Whats worse- Fallout 1 and 2 elitists or Fallout 3 fanboy kids?

[helios1]

I've noticed there's a ton of people who only played fallout 3 and claim to be the biggest fans of fallout. And they believe things like the brotherhood of steel are the main part of the series or they don't even know a thing about the originals. They tend to dismiss fallout 1 and 2 as old crappy games with bad graphics.
Then there's the old school fallout fans that hate everything about fallout 3 and how its not a true fallout game. I dont see why they hate fallout 3 so much just because its different from the old ones. It is a really good game with fun quests and a fun world to explore. I like New Vegas more because it takes things from the first 2 games back like characters, factions, pop culture references, better characters, and the big 3D fps perspective of fallout 3.
I like both the original 2 games and 3 and new vegas, so why's it so hard to like both?

 

[BonusWaffle]

I think that the reason people take issue with fallout 3 that its very very different from its predecessors. If it started as its own IP and didnt copy paste names from other fallout games I bet a lot of the elitists you are talking about would be alright with it.

 

[naossano]

As a fan of Fo1-Fo2, i don't think Fo3 fans are worse than Fo1-Fo2, as neither of those should be considered as bad people.

The one that should be blamed is Bethesda, that bought the Fallout licence to make a game that isn't faithfull to any of the core elements of the main games, doesn't stand well on its own, and have nothing original. Beside that, considering that the game is very and artificially lenghty, (with 99999 generic places) you tend to be even more pissed off that if you player a shorter bad game.

Considering this is a Fallout made by the publisher, hopefully they will do the same that they did with Interplay's Fallout:Brotherhood of Steel, and consider it non-canon.

Otherwise, there are many differences, so it would depend essentially on who you asking, but if i had to answer about why not liking both.
I would answer IMO that Fo1-Fo2 are RPGs, focused on lenghty dialogs, choices that had consequences, a very believable world, with AAA writters, adult theme, and a fun turn-based gameplay.
On the other hand, writting in Fo3 is poor, to say the least, dialogs are short & generic, the game world seems too chaotic, the combat system is not so horrible, but not much enjoyable, choices has almost no consequences, as a single character is able to do anything. The themes seems off (not always, but often), and you have to wonder if there is a sub-text left or if everything should be taken on the first degree. Beside that, there is also that open-world stuff that isn't managed well, as far more than half of the places are just generic locations with generic monsters, generic chests, with nothing to do but fight.

So in the end, the strenghts of the firsts games were forgotten, and these specific aspects become the weakness of Fo3. So if you intend to play Fo3 with the hope of finding those strenghts, you better skip the game entirelly. On the other hand, if you play Fo3 for the graphics, the open-world and the crappy writting, you could skip Fo1-Fo2 because you won't find those in old game.

So differents tastes, different games.

 

[John McDonnell]

I've noticed there's a ton of people who only played fallout 3 and claim to be the biggest fans of fallout. And they believe things like the brotherhood of steel are the main part of the series or they don't even know a thing about the originals. They tend to dismiss fallout 1 and 2 as old crappy games with bad graphics.
Then there's the old school fallout fans that hate everything about fallout 3 and how its not a true fallout game. I dont see why they hate fallout 3 so much just because its different from the old ones. It is a really good game with fun quests and a fun world to explore. I like New Vegas more because it takes things from the first 2 games back like characters, factions, pop culture references, better characters, and the big 3D fps perspective of fallout 3.
I like both the original 2 games and 3 and new vegas, so why's it so hard to like both?

This happens with pretty much every franchise ever. Fans of the Old Trilogy will tell you the New Trilogy are the worst three films ever made; Sonic fans loathe every game that isn't in 2D; StarCraft fans bitch night and day that Brood War was the best game and SC2 was 'dumbed down' too much.

The truth, if people grow up and swallow it, is that most of the crying is utterly overhyped. Yes, there can be some truth to it - if you want to argue that EA's Syndicate utterly failed to capture the essence, spirit or point of the original Syndicate and Syndicate Wars, I will agree. The first two are squad-based combat / company management games set in a dystopian cyberpunk future with semi-open world aspects, whereas the 'remake' is Call of Duty as envisioned by Apple. While I enjoyed the Syndicate remake on its own merits (it's not great, but it's not 'bad' either), it is clearly not a Syndicate game.

