Fallout

[Nihilus5078]

Heh, dead topic for like one hour, then gets on it's feet and creates two pages in 4 days. Strange

[Starwars]

allout 1. Fallout 2 was certainly much bigger and it had a lot of cool RP elements, but it was very disjointed.

 

A feather in your cap mr Developer-san!

[Oner]

I don't get the disjointed part, FO 2 seemed coherent to me (I'm sure many shout New Reno at the monitor now, but that's just one place). Lot's of farms and cowboys(brahmboys?)/ranchers, caravans, people getting by on what they can (gecko trappers, shiny metal miners, mercenaries, farmers again). There was an economy, NCR and Vault City not sharing much made sense, where's the problem?

[Hurlshort]

Personally I've played through Fallout 1 twice and enjoyed both tremendously. I played through Fallout 3 once and thought it had charm. I've tried to get into Fallout 2 three times and never made it further than about halfway. There is just something about it, I suppose, hard to define.

[Starwars]

I don't get the disjointed part, FO 2 seemed coherent to me (I'm sure many shout New Reno at the monitor now, but that's just one place). Lot's of farms and cowboys(brahmboys?)/ranchers, caravans, people getting by on what they can (gecko trappers, shiny metal miners, mercenaries, farmers again). There was an economy, NCR and Vault City not sharing much made sense, where's the problem?

 

 

For me personally, I feel the disjointed feel is not only due to how they treated the setting (though the ancestors of the Vault Dweller being tribals, New Reno ad its gangsters, San Fransisco with its weird eastern kung-fu stuff, the hubologists, talking plants, talking deathclaws etc manage that just fine) but it was also the gameplay. The game goes up so wildly in quality. New Reno is overall a really excellent RPG location (ironically, given how it's sorta weird in the setting sense), Vault City is pretty good as is New Reno. The Den was nice. But then you have San Fransisco which is just terrible, and I find Broken Hills, Klamath, Modoc to be pretty sub-par.

 

While Fallout 3 thankfully didn't have the endless pop culture references and stuff like that, I think it also had some problems regardning the internal consistancy. Both Fallout 2 and Fallout 3 to me feels like they're a result of "hey, this is cool, let's throw it in the game" type of design philosophy which I'm not a fan of. So hence you've got a really nice quest-line in the Android bit, where you can end the quest prematurely and in different ways, or have the game reward you if you decide to really explore the options. On the other hand, you've got a town which is being plagued by two super-heroes called the Antagonizer and the Mechanic (was that it?).

 

Again, I'm not opposed to humor in games at all. But I really want it to fit into the setting itself, and I think both Fallout 2 and 3 breaks that quite often.

[Endoxos]

 

Yeah, I stopped paying attention to what became of FO after the whole Fat Man thing... I kind of gave up hope then.

 

heh, yep. that seems to be the general hope an' feeling around here, NMA and wherever else people congregate for games which are actually more than crappy larp simulations.

 

Schweet. ^_^

 

i won't polish Obsidian's knob until i play the game and decide it's good because i certainly don't feel they've proved themselves with anything else to date but yes, i think this is not only the best hope for a real Fallout game we have...but it's most likely our only hope, ever. ironically though, judging by the sales of FO1, FO2 and FO3, if FO:NV is actually any good it won't sell at all. **** it though. i'd give my left nut for just ONE more "great" game in the series instead of a billion more poor to mediocre games like Bethesda is more than likely to dish out until the real apocalypse comes.

 

IMHO, and this is just my opinion only, everything Bryan Fargo has touched, in my eyes, has turned to gold (yes, even the bard's tale remake to a lesser extent, but I digress)... and the lead people at Obsidian got a good hearty smack, be it directly or indirectly, and share a bit of that Midas touch. And I have yet to see Obsidian (or any form and name it was incarnated in or spawned from in the past) make a genuinely bad game (even KOTOR2 was actually really good, just... suffered from unfortunate circumstances). That's not to say they couldn't make a bad game... I just haven't seen it happen yet, so I give 'em the benefit of the doubt that it'll be far better than FO3. ^_~

 

I know this is a horrible thing to say, at least for Obsidian's perspective, but I would honestly want see FO:NV go the way of FOBOS. Just as FOBOS was a massive departure from the series, being low-brow, all about sex/drugs/gore/metal, ignoring lore, and full of idiocy... I would love to see FO:NV take a 'similar' departure from the series that we know now has *embraced* that same idiocy... and make a return to the cleverness and depth that FO1 and 2 embraced... ...even if it means hurting FO:NV's sales. ...Not that I want it to fail or anything, far be it... I just want a *really* *good* game, in the old-school sense, even if 90% of the rest of the gaming population's idea of a *really* *good* game is Guitar Hero and Farmville.

