A New Fallout Game/Mod

[cronicler]

Hey! you can find those in every Internet group. Can you say that we don't have any of them here?

Edited August 9, 2009 by cronicler

[Purkake]

I didn't say they were all from NMA.

[GreasyDogMeat]

I don't have much sympathy to anyone who 'waited a decade for F3 only to be horribly disapointed'. Anyone who played Oblivion beforehand should have known what they were getting into. I set my expectations lower than dirt and ended up finding an excellent game that I've enjoyed more than Fallout 2. I lucked out. If not, though, I had taken the risk realizing that mods would come to save the day as they had with Oblivion.

 

Any type of online Fallout is not up my alley though. Heh, part of the reason I was also willing to give Beth's F3 a chance is because a number of the original devs of Fallout were/are working on Fallout Online.

Edited August 9, 2009 by GreasyDogMeat

[RPGmasterBoo]

..and ended up finding an excellent game that I've enjoyed more than Fallout 2....

 

[GreasyDogMeat]

 

Alright, you've convinced me with your master debating!

[RPGmasterBoo]

Its just...too much.

 

I think I'm going into cardiac arrest over this. Gotta go lie down now.

[Purkake]

OMG people have different tastes! Madness!

 

Edited August 9, 2009 by Purkake

[Slowtrain]

Regardless of whether one loves or hates FO3, the bottom line is that it's a gigantinormous step forward from Oblivion. SO ultimately its a positive look toward the future for Bethesda.

[Hurlshort]

I just finished Fallout 1, it had been about a decade since I last played it. I'm now playing Fallout 2. They are great games.

 

But they aren't perfect. They have some big flaws, and they even have stuff I really dislike. I can take out a guy's best friend in Fallout, then ask him about it, and he gives me the same line as he did before. There were a lot of situations like that in Fallout, where I did something big that I thought would affect people's reaction, but they didn't change at all.

 

So despite the flaws, they are great, and so was Fallout 3. Yeah, it had flaws, but it also had strengths, and I'm not sure why fans of 1 & 2 need to tear it down.

[Guest Slinky]

If bethseda just would hire somebody to do the character and quest writing, who actually is good at it, I would be happy with their games. Pretty much all of the bad guys and most of the quests in FO3 made me go facepalm.

 

And the voice acting! Every time I went to talk with that mechanic woman in megaton, I wanted to start world war 4

[Slowtrain]

If bethseda just would hire somebody to do the character and quest writing, who actually is good at it, I would be happy with their games. Pretty much all of the bad guys and most of the quests in FO3 made me go facepalm.

 

And the voice acting! Every time I went to talk with that mechanic woman in megaton, I wanted to start world war 4

 

 

But the voice acting is a huge improvement over Oblivion. I mean they actually had a variety of voices.

 

I'll grant you that the story is still weak, however.

 

But still, other than the story, almost every aspect of gameplay saw dramatic improvement between Oblivion and FO3.

 

Interestingly enough the metacritic score for Oblivion is slightly higher on all platforms than the metacritic score for FO3.

Edited August 9, 2009 by CrashGirl

[GreasyDogMeat]

If bethseda just would hire somebody to do the character and quest writing, who actually is good at it, I would be happy with their games. Pretty much all of the bad guys and most of the quests in FO3 made me go facepalm.

 

And the voice acting! Every time I went to talk with that mechanic woman in megaton, I wanted to start world war 4

 

Oblivion was my first Bethesda game. It was a big disapointment when it came to quests and how they stood up to other RPG games from Bioware, Obsidian and BlackIsle.

 

One thing stood out though, and that was the world. Bethesda are masters of creating this beautiful environment that you want to explore. I felt that the ultimate RPG would be a world crafted by Bethesda, a plot arc by Bioware and the character interaction/dialogue done by Obsidian. Fallout 3 was a big step in that direction. It is certainly still a long ways off of course.

 

One of the many reasons I'm quite excited about Fallout New Vegas is it will combine that Obsidian writing with a large open Beth style world.

[Purkake]

If bethseda just would hire somebody to do the character and quest writing, who actually is good at it, I would be happy with their games. Pretty much all of the bad guys and most of the quests in FO3 made me go facepalm.

 

And the voice acting! Every time I went to talk with that mechanic woman in megaton, I wanted to start world war 4

 

Oblivion was my first Bethesda game. It was a big disapointment when it came to quests and how they stood up to other RPG games from Bioware, Obsidian and BlackIsle.

 

One thing stood out though, and that was the world. Bethesda are masters of creating this beautiful environment that you want to explore. I felt that the ultimate RPG would be a world crafted by Bethesda, a plot arc by Bioware and the character interaction/dialogue done by Obsidian. Fallout 3 was a big step in that direction. It is certainly still a long ways off of course.

 

One of the many reasons I'm quite excited about Fallout New Vegas is it will combine that Obsidian writing with a large open Beth style world.

 

So you really just want to save the world?

[GreasyDogMeat]

So you really just want to save the world?

