Fallout 3 reviews round-up #54

Discussion in 'NMA News and Information' started by Per, Nov 17, 2008.

  1. hatchen

    hatchen First time out of the vault

    Feb 25, 2004
    The thing about Fallout 1 and 2 is that interplay wanted to recreate the gurps system (or the overall PnP feel) for computer players to play. From my experiences with any PnP game (pen and paper), combat is not realtime gameplay. The truth is, you wouldn't want it to be. Part of the fun was calling out how you wanted to carry out your actions if you had enough points to do so (some games had action points, other had actions per combat round). Another thing to point out was how all combat and non combat decisions were based on some sort of skill or attribute. It was fun because this meant there were things as a character you could do and could not do. This is why for fallout they used turn based and Isometric. Not because of some lack of technology.

    There are some things that an FPS can and can't do well, the same with a turnbased game. FPS are there for immediate action and encourages the player to be the character. You can also walk through the world looking through the characters eyes. Stats are harder to implement though, simply because there's to much that relies on the players own reflexes and sight. In combat a player can be a low level (if there are levels), but if the the player knows what they are doing they can take on higher level folks.

    Turnbased games offer time to think and rationalize, More importantly, allows a player to be any character they want. Yes it can make the character less personal but that is the whole point, you can play any type of character and have fun instead of just wanting to play yourself all the time (unless you want to). The limits of the skills and attributes are fun simply because it makes you play a certain way. A dumb fighter archetype will more likely shoot first and ask later while a diplomat will try to assess the situation and try the reason first . Both with skills guaranteeing a certain type of success but both with limitation caused by points. This large spectrum of characters is what an isometric rpg can do. It is also important to note that the system allows a character to progress not through the players own reflexes but by skills gained during a level up. Even with a realtime with a pause, an isometric rpg, just because of the view has more options in certain regards that an fps could never pull off. Of course these games are sometimes considered boring because it isn't always fast paced and doesn't have action bursting at the seams.

    Now to the point. Is fallout 3 better than the other fallouts? It's like trying to say that a circle is a triangle. Since triangles are triangle and circles are circles, it is ridiculous to think other wise. Fallout 1 and 2 are triangles as fallout 3 is a circle. The creators of fallout 3 have made it a circle but labeled it a triangle but as we all know it is not. As an fps, Fallout 3 may be a decent game. Since FPS's cater to some people more than others they may (and have) say it is better than the first two. I don't mind first person shooters. But in regards to the first two it can't compare. Turn base does exactly what it was created and built for, PnP emulation. The Isometric compliments everything about the first two games as well. That is why fallout 3 as a fallout sequel fails in game mechanics at the very least. Just by changing what the mechanics were meant for changes the very game itself and secludes it from its predecessors.

    In conclusion, Bethesda may have managed to create an okay or decent game (7-8/10), but it is a bad fallout sequel (2-4/10).
  2. Eyenixon

    Eyenixon Vault Senior Citizen

    Apr 11, 2008
    The point of "technological limitations" is a double-edged sword.
    Be aware that while Fallout 3 may be more technologically advanced than Fallout 1 or 2, it's also limited by its technology in certain areas.

    I'm certain the dialog would've been far more fleshed out and indepth if they hadn't used voice acting. Unfortunatly, voice acting takes up a heinous amount of space and prevents them from creating large amounts of dialog, everything is watered down, you lose elements such as the PC's name being spoken (Kid from Vault 101 gets old real quick) or complex reactions to events since it would take ages to record the ridiculous amount of voice acting required for the amount of reactions a single situation could present.

    They can't fill out if you killed someone in a certain way, in a certain order (with other NPCs), at a certain time, or in a certain way specifically with NPC reactions because it would take far too much effort and money.

    Compound that with the exorbitant amount of graphical glitches and programming bugs created by the pure quantity of possible things that could go wrong in a complex 3D world in comparison to that of a game using 2D graphics and environs and you realize that technology doesn't always improve the developer's ability to create a better game, often it hinders them and they become bogged down by the immense problems presented by the complexity of a far more advanced tool set.
  3. Kyuu

    Kyuu Insert Awesome Title Here

    Jul 19, 2007
    What? You mean higher poly-count, complex and buggy development tools, and high-paid voice actors (mixed with Beth's usual 2-unknown-voice-actors-doing-the-other-100-characters) don't always make a game way better? But that's impossible. No way. I can't believe it. I mean, if you follow that line of logic, you could come to the absolutely absurd conclusions that purely text dialogue has advantages, that 3D, polygonal graphics aren't always better (I mean who liked the graphics in Okami or Viewtiful Joe amirite?), and that there are other possible viewpoints for making a game besides the first-person perspective! Preposterous!
    First, as has already been pointed out, exactly how would playing a game like Starcraft or Civilization work well if you were looking at it from a first-person, on-the-ground perspective, even in a hypothetical "holo-deck"?

    Second, first-person perspective is fine. There are lots of games that use first-person perspective, and that's a-ok. However, the Fallouts weren't made to appeal to those who absolutely must play all of their games from that perspective. Otherwise, the originals would have been first-person as well. Say whatever you want, there's absolutely no reason why Fallout fans shouldn't expect that a Fallout game wouldn't retain those things that appealed to them, of which the perspective is part.