 

seems that Bethesda's got our heroes on lock-down, sister. they can't say shizzy and they won't.

 

Oh, I know. But needless to say, the mere asking of the question gives me hope that it'll be read, lending them a reason to think about, ponder upon, and mayhaps propose the idea. ...I mean, *shrugs* what harm could naming an SMG-toting NPC Christina, bringing back the BB gun, or having drunk hobos line a back alley, do? ^_~

[TwinkieGorilla]

Objectively speaking, Fallout 1 is the better game. Going further...Fallout 2 is still light years beyond Fallout 3 as a good game. Why? Fallout 2 helped expand upon the world of Fallout, regardless of the questionable level of humor which undoubtedly turned some FO1'ers off but turned a whole lot of FO1'ers even further on to the franchise. They're both cemented into the minds of the Fallout world and forever will be, warts and all. Fallout 3? No. No that's just the retarded cousin who ****ed the next door neighbor's cat who everybody just wants to forget about...and eventually probably will.

 

Edit: Endoxos i so skipped your post...lulz. sorry! i just read it though and i think we're both on the same page here.

Edited January 4, 2010 by TwinkieGorilla

[GreasyDogMeat]

Considering how much success F3 has received and how well it has been received by critics and many gamers I don't think F3 will be forgotten as fast as you hope. I DO hope Fallout New Vegas absolutely blows F3 away. A game that blows away a great game can't be a bad thing...

[Nepenthe]

Considering how much success F3 has received and how well it has been received by critics and many gamers I don't think F3 will be forgotten as fast as you hope. I DO hope Fallout New Vegas absolutely blows F3 away. A game that blows away a great game can't be a bad thing...

 

I've got serious doubts that the success and reception of F3 had much to do with how good it's as a game. Not in a way that couldn't be surpassed by a lot of other companies and games working within the same franchise.

 

It's funny, really. I played the game in basically three extended sessions of a couple of weeks... First when it first came out, then finished the character in the spring, and then when finally the ps3 DLC came out played through some of them. I remember having a decent amount of fun playing through it, but the idea of going back to it for the remaining DLC never mind starting a new character sickens me. I'm not sure why, I think there's a tediousness in the gameplay that kind of sneaks on me...

[GreasyDogMeat]

I've got serious doubts that the success and reception of F3 had much to do with how good it's as a game. Not in a way that couldn't be surpassed by a lot of other companies and games working within the same franchise.

 

It's funny, really. I played the game in basically three extended sessions of a couple of weeks... First when it first came out, then finished the character in the spring, and then when finally the ps3 DLC came out played through some of them. I remember having a decent amount of fun playing through it, but the idea of going back to it for the remaining DLC never mind starting a new character sickens me. I'm not sure why, I think there's a tediousness in the gameplay that kind of sneaks on me...

I never had that problem myself. I loved completing the various side quests and I couldn't wait for the next one. I've beat the game twice, and I'm considering starting a third play through in the future.

[TwinkieGorilla]

Considering how much success F3 has received and how well it has been received by critics and many gamers I don't think F3 will be forgotten as fast as you hope. I DO hope Fallout New Vegas absolutely blows F3 away.

 

hope? wtf would i "hope" for? i couldn't care less, man. i'm just saying it's not going to appear in the same light as the first two did, ever. it's just too goddamned stupid of a game to go down in history as anything other than a decent game with some hilariously embarrassing moments which sold a ridiculous amount of copies to an apparently complacent, drooling mass of people with low expectations.

 

A game that blows away a great game can't be a bad thing...

 

"great" game indeed...if you suffer from asperger's and autism.

 

I've got serious doubts that the success and reception of F3 had much to do with how good it's as a game. Not in a way that couldn't be surpassed by a lot of other companies and games working within the same franchise.

 

exactly.

[Oner]

For me personally, I feel the disjointed feel is not only due to how they treated the setting (though the ancestors of the Vault Dweller being tribals, New Reno ad its gangsters, San Fransisco with its weird eastern kung-fu stuff, the hubologists, talking plants, talking deathclaws etc manage that just fine) but it was also the gameplay. The game goes up so wildly in quality. New Reno is overall a really excellent RPG location (ironically, given how it's sorta weird in the setting sense), Vault City is pretty good as is New Reno. The Den was nice. But then you have San Fransisco which is just terrible, and I find Broken Hills, Klamath, Modoc to be pretty sub-par.

 

While Fallout 3 thankfully didn't have the endless pop culture references and stuff like that, I think it also had some problems regardning the internal consistancy. Both Fallout 2 and Fallout 3 to me feels like they're a result of "hey, this is cool, let's throw it in the game" type of design philosophy which I'm not a fan of. So hence you've got a really nice quest-line in the Android bit, where you can end the quest prematurely and in different ways, or have the game reward you if you decide to really explore the options. On the other hand, you've got a town which is being plagued by two super-heroes called the Antagonizer and the Mechanic (was that it?).

