Would you have liked Fallout 3 more if it were like STALKER?

T

TamaNeko

It Wandered In From the Wastes
Because I just recently played STALKER today, and after a few hours I'm already hooked! It was also inevitable to compare it to Fallout 3, and I've realized that this game did the FPS/RPG mixing way better. No more levelling-up that required an arbitrary set of skill points just to get your gun to do more damage, better AI, and a damage system where enemies were just as tough as you, so you had to really aim for their heads to take them down, or you're toast!

Compared to Fallout 3, I never really felt that sense of getting ****** up too badly. You could already get a crapload of stimpacks right out of the vault, it was easy to abuse the difficulty system, there were too many ways to get your HP back easily, and unlike the anomalies in STALKER, radiation hotspots were never that big a threat! Searching through Fallout3nexus, it seems like there are already mods to make the game more like STALKER, so hopefully I'll get a better experience out of it.
 
No, because Stalker is also not Fallout.

Stalker is a good game with a deep atmosphere, but as a Fallout game... no.

You wrote, Stalker did the FPS/RPG mixing way better, but here I disagree. Stalker is just way more a Shooter. Inventory and some dialogs with npcs doesn't make it a RPG. Still it's a good game.. with lots of bugs.
 
I prefer Fallout 3 being more like previous Fallout, not like any other post-apocalypse game.

So the answer is NO
 
Lexx said:
No, because Stalker is also not Fallout.

Stalker is a good game with a deep atmosphere, but as a Fallout game... no.

You wrote, Stalker did the FPS/RPG mixing way better, but here I disagree. Stalker is just way more a Shooter. Inventory and some dialogs with npcs doesn't make it a RPG. Still it's a good game.. with lots of bugs.
Click to expand...
well said, not sure what one could more to it as I can only agree. Stalker was anything but a RPG. A great game in its own sense, even though when I was very disapointed from the game compared to what the developers said about it earlier and wanted to do. I have no clue if it was cause of the publisher (THQ or something?) that pushed them, but it seems also that the developers overxtend themself and overrestimated their possiblities. Considering how many times they pushed the date of release I can definetly understand if a publisher would make some preasure at some point. But by saying that yeah ... I would not have liked Fallout 3 more if it would have been like STALKER, though it would have at leat meant a more fun shooter since the FPS action in F3 was rather boring and not very steady in my eyes. Though that has nothing to do with that F3 as some starts working in the background, its more the way how the FPS view fiels. Pretty twitchy in some way, I dont know. I mean the guns you use in Fallout 3 from the first person perspective dont feel like your character would be holding a "real" gun if you know what I mean, regardless if its the minigun or rocket luncher or machine pistol they all feel like ... toys.
 
i like the combat feel in S.T.A.L.K.E.R. better, the guns feel like you're doing some damage but it is not an RPG. fallout 3 did the RPG bit better and fallout 1 & 2 did it better than both combined
 
Yeah, STALKER is an incredibly great game, but it's not an RPG. It's like Deus Ex, you have choices, good choices, but it's still a shooter. A lot of the game still runs on the player's skill. I would've rathered FO3 be like FO1 and 2.

(If you're playing STALKER now, I suggest getting Oblivion Lost for gameplay fixes and improvements, and Stalker Complete 2009 for graphical improvements. Merging the two mods is tricky though.)
 
Would you have liked Fallout 3 more if it were like STALKER?
Click to expand...

Sure, why not. Seeing as F3 wouldn't have been an RPG in any case, they could have at least made it into a good shooter. Alas, bethesda failed at both, and made a ton of money at being bad. :clap:
 
To be honest, I liked the RPG element in Fallout 3 better than in S.T.A.L.K.E.R. (not that it's good, ofcourse). I've played the latter game for just a few hours, but I quickly became bored of the dialogs. The combat however was much better than in Fallout 3 (32 headshots for one Talon :shock:). So if it was a game with the dialog quality of the Fallout series and the combat of S.T.A.L.K.E.R., it would be a great FPS with RPG elements (or the other way around). ;)
 
YES!

I mean yes. Very much so.

What was the reason Fallout 3 was the disgousting tasteless insultingly dumb piece of garbage we all love to hate? You'd probably say insufficient RPG elements or failed merging of RPG/FPS gameplay - you'd be right. But why, in turn, was that done?

To water the game down into a tasteless pulp for the console gamers, casual gamers and borderline retards to be able to enjoy the game. The keyword here is CASUAL.

Were F1 and F2 casual games? Not by a long shot using today's standards.

Was STALKER? Hell, you could almost feel the angst of overweight 13-year old internet commandos as they cursed at their screens not knowing where health regeneration, ultra-accurate indestructable firearms and a storyline that drags you on a leash went. It wasn't Call of Duty, and it wasn't meant for the casual, average gamer. It's not the kind of game 13-year old angsty teens play, with big explosions, flying heads, uber firearms..

It's the kind of game the developers themselves would like to play. It's a game meant for a more mature audience of "hardcore" players. Few compromises were taken - hell, this is the first FPS in YEARS where you actually have to eat!

So, if the greedy sonofabitch managers at bethsoft would embrace Stalker's philosophy, would it make a better game?

Hell yeah it would. Even if F3 would be more of a shooter, we'd have somewhat less dialogue (supposedly F3 has n times as much text as F1) but on the other hand it wouldn't be the easily digestable pulp of generic cookie-cutter bad guys offering you a chance to destroy a town in 20 seconds or facepalmingly moronic figure of Moira Brown.

And personally.. I enjoyed Stalker much much more than F3.
 
