Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Fallout 3 Discussion' started by 3rdRate, Nov 9, 2008.
^ I personally thought the RotK was pretty decent. The other two? Yeah, you're right.
sorry if someone else pointed this out but.
I don't think anyone should make a M rated game with all the dialog options looking like it was meant for 10 year olds.
C'mon man! where else do you get complicated dialogs where you can...... SPOILERS!!!!
.... talk a supercomputer into killing himself with very little conversation.....
I want to kill all mutants and ghouls and you will help me.
No I won't. Your a bad guy. Don't do this.
Your right. What was I thinking.I will kill myself.Bye.
Yes well ... I liked the movies though even when I can agree that it is not as good like the Books. But one should be happy that they did not tried to squeze all books in ONE single movie as how they wanted to make it in the first place (from what I heard) but Peter Jackson refused to work on it that way.
Mayb with Fallout 4 ... Bethesda will have more luck ?
I expect that Bethesda with FO4 will be just like Lucas in this youtube short: "It's our story. that's why we're going to be the only ones to play it"
I really tried to like Fallout 3.
I liked Oblivion, I'll admit it. I won't say it was great or didn't have it's flaws but I figure if I can put 300+ hours into a game, even if I never plan to replay it, then I probably got my moneys worth. And thinking about it I haven't replayed a TeS game other than Daggerfall.
So I beat FO3 a few weeks ago with my "good" character build and have been slowly grinding my way through my "neutral" character build. (This time a cute red headed hottie just to keep my interest a little more focused) and I got bored enough to quit playing that build and jump straight to my "evil" character build. After which point I quit playing all together yesterday.
This game has no replay value. The feeling of exploration was fun the first time, but now...
Now I'm looking back to when I beat FO1 over and over and over in the months after it came out, trying different builds, laughing at my INT1 character and his dumbtarded dialogue choices, etc.
I feel like Mulder with his "I want to believe" poster. I wanted to believe that FO3 was more than just Oblivion with FO spraypainted on the box but that's all it has been. But nope, the UFO is just a kid with fishing line and a paper plate and my FO3 game is Oblivions bastard stepkid with Vault Boy stickers on it.
I seriously view replayability as one of the hallmarks of the FO series but BethSoft seems incapable of injecting a game with what it needs to give it more life after the first play through.
Maybe if they didn't dumb it down so you be a jack of all trades on your first playthrough without even trying? I don't think even the DLC can save this thing, it's time to light the corpse on fire and walk away.
I'm bitter and pissed off, what happened to the hope I had when I first put this stupid thing into my XBox?
And yea, I know that "I've finished the game and am dissapointed" threads are a dime a dozen but I wanted to vent. Vat if you feel the need.
"Fallout" 3. *sigh*
I've been telling people what I think at the official forum. I really don't understand the people there. While 99% of them have got to be people who never played Fallout before Fo3, there are actually people there claiming they are Fallout fans, and that Fo3 is a worthy successor of Fo2! Makes no sense. I have no idea what THEY liked about the earlier Fallout titles, but it sure as hell wasn't the RPG element, the strategic combat, the compelling story, the dialogue...
Fallout 3 is shallow. It is not an RPG. It's a FPS with RPG elements. The story is horrible. Super Mutants are the standard enemy. The NPC's are horrible. The dialogue is horrible. The game-design is horrible. Everything is HORRIBLE!!!! The main quest is short as hell (and bad). All quests are flat, total lack of branching, lack of layered quests... All that is present is the graphics, a shell... an empty shell. The game has no soul, or if it has one - it sure as hell ain't Fallouts!
Three dog and the moralism in the game has no place in a Fallout title.
Just copying the factions from the west coast and migrating them east... how.... exciting (not).
I keep thinking over the fact they said the Beth team was fans of fallout 1 and 2 but all I can hear them say in my mind is.
"we like how Fallout 1 and 2 had a simple story and dialog and we really liked the FPS in them allot also so we should make it even more like that."
did they even play Fallout 1 and 2 more than 1 time?
even playing them one time they should have done ALLOT better. it is like they just read reviews about the Fallout games and based Fallout 3 on that.
