Why fallout 3 is different then Fallout 1 and 2

Discussion in 'Fallout 3 Discussion' started by Don Mikey, May 29, 2009.

  1. NFSreloaded

    NFSreloaded Still Mildly Glowing

    May 5, 2009
    You are aware of the fact that you can change that in character creation, right? :roll:

    If that's true, than we probably shouldn't attack him like that. He's a celebrity for god's sake.
  2. Sorrow

    Sorrow So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Feb 9, 2006
    Still there's one problem with the game mechanics - you can't rape Amata. I think Fallout 3 would be much better if you could rape NPCs in FPP - with all the interactivity that FPP allows.

    I think that they have missed chance for a great innovation. Also, it would add a lot of re-playability if you could try out different rape scenarios in each playthrough. Possibilities would be almost unlimited :D .
  3. The Dutch Ghost

    The Dutch Ghost Grouchy old man of NMA Moderator

    Jan 11, 2004

    And imagine the man-on-man action!
    Once you have knocked out a raider, it is time for some fun!

    You could do this with all the raiders, male or female, and you would get such a feared reputation that raiders would run away on the sight of you.

    Perk: Raider Violator

    You don't find raiders such a problem as everyone else, once you have disarmed them it is time for some fun on your terms.
    Consequence, raiders everywhere fear you and believe you are some demon specter come to hunt them down.
  4. Todd Howard's #1 Fan

    Todd Howard's #1 Fan First time out of the vault

    Sep 21, 2009
    Care to tell me what you mean? VATS adds a tremendous amount of tactics to FO3's base combat. I'm really hoping Beth remakes the first two with an upgraded version of VATs.
  5. Sorrow

    Sorrow So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Feb 9, 2006
    Still, it doesn't allow to rape people. At least Fallout 1 allowed to substitute rape with hitting women in the groin with a Cattle Prod :D .

    I think that rape is a must have for any truly progressive and innovative cRPG.

    Also, rape should be tactical - one should be able to observe and isolate the victim and should have different outcomes, ranging from victim getting killed by PC to victim falling in love with PC (I think I've seen something like that in a newspaper) :D .
  6. NFSreloaded

    NFSreloaded Still Mildly Glowing

    May 5, 2009
    Ah yes, the famous Stockholm Syndrome could make a great perk. But why not go over the top, enable the killing of children and marry one of their parents!
  7. Sorrow

    Sorrow So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Feb 9, 2006
    It would increase the meaning of Cha, opening excellent role-playing opportunities :D .
  8. Dead Guy

    Dead Guy Senate Board Director oTO Moderator Orderite Board Cop oTO

    Nov 9, 2008
    Targeted shots added some tactics to the already tactical combat of Fallout. VATS adds an instant kill button if you're so inept that LMB isn't already tremendously sufficient.

    Regardless, ripping things straight from other games isn't innovative.
  9. UnidentifiedFlyingTard

    UnidentifiedFlyingTard Vault Fossil

    Mar 12, 2009
    there are no tactics in Fallout 3, if you try to play without VATS your fucked unless you are on easy (even then its still shitty combat).

    take off those fan boy glasses long enough to look at this game as a game, not a Bethesda Game, your opinoin may change.
  10. drgong

    drgong It Wandered In From the Wastes

    Aug 13, 2004
    All the fallout games have flaws, and fallout 1 has the least amount of flaws (IMO).

    Fallout 3 has some very nice things, It also has flaws, the main flaws are that the main storyline is too short, and when you get to upper levels, you can do too much.

    A new fallout game in the birdeye view might of sold, after all, Diablo II is one of the best selling games ever and it has this view, however the main issue would be that it would have very little pricing power at the retail level, Three fallout games go for 19.99 in retail outlets, and really, a Fallout Van Bruen would of been priced starting at 19.99, which leaves only a short window of time in retail outlets, (Retail outlets do not want to set aside much space for games under 19.99) and would be useless in the Console Markets, which is just as important as the PC markets these days. You would be quickly relegated to the Download market, and its hard to get a investment back on a full scale game if download becomes it main way of sales.
  11. Sorrow

    Sorrow So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Feb 9, 2006
    Fallout Trilogy goes for 19,99 because two of its games are 10 years old and one is 8 years old.