Hell no...

As much as I like Stalker SHOC, I don't think Fallout 3 should have followed that path either. Sure, it has a better atmosphere than Fallout 3 but still...

To me, the main flaws of Fallout 3 were :

-its attrocious writing
-its lame plot
-the absence of roleplay possibilities
-garbage character development
-stupid design for most locations

Stalker has bad writing, a rather lame plot, no roleplay at all and no character development. So...no.

It sure has a better design though...
 
MrBumble said:
Hell no...

As much as I like Stalker SHOC, I don't think Fallout 3 should have followed that path either. Sure, it has a better atmosphere than Fallout 3 but still...

To me, the main flaws of Fallout 3 were :

-its attrocious writing
-its lame plot
-the absence of roleplay possibilities
-garbage character development
-stupid design for most locations

Stalker has bad writing, a rather lame plot, no roleplay at all and no character development. So...no.

It sure has a better design though...
Click to expand...

How about this:

What if Fallout 3 followed Stalker's spirit, not letter?

Meaning, what if the game was created as the kind of game the developers like to play, a no-compromise title for hardcore gamers?
 
archont said:
How about this:

What if Fallout 3 followed Stalker's spirit, not letter?

Meaning, what if the game was created as the kind of game the developers like to play, a no-compromise title for hardcore gamers?
Click to expand...

Don't think so...
There are mainstream games with pwnsome design ( Bioshock ), cool plot and -somewhat- nice roleplay ( NWN 2 add-ons, The Witcher... ). Plus Bethesda is already making the kind of game they like to play, like they said numerous times in interview...
Fallout 3's problem is not only that it was aimed at Oblivion's audience but also Bethesda's incompetence because sometimes you can feel that they tried but failed miserably...It's particulary obvious with dialogues.


I don't care if it's aimed at mainstream or if it's a niche game : I want it to be at least properly written. That requires talent. Nough said...

This is also why I still have faith in Obsidian : they gameplay will likely be the same but the writing might be better.
 
STALKER sucks. So does Fallout 3.

Not because the idea is bad, but the execution. Both titles have horrible gameplay and boring story.
 
STALKER was a good game, but hardly an RPG. It included some RPG elements, such as an inventory system and a limited free-roam world, but not much else. It didn't have much in the way of side-quests, or anything like that. Also, the world wasn't really that big.

The atmosphere and combat were great, though. Parts were genuinely creepy, a feeling I don't find myself experiencing too often in Fallout 3 (well, maybe in Vault 87).

However, it was bugged at the start. At least the bugs were fixed quite nicely in the patches.

But overall similar to Fallout 3?

Hell no.
 
Yeah, I probably would have preferred Fallout 3 if it was more like Stalker, hell, at times I got more of a Fallout feel from Stalker then I ever got from FO3.

True, Stalker had very few RPG elements, but Fallout 3 wasn't very good in that respect either. The main difference for me was that exploration and combat was actually fun Stalker, while it was often a chore in FO3.
 
TheMutantMe said:
Yeah, I probably would have preferred Fallout 3 if it was more like Stalker, hell, at times I got more of a Fallout feel from Stalker then I ever got from FO3.

True, Stalker had very few RPG elements, but Fallout 3 wasn't very good in that respect either. The main difference for me was that exploration and combat was actually fun Stalker, while it was often a chore in FO3.
Click to expand...
Really? I found the exploration in STALKER to be kind of tedious, or at least less enjoyable, than in Fallout 3. Maybe because Fallout 3's environment is far more visually appealing than that of STALKER's.

The combat of both games is fun.
 
wexer9 said:
Really? I found the exploration in STALKER to be kind of tedious, or at least less enjoyable, than in Fallout 3. Maybe because Fallout 3's environment is far more visually appealing than that of STALKER's.

The combat of both games is fun.
Click to expand...

It was the opposite for me, for a few reasons I think. Fallout 3's environment was more visually stimulating I suppose, just because Stalker was so dreary. But Fallout was a lot more repetitive, the wastes looked the same, every interior was a maze of the same identical corridors. Not that Stalker wasn't samy at times too, but every location was at least distinguished a little, enough that it didn't feel like you were exploring the same dungeon for the whole game.

More though, I think that Stalker was at least interesting to explore; every location had a good reason to be there, and had back story about it, more then that, it was rewarding to explore. In Fallout, I was always accurately aware that what ever location I was in was designed primarily as a dungeon to be crawled, and a back story was slapped on it later, usually a poor and uninteresting one, so there was no story reward for exploration. The loot was almost always terrible as well, usually a few bottle caps and a broken rifle, so there was no material interest in exploring either.

Finally, it was fun to explore in Stalker because it is consistently very atmospheric and immersive, you could kind of forget you were playing a game. This wasn't the case with Fallout, the would was to inconstant and gamey, and never very immersive, it felt like playing an MMO a lot of the time, not necessarily bad on its own, but makes it a lot less fun to explore.

As for combat, well, Stalker did very good FPS combat, it got old towards the very end, but what doesn't. Fallout 3, I think, suffered from trying to combine FPS and RPG, and ended up getting the worst of both, it was fun for a while, but it felt 8 years out of date.
 
I'll concede that the immersion of STALKER was better than Fallout 3. The dreary environments really sucked you in.

I also thought the story was done better in STALKER. Right it was confusing and muddled at times, you really did feel like you were piecing it together quest by quest. The plot twist was obvious around the middle of the game, but was still satisfying. I felt like Fallout 3's main quest was just to short and rushed to have a satisfying story.

I still found Fallout 3 to be a better game, however.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top