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

Discussion in 'General Fallout Discussion' started by helios1, Mar 10, 2014.

  1. FOvet

    FOvet Wandering the Wastelands

    344
    Aug 26, 2012
    As someone else said, extremists of all types are both annoying as hell, and neither one is worse--they are both just as bad. I also find it highly annoying how someone comes on the forum, posts a discussion about FO3, and they get accused of being trolls. That kinda stuff grates on my nerves too--it's like being told you are a troll because you have an opinion that differs from the mainstream (and the mainstream at NMA is that FO3/NV suck and FO1 and 2 are the gods of the gaming industry).

    Personally, I love all 4 of the games (haven't gotten into Tactics yet). While one can argue the point of whether or not FO3 and New Vegas are genuine RPGs, they are still Fallout, they have RP elements to them, they definitely keep to the spirit of the series. They are new, they drew new attention to Fallout, and regardless of whether you think FO3 and NV suck ass or are amazing games, if you like Fallout, you ought to appreciate the fact that the series has been given new life. We fans of the old games may yet get that one amazing gem we've been waiting for that blends the best of the new generation with that of the old generation--we just have to be patient. I believe it will happen eventually, maybe with the next Fallout game, maybe it will take a few. It will come--and when it does, we have Fallout 3 and Bethesda to thank for it.

    I'm going to go ahead and get in my fire-retardant suit now, and maybe call the fire department because that's probably going to piss people off, but it is what it is. Both extremists on either side need to chill and remember, it's a game for one, and people are allowed to have differing opinions for two--without having their heads lopped off.
     
  2. Grievous

    Grievous First time out of the vault

    22
    Mar 29, 2014
    I will say that this isn't the only video game franchise I've encountered with that had a large pause between sequels and suddenly a new title appears and behaves rather differently to the original format.
    Sometimes the publisher and developer company stays the same, but checking the credits will show that the actual individual developers between the old and new aren't always the same.

    Therefor it leads to some odd confusion as to why did the new guys decided to change the old formula, and by change I mean making a drastic complete rewrite of esthetics and tone and interactivity.

    Compounded by the possibility that the new iteration draws in new fans, sometimes even more than all the old fans, therefor proving that the new formula is successful.
    Arguments then explodes when the two different generation of fans find it impossible to understand why is it one group doesn't share the same tastes as the other. But of course, the real arguments should have took place with the developers and publishers, not the audience members who didn't had control of the situation to begin with.

    What's sad then is that, since the developers and publishers can always change and alter the franchise you appreciate, you can one day find yourself facing new elements that simply were not of the same kind as those that lead you to follow the franchise to begin with.
    Thus it becomes quite possible that you'll never see a new sequel that matches the specifics of what made you a fan of the series in the first place.

    That is the worse part in my opinion, not the arguments between the several groups of fans, but the loss of hope for the 'ideal sequel' that could have had been.

    This doesn't mean you can't appreciate the new iterations, of course not, it's terrible to play something just to spite at it. But you do wish that it wasn't 'this' to begin with.
     
  3. FOvet

    FOvet Wandering the Wastelands

    344
    Aug 26, 2012
    That brings to mind another famous game series--Silent Hill. As you get into the more modern silent hill games, the very things that made the game itself "Silent Hill" have started to vanish entirely--until it's on the verge of becoming just another slash-em survival horror. I can understand and relate to this, but change doesn't necessarily mean a bad thing either. Sometimes it takes a few shitty attempts to make something great. The first Zelda games weren't exactly amazing by any stretch of the imagination--and look, it turned into amazing titles like A Link to the Past, Ocarina of Time, and Majora's Mask.

    They'll get it right, just give them time :)
     
  4. naossano

    naossano So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Oct 19, 2006
    Silent Hill was quite different.

    The Silent Hill team, an team that made only for the first few games, with people not used in working together, already had two very opposed oppinion about the games & the main city.
    One group was mainly about psychology, the core of SH2 & SH4.
    The other group was mainly about sect and magic, the core of SH1 & SH3. (even if in the four games both elements existed in some way)
    So it they had quite hard time merging the two universes, and never totally agreed on what Silent Hill was about.
    By SH4, the team considered they had finished working of Silent Hill and were wanting to work on something else.
    Silent Hill 4 wasn't supposed to be a Silent Hill game. There was the same team and the same genre, so the publishers chose to call "The Room" a "Silent Hill 4".
    So the team didn't want to do Silent Hill any more, the publishers had to rely on different new devellopers, that had varying success, but we can't say for now, that they finally found the devellopper that could carry the torch from the original Silent Hill team.
    They are still looking and may will find it someday.

