Fallout 3 : A succesful re-branding

Discussion in 'Fallout 3 Discussion' started by krysalist, Nov 4, 2008.

  1. krysalist

    krysalist First time out of the vault

    Feb 15, 2008
    It really is unfortunate how much Bethesda managed to do right with this game.

    I mean, I wanted them to fail, just like I wanted Rockstar to fail at bringing GTA from a top-down perspective, to a 3D openworld. I just wanted to hang on to the past, to my positive memories of the old games, and not have to contend with game developers prancing on my old favorites like bedbugs on my posturpedic.

    But they have not failed, far from it. Though it is not Fallout 1 or 2, with the ten years that have passed since those games, Fallout makes use of all the changes in the role-playing video game community, making the series a bit more accessible, while still retaining some strong inner RP guts to string along the player.

    Wandering the wastelands alone is a game unto itself, forget the story. It's a grand environment, a lonely, sad world that you must make your way through, telling yourself stories as you clambor over rocks and hide from rabid Protectrons and Deathclaws.

    Once you get to the story, you find a vein of fascinating moral conundrums and quests that go beyond the pale of simply grinding or item delivery (Oasis in particular is one of the most stellar quests I've ever embarked on in any game, ever, period.)

    It is not the same as the old Fallouts, in fact, they have effectively been left behind by this new iteration, just like the Grand Theft Autos of old were left behind by the third game.

    But it's all for the better, I promise. You may not see it now, but your hate will evaporate and you'll be left with a solid game, a giant world to explore, and a return to the Fallout universe, as it should be.
  2. Tagaziel

    Tagaziel Panzerkatze Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Dec 10, 2003
    Not another one of those "Any sequel is better than no sequel at all" threads.

    Our love for the original Fallout survived a decade, a decade that has seen FO:T, FO:BOS and the cancellation of Van Buren. How will it suddenly disappear and make us embrace Fallout 3 is beyond me.

    See, there's no denying that Fallout 3 is a solid game. But as a Fallout sequel it falls short with it's often sub-par writing, plot holes and several stupid design choices (exploding cars, Behemoths, Harold comes to mind).

    Not to mention that you apparently haven't experienced Planescape: Torment if the Oasis is the height of your gaming enjoyment.
  3. SL¥DE

    SL¥DE Look, Ma! Two Heads!

    Oct 21, 2007
    So far, I like to think of FO3 as not a true sequel, but a really good spinoff.
  4. krysalist

    krysalist First time out of the vault

    Feb 15, 2008

    I don't mean for it to be another one of those threads. This is not an issue of lessers of two evils, it is an issue of the evolution of videogames themselves, and the way design decisions transform in the wake of our still-burgeoning culture. Fallout 3 is a proper sequel to Fallout 1 & 2, a proper new form for 2 games that defined what I enjoyed the most about gaming in the mid-90s.

    You will eventually get over your hatred, and realize that the things you are complaining about are nitpicks in the extreme, and that the most important things about the Fallout series were drawn upon for the third game.

    But don't you see that nothing could have properly compared to your vision of the first two, that vision that's been held in chrysalis for 10 whole years while we waited for something to follow? Your vision of what it should be is untouchable, unassailable, and ultimately, an anchor.

    God bless it, and may there be more like it. But this is ad hominem to the point, being that Harold and the Treefolk represents a very complex moral decision that has a global and pertinent scope, in terms of world affairs/history. I think it's sublime.
  5. Tyler

    Tyler It Wandered In From the Wastes

    Jan 18, 2004
    I like to think that after playing F3, a lot of people will give the originals a chance and enjoy them even though they are from ancient times.
  6. The Dutch Ghost

    The Dutch Ghost Grouchy old man of NMA Moderator

    Jan 11, 2004
    Ancient times?

    Yeah, most of us are cave men or people from the classic empire age.

    Can anyone how the affairs in Rome are going?
    I heard there was some trouble with barbarians at the borders.
  7. SL¥DE

    SL¥DE Look, Ma! Two Heads!

    Oct 21, 2007
    LOL OLD.

    If you were with the times you'd kow that Rome is currently on fire. I think they'll be able to put it out before it does any REAL damage.
  8. The Dutch Ghost

    The Dutch Ghost Grouchy old man of NMA Moderator

    Jan 11, 2004
    I think I may have heard something about that fire SL¥DE.