    Important for what? Fallout 1 didn't need console markets and was profitable enough to warrant an instant sequel.
  12. drgong

    drgong It Wandered In From the Wastes

    Aug 13, 2004
    The game sales landscape is not the same as it was say, 10 years ago. For example, Obivion sold 1.7 million units on the Xbox in 20 days, that 85 million in retail sales. (or about 40 million to the publisher after the retail cut) game companies are not going to ignore such gold mines, and thus the majority of game developers are going to make sure that a PC game can be used on a Xbox. Otherwise you will be pushed in the marketing and retail space by games that will have additional cash from console sales.

    A additional issue that may not be apprent is that if you develop a game that is PC only, and market it to the publishers, game publishers only have X number of titles to market a year, so they are going to pick the games that are going to sell the most units, including console units, thus PC only games are generally going to end up on 2nd string publishers. (or if the game studio is owned by the publisher, the publisher is going to make sure that the games produced are going to have the most sales.)

    The Xbox allowing a PC game to be published on a popular console without major porting issues means that it is no longer a major effort to get into the console market.

    The other fact is that if a smaller company decided to make a fallout game and produce it design like fallout 1 and 2, and they did a good job, they might make a profitable game even with those issues, but a company that makes both PC and Console games will be able to outbit for the rights every time. as they have more sources of revenue to buy the rights to say, Fallout.
  13. Sorrow

    Sorrow So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Feb 9, 2006
    So, it's basically about console giants like Bethesda being able to pay more for the rights to Fallout setting.

    I think that buying rights for Fallout would be pretty pointless - any company that could make Fallout right, could do an even better Fallout-style game without buying an used setting for millions of dollars.
  14. Relentless666

    Relentless666 It Wandered In From the Wastes

    Dec 23, 2008
    I'm curious if Diablo 3 gets a console release.

    Come to think of it, if someone takes the Diablo gameplay, adds guns and more story, he could make a great game that feels closer to Fallout 1 and 2 than this broken FPS/Oblivion clone we're stuck with.
  15. Danilh

    Danilh It Wandered In From the Wastes

    Dec 21, 2008
    where did you get this info from i wonder :roll:
  16. Verevoof

    Verevoof Cryptid oTO Orderite Board Cop oTO [REDACTED]

    Jul 12, 2009
    Everyone knows that all great innovative video games are first person shooters. Come on people, its basic knowledge! ;)

    On a side note, I'm replying useing PS3. It is also innovative.
  17. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    I think truth is that nothing anyone here says about VATs will change something for you.

    It reminds me to times when in the official Bethesda forum some "fans" of Bethesda and their games wanted to explain to us so called "Fallout purists" how much more inovative VATS is compared to the "old" turn based combat. THing is that even Todd Howard said by himself that VATS is not a turn based system nor meant in any way to replace it.

    Now the thing is what is VATS exactly? Actualy if you look deeper in it its not a new or ground breaking system. Its just a "Pause" with "slow motion". And how many times has been that done over the years? Quite a lot of games had this. If you want even Kotor and Baldurs gate have something "similar" where you "stop" the game, give orders to your character and he would carry them out in real time. Just with the difference that both Baldurs Gate and Knights of the old Republic allow you REAL tactical decisions cause the enemy has a chacne to interrupt the actions of your character. VATS works more as a slide show where nothing the enemy is doing counts or has any real effect on your character. Even the damage the enemy makes is reduced to 10% or something (there are mods out there which change that and suddenly VATS becomes not that easy anymore ... go and try it if you dont believe it). How tactical can this be? Its just a shooter mechanic with slow-motion effect. Nothing more nothing less. A lot of games had similar approaches but in a way better fashion as they allowed the enemy to have some effect on your decision not just give the player a "presh here to win the game" button.