...sorry, I lost my point there.

Yes, FO1+2 vs FO3+NV! Right! So, to answer the question of whether the "Elitists" are right or not, we need to understand what Fallout 1 and 2 are, and whether or not 3 and NV are true to that.
I will say right now that bringing up stuff like "isometric vs first person" is nonsense. In fact, it's flat out stupid. The visual style of the originals was as much due to technical limitations of the time as anything; if Fallout 1 came out today it would almost certainly be first or third person the way 3 and NV are.

I am not going to try and delve deeper into this because I simply don't have enough experience in the originals. However, from what I've learned from pouring through the wikia and watching youtube vids, to me both FO3 and FO:NV are worthy successors to the originals. With FO3 especially, however, we need to remember something; it's not just a sequel, it's a semi-reboot.

Consider: Fallout 3 came out late 2008. Fallout 1 and 2 were 1997 and 1998 respectively. That's a ten year gap between games - you can't just pick up right where you left off after all that time. New players need to be brought up to speed, and Fallout 3 did its best to do that. People bitch about the Brotherhood of Steel in Fallout 3, but I swear they must never have actually played Fallout 3 because they all seem to conveniently forget the Outcasts. If you talk to them, or ask the Brotherhood about them, you'll find that the Outcasts split off because Elder Lyons "went native" and lost focus as to the Brotherhood's true mission. Huh. So there's a Brotherhood of Steel out playing hero, and a Brotherhood of Steel who just want to claim tech, and the latter are adamant that the former are in the wrong and that the Brotherhood "back East" agree with them.

Gee, it's almost like Bethesda were trying to clue the player in that the East Coast BoS are not an accurate representation of the West Cost BoS!

So yeah. Fallout 3 is a worthy sequel, and I see no reason why people can't like both. Could it have been done better? Of course! Every came could be done better, except maybe Tetris. But bitching about what Fallout 3 "could" have been, or "should" have been, achieves nothing. You might as well bitch about what FO1 and FO2 should have done differently.

 

[naossano]

I may recall things that were said in another thread that got recently locked, vatted (unfortunatly) and forgotten, but Fallout 1, as top-down, turn-based video-game wasn't like that because of technical limitation. It was the way devellopers wanted to do it. Even the published was bitching them to have it real-time, and they said "fuck off" in a more polite way. This is a choice of a type of gameplay, that was changed by the new devellopper/publisher, not an improvement of any kind.

About liking both, it is not impossible, forbiden, or whatever else. You are right to like Philip K Dick books & Harry Potter, Larry Clark & Michael Bay. But in the same time, you could aknowledge that those things have not much things in common, and when you ask Uwe Boll, to make the next Hunger Games movie, it is unlikely that your intended target audience is Yasujirō Ozu fanbase. Of course, you can have people that like both, but you cannot be surprise if you don't gety 100% similar audience.

I quote you about one thing. If you want to understand the old audience, you must also understand the things that made Fo1-Fo2 standed on its own, what made so much passion in those who played it, enough to last decades, what made that game not forgotten a year later, what the develloppers intended to do, what they succeeded and not, what was different that any other game of the same era, and many other things. And then, compare those with new fallout.

It won't tell you if the old fans are right or wrong to not like Fo3. It would tell you why they were disapointed by that "sequel", why they felt that the franchise was betrayed, looking nothing close to the tiny bit of the shadow of the previous game general themes. It the end, you could still disagree with them, but you would understand from where they come from.

But in the end, even if the subject could hurt some people feeling, (like Seeing Fo3 as the serial killer son of a respected policeman) i think none of the old fan would be pissed reading a Fo3 fan telling what they liked in Fo3 & disliked in Fo1-Fo2 as none Fo3 fans should be pissed hearing Fo1-Fo2 saying what they loved in Fo1-Fo2 and hated in Fo3.