    Isn't the Emperor just play violin now while Rome is burning?
  9. Tyler

    Tyler It Wandered In From the Wastes

    Jan 18, 2004
    I guess Nero spent a little too much time with Postal 2.
  10. Fynn

    Fynn First time out of the vault

    Oct 31, 2008
    Hatred is a strong word, I think disappointed is a more appropriate one for me. As a video game, it was kinda fun. I actually lost sleep playing it for the last week. But it's not the kind of game I see myself playing through a second time.

    I've played through the first 2 Fallout games a few times, read up the info on Van Buren, and now having finished Fallout 3, I'm just a bit sad that it wasn't up to my expectations.

    And why are you trying to make yourself seem so superior and enlightened? If people didn't like the game, that's not a crime. Evolution is a poor choice of a word to describe the movement of video games today. Mainstreaming would be better; once flagship games are released and enjoy immense success, there will be copycats. Why else would Bethesda model Fallout 3 after their Oblivion game?

    Wandering the wastes wasn't quite as fun as I thought it'd be. In games like this, I like to play a stealthy sniper. So you can imagine how much fun it is to constantly walk long distances in sneak mode. Takes forever to get anywhere. And thanks to the automagic detection that enemies have, as soon as I pop my head up, bears from 200 yards away are homing in on me.

    Aside from exploration, combat seems to be the other focus. But it basically just boiled down to headshotting enemies in VATS mode, which became really simplistic. And as an aside, I can only see peoples' heads flying off so many times before it gets kind of old. It's like shooting a mannequin. It felt like a bad Fist of the North Star impression. The first two games had so many death animations in it. In Fallout 3, all I saw were the flying limbs, or fading into a pile of ash or goo. And the piles were left after the character falls down in ragdoll fashion and fades out. No electrified skeletons or melting flesh. I killed a super mutant behemoth in some raider camp, and since my last shot was with a plasma rifle, he fell down, faded out, and left a hand-sized pile of goo. I think that's where I just gave up looking for cool deaths.

    I have not experienced the Oasis event in the game, though looking at pictures of the new Harold, I just have to shake my head. There were also very few morally conflicting choices in the game. The ones that stood out to me were: save Megaton or blow it up, turn in Harkness or not, kill Fawkes or let him live, help Eden or not, kill Autumn or not, sacrifice myself or not. These are not very difficult choices to make, unless you really get into character.

    The story was very short and felt incomplete. I was actually staring at the credits screen after the ending saying, "That's it? That's all I get?" There were so many opportunities to flesh the story out. And in another post I wrote, sometimes the writing was too thick in places. An insignificant vault gets 6 holotapes and multiple computer logs, yet I can't find a lick of info inside Raven Rock describing its history, set-up or purpose? Its only purpose just seemed to be a gauntlet-run among Enclave soldiers.

    Fallout 3 may be big, like a bucket of popcorn. But it's all empty calories. The majority will have their fun with this game, and move on. The Fallout fans will be left picking up the pieces.
  11. Public

    Public Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    May 18, 2006
    Nicely written :clap:

    Don't know why people are calling old games, those ones from about 10 years, "Ancient". It's been only 10 damn years. The games are just improving quick, actually, only graphics- so the technology has improved within last 10 years. But the other parts of the game: dialogue, story, characters, etc, have been left behind.

    Fallout 3 is a great example for this mess. The only better thing FO3 has from previous Fallouts are graphics. The other side of FO3 (dialogue, story, even combat) is dump and left behind like it doesn't count.

    I enjoyed more Medal of Honour 4: Modern Warfare than this POS. FO3 is dump and broken. It's about shooting, shooting, shooting and then some dialogue. And they call it the game of the year for fuck sake!
  12. SL¥DE

    SL¥DE Look, Ma! Two Heads!

    Oct 21, 2007
    Ol' Skool? It's all kool!
    Ol' Skool? It's all kool!
    Ol' Skool? It's all kool!

    Remember, fellow relics, anything before the time of your own youth may as well be a cave painting. Happens every generation. And it goes like that. Hell, I can't think of life without computers.
  13. Public

    Public Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    May 18, 2006
    It depends in which country you grew up :P
  14. SL¥DE

    SL¥DE Look, Ma! Two Heads!

    Oct 21, 2007
    True that! See? It'a all subjective!
  15. Galdred

    Galdred First time out of the vault

    Jan 12, 2007
    Re: rebutts!