 

 

When I had that original thought, I was thinking along the lines of a fantasy D&D game in which a Bioware plot arc would work well. Bioware may be disapointing lately, but the Baldur's Gate saga still holds a special place in my RPG heart.

 

As for Fallout, yeah they would probably not be the best choice. Their current approach to 'mature' is 'the new sh*t' Manson over blood & sex. Their actual game might turn out to be decent, but the trailer really puts an emphasis on sh*t.

[Maria Caliban]

Possibly the funnies review ever written, and the only objective one on F3

 

http://www.nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=47347

 

Um, NMA is not objective. They made up their mind on Fallout 3 before it was ever released.

 

When I read then word 'objective' and then read www.nma-fallout.com on the next line, I knew it had to be a joke.

[Gizmo]

It's just that hating FO3 has become a bit old around these parts.

 

Cronicler, even if it happens, it's not going to change anything. There won't be a vault dweller in rusty power armor coming to open everyone's eyes to the "truth" and make them run to the streets with burning copies of FO3. Whether you agree with it or not, a lot of people liked FO3 and it's probably one the most successful games this generation.

 

Of course it has flaws and might not live up to the other Fallouts but people just don't care. Can't you just let those people have their fun?

No. People should have their fun, but not at our expense (our 10 years expense)

~the fan acceptance is the value of the franchise, without it... what's the point?.

Fun is a good thing but some just don't appreciate the damage (or care)...

 

 

The truth is that Interplay went under, Beth bought the rights and they don't own anything to you.

That is the truth, and I personally hold Interplay to blame for foolishly not attaching a few strings to the deal (in the way of guidelines mandates).

I hold Beth [management] to blame ~for seemingly not giving a damn, and butchering the cow for its horns.

 

**Edit:

http://www.nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=47347

That's the best review I've read on the game. Those that would call it bias, are invited to depute any point mentioned in it. Edited August 10, 2009 by Gizmo

[GreasyDogMeat]

Not to , but to write "Overall, it would be easy to write a report worthy of an EU bureaucrat listing all the silly and stupid things Bethesda has shoehorned into Fallout 3. The biggest problem is not so much that it isn

[Gizmo]

Not to , but to write "Overall, it would be easy to write a report worthy of an EU bureaucrat listing all the silly and stupid things Bethesda has shoehorned into Fallout 3. The biggest problem is not so much that it isn’t Fallout, but rather that the setting doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. Bethesda had an opportunity to craft a cohesive “living & breathing” world, but instead chose to build an amusement park with a bit of everything ‘cool’ they could think of." after writing "To be honest, Fallout 2 was also sporadically guilty of this syndrome, but Fallout 3 takes it to a thoroughly different level." shows all the bias I need to see.

Understand that the Bethesda devs have stated on their forum that during development, they had an internal thread entitled "Cool $#@! that you'd like in the game". (or near abouts)... This notion of tacking on stuff that strikes their fancy is quite true.

Edited August 10, 2009 by Gizmo

[GreasyDogMeat]

Never said that Beth did or did not do such a thing. I don't really care if they did, because in the end it turned out better than it did in Fallout 2.

[Brother None]

Of course it has flaws and might not live up to the other Fallouts but people just don't care. Can't you just let those people have their fun?

 

Huh?

 

See, talking of affirmative bias, it's exactly this kind of attitude I don't get. Does NMA send out missionaries from door-to-door, preaching the gospel of Fallout 3 Hate? Does it stand behind everyone person when they're playing Fallout 3, whispering "this game is stupid" over and over in their ears?

 

No? What does NMA do? Have a forum populated by quite a few people who loathe the game, quite a few who dislike it as a Fallout sequel (like me, I don't mind it as much as a game overall), and a few who like or liked it (like my fellow admin Michael Grizzly). The frontpage, with a few exceptions, is pretty much free from hateful remarks, so even that can freely be read by Fallout 3 aficionados without them getting annoyed by us daring to have a different opinion.

 

And yet here we are, we stand accused, collectively, of "not letting people have fun". How exactly does that work? Can't stand the opinion of people on NMA's forums? Then don't read the forums. The kind of discussion you see here in this thread, smack-talking another community, we don't even allow that, so NMA is in no way responsibly for what people choose to post on other message forums.

 

But hey, you need people like me. You need people like me so you can point your fingers and say, "That's the bad guy." So... what that make you? Good? You're not good. You just know how to hide, how to lie. Me, I don't have that problem. Me, I always tell the truth. Even when I lie. So say good night to the bad guy! Come on. The last time you gonna see a bad guy like this again, let me tell you. Come on. Make way for the bad guy. There's a bad guy comin' through! Better get outta his way!

 

*chews scenery*

 

Never said that Beth did or did not do such a thing. I don't really care if they did, because in the end it turned out better than it did in Fallout 2.

 

Overall, in the sense of gameworld consistency? For Fallout 3? Probably yes. Fallout 2 had shovelloads of silly stuff, and it got a LOT of flak for it over the years. Chris Avellone's ears are probably still burning from the scrubbings they got over New Reno. Hell, no single town in the entire Fallout franchise history got as much flak as New Reno did as a setting piece, yet New Reno is also recognized as the best-designed town in RPG mechanics in the history of the Fallout franchise. That juxtaposition is the key to the difference between Fallout 2 and Fallout 3.