What i tend to think as pretty close as trolling is trying to reduce the other opinion as sticking to a specific feature, while there are kilopages of arguments in the whole forum that offer much extended answers. You sure could disagree with Fo1-Fo2 fans, but by saying we only hate Fo3 because the Brotherhood of steel are nice guys, is volontarly disregarding tones of threads with Fo1-Fo2 fans that chose to have the patience to explain their point of view in very lenghty ways. Unless the point is trolling of trying to piss them, it would be nicer to stick to what you liked in Fo3, what you thought as similar, what you though as better than Fo1-Fo2, what you though Fo3 brough that made you consider everything else as garbage. Sure, some people would disagree with you, but not for trolling, but to provide a different angle on the subject. Fo1-Fo2 fans will treat you with respect as long as you don't start trolling them. Otherwise, expect some trolling back. But otherwise, you won't find any Fo1-Fo2 fan that would start trolling Fo3 fans at random. The closest you could get are comment about of the dumbing down of Bethesda "RPG". But it is more about Bethesda and their intend to consider their playerbase as dumb monkeys instead of humans with brains, provided that they'll gain money in the process. In that scenario, that playerbase are more victims that accomplices. But if you think that dumbing down is fake, or that the damage as not as big as the others think. None would blame you trying to counter that point of view, with other arguments, as long as you respect the others point of view.

Also, i kind of think that saying it is the same with every franchise, is the same as not bothering to understand the reason. If we go on that ground, then there is no point as doing any sequel of anything as none will bother seing them, or liking them. So, for the sake of generalization, we will put in garbage potentially good sequel, just because sequel mean shit. It's seems like racism, but with quality of medium instead of colors of people.


I kind of think Harry Potter as silly, unimaginative, not original, conservative and cliche. I watched the movie, so my opinion about the movie is justified by what i've seen. And i have the full rights to say to everyone out loud what i thing about those movies. I could be right of wrong, but the opinion itself would have some ground. But i don't bother being disrespectfull of Harry Potter fan. It didn't prevent some well respected analyst and reviewer write in great lenght about them. I am not sure i will read any of their text, except maybe the feminist point of view about Hermione. But as long as i am fully aware that i am not going to take the time to read them, i know i am not entitled to call them idiots, liars or jerks. Even if i have not the same opinion, i cannot say you are fully wrong if i didn't took the time to hear you opinion. On the other hand, if you don't state any opinion or argument to justify it, then it's like you don't have any opinion.

Finally, to answer the title of the thread. Whether or not if you prefer Fo1-Fo2 or Fo3 is a matter of your taste about those games. Whether or not you hate the other fanbase is a matter of how many jerks there are, is those jerks are more vocal, and if yourself, are trying to understand the other guy opinion. On that side, there is absolutly no relationship between being a jerk or not and liking or not a medium. Someone can have an opinion that you think as awfull, but the guy is nice. You could also have someone that have the right same opinion as yourself and be a jerk. Opinion doesn't make the quality of an individual. Respect of others does. But if you don't try to understand the other guy opinion, it is a bit too easy to call him a jerk. It won't help much your cause.

 

[Korin]

Keep it classy, I had to lock that other thread. If y'all start eating each other's faces I'll lock/vat this one too.

"Whats worse- Fallout 1 and 2 elitists or Fallout 3 fanboy kids?"
Answer: Both. They're just video games. People who treat other people's opinions about the games they play like they're personal insults are the worst.

 

[lujo]

I will say right now that bringing up stuff like "isometric vs first person" is nonsense. In fact, it's flat out stupid. The visual style of the originals was as much due to technical limitations of the time as anything; if Fallout 1 came out today it would almost certainly be first or third person the way 3 and NV are.

Not in fact so. NOT bringing "isometric vs. first person" leaves you without a big reason for everybody to respect each other, and when you get down to it - THAT is the only thing behind FO3 hatedom that couldn't, given enough effort be dealt with with a mod. Bringing it into the discussion also lets you see the problem with a hypotetical FO3 fanboy, and understanding why it's important can let you not be one and not have the moderator lock up the thread.

If you're not familiar with the other thread, it started out as outright flaming left and right and at some point actually evolved into a textwall heavy discussion, and then again devolved because everything got narrowed down to the core - the fallout 3 fan in that thread had the "1st/3d person = progress" mentality or "realtime is progress compared to turn based". This simply isn't true.