    It is quite different that Beth refusing help from original dev in sequels, (help that was proposed) sometimes allowing them to do spin-off, but with a limited support, and giving their own team many undeserved praise.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2014
  5. BigBoss

    BigBoss Your Local Scrub

    957
    Dec 24, 2012
    This whole question is like saying "Whose worse, Xbox or PlayStation fans?"

    Neither are worse. Both have their pros and cons. The fact that there are forum long arguments on it is fucking stupid, but I guess there's nothing better to do. Fallout 1 is my favorite game (not just in the FO series, but period), but that doesn't mean I don't enjoy playing Fallout 3 every now an then. To me Fallout 3 brought back memories of my first playthrough of Fallout 1 (not of the gameplay of course, but the Fallout "universe" and retro-50ness) and seemed to represent many of the "dark elements" of the post-apocalyptic world like Fallout 1 did. Theres nothing wrong with liking both. Take Grand Theft Auto for example. It has evolved many times, from the 2D GTA 1 and 2, to 3D GTA3, GTA: San Andreas, and Vice City, and then the HD games GTA 4 and GTA 5. Saying that you only like the 3D, 2D, or even HD versions is either holding on to the past, or refusing to see what the past had to offer (depending on said choice). But enjoying them all means you have an open mindset, and won't flip a fucking lid because it was a different and not what you expected.

    A good game is a good game, and vice versa. Being different from your predecessors doesn't make the game "bad". Everything eventually evolves. Evolution means progress. Many of the series that refused to evolve ended up dying out. Metal Gear Solid is a good example of how evolving the gameplay of your series brings success.

    When it boils down to it, its always a simple matter of personal opinion.
     
  6. naossano

    naossano So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Oct 19, 2006
    Nice though, but i doubt this has any connection with the argument between Fo3 fans & Fo3 haters.

    There are legit complains about the change of gameplay and perspective, but the biggest complains come with the poor quality of writting, the lack of dialogs, the lack of actual NPC, the inconsistencies within the fallout universe, the internal inconsistencies (without even considering it as a Fallout, the game contradict himself), the illogical stuff, the lack of choices, especially the lack of consequences of those choices, the lack of replayability, as you can do everything in 1-2 playthrough, the fact that the character building became useless, as you can master everything in the end, the quantity over quality, the decrease of the grey area, the inability to pick sides, the Bethesda vision about provided more sceneries to see instead of more things to do, the overload of "generic" contents instead of "unique" contents, the lack of cities, factions, the fact that people didn't recovered in 200 years. (It means that you do nothing, like your father did nothing, like your grand-father, your grand-grand-father, his own grand-grand father... You can believe this ?), amongs many other things agains't what defined what was Fallout, for the fans, and for the develloppers themselves, as read in their own statements, for no gain in exchange. Those things aren't about technical/engine stuff, but the crippling lack of skills from the Fo3 team.

    You can say that you can like their general style, and i am not arguing about this, but i think it is too easy to just disregard people that don't like Fo3, just because the engine is different. FoNV use the same engine than Fo3, and it not only correct most issues from Fo3, but also improves many things from Fo1-Fo2. (not all, although). Also you will find here many thread in which people explain why they formed their opinion. Saying it is just about engine could make some of us think you purposly ignored those explanations, in order to disregard their opinion, without commenting the actual reasons they stated. It is too easy.

    About GTA, they changed perspective after GTA II, but they didn't changed much of the gameplay. The old games were already open-world in which you could steal cars, go everywhere, kill people at random, increase you bad reputation with the police, be hunted down. The car in traffic simulator system was already more important that the plot. Also, they didn't stopped making top-down games. The HD is not much different than the SD, except that there are a few more lags. But, there are GTA games that have a better plot than others, or allow more things to do. You could discuss about them, but i don't think there would be any comment specific from the date of these games.