    Do you think you are some kind of priest or something? As if the important things that made Fallout great were the same for everyone...
  16. anony

    anony First time out of the vault

    Nov 2, 2008
    The problem with the continuation of a series long after the previous editions of it is that gaming values change.

    With hardware limitations back when the original Fallouts were made, Interplay and BlackIsle had to concentrate on getting the writing, atmosphere and interactions with the world right. That's not to say the graphics were bad, they were very impressive for their time.

    Now that hardware is where it is, the main point for all but the most indie of developers is graphics, action and simplicity. With each new generation, getting things to look awesome takes higher and higher priority. It's because PC gaming has descended into console territory as far as who they see their audience as: children.

    It's pretty obvious if you play Fallout3 for a little while. Have you ever punched someone really hard and had their head fly off? No, but that's what a kid wants to see. In the originals these were gritty and disturbing deaths, where blood would gush from someone you took a minigun to. Their chest would shake as they were riddled with bullets. It was gritty, it was gorey, it was adult and happened rarely enough to keep it from being the norm.

    The damage model in Fallout3 is clearly aimed at children. Heads and legs go flying off from the merest of injuries, and this is without Bloody Mess. I can't imagine how bad it would be if I chose that perk.

    It's an alright game, but clearly the audience it's aimed at has damaged what could have been fantastic.

    I get the feeling that this game would have been better if they had taken the story and set it in another game world. Fallout 3. That name damages it, yet it's also the only thing that makes it a success as far as I can tell.

    If you take away all the good work in setting up a world that the first 2 games did, would there really be anything left? I'm not so sure. There would be a game with a lacklustre combat system, simple dialogue choices, poor animations, and numerous other problems.

    In trying to satisfy both modern gamers and fans of the original Fallout, I feel they limited themselves. Not in terms of sales, of course, playing both sides with promises of greatness. But in terms of the game itself. Certain aspects of the originals do not work in this new envisioning, but I suppose they were kept to make sure that it at least resembled Fallout in some ways.

    Anyway, enough of this. Decent game, but certainly not worth the high nines and tens it gets in reviews.
  17. MrCaleb

    MrCaleb First time out of the vault

    Nov 4, 2008
    10 years i have waited for this...10 years.

    And to be honest i'v played for about 12 hours now and i'm getting pretty bored of the game. Next to exploring there isn't much fun in this game for me.

    I'd rather play a good Fallout 1 or 2 Mod then this Oblivion Mod...

    Dont get me wrong, they tried a good deal on Fallout 3, and its playable for Post-Ap fans. But calling it a true Fallout Game..i Cannot.

    Perhaps the modders van fix a whole deal of pain on this, and i'm going to wait a while for that.

    My hope now lies with the MMORPG..if interplay is going to create it.
  18. Ausdoerrt

    Ausdoerrt I should set a custom tit

    Oct 28, 2008
    I dunno, I almost feel like THIS should've been the MMO, and someone else would do actual FO3.
  19. MrCaleb

    MrCaleb First time out of the vault

    Nov 4, 2008
    Yep :) Or someone should have done both.

    Still dont understand why they would sell the single player rights to Bethesda. Fallout is a goldmine if you now how to treat it.
  20. cratchety ol joe

    cratchety ol joe Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?

    Sep 2, 2008
    I recall reading a statement from Iplay / BlackIsle (or someone involved with the erstwhile prehistoric games) that stated they didn't WANT to have 'the best' graphics or even any real high media appeal, they went on to state they were deliberately making a game aimed at a certain genre and a certain type of games player.

    Besides, now these *ahem* limitations no longer exist its still no reason to spend 95% of the budget on getting the graphics right (or as right as they can be... (lets face it FO3 is hardly ground breaking compared to some others.) the one real element missing from this and perhaps other modern games is the love and dedication of the creator / creation team the best games I can recall have all been produced for a higher reason than $$$$ but in spite of not aiming at the big bloom effect shader4 $ sign these games go on to become huge adored my millions. I see a lot of games that are simply made as though games creation has been dulled to a simple routine with no heart in it.

    in this case;

    Buy franchise - copy an existing game engine - rework GFX a bit - slap into a box and call it a hit.

    Anyone that has ever read the 'comments' included in the FO2 credits will realise the team weren't just working on a new title they were enjoying exploring new idea's and having a hell of a time doing it. and having read the book about how Doom started I could see that rather than "lets make the best game ever.." they were asking "can we try to push the boundries..."