 

Again, I'm not opposed to humor in games at all. But I really want it to fit into the setting itself, and I think both Fallout 2 and 3 breaks that quite often.

I see. Most of this doesn't apply to me though (as I implied before, "we did experiments!" is enough justification for talking mutants to me in a '50 SCIENCE! setting), so I can enjoy it to my hearts content.

The less RP-ish towns weren't a bother either, they did keep variety uő, smaller towns between cities are a nice touch in my book, aaaand... yeah.

[GreasyDogMeat]

hope? wtf would i "hope" for? i couldn't care less, man. i'm just saying it's not going to appear in the same light as the first two did, ever. it's just too goddamned stupid of a game to go down in history as anything other than a decent game with some hilariously embarrassing moments which sold a ridiculous amount of copies to an apparently complacent, drooling mass of people with low expectations.

Its already making numerous 'best games ever' lists ahead of the originals and the average player seems to be enjoying it, even if the die-hard grognard fans disagree. I don't like where the Call of Duty franchise has gone but its hard to argue with it's success, critical and financial. I actually think you do care because you seem to take it as a personal insult if someone says they loved it.

 

"great" game indeed...if you suffer from asperger's and autism.

Right... and I guess you would need to suffer from asperger's and autism to have enjoyed the originals as well because they didn't have their stupid moments... like talking plants and chess playing scorpions.

[Oner]

like talking plants and chess playing scorpions.

Hey, they were nice peop-...things. Don't insult them!

[TwinkieGorilla]

I actually think you do care because you seem to take it as a personal insult if someone says they loved it.

 

only so much as i care about living in a world full of knuckle-dragging half-wits.

[GreasyDogMeat]

only so much as i care about living in a world full of knuckle-dragging half-wits.

It must be hard living with yourself then...

[TwinkieGorilla]

It must be hard living with yourself then...

 

no. see, i'm one of the few people alive *not* satisfied with inane **** like:

 

[intelligence] So you say this game is a ****ing joke while fighting the good fight with your voice on Vapid Galaxy Radio?

[Slowtrain]

I find it difficult to be OVERLY critical of Fallout 3 in a gaming world that gives us Oblivion and NWN OC and such.

 

I could write up a huge laundry list of things I'd like to see changed or improved in FO 4, but FO 3 is still a mostly fun experience regardless.

 

 

Yes, it may not equal the experience of Fallout 1 (or even come close) but what rpg does? Even the developers who worked on Fallout 1 never made a comparable game afterwards. Fallout 1 is just one of those games that from whatever confluence of factors captured lightning in a bottle.

[Radek Smektala]

Even the developers who worked on Fallout 1 never made a comparable game afterwards.

 

Oh no, you didn't!

 

You don't even find Arcanum at the very least "comparable" to Fallout?

Edited January 4, 2010 by Radek Smektala

[Pidesco]

Arcanum's combat is worse than Fallout 3's, and F3's combat is bad enough.

[Slowtrain]

Even the developers who worked on Fallout 1 never made a comparable game afterwards.

 

Oh no, you didn't!

 

You don't even find Arcanum at the very least "comparable" to Fallout?

 

 

I'm as big a fanboy of Arcanum as you're likely to find anywhere, and I give Troika a lot of credit for creating a marvelous game. More so than most do.

 

 

It's not nearly as unified and well put together as Fallout though.

 

Its more akin to Fallout 3: A lot of good ideas mixed with some major problems that is overall a fun experience.

[entrerix]

i've played fallout ~20 times, arcanum only 1.5

 

imo: not even close...

[Tigranes]

If only Arcanum sold enough to make a sequel straight away. Same engine, same things, but produced better, balanced better and 'done right'.

[Syraxis]

If only Arcanum sold enough to make a sequel straight away. Same engine, same things, but produced better, balanced better and 'done right'.

 

ARMEE TROIKA MARCH!

[bhlaab]

I find it difficult to be OVERLY critical of Fallout 3 in a gaming world that gives us Oblivion and NWN OC and such.

 

I could write up a huge laundry list of things I'd like to see changed or improved in FO 4, but FO 3 is still a mostly fun experience regardless.

 

 

Yes, it may not equal the experience of Fallout 1 (or even come close) but what rpg does? Even the developers who worked on Fallout 1 never made a comparable game afterwards. Fallout 1 is just one of those games that from whatever confluence of factors captured lightning in a bottle.

 

So you're saying that instead of asking for better games we should just lower our standards immensely.

 

The reason Fallout 3 didn't equal the experience of Fallout 1 is because they didn't really try

Edited January 5, 2010 by bhlaab