    Saying people hate new games just because they are new, with no others reasons, feels like a myth, conveniently invented, just for the sake of disregarding people that don't like your favorite episode, without taking any second to read any of their reasons.

    Liking Fo3 or not is a matter of taste, of personnal opinion. Liking what Fo3 provides (if it does) or hating what Fo1-Fo2-FoNV provides also are matter of taste.

    But saying that the other guy said X while he kept saying Y thousand of times, it is lie, not taste.

    I also agree that there is nothing wrong in liking both Fo1 & Fo3, like there is nothing wrong in liking Age Of Empires, Pokemon, Silent Hill and Borderlands. But in the end, you can't expect people that liked Tetris, to like these four games.

    To remain on topic, they are, indeed, jerks on both sides. But this is not liking or hating Fo3 that making those guys jerks. They are people with both opinion. Amongs both groups, they are jerks and good guys. It is more likely that the jerks from one group are more easily seen by the guys from the other groups, mostly because they discuss more with people with a different opinion, than people agreeing with them.

    PS: I mainly answer to some part of your post, not the general intent of it, and also took into account other messages i've seen around. I hope you don't take it personnally.
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2014
  7. SnapSlav

    SnapSlav NMA's local DotA fanatic

    Jul 1, 2012
    I'm gonna separate a few of your statements and mix-and-match them around a bit, FOvet, just so I can keep their "thematic messages" consistent with what I'm about to address. Not trying to misquote you at all.
    I'd say extremists on both sides are just as bad. Though to be fair, when you DO start venturing away from either extreme and closer to moderation, one side does have slightly more sensibility than the other. Not much, but some. The utter extreme of the elitists are unreasonably allergic to change and updates, but the more moderate ones simply enjoy great games. The utter extreme of the fanboys are just clueless morons who can't be bothered to understand why their game isn't loved by everyone as much as them, but the more moderate ones at the very least have genuine difficulty accepting the fact that what they like is NOT a real great game. Of course, without qualification that would just be blowing smoke up my own ass, but I feel like I have granted substance to this argument on many, many occasions, so for once I'd just like to not rehash that all over again, if possible. The best perspective seems to lie ever-so-slightly in the favor of the nostalgia-junkies' camp. VERY Slightly; I just mean it's not perfectly in the center of the 2 extremes. So, if there was any answer to the central question of "Which is worse?" I suppose it would be the fanboys over the elitists, if only because their more moderate incarnations aren't as reasonable as their opponent's more moderate incarnations. But they're still both extremes, so that would be an answer based on technicality alone, so.....

    The final note of being grateful for Bethesda/FO3 for getting a wider audience I'd have to say it rather moot, because it's reaching out for wider audiences that has been plaguing the game's industry as a whole this last generation (not just the Fallout series), not helping it. What the fans of the series that already existed got out of the modern titles was hordes of players coming along, proclaiming their love for "the series" without ever having played any of the games outside of FO3, and singing endless praise about something else to others that has nothing to do with them. That was never something to be thankful for. What we did get was SOME players who "migrated" over to the originals after playing the modern game(s), a decent chunk of which were reasonable people who could recognize in hindsight that the "amazing" game that got them into the series was in actuality not very amazing. But the originals were always there, and it didn't take a new game to bring them to anyone's attention. There were other options for who might purchase the rights to the series and make the next title, so since it was hypothetically possible that a better game could have been made in FO3's place it's not necessarily obligatory to be thankful to what we got for the droves of people we shouldn't be grateful for and the comparatively tiny number of people we can very well appreciate the addition of "into the ranks". Essentially, there really is no cause to be grateful of any of that, because the originals were always here, and no new game was going to change that. Steam "gave them new life", as did GOG, so need we really center our thanks on something else that did harm as as well as good?