Yeah Yes, there are actually fallout fans who proclaim fallout 3 as a sequel. Yeah, that's my opinion of the game too. Albeit not liking FO3 as much as FO1 and FO2, it's still a sequel in my books. What's there not to understand? Something like this is very subjective, and it all boils down to tastes and preferences.
Please don't discuss the behaviour of people on other forums here as it is borderline cross-site trolling. We don't care about or discuss others' opinions.
Uh, no. Whether you like it or not boils down to tastes and preferences. If you want to claim something is a sequel, you have to argue why.
Actually, I'll say one doesn't need to argue 'why?'. What made Fallout 'Fallout' to you? Was it the turn based combat, the isometric view, the choices and consequences, the post apocalyptic setting, the dark humour? For me, Fallout 3 proves it is 'fallout' when I'm out exploring the wasteland, when I venture into vaults, when I fight certain creatures from the past games. The feel of the wasteland is perfect in my opinion, it really feels I'm in a fallout world.
Not to say there aren't things in the game which are out of place, because there is, and quite a few. And I hated the game's ending, and I disliked a couple of other things too. But still, I did feel I was playing a fallout game.
And that's why I said this is incredibly subjective; because as there are people who don't see this as a fallout game, there are others who really feel that this is a fallout game. And what is the difference between the two? Nothing, except a different taste, a different preference, a differing opinion with regards to what makes a game 'Fallout' for them.
Who cares? My personal preference, what I enjoyed about Fallout has nothing to do with what the game objectively is. We know what it is, objectively, and we know what it tried to do and why.
The argument you're trying to make is useless. By your standards, I could argue GTA IV is a perfect sequel to GTA I because the street tiles are the same colour and that's what matters to me. Essentially, you know you can't win this argument so instead you're trying to change the requirements of the argument into one that becomes completely useless to both sides. I don't think anyone should be interested in that.
If it is a "proper" sequel, you should be able to show major elements from the originals have remained the same to the sequel. You can indeed argue about that, once the major elements are identified you can have an argument about what has stayed and what hasn't, and how important that is. But that's not what you're trying to do, you're simply trying to kill the argument.
Even supposing that's a valid approach (it isn't), what's the point?
I think FO3 is a Fallout game and maybe a good spinoff but if I think of it as a sequel I have to think it is crap.
to me it is not a sequel but is instead a spinoff that captures the feel of Fallout enough to call it a Fallout game. about like a Tetris game made to look like a pipboy and the blocks looking like things from FO 1 or 2 could be called FOTetris.
And how will you 'objectively' define Fallout 3? You can come up with a list of points why FO3 isn't a sequel, and I can come up with a list of points why FO3 is indeed a sequel. What difference does it make? My point was, if Joe says FO3 isn't a sequel, who is he to say it's not a sequel, when countless other people believe it is a sequel? I know now you'll put forward the quantity argument, that because a lot of people have an opinion, it doesn't make it fact. But really, who are we to judge someone else's view on a game?
I replied to Drekavac because he said he can't believe it that there are people who view FO3 as a real sequel. And I'll repeat, what's there not to believe? You said "who cares what made fallout 'fallout'" - then tell me, by what criteria should a fallout game be defined as a fallout?
None really, there are no rules for this. It's down to what a person believes. Yes, it's what I think it is. Don't agree with me, be my guest, but you can't tell me that because the vaults, the environment, the setting etc made fallout 'fallout' to me I'm wrong.
EDIT: You edited your post, gimme a chance to read the edit.
EDIT2: OK. Why does it matter if I see the game as a sequel or not? It's not like I'm imposing my view on someone. But since Drekavac was so bewildered, I showed him it's nothing out of the ordinary to think FO3 as a sequel.
Ha, this sounds like I'm defending myself. I can assure you I'm not.
Go ahead. So far you haven't made a single argument, only points circumventing the actual argument. Name your list of points of how Fallout 3 is a sequel.
What is this, Planescape? Belief does not shape reality, you can't define fact by anyone's personal opinion.
Besides, I'm not complaining about someone saying "It's my opinion that Fallout 3 is a sequel" , I'm replying to your specific point that any argument towards Fallout 3 being a sequel is false and that it is pure opinion. That, as I said, is nonsense.
