Fallout one of the best game franchise revivals
- Thread starter Brother None
- Start date
UncannyGarlic
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Aside from the fact that numerous people here would agree with you, it has some major problems such as: according to Todd Howard, mediocre gunplay, it has mediocre writing, mediocre voice-acting, a broken underlying system (SPECIAL), and various balance issue (VATS, melee vs range, etc.).NiRv4n4 said:
It didn't successfully revive the franchise, it reinvented it. Fallout 3 is to Fallout what Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance is to Baldur's Gate.Herr Mike said:
Also, can we cut out the American politics crap?
shihonage
Made in USSR
While creating a setting for a Fallout-type game it's actually been rather difficult to avoid politics. It made me appreciate just how truly neutral Fallout was, managing to avoid stepping on anyone's toes, as I was scrapping a "Chinese nuclear warship" from my own setting...
DarkCorp
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Edmond Dantès said:
One is slapstick basic humor. Like laughing at someone who farted.
The other is political humor inspired by this person:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nguyễn_Ngọc_Loan
Kinda like the Fallout games.
The thing is that black or dark humor is often not only SUBTLE but sometimes more thought provoking than simply humorous. FO3 and to a barely lesser extent FO2s humor was humor at the pain and suffering of others rather than the situation or psychological attitudes of people.
This picture is a form of dark or black humor. Having a person actively doing the hopscotch is less dark and more slapstick.
This picture is a form of dark or black humor. Having a person actively doing the hopscotch is less dark and more slapstick.
archont
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Herr Mike said:
What scale measures the success of a revival? Money, of course. In terms of profit Fallout 3 was a success. Why change it, if it works?
Herr Mike said:
The revival, from my perspective was a failure because for all intents and purposes, it could never wear the Fallout tag. Bethesda did their vision of a post-apo world with trademarked elements of Fallout in it. Honestly I think it would be better if they did it on a clean slate of intellectual property. Apart from the icons of Fallout like deathclaws, FEV and whatnot, Fallout 3 isn't very Fallout at all.
Herr Mike said:
Both X-Com and Jagged Alliance are unprofitable games to develop. Can you imagine playing Jagged Alliance 1.13 on an xbawks? How about X-Com? Controller issues aside, can you imagine your average console player succesfully playing this game?
Now you know.
Fundamentally Fallout 3 is a mediocre game wrapped up in glory of first two Fallout games. For the uninitiated it’s magnificent, but to the more discerning player it’s hard to stomach, especially compared to the originals. Now if you had never seen a woman before in your life, than Granny would be delicious, but to us who have sampled better…err…it’s not, and that’s Fallout 3. Sorry Granny. 
Not Lost Hope
First time out of the vault
archont said:
Not just unprofitable but impossible. Imagine X-Com randomly generating photorealistic environments ranging from the arctic to desert to jungle to urban. Not gonna happen.
unprofitable ? In which terms. Jagged Alliance was good enough to see a sequel. And its still one of the most known franchises ammong Tourn based fans. Right next to Fallout and X-Com. Saying JA wasnt succesfull is like saying Fallout wasnt succesfull.
Hands down those games have not been Call of Duty-Oblivoin-sell-12421 Million units block busters. But they never have been meant to be such games in the first places. Its companies like Bethesda that think a game like Fallout HAS to be sold to the masses to make profit. Thats a fallacy. Know your limits and resources. Know what you want to deliver and most important know your fan base/target audience. And you can make even with small numbers and salese a succesfull game.
Hands down those games have not been Call of Duty-Oblivoin-sell-12421 Million units block busters. But they never have been meant to be such games in the first places. Its companies like Bethesda that think a game like Fallout HAS to be sold to the masses to make profit. Thats a fallacy. Know your limits and resources. Know what you want to deliver and most important know your fan base/target audience. And you can make even with small numbers and salese a succesfull game.
Nice..Pixote. said:Now if you had never seen a woman before in your life, than Granny would be delicious, but to us who have sampled better…err…it’s not, and that’s Fallout 3. Sorry Granny.
Then it could be easily translated to "An X-Com RTS is unprofitable to develop", which is why they're making an X-Com FPS for today's dumbed down console market.Ausir said:
I don't buy that 'it's unprofitable' bull. How 'profitable' have flight simulators been compared to Call of Shite or whatever, yet 1C still made enough with Il-2 to be making more flight sims. Eagle Dynamics continues to make even more niche and hardcore flight sims. 4X Space titles are supposedly niche and unprofitable, yet Galactic Civilizations and Sins of Solar Empire are classy titles made for not much that have made buckets for their developers. It's only western megapublishers that seem to need to make 10 zillion dollars from every title and castrate it accordingly to try and get every last possible casual gamer buying. Case in point is the new Splinter Cell game. They took out all the stealth, alarms, cameras, limited ammo, multiple ways of progressing, puzzles etc. even though they were making more than enough money with the franchise already just to pick up on more consoletards. Yet then we have people peddling crap that 'stealth games aren't profitable' because they sold less!