    But as for the primary point, I will agree that the knee-jerk reaction is unnecessarily vulgar. At the same time, the compulsion for all these fanboys (and let's be honest, they are fanboys) to come along, resurrect ooooooold topics with ideas that have already been voiced before, long before they came along, and do all of this WITHOUT reading those original topics, and WITH creating their very own, new incarnation of the same tired rhetoric? While I'm not condoning the knee-jerk vitriol, I do want to point out that there's a recurring theme providing legitimate cause to be at least a little upset and/or sick and tired of. There's fertile ground for debate in all things, regardless of how much that ground has been tread time after time, but when newcomers disregard the best material and just willfully venture into a website that ought to be regarded as "hostile territory" and stake their claim in the most obnoxious fashion possible, you have to acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of reactions are rooted in something totally understandable. They could be handled better, absolutely, but at their core the basic reaction is at least understandable.

    The most recent example of this nonsense that I can recall was stirred up by a user who spent the majority of their time on this site just deliberately stirring shit up, ultimately getting banned in the end- a VERY difficult accomplishment, on NMA! Responding to that is certainly nothing less than falling for trolling, in which case those who partook have only themselves to blame. But it did provide opportunity to tread that fertile ground once more, and in that opportunity I happily partook. Sadly, the trolls and the people falling into their troll traps make sifting through the decent conversation a little tricky, but then again most of the time you can just select the lengthier posts (wink wink =D) and that will lead you to the more enjoyable conversation. It's disgusting that people fall for trolling, and it's disgusting that a solid idea with good purpose in existing has been corrupted over time on this forum into a frothing compulsive explosive reaction. Sometimes, amidst all of that, there's still tiny gems to be appreciated. =)

    That won't spare you from the pitchforks and the beheadings, don't forget.

    I'm reminded of what became of Dead Space, personally. Lots of people go off on massive hateful tangents about what happened to the franchise as of DS3, but quite frankly I LOVED DS3. Was it overall much more action-heavy that its predecessors? Sure, but it had some AMAZING moments of tension-building and atmosphere well beyond what the previous titles had. Just floating around in space- actual space, not being locked to a ship's surface, or just flying around in a zero-g tunnel -with no sound, and unsettling music reminiscent of the Aliens franchise, and the perpetual need to combat your sense of orientation were excellent parts of the game. I lost hours just loitering during space walks because of how much I loved those parts; and that was in the first quarter of the game! Anywho, to avoid deviating from the topic too far, I just feel that it can't be stressed enough that change to a series ISN'T always bad. DS3 could have been better, no doubt, but it wasn't all "change"'s fault that it was lacking in certain areas. Much of it had to do with things like violent shifts from good writing to silly writing, predictable moments, and so on.

    Likewise, FO3 wasn't a bad game due to change, alone. While I was reading about it in the likes of "Game Informer" and other magazines following the game's development back in 2006-2007, I had WAY bigger hang-ups on them calling the biggest of the Super Mutants "Behemoths", because THAT was the name of the most evil (in the break-your-keyboard-out-of-sheer-frustration sense) enemy you had to face from another, really great Fallout title. I was open to the idea of them explaining why Super Mutants were all the way East to the nation's capitol. I was open to the idea of the game being "optionally third person perspective" but focusing on first person gameplay. I was open to change, and many die-hard Fallout fans at the time were, too. The true disappointment came provided by the game itself, not unreasonably highly built-up expectations. Did I miss the Pipboy2000? Sure, but I had nothing against the IDEA of a smaller, wrist-mounted Pipboy3000; but the game's end-result? Ugh, disappointing. Did I want isometric gameplay? Yeah, but they provided a third-person camera which hadn't been done before in Bethesda's previous works, so I was willing to overlook that. But the end-result of the camera? TERRIBLE idea. Why zoom in on "fine details" that really don't look that good at all? Don't show off what you haven't polished, after all. I wrote tons of praise for FO3 in the past, and I'm not going back and retroactively removing my compliments. I still dislike the game, but it's a very, very, veeeeeeery distant "second worst" title of the series compared to it-which-shan't-be-named, but at least FO3 was an entertaining ride if you shut off your brain and tried not to notice all of the bad things. I replayed it many times until FONV came along (a vastly superior game, even if it carries its own set of faults), which says a lot.