    VATS is definetly not a "revolution" in the gameplay. And when you look behind its mechanics its also a very simple system. If you like VATS and how it works thats your personal oppinion and you do not need to even explain that. No one can blame someome that he likes it. That is not even any issue. But a discussion is doomed if you do not even try to understand the reasons behind it why people think that Bethesdas VATS is not a innovation particularly when you say something like:
    Which is just a a popular fallacy. A pretty naive fallacy to say that. Shooters and their mechanics have been around for just as long if not even longer then turn based mechanics or top down views. This is not a question about "innovation" or "mechanics" it is a question about "experience". The reason for the falacy is cause of a strong focus on graphic in relation with first person views which can give someone the impression there would be inherently "more innovation" inside it. Fact is just that lidle Timy can be easier convinced by graphic with first person shooters as they are usualy as well focused around "action" which is much easier to do then a game that wants to tell a story and/or has a strong focus around gameplay. Mind you, Sim City did not stoped in its evolution after Sim City 2000. The progress from Sim City 2000 to Sim City 4000 Is a real form of evolution


    The "change" from Fallout 1/2 to FINO3 was in no way a evolution, more a shift like from Left to Right. As said. It would be no issue to make a Top Down game with most modern graphics used like Direct X 10 technologies, physic X etc. Just compare the visuals of Demigod with any shooter. Visuals can be updated for EVERY gameplay. It is nothing exclusively tied to "first person". Silent Storm as "Turn Based" game for example is completely done in a "3D enviroment". And if you see the video and know the game you will also realise that Silent Storm makes much use of physical elements like bullet penetratoins and destructive enviroment (which to say that even Fallout 3 does not include! But makes that now Silent Storm inherently more innovative ? Think about it.)

    There is no reason why such a game could not make use of the best technology and graphic cards available.

    To say first Person would be more innovative then Top Down views (or real time to turn based) has nothing to do with the mechanics as it are decisions from design which it would be like to claim a motorcycle to be more Innovative then a usual bicycle. Question is can one replace the other? No it cant. Go try to explain those that love to use a bikecycle for mountain tracks why a motorcros bike would be much more "innovative" and see how far that discussion will go. For someome who makes a game like Starcraft for example as a real time strategy in top down view wants to achieve a certain "experience". Namely the "I am the commander feeling". A first person perspective which I even agree in some parts has the potential to give the player a better way of visualisation as you get "inside" the action a first person perspective will give you a better feeling in a Simulation then to play it like Supreme Commander cause the "experience" is a different one! Means that now though Supreme Commander would be the same game in First Person? Remember. The target of the game is a completely different one! Its already in the name, your meant to be a "Commander" of thousand of units.

    Same was it with Fallout 1. Your target was not to "be the" character opposed to FINO 3 where the game is designed to represent "your self" in the game (though even that rather poorly ...). Fallout 1 gave the player the role as guide for the choosen one/Vault Dveller trough the world. And thus the game is played different and has a different experience. Thats why you have a top down view which gives you a freedom first person/third person has not. Thats why you can see in buildings and behind walls which of course is not realistic but thats not the point.
  18. drgong

    drgong It Wandered In From the Wastes

    Aug 13, 2004
    I guess the most simple argument for those who don't get why FO3 was a FPS and not overhead view is this.

    If overhead view is viable, why have we not seen a non-fantasy game of that type? Why have most of the companies that made the great "bird-eye" view games out of business?
  19. Sorrow

    Sorrow So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Feb 9, 2006
    Because they have stopped making the games that their fanbase bought and tried to make a different kind of games which was "trendy" then and which usually failed to be as profitable as expected. Also, by releasing poor games. Also, by publisher meddling and if they were publishers too by other developers failing to provide their games on time.

    Ironically, Troika games closed after releasing a FPS and not being satisfied with its sales :D .
    According to Wikipedia the sales were:

    Arcanum: 234,000 units
    The Temple of Elemental Evil: 128,000 units.
    Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines: 72,000 units.

    I've bought ToEE a few years ago - I found it uninspired and boring - I usually quit playing it in the first village or just after it. I can't believe that creators of Fallout could make anything like it.