Drekavac does not see how people can identify Fallout 3 as a real a sequel because objectively, factually, it is not. That is not clarified by saying "people just think that", because unless people have a reasoning for their opinion, their opinion is irrelevant.
I did not say that. Do not twist my words.
Oh really. And who are you to make the rules?
Really? Name me one thing Fallout 3 does outside of copying vaults and factions/creatures from the originals that uniquely identifies it as Fallout?
The vaults, factions, and creatures are an important part of fallout, so not including them would be silly.
The environment itself; exploring the wasteland really feels you're traveling across a deserted, dangerous, ugly post apocalyptic land. The feel inside the vaults, especially the ones which have no quests at all tied with them, just being there for you to explore and find out more about them on your own. While definitely not turn based, being able to pause and aim at different body parts reminds me of the aiming feature in FO's TB combat. The ghouls, the hostility/uncertainty towards them. Quests such as Replicated Man and Stealing Independence, which offered varying choices and consequences depending on your actions. Lack of ammo also caused me the same frustration I had in the previous fallouts (though after you meet up with the enclave energy weapon ammo is no longer hard to find). The Enclave and the Brotherhood, their conflicts and the fact that they're in the game, both having their agendas. Specifically I liked the outcasts, the fact that they wanted to be like the original BoS, while Elder Lyons wanted to help the wastelanders (etc, you know how it is). The strong 50s theme in the game; the music, president spreading his word etc
Some of the stuff which made me feel like I'm playing a fallout...
Ammo is only scarce if you're incompetent. I don't think I have to explain why the RTwP-fits-TB argument is invalid as well.
Otherwise, your point on the environs is invalid as this applies to all post-apocalyptic games, and thus there is nothing uniquely Fallout about it.
This really leaves the fact that they copy factions and vaults from the original. Does that make it a sequel. Honestly? Think before you answer.
The only real valid point of coincidence is, indeed, quests - and that not very consistently. Setting-wise there is no consistent fit with Fallout other than copying factions. Gameplay-wise there is nothing else to identify it with Fallout 1/2.
So that begs the question...is that enough? Play back to other sequels in your mind, ignore for a fact that you really want it to be enough, and go figure...how can it be? Normally, if you change the gameplay but keep the setting consistent, that alone means you are no longer a sequel, but a spin-off. X-Com as a good example jumps to mind.
Well I'll start out playing Devils advocate...
A fallout fan can say. Fallout had the special system.
Technically it's in FO3
You can say, fallout had perks.
FO3 has perks.
FO had traits
Look, FO3 included some of the classic traits AS perks, they're there, sort of.
And that's what Beth did. They SORT OF included things from Fallout. If you look strictly at the surface you can say FO3 has what made FO did so it's a sequel. It's the implementation that was crap, the depth isn't there.
SPECIAL stats MEANT something in FO 1/2. Did you see how radically different the game was if you played a low INT character? Use INT as your dump stat in FO3, is there any appreciable difference? I won't even get into the butchery of the perks and traits.
FO3 fails at providing depth which is one of the KEY features of FO. The lack of depth is why I won't consider FO3 a true sequel. If BethSoft had called it Fallout: Vault 101 adventures I'd be bitching far less.
And seriously I've done a complete 180 from when I first joined this forum. I joined thinking, whoa, these guys are fucking harsh the game CAN'T be that bad.
But if you look at, if you play it, you are brought face to face with severe flaws and I will not be an apologist for crap because I loved the franchise but at the same time I'm not going to bash the game simply because it wasn't made by Black Isle Studios.
I think I've judged the game fairly on its own merits and flaws and I enjoyed the game first time through, let me be clear on the fact I'm not mindlessly hating on it. I enjoyed my first play through enough to be content with the purchase price. But the game has no replay value, no depth and no soul and it's not and never will be Fallout 3 despite the big fat number BethSoft put on the box.
Don't think that I'm pulling your leg with this one - but what makes Fallout 2 a better sequel than Fallout 3 (ignoring TBC and ISO, just this once)? I mean if the vaults, the factions and creatures aren't fallout-defining, then what makes Fallout 2 a better sequel? There are some sections in FO2 which I sometimes think are 'worse' (in terms of Fallout-loyalty) than FO3's, such as New Reno.