    Barring aside the grammatical and spelling errors, well said. =)
     
  8. woo1108

    woo1108 Vault Senior Citizen

    Sep 27, 2012
    BTW what is definition of Fo1 & 2 elitists?
    just hating fo3?

    if it means people who think other RPGS are trashes but Fo1,2 , I haven't seen any elitists.
    but I have seen many people criticising "rpg"s in theses days.(actually, I'm one of them)
    they don't praise Fallout 1& 2 only but some newer games which still have good RPG elements.
    so I don't think they criticising RPGs(I don't think they don't deserve name of RPG though) because they are elitists
    but because they know what is good RPG.
    they played and know both older gamaes and newer games.
    and they know new things are not always good.

    peoeple who don't like the games which they like is being criticise usually criticise them elitist.
    but on the other hand, they cirticising older games or good RPGs as outdated shit or have bad gtraphic without playing it.
    fo3 fanboys are not the only one to do that.
    they won't play older games but just newer games.
    they don't know anything about older games.
    they just believe new things are better especially graphic.

    so who is worse? I think less experienced fanboys are worse
     
  9. BigBoss

    BigBoss Your Local Scrub

    957
    Dec 24, 2012

    Point taken, I still believe when GTA switched from 2D, to 3D, to HD they made great leaps and bounds though. Yeah there are based off and built on the same general ideas, but I still can't help playing one from a different generation and feeling like a million things are different. Its kind of like saying that, since Fallout 3 used SPECIAL, the same factions, and the same perks, its still based of the original ideals of fallout. Imo.
     
  10. SnapSlav

    SnapSlav NMA's local DotA fanatic

    Jul 1, 2012
    But it didn't really do any of those things. All of that was "the same" in name, only. SPECIAL didn't do anything to your character, or limit them in any significant way, whereas your primary stat allocation was of pivotal importance in the original games. There were Perks of the same name that made a return, but they did different things. Because the engine was completely different, Perks had none of the same impact as they did in the original titles. The factions were a terrible bastardization of what they used to be, which many sympathizers for the game have argued were "done well", but the fact of the matter is that they could've been done far worse, but that doesn't mean they were done well AT ALL.

    There were elements OF Fallout in FO3, but they were anything but genuine. It cannot be avoided, but just having things with the same names does not make them of the same spirit; FOBOS proved this without equal. To say that what Bethesda did was at least incorporate the spirit of these ideas from the old games into the new game is like saying that someone's fan-fiction did the focus of their obsession justice; it's just not true.
     
  11. BigBoss

    BigBoss Your Local Scrub

    957
    Dec 24, 2012
    Right, if we come to the topic of analyzing Fallout 3 and attempting to take everything for granted, whereas we reach our current topic again on OG Fallout elitists and Fallout 3 hardcore fans (consider myself neither. I'm more of a hybrid Fallout fan, even though Fallout 1 was my first ((whereas many people who experienced Fallout 1 or 2 first hate Fallout 3, I, for points stated really don't). Only Fallout games I ever had a problem with were Tactics/BOS.

    When it comes down to "canon" though, some people don't consider Fallout 3 canon. I like to do something a little different. I separate "canon" into East-West, and the actions of either games have yet to effect eachother they can remain safely separated. Only thing that I consider canon in both "universes" (some can say), is Pre-War jargon and bits of information on terminals here and there from Fallout 3 (which I actually liked how they displayed Pre-War America and the 50's retroverse).

    EDIT: Also I wanted to point out that once I first sat down to playing Fallout 3 I hated it (and like a lot of people knew/figured I was going to hate it the moment they announced it under a Bethesda name, BIS and Zenimax have do very different ways of making games and figured this wouldn't turn out in any way that would make me like it. ((Roshambo had a lot of influence on my opinion He had a lot of influence everywhere though. He was just an influential guy I guess)). The first time I beat it (DLC's hadn't came out yet) I put it down and never picked up again until about 2 years later. When I played it I felt similarly extremely close to my Fallout 1 playthroughs. As I generally played through it more and more, each time doing more of the side missions, exploring more and more areas people normally just pass by, my "close-mindedness" (you could say) started to down size and I kept an open mind to everything I saw and did, and judged correctly. I'm not saying that there weren't problems with Fallout 3, I'm just saying that its nowhere near as fucked up as many people make it out to be. I also remembered that this was Bethesda's very first time with a Fallout game (with a history of going in the exact opposite path in the way of RPG gaming). While they weren't able to come close to the combat-skill systems of the original Fallout(s), they did an extremely great job of capturing post-war Fallout America, not just through the environment (which some people say was bleak), but through several in-game messages, diaries, and even posters one could find. The combat system wasn't a complete disaster either. I already knew that it wasn't going to be anything close to Fallout 1 and 2, and once I accepted that I was able to judge it not with FO 1/2 in mind but with this new generation and (then) next-gen gaming ideals. In this, they did as good as anyone would of without going through and taking care of every little AI bug (which if one looks at Fallout 2, we know the developers have deadlines and could never achieve that. Thats left up to the modding community).