    I didn't buy V:TM-B because I don't like FPP RPGs - also, it got some pretty bad reviews in Polish press that called it an FPS.
  20. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    Thats something you have to ask the developers of games and particuliarly companies like Bethesda or Eidos (see Comandos below) which seem to be attracted a lot by the casual mainstream market making a hell lot of money with a known and established name - its less about "popularity" if you ask me but more about that you have a "established" name.

    This discussion is old. And at some point tiresome.

    You know about it when you get deeper in why AGP isnt sold anymore. Everyone with knowledge about hardware will tell you that AGP wasnt removed from buisness for graphic cards cause it would be to old but cause it is easier to sell the same people 2 graphic cards via PCI - a way to increase your benefit by 100%? One would be crazy to not move in that direction as a company. And anyone will tell you that the perfomance boost with 2 cards for a gamer is rather small. Pretty small. Its better to use money for a well shaped system in general then 2 cards not to mention the issue people get from "micro lags" or "micro stuttering" and other things. But its a tricky discussion people have different experience and thus different oppions it was for some time a big marketing and "modern" to get 2 cards now things have somewhat settled down and all particularly when people realised that its wasted money. Fact is AGP was pushed out of buisness and it would be fairly easy to make AGP cards with the similar powers of PCI cards.

    by the way I want to chalange particularly that part of your "claim" by simply giving sources or examples.

    Blizzard, making since a long time "birds eye" or "top down" games. Still in buisness kicking ass. Particularly with Diablo 3 and Star Craft in development.

    Westwood was making high profit and the games they made still do for EA now.

    Another question, how many of those games with "bird eyes" view in their branch have been overtaken or bought by some other company and squezed in a direction that alinated their former costumers and fanbases? Sim City though is still today sold as what it was 10 years ago. Quite a lot of companies dont exist anymore not cause all of them went out of buisness but cause they have been many times enough bought by other companies and the name just dissapeard (see Westwood, Maxis and many others).

    Its kinda interesting that you also name "fantasy" setting as if you want almost "any" kind of game fits in those region. Even Sci Fi at some point. I mean take Warhammer for example. If I would tell you know "look thats a top down/birds eye view!" you might just respond that its fantasy when it clearly has as well parts of science fiction inside. YOu also seem to ignore Supreme Commander which has a sequel in production.

    You might notice at some point that enough games and companies (or smaller bureaus) have been "killed" cause of a shift in a wrong direction. Just compare the evolution of the Top down WW2 game Commandos which was a awesome game for it self and much loved by its community from Commandos 1 to Commandos 3. What Eidos now did was to change this tactical style where you control somewhat a squad between 3 and 9 members with Commandos 4 to a "first person shooter" for the simple reason to catch a "biger market". In the end they could not satisfy any consumer and just alinated their original fanbase killing the whole franchise in the processs.

    They changed This:

    To this:

    Sorry but I am the only one to who it is obvious why the whole franchise died in the end ?

    If overhead view is viable, why have we not seen a non-fantasy game of that type?
    My idea to the whole thing is. Simple. Its easier to make a action filled first-person thing/travesty or "franken-shooter" then a game with really innovative gameplay where the focus is on story telling and not to blow the player away with visuals - interesting when you think about it how much emphasis on Fallout 3 was about the "visuals" you know "the wasteland never looked so gooooood!" are visuals really everything that counts?.

    Maybe Hollywood is a good example. What is easier to sell to the "masses" for much cash. Intelligent, provocative and somewhat "intelectual" movies that require lots of skill in writting and its implementation (to have a good story is one thing to TELL it a different one). Or stuff like Transformers 2 and Terminator 4. Filled with asplosions, awesum spacial effects and big tits I mean names.
    If you ask me the issue are the "Todd Howards" and "Michael Bay" of the buisness that haev no desire to challange the player and their intellect that make extremly dull mainstream products, know it and feel fine about it - remember Hines coment about the plot holes in the end that are big enough a elephant could pass? Yes, he said he said "they" [ the Bethesdateam ] knew about them but feelt "fine" with it. Well tell me how much can oen expect from people that do feel comfortable with flawed products?