You don't have to obsess over the originals or even think too highly of them, but fact of the matter is, they were some of the very, very few turn based western RPG games ever made, ever since isometric graphics even showed up as the "future". Yes, at one point, Diablo 1 was revolutionary in terms of graphics, go figure. So was the first Fallout, chew on that for a minute - it even had a remarkably "streamlined" interface for an RPG, that only got to be a buzzword years after. And Fallout 2 was the big bloated sequel which messed up all the lore once upon a time. Fallout 2 was about as disrespectful to the franchise (and common sense, and everything, really), as was Fallout 3, even more so, when it comes to tone, lore, story and all that. But it didn't cause nearly as much outrage, and same people who couldn't take it as a serious Fallout game back then (including me) are still playing it today. Why is that?

Because at the time a turn based RPG wasn't retro, as much as revolutionary. There weren't any RPG games with graphics as good as Fallout which had turn based combat. And there never were any more until very recently. Another thing is that developing NPC's without the need for realistic 3d animation and voicework lets you create more of them - and more dialogue for them, for less money and with less staff. There's specific benefits to it, just as there are to full 3d all voicework approach. However, for ages Fallout franchise was the only one of it's kind - it managed to make the best (so far) out of isometric turn based RPG format.

And Fallout 3 just isn't that. Really, it isn't, that's neither a good thing or a bad thing. But you have to understand that the original Fallouts are very, very unique in the short history of gaming. They got plenty of flaws, and there's no real reason to overpraise them mindlessly, but when you come down to it - they have no competition within their genre. For about a decade, literaly, none at all, as in, everything else either wasn't turn based or wasn't an RPG. So whoever liked that sort of thing, and there's plenty of fans of that, grew to appreciate them even if they didn't like them or one of them initially. That's enough reason to be an originals fan - Fallout 3 can't really compete with what the originals ment or could mean to someone.

Why? Because Fallout 3 is a completely different game which belongs in a different niche, with a lot more competition and completely different values. For a lot of Fallout fans the cry "Why can't they make another game like Fallout 1/2?", for over 10 years, didn't mean "Why can't they make another game set in post apocalyptic america where you shoot stuff!", but simply "Why didn't anyone ever make another good turn based RPG?". So making Fallout 3 into anything BUT that either invalidates a lot of the reasons people loved the original ones for, OR really turns the franchise into something else. What did it get turned into?

An open world sand box 1st/3rd FPS with traces of RPG elements. Sure, I suppose there's people who think it's an awesome game and all, but I'd say it wasn't nearly as significant within that broad genre to warrant serious fanboyism.

So as an answer to the question - being a blind fanboy and fighting about lore and such is equally as silly and pointless, but I can find justifications for being a devoted fan of the originals, while I'm not too sure why anyone'd be a huge fan of Fallout 3 on anything but hugely subjective terms.

BUT! Simply looking at it as a clash between people who prefer different genres of games entirely lets everyone walk out of it without being an idiot.

 

[Per]

The visual style of the originals was as much due to technical limitations of the time as anything

This is simply wrong. 3D games, including 3D RPGs, had been done for many years before Fo1. I don't know what Tim Cain was thinking when he threw together his GURPS prototype, but there's no doubt he could have done a 3D game if that has been his goal. This is just one of those arguments that pop up and get shot down over and over again.

On the topic generally, remember there's a fairly strong self-selection mechanism when it comes to who gets involved in these kinds of discussion. Also, trollish thread titles can contribute possibly?

 

[valcik]

Per is right. I consider Fallout, or Temple of Elemental Evil for instance, a digital simulation of PnP mechanism. For those oldtimers who are familiar with PnP games, the first Fallouts are something like a manna from heaven - turn based combat system placed on grid and observed from high perspective. That's exactly how we've played those PnP games long before the first IBM AT arrived and this mechanism has been digitalised intentionally, not due to hardware limitations.

On the other side, there are bethesdian 3D FPP Fallouts with completely different gameplay - it's adrenaline ride, designed for gamepad stroked tightly with both hands, full of confusing 3D interiors with crazy critters jumping at you from behind every corner, demanding uninterrupted concentration and focus at the screen while played.