    As for the factions, calling them bastardizations just seems like something someone with a general hatred would say. First of all, I know people say that they did, but Bethesda wan't to please fans by bringing back old factions, whil at the same time doing their own thing. This is why they create their own version of the Brotherhood of Steel. They even made the Outcasts to please fans. Bethesda did everything in their power to please old-school fans like us, short of completely re-doing the game in a turn-based manner (hell they even created the VATS system for people who were wondering about turn-based combat, which was probably as close as they could get without, again spending another 5 million dollars to add a few quirks just to please "everybody"). People also seem to forget that Bethesda had to please both the original Fallout fanbase, and the new Fallout fanbase who were already used to their TES games (And their pre-existing fan base is, unfortunately, must larger than ours. Even then though, you can tell they made a few attempts to please the OG's).
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2014
  12. SnapSlav

    SnapSlav NMA's local DotA fanatic

    Jul 1, 2012
    You're preaching to the choir when addressing me. I'm not a FO1/2 Purist, I just have a critical mind and I love good games. So my despondency towards FO3 has been well-earned over the years. Unlike you, I didn't go into the game with some tainted expectations of it sucking nor was I expecting to hate it the moment I picked it up. I got rid of those thoughts mere hours after I first heard the news that Bethesda had bought the rights to the franchise. I had years to prepare for the coming of FO3, and I was looking forward to it the entire time. I replayed the first games here and there, but I'd memorized everything about the series long ago, so it was never to "refresh my memory" but rather I just wanted to enjoy them some more. Diablo II was the first game to come along that managed to pull me away from FO2, and when I was done with that, coming back to FO2 just felt natural. I missed it, and missing it just reminded me that I was never going to get a sequel, so I did my best to enjoy it. Come along aforementioned news of the acquisition of the rights and plans to make a sequel, and after very quickly getting over any reservations about that and deciding that I'd go in with an open mind, I was over the moon with joy.

    By the time the game actually came OUT, I'd been starved for more Fallout, so I blindly went in with eyes full of wonder and a mind filled with glee. I loved the game when I played it, and tried my best to read the massive guide for tips on how to best pimp out my Lone Wanderer in this very foreign gameplay without spoiling myself on the story details (which didn't work out as well as I hoped, but I tried). All it took was time for that amazement to subside and allow for my normal, critical analysis to return to me, and I was quickly able to assess that the game wasn't nearly as great as I'd given it credit for. One thing I did do was give FO3 the benefit of the doubt that somehow its visuals just didn't look like they could because I was running it on an old rig and attempting to play the game on moderate settings made my system scream in agony. So with plans already in the works to build a new, bitchin PC on the horizon, I was expecting to be able to replay the game and glare at something far superior to what I had first been exposed to. There were a few moments that it did get a whistle of appreciation out of me, but those were mostly just seeing things as mundane as reflection effects on the water. I was still disappointed to see that the overall appearance of the game, and the stiff animations, and many things I'd hypothesized might improve, remained as I remembered them.

    I wrote my original review of the game shortly after beating it for the 5th or 6th time, roughly a month or 2 after the game had come out (work was taking a lot out of me, so I could only play it for 4 hours at a time, maximum) and at the time my mind was still sparkling with appreciation for it, so I was very receptive to it. But I was still not blindly loyal nor was I showering it with praise. I pointed out how stupid it was that on my 4th character I was able to slaughter the entire residents of Megaton with my bare hands, buck naked, because the combat design was so riddled with flaws, but I did so with humor and a light heart. I pointed out tests I'd run to figure out how some of the mechanics worked and identified serious game-breaking faults as a result, but I measured that with my overall enjoyment that the game provided me. I never approached FO3 with abject hatred, but anyone with a healthy level of common sense cannot come away from the game WITHOUT realizing it's not a great game. Cathartic, sure. Entertaining, definitely. But NOT great. Barely even good. It's not being an elitist of the originals to say that when you have very good reasons grounded in solid, critical analysis of the game taken from a very open-minded perspective. To say that FO3 is a bad Fallout game, and at best a decent game, it's either following someone else's lead or just being a realist.

