Biggest Problem With Fallout 3?

[Lepidus]

I am not sure if somebody suggested this before, so by no means am I trying to beat a dead horse.

Anyway, I was just wondering...

If Bethesda were to, say, re-label their upcoming title Fallout: [subtitle], rather than claim that it was a direct sequel to Fallout, would you have less of a problem with the game?

 

[Tagaziel]

Yes.

 

[Ravager69]

I dunno. I guess not - they did buy the rights to Fallout games, thus making it impossible for other companies to make them. So my answer will be - no.

 

[Brother None]

If Bethesda were to, say, re-label their upcoming title Fallout: [subtitle], rather than claim that it was a direct sequel to Fallout, would you have less of a problem with the game?

Your answers are incomplete.

If they re-labelled it Fallout: East Coast, would I:

1. Have problems with the mechanics? A bit in the sense that they don't suit my personal tastes, but not relative to the franchise no.

2. Have problems with some of the liberties they take with the setting, most notably their treatment of supermutants and the BoS? Yes. Even spin-offs have to be faithful to the setting, if not to the mechanics.

 

[Ah-Teen]

My problems are mostly mechanics. You change the name and it is no longer tied to the mechanics of fallout 1 and 2. Only story and that its self is arguable to a point.

Fallout: Vault 101

 

[Lepidus]

2. Have problems with some of the liberties they take with the setting, most notably their treatment of supermutants and the BoS? Yes. Even spin-offs have to be faithful to the setting, if not to the mechanics.

I agree completely with this point. Is it just me or does every Fallout game (excluding the original, of course) misunderstand the Brotherhood of Steel and think that they are a bunch of heroic saviours and guardians of the wastes. (I find this especially frustrating, because the greediness of the Brotherhood was one of the themes in Fallout 1 (albeit a minor one.)).

 

[Stag]

Gonna agree pretty much with BN or Ah-Teen. I would be pretty ok with it, I think, but still pretty bothered by the color palette and any holdovers from Oblivion, which is just not the right kind of RPG to base a Fallout sequel/spinoff around. I would be much happier in my purchase of it, though. I liked Mass Effect ok, if this is closer to Mass Effect than Oblivion (which I sort of remember someone at GFW saying, though I could just be retarded) then that's acceptable, and could totally be a fun experience (apart from the shitty, shitty, shitty dialogue system and how little freedom you actually get). Didn't pick any of the polling options, as I didn't really think any of them suited my feelings about it.

 

[RPGenius]

Side note: How has the ultra-violent uer mod team not shouted at you for placing this here Lepidus? Antony and