Arguing which one is better seems to be pointless to me, it's just a matter of personal preference.

 

[Yamu]

I agree (just as I agree, mostly, with helios1), and Fallout 3 stands on its own merits even if it is completely alien to the first two in all areas except cosmetics. The issue is that its weaknesses are glaring, and they happen to be in the same areas that Fallout 1 and 2 established should be the benchmark of a core game in the series. A property is defined by its content more than its name and aesthetics, but the latter are all that Fallout 3 kept.

Black Isle's Fallouts loomed disproportionately large in the hearts (and even in the lives) of many old-school gamers, and a lot of those fans held out hope for a decade of hardship only to get a game that was nothing like the originals (and hardly bore any resemblance to a traditional RPG at all) and the near-certainty that ever other Fallout game ever released is going to be in the same mold, and whenever they voice those concerns in the Fallout community at large they're largely shat on by newer fans as sand-vagina'd dinosaurs and ingrates. I can understand a degree of antipathy.

On the flipside, the old Fallouts are buggy, slow, and made for a platform that tends to alienate a large swath of modern gamers. Unmodded, they're also ugly and clunky and prone to all kinds of bad juju. Newer fans come into communities of old-timers and get shat on for not knowing that what they're saying has been gone over a thousand times and is typically taken exclusively as trollbait rather than serious discussion. They also skew younger, with many of them having grown up in a generation sensitized to equate criticism with insult and never having known life without the tribalizing influence of mass telecom. I can understand their angle, too.

I say both camps are just ducky, and I can see why one side or another would have trouble extending their enjoyment of one generation of the franchise to another. Rather than ask "can't we all just agree they're all good?," I think the more pertinent question is "why treat opinions like attacks?"

 

[King_Rocket]

Both are equally bad, extremists in all forms are never a good thing, I prefer a more objective unbiased view.

 

[naossano]

I don't think it is a bad thing to be a Fallout 3 fanboy a Fallout 1 & 2 elitist, or even a Fallout fetishist that have all the merchandizing at home and walk in the street in a home-made vault suit, trying to talk like the master.

My complain about possible troll was more about people from clan A are saying out loud that people from clan B are thinking X, even if people from clan B spent thousands of hours stating that they are thinking Y. So, either you don't know and admit it or taking a guess. Or you took the time to read and admit that those people are thinking Y. If you state purposly that people are thinking X while knowing that they think Y, you are asking for troubles. It remind me some sort of competitions, like presidential election, candidate A can only win if candidate B fails. So candidate A won't hesitate to say that candidate will raise taxes, even if Candidate B said many times that he won't. All of this because candidate A don't care about respecting candidate B. He just want to win at any cost and isn't above lying. Here, we want to share our opinion, and debate about them, not having someone magically say that we don't think what we said. You don't need to tell what clan B are thinking. As a member from clan A, you should tell us what clan A think. And even there, you even disregard the fact that in the Clan A, there are many individual people that have differents thoughts on the issue. So ideally, it is better not talking about clan A & B, but rather of individual. Me username001 think that, i disagree with username001 statement about stuff001 but i agree about stuff002. If you start to consider as groups instead of as people, and consider entitled to talk instead others, the debate seems biased to me.

Plus i don't see the point in having a divided community, as we could all be together agains't Bethesda.

 

[lujo]

^ The last one is actually true. Bethesda could put out a original-like DLC based old-school RPG based on Fallout AND a better open world sandbox shooter, and make a big bunch of money. Just rent the franchise rights to a studio willing to make it. Everyone proffits.

 

[woo1108]

People who likes Fo1,2 usually can enjoy other good RPGs.
and People who worships fo3 usually worshipping beth.

 

[fred2]

I've noticed there's a ton of people who only played fallout 3 and claim to be the biggest fans of fallout. And they believe things like the brotherhood of steel are the main part of the series or they don't even know a thing about the originals. They tend to dismiss fallout 1 and 2 as old crappy games with bad graphics.

I can understand them. FO3 is more Action-RPG then FO1/2 Classical RPG style, and the graphics/UI barrier is indeed high for people who grew today (it's like watching old scifi movies, even with the nostalgia goggles you can't but think how ridicules most of the scenery is).