    This couldn't be further from the truth. As I explained above, I wasn't filled with general hatred towards the game at all. It took years for me to find anything I could remotely call "hatred" towards the fanboys, but I was always filled with contempt for fanboys of any topic or subject. The factions in FO3 were bastardizations, by definition, because they were little more than a fan-fiction fan-service by Bethesda for the original fans, but they didn't hold to the factions (or much of any of the material from the originals) in a genuine fashion, they just ripped them off. Yes, FO3 goes out of its way to showcase that the "knights of the wasteland" BOS is "not" the normal BOS, but their antithesis in the Outcasts hardly represented the true BOS either. They were both the Brotherhood in name only, mimicking their namesake without any heart to substantiate their existence other than "because Fallout". The Enclave received the worse end of the deal by taking a group that SEEMED cartoonishly evil on the outside, but upon closer inspection was deeply entrenched in very real social indoctrination that you'd realize their darkness was very real and very possible, and they reduced that into that shallow assessment of simply being a cartoonishly evil group all over again. The depth to their indoctrination was all gone. They solidarity had been erased by the writer's poor attempts at mimicking another original idea with substance, contradicting the idea in the process, and we were left with a thing that should have never existed. Something that could have taken its form in the exact same manner but been a far superior antagonizing faction had they just changed the name and not called them the Enclave.

    In either group's case, the idea that they would migrate so far across so much desolate and hostile terrain was just shoehorned in for convenience, not practicality or for any decent reason. It was just more of that fan-fiction fan-service. FOT made clear that Eastward expansions by the Brotherhood were little more than deliberate expulsions of unwanted members, and both originals made it very clear that they were far too keen to isolate themselves to even bother with expansion, no matter the cause. After all, a small group of the faction's founders made the fatal mistake to attempt an expedition for supplies and tech, and their folly became a boogeyman horror story and a convenient death trap to send unwanted newcomers. FO2 emphasized over and over that the Enclave's interested in the mainland were geographical alone, and that they had absolutely no interest in its inhabitants, it was it just a bad idea to re-imagine them as some group interested in winning over the hearts of the people with their propaganda while still slaughtering them the second they laid eyes on any. The real Enclave saw the rest of the world as its enemy, so their instant hostility was practical. The bastardization Enclave was just a stinging contradiction of itself.
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2014
  13. naossano

    naossano So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Oct 19, 2006
    I will be shorter as i lag as hell and it is soon time to eat.

    I admit that the holodisc gave me an hauting feeling about the war, the immediate post-war and, especially, the pre-war era, and the crapsack era it was. I am pretty sure i mentioned it in the "what fo3 did right" thread. But the present ? Let's say it doesn't make any sense, to be nice.

    About faction, i am not in the crew but the way i seet it:
    In Obsidian, they got a room full of people aware of the lore, that wondered, according to what the faction are, how they could evolve in a believable way.
    In Bethesda, they have people that know some basics of Fo, and 1-2 guys that know it better. Basically, the others guys write stuff they want to write. And then, at the very end, the 1-2 guys that know better correct them saying "faction X is not really like that, you should change this". So, they make the faction they want, and, at the last minutes, they come up with a few lore tweak to make their new factions consistent with the Fallout factions. Let's say the guy that know better told them they missed the point with the BOS. They will rather answer that it is not the real BOS, that correct what's wrong with their own BOS. In the end, they provided an argument, but it doesn't sound deep.