 

Besides, while I'd say they got the atmosphere right quite a few times, including some awesome locations (like Rivet City, loved it) or moments (Signal Oscar Zulu), they also built a gameworld that lacked plausibility, which for me is a game-breaker. Megaton didn't make any sense. The world economy wasn't even remotely explained. Why was there still so much unlooted stuff, including unscrapped nuclear engines? What did people eat? There was no attempt at building a plausible world, and that's pretty important for RPGs. Fallout 2 did that better.

 

And then there's the DLCs. If you add the DLCs, I think there's a fair race between Fallout 3 and Fallout 2 in which one added the most silly putty. Fallout 2 probably still wins, but it's getting to be close in the "random stuff inserted" category.

 

EDIT: also what the heck? This is a FOnline thread? Awesome, but then why are we talking Fallout 3 and NMA?

Edited August 10, 2009 by Brother None

[213374U]

People should have their fun, but not at our expense (our 10 years expense)

~the fan acceptance is the value of the franchise, without it... what's the point?.

Lol, what?

 

Did you actually fund the development cycle of FO3 when I wasn't looking? Because it sure sounds like you feel you've been cheated out of something. If you've been let down on your expectations, well. Bethy can't very well control that. And no, I'm pretty sure that neither FO3 was designed as it was to spite you old timers, nor those that do enjoy the game do so for that reason.

 

Oh, and the point is, quite obviously, to make money. That, if nothing else, they did get right.

[Gizmo]

Never said that Beth did or did not do such a thing. I don't really care if they did, because in the end it turned out better than it did in Fallout 2.

Hardly.. If given the absolute choice of FO2 vs FO3, FO2 wins hands down on all that counts.

 

 

People should have their fun, but not at our expense (our 10 years expense)

~the fan acceptance is the value of the franchise, without it... what's the point?.

Lol, what?

 

Did you actually fund the development cycle of FO3 when I wasn't looking? Because it sure sounds like you feel you've been cheated out of something. If you've been let down on your expectations, well. Bethy can't very well control that. And no, I'm pretty sure that neither FO3 was designed as it was to spite you old timers, nor those that do enjoy the game do so for that reason.

Old timers ~does that mean you are a child? I find that most "whippersnappers" tend to eschew and deride what they are unable to appreciate. It really does appear that they "need" to revel in the "new", because they view themselves as new, and can't accept that anything that pre-dates their arrival could be somehow better, (as if it might cast a bad reflection on themselves if it were).

 

Oh, and the point is, quite obviously, to make money. That, if nothing else, they did get right.

Doing things purely for money sake is not good justification (unless you plan to justify most wars as well.)

[GreasyDogMeat]

Hardly.. If given the absolute choice of FO2 vs FO3, FO2 wins hands down on all that counts.

Maybe in magic land where opinions become facts. I actually had more *gasp!* FUN in Fallout 3 than I did in Fallout 2. Is fun one of the things that counts?

 

This is why I get so defensive over Fallout 3. Teh hataz speak as if Fallout 3 sucking is a stone cold fact. Obviously someone who enjoyed the game is some sort of mental inferior in their early teens.

Edited August 10, 2009 by GreasyDogMeat

[Gizmo]

Hardly.. If given the absolute choice of FO2 vs FO3, FO2 wins hands down on all that counts.

Maybe in magic land where opinions become facts. I actually had more *gasp!* FUN in Fallout 3 than I did in Fallout 2. Is fun one of the things that counts?

 

This is why I get so defensive over Fallout 3. Teh hataz speak as if Fallout 3 sucking is a stone cold fact. Obviously someone who enjoyed the game is some sort of mental inferior in their early teens.

FO3 is fun (very fun at times) ~but its the wrong kind of fun (and not a worthy substitute IMO, given the context).

 

Imagine if the next season of MONK were to see him develop psychic powers and use kungfu with hadouken blasts...

That'd be fun right? (it would actually... but the wrong kind, and the kind that ruins the show really).

Edited August 10, 2009 by Gizmo

[213374U]

Old timers ~does that mean you are a child? I find that most "whippersnappers" tend to eschew and deride what they are unable to appreciate. It really does appear that they "need" to revel in the "new", because they view themselves as new, and can't accept that anything that pre-dates their arrival could be somehow better, (as if it might cast a bad reflection on themselves if it were).

Me, a child? Heh, I wish.

 

The old timers remark I meant as in long-time fans of the franchise. The whole "kids today can't appreciate how we did things back in the day" talk may hold true for some, but it doesn't account for everyone. There's plenty of examples right here of people who were fans of the originals and actually enjoyed FO3. If some kid from the Halo generation can't get over the "ugly" graphics of Fallout, well then, it's his loss.

 

 

Doing things purely for money sake is not good justification (unless you plan to justify most wars as well.)

Well, sure. That may be your philosophy and I could agree with you... but it also probably means we'll never sell anything by the millions.