So, I don't know if in their place I'd have wasted time playing FO1/2 just because I played Fo3. (Anyone seen that gameplay by Chris Avellone that he was forced to play for eternity? he clearly didn't enjoy that.. does it says anything about him?!) With that being said, until those kids gain some more experience and understanding what quality means, all I have to say is: "Get off my lawn" !

Then there's the old school fallout fans that hate everything about fallout 3 and how its not a true fallout game. I dont see why they hate fallout 3 so much just because its different from the old ones. It is a really good game with fun quests and a fun world to explore.

I don't know about hate, but I think that any person who see his childhood dream chatters like a snowball dropped from 10 stories high, will be disappointed and probably resentful because it likely isn't the first time that happened. ( besides everyone hate to grow old and find himself to be pushed aside). If Fo3 was my first game I'd probably enjoyed it very much, but as it is it wasn't a good game for me, plus I am tired of open world games.

 

[durstlimpbizkit]

I think you're just getting a mixture of new and old fans and unfortunately you've got a fully immersive RPG experience with the older series and a more new generation gaming watered down RPG but still immersive experience as well. Of course there's going to be 'purists' and fanboys out there to draw their lines in the sand but I speak from the benefit of being a child when I played the original series and was a man by the time F3 ended up making its debut.

To that credit I think the new and old games are all fantastic and they have their strengths. Despite F3 taking liberties with the storyline and building on the universe of the state of the new world I think you couldn't ask for a better preservation of the 'spirit' of what makes Fallout great. Once you get over the people involved with F3 and the super mutants of DC and the BoS heavily being involved; the lore that's borrowed from the first games and the atmosphere could not be better portrayed.

I respect both series for what they've done but I don't think F3 deserves as much hate as it garners from people still loyal to the original format. A lot of people don't like FPS games and I don't blame them for that; but as far as handing the reins over to someone else and expansion of canon, you can't ask for better than the folks at Bethesda. They take a lot of care in their products and I'm not just trying to make them feel special about themselves. They're not just slapping a name on a package and expecting people to deal with it.

 

[naossano]

Actually, if you could say that modern RPG are less complex than old ones, Bethesda seems to make things even worse than other develloppers of the same era.. Their games do not even look like RPG. Some other user have posted a video that sum it up greatly the situation with a very neutral tone that can't be accused of elitism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JweTAhyR4o0

Also, it is possible to be better. We have New Vegas that is FAAAAAR better than Fallout 3. (like dinosaurs are far bigger than ants) But on other hand, is there a game that is worse than Fallout 3 ? Is it even possible to be worse when trying hard ? Somehow, a positive answer would be frightening...

 

[Cyberfiend]

Both sides are pretty dumb when they take it to such ridiculous extremes imo.

 

[durstlimpbizkit]

Both sides are pretty dumb when they take it to such ridiculous extremes imo.

Agreed.

Somewhere along the line enjoying something that someone else doesn't becomes a battle instead of a preference. I like the old and new properties but I don't want to disembowel anyone who disagrees with me. There's a reason why so many people love F3 and it's because it's something different that never really graced FPS titles before.

When in Rome I guess.

 

[Madae]

People should stop choosing sides and play games for what they're worth. It's the equivalent of saying you were a fan of a band before they made it big. The whole thing is just ridiculous, privileged people thinking they're better than everyone else for one reason or another. Ask yourself how important it is to say you're the biggest and bestest fan of a game, think about it, and then tell me how moronic you sound when you push that opinion on someone else. Everyone needs to lighten up.

However, I will concede that I've always found Bethesda's writing to be a bit on the elementary side. They've never been very good at story (in my opinion)... I suppose some might argue in favor of Morrowind, maybe even Oblivion, but I've played tons of great RPG's, and rating them to the latest and greatest Bethesda games is apples to oranges. Bethesda games have always been about open exploration, and they do it really well. I'll give story and writing a pass in favor of the great gameplay opportunities. Hell, I probably haven't even done 1/20th of the story in Skyrim - I always stop the main quest right after the first dragon (if I even do that, cause I hate the random dragon fights usually), so I don't even give them a chance anymore, and yet I've put hundreds of hours in that game.