    First-person isn't the end-all, be-all of perspectives. There are in fact advantages to other perspectives, whether it be bird's-eye, third-person, or even isometric.
  4. Lichbane

    Lichbane First time out of the vault

    Oct 20, 2008
    LOL! Fair enough then. I can't really argue with that logic. :D
  5. tekhedd

    tekhedd Hoarding ammo IS gameplay

    Oct 28, 2008
    Stigma? Stigma!?! *sputter* I... speaking ... angry... guh.

    Must breathe.

    I'm going to go drink a beer now. And then I'm going to avoid the reviews section altogether. Indefinitely. It just hurts to see how lame modern gamers are.

    (And I like F3--a lot. Still sad.)
  6. Section8

    Section8 It Wandered In From the Wastes

    Apr 6, 2003
    While we're on the FPS vs isometric argument, won't someone think of the loot?

    Look at it this way. Looting a room in Fallout meant opening a couple of containers. Anything outside of a container was generally a hidden "secret". The detail of where something happens to be on a shelf/desk/etc is really not important, so it's abstracted. In Fallout 3, it can take 20 minutes to loot a room because you have to move your crosshair over every single object. Couple this with the game's multitude of "junk" items, and looting can be a tedious and disappointing experience.

    Sinve the game already breaks the wall by letting you know if a container is empty or not, why not display a list of what's in a container when you mouse over it? Why not have at the very least, a mouse look toggle so you can loot with a cursor rather than a crosshair? Or even a "Get Items" function that brings up a list of junk within arm's reach?

    All the "technical limitations" in the world are forgivable when compared to complete ignorance of them.
  7. AskWazzup

    AskWazzup Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Aug 21, 2008
    Misguided - is the word i would use.
  8. HoKa

    HoKa Still Mildly Glowing

    Jul 23, 2007
    Thank God someone else noticed how fucking annoying that is.
  9. Public

    Public Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    May 18, 2006
    Then they (Bethesda) should have called it a spin-off.
    The game that is set in the same universe (Fallout universe) but with a different mechanics (FP Action Adventure RPG) than the originals.

    That's how it's been done, exemples:

    Star Wars:Republic Commando- it's in a Star Wars universe, but it's a shooter (very good one). They didn't call it something like Star Wars:Knights of the old Republic Republic Commando (as it would be a sequal to the "Star Wars: Knights of the old republic" series). because it's a different gender of a game, with a different plot, etc.

    Star Wars:Force Unleashed- It's kinda like KOTOR (I'm not sure, I din't play it) but still not call "KOTOR Force Unleashed", because it's about a different plot, in a different time, etc.

    Vampire The Masquerade- we have two different game in the same universe "Redenptions" and "Bloodlines". One is 3rd person RPG, the other one is 1st person RPG. They are not a sequals, because they don't have the same mechanics (perspective), but they are based in the same "Vampire The Masquerade" universe.

    Now with Fallouts:

    Fallout Tactics- a spin off to Fallout sequals. Why? It's even called "A post apocalyptic tactical Role Playing Game" not like the sequals "A post apocalyptic Role Playing Game" under the title. FT is about a different plot (BoS), no dialogues (mission based quests), but still the same universe- "Fallout".

    Fallout BoS- a spin off too. I'm not exactly sure what kind of a game axactly it is, because I didn't play it, but from what I have seen, it's an ISO Shooter.

    And they still were called "spin-offs", even when they were closer with mechanics to the originals.

    Fallout 3- a plot has mostly nothing to do with the previouse "sequals". It's a FP RTwP Action RPG, not an ISO TB RPG, and it even has lots of little details and things missing/deleted/changed from the originals.
    FO3 is more like a Fallout spin off, or TES spin off, not based in the same universe, but with the same mechanics plus some mechanics "borrowed" from the Fallout, with the same TES/Oblivion spirit, and with guns.

    Calling Fallout 3 a sequal is like saying that sugar-free coke has a sugar in it, because it's sweet. NO! It doesn't have suger in it, it has something worse...
  10. Per

    Per Vault Consort Staff Member Admin

    Apr 1, 2004
    You'd be a space commander standing on a flashy bridge, looking down on an animated tactical display on a shiny tabletop. Then you could walk around the bridge groping the female space cadets. Or Zerglets as the case may be.
  11. Jebus

    Jebus Background Radiant

    Jan 29, 2004
    I'd pay for that.
  12. Forhekset

    Forhekset Still Mildly Glowing

    Jul 5, 2007
    Not to beat a dead horse regarding how "in 1997 you just didn’t do first-person RPGs", but...Bard's Tale? Might and Magic? Ultima Underworld? And that's not including Bethesda's own FP RPGs.

  13. Ausdoerrt

    Ausdoerrt I should set a custom tit

    Oct 28, 2008
    At the very least, assign a button to "highlight all items" within reach like in STALKER, and make the grabbing range bigger (so that there's no need to aim EXACTLY for every damn object). Looting is sooo ungratifyin that I rarely even bother to take anything unless I need ammo or stims.

    While we're on the looting theme, I should mention it's also ungratifying because most of the time you do not find anything great or unique. You get most of the good stuff off corpses.