accepting it as a spinoff pretty much as soon as I started playing it. I just wish they hadn't called it "Fallout 3". That way I could be even more forgiving.

For me this is pretty much "Fallout for kids". I am entertained by it, but I cannot play it in large doses without switching to Fallout 2 or The Witcher. Even Crysis sometimes, cause it's a much better shooter, despite ridiculous story AND auto-health even. After all it's not like Fallout 3's story really shines either.
 
chaosapiant said:
Fallout 3 is so far to me a better game than the first 2. There, I said it. Now bring the pain.
Click to expand...

That it is to you and it's your right to see it that way. Can you please bring arguments to that? I am really wondering why you feel this way.

On the main subject, I would be OK with this game with another name.

Try out:
http://www.petitiononline.com/fo3ren/petition.html

It might not work... but... we spend more time posting on forums.

On Van Burden: The game still exists, I understand it's about 85-90% finished and Berhesda has it. It would be great if the NMA would preasure Beth to release Van Burden under that name or Fallout Retro/Clasic or whatever. I am sure that some people at Bethesda would listen to fans to some degree and releasing that game would not hurt anyone. Yes, they would spend some $ to finish it, but they made 300+ milion $ off Fallout 3. With all due respect the fans of Fallout and NMA deserve some gratitude for keeping the Fallout Hype alive for 10 years.
 
Frisca said:
chaosapiant said:
Fallout 3 is so far to me a better game than the first 2. There, I said it. Now bring the pain.
Click to expand...

That it is to you and it's your right to see it that way. Can you please bring arguments to that? I am really wondering why you feel this way.

On the main subject, I would be OK with this game with another name.

Try out:
http://www.petitiononline.com/fo3ren/petition.html

It might not work... but... we spend more time posting on forums.

On Van Burden: The game still exists, I understand it's about 85-90% finished and Berhesda has it. It would be great if the NMA would preasure Beth to release Van Burden under that name or Fallout Retro/Clasic or whatever. I am sure that some people at Bethesda would listen to fans to some degree and releasing that game would not hurt anyone. Yes, they would spend some $ to finish it, but they made 300+ milion $ off Fallout 3. With all due respect the fans of Fallout and NMA deserve some gratitude for keeping the Fallout Hype alive for 10 years.
Click to expand...

Firstly, I am a fan of Bethesda's games. A lot of people on this board are not, and I respect that. I think that Fallout 3 does in real time and in your face everything that the first 2 conveyed in text. I like being immersed in my games, and the first person experience does that for me. I don't have to be told I have a crippled limb anymore, I can see my character limping. Those little touches are nice.

Also, I think the SPECIAL system is better in this game. I REALLY wished they had just improved what was there in the first place and refined it, but between the old SPECIAL and the new one, I still prefer the new one. At least now every skill is useful and beneficial outside of a few situations as in the first games.

Fallout 3 is far from perfect. As I've said in previous posts, the only game/games that I consider "perfect" are the Baldur's Gate series. But Fallout 3 beats ever so slightly the first 2 in immersion and fun factor, which is why I play games.
 
As I said before. If you didn't like the previous Fallout sequals, you should not like FO3 too.

Unfortunately, people who like very much FO3 (more than previous Fallouts) it means this is not a true Fallout. This is something else. Not even a spin-off.
 
Would've accepted it as a spin-off... same way I accepted the great XBOX hit FO:BOS... Wouldn't really change the quality of the game though.
 
No, I would not. Reason? Game mechanice is totally broken. Its very easy, the AI is stupid and the mainquest/storyline is weak. In an rpg this would be okay I guess, but for a shooter its nightmare.
 
As a spin off I'd accept it, heck I may even have purchased it out of curiosity (rather than waiting for 2nd hand), simple fact is, I wanted Fallout... and as I saw elsewhere in a sig...

What was delivered was FOblivion...

Not the type of game I'd been waiting for, so I haven't even bothered.
 
Call it Fallout: East Coast. Make it about a Vault Dweller without any connections to the story in the past. Have a rival surviving government remnant (name something else instead of Remnant). Maybe have some errant knights around, but change the D.C. Brotherhood of Steel into a completely different organization.

I think Bethesda could have made good use of the IP had they not tried so hard to cater to fans without succeeding, and not attempted to make a true Fallout 3. At least subtitle that name for heaven's sake.
 
Sin-off? Sure.

It's an Oblivion mod, albeit a really fucking impressive one.

All the assets have been replaced.

The LOD shitfest has been improved beyond recognition.

The core mechanics have been tweaked extensively.

Many of the more glaring gamey-flaws of Oblivion have been addressed (if somewhat artlessly).

I haven't checked, but I'm pretty sure it's the the most extensive mod ever created, and for what I assume are a bunch of 15-20 year old nerds in basements scattered around the world, it really does blow my mind. And I'm fine with it being peddled as a stand-alone title, with such a massive amount of new content and extensive tweaking.

Of course, if it turns out the TC was produced by a team of paid professionals who not only had full access to all the code, but created it in the first place, only their audacity impresses me, and that not in a good way.
 
Disconnected said:
It's an Oblivion mod, albeit a really fucking impressive one.
Click to expand...

Yeah, whilst playing I really never managed to shake that thought out of my head.

Fallout 3 feels to me like a really really good mod that's set in the fallout universe, and NOT a followup from the first two games.
 
So in other words this should have been to Fallout as what DragonAge is going to be to Baldur's Gate?

Atleast this was no FO:BoS. Or even a Fountain of Dreams for the matter.
 
no. unless they made it not what it is now -- uninspired, unimaginative, dated, boring, and sloppy.
 
I must admit I think it's entirely deserving of the fallout title, but I wouldn't have called it a sequel to the original two either.

I do like the game, but it'd need incredible amounts of work to make it into something that I could honestly call a sequel. See my thread 'Fallout 3 reviews, hype, thoughts?' for details.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top