    Also, regardless if it is old factions or new factions, the most importants are underdevellloped, while the others are no more than cannon folder.
    Coming from the Fallout Universe, you expect these to have backstory, leaders, interaction, to learn what they're after, how they sustain themselves, how could you help or undermine them. This is a key factor.
    In Fo3, i expected that, i was sure it would happen somehow.
    The waiting was quite long, so the pay-off should be awesome.
    Turn out the SM, the Talon, the chinese are just cannon folder.
    Turn out you learn less about the Enclave, the main antagonist, than you learned in the previous game.
    Turn out there is no quest, no leader, for many of them.
    All of this make me conclude that they messed with the concept of faction.
    In the end, all the tedious wandering in the generic locations feel like an even more gigantic waste of time.
    There are some shitty generic locations with just loot & fight in FoNV, but there is meat, there are quest, there are people, there are real faction, there are political struggle. You have reasons to play it.
    About Fo3 ? What makes you still play it past the few first hours if there is nothing more to expect than loot & fight generic monsters, generic chest in generic location ? And i am not even bashing FPS. Those provide goals, varied locations, varied ennemies.
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2014
  14. BigBoss

    BigBoss Your Local Scrub

    957
    Dec 24, 2012
    I just realized how many grammar errors my post held lol. Gotta' forgive me there, I was tired when I wrote that post.
     
  15. Django52

    Django52 First time out of the vault

    11
    Apr 14, 2014
    Elitists are always the worst, regardless of fandom.
     
  16. Per

    Per Vault Consort Staff Member Admin

    Apr 1, 2004
    How is it possible to say that one largely undefined group is always worse than another largely undefined group?
     
  17. BigBoss

    BigBoss Your Local Scrub

    957
    Dec 24, 2012
    I still think this entire question is like Xbox 360 v.s PS3, or game consoles v.s. PC's.
     
  18. naossano

    naossano So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Oct 19, 2006
    Or rather :
    Are those who reads book worse than those who play football ?
    The question is more about people than content.
     
  19. woo1108

    woo1108 Vault Senior Citizen

    Sep 27, 2012
    Funny thing is, fo3 fanboys plays role of fo3 elitists when they talk about NV.
     
  20. SMBComix

    SMBComix It Wandered In From the Wastes

    133
    Apr 22, 2014
    I started the series with New Vegas, which my kid brother owns for his 360 -- I liked it, didn't PARTICULARLY want a copy for myself, until I saw Al Chestbreach playing a TARDIS mod (please don't hate).

    After playing around with the TARDIS I went and explored the Mojave wasteland, and found that hey -- there's some serious crap going on here. The lore intrigued me, so I went and I shelled out cash to Steam for all the other games -- even came here to get the first two working properly with those HD patches. And, while I cannot say I prefer turn-based RPG mechanics over the mechanics in Bethesda's line, I can see how it would still become addicting and possibly even fun if one were to use enough brain cells to figure out the mathematics of it.

    ....But even though I'm a 90's kid, I hate math with a burning white-hot passion. So... doing math just to learn how to play a video game better isn't my cup of tea. :-/

    Now, then. With all that said, let me go on to discuss the aesthetic.

    Top-down isometric views were fine back in the day, and still are now if one looks at Wasteland 2 -- but one could still pull off turn-based RPG action in a first-person or even in an MMO-style third-person perspective. I prefer the option that Tactics brought with it, to be honest, and wish it could be modded into the first two games, but I understand if it can't. But I'm going on a tangent here. AESTHETICALLY, I don't know if I prefer the almost PIXAR-like cartoonism of classic Fallout over the gritty neo-realism of modern Fallout -- both have their draws, to be sure, but only one can actually stand the test of time design-wise and that would be the former. Gritty neo-realistic games tend to age much, much faster as technology improves, whereas cartoony graphics like those in World of Warcraft or the classic Fallout age far better.

    Overall, I enjoy the style of the games and the lore. I love how immersive it is. However, I do wish Interplay had done with Fallout 1 and 2 what they did with Tactics, and implemented a toggle switch between real-time combat and turn-based for those of us who prefer one over the other. Right now that's my only barrier to entry with the first two games, though I'm still trying.

    Beyond that, I'd say the franchise as a whole is amazing in terms of its lore and design. It could easily make for a spiffy retro-style science fiction epic if made into a movie. The game world is fun to explore, for me at least, and finding all these little odds and ends and myriad places I'd never seen before -- and looting them afterward -- never ceases to feel rewarding.

    Basically... I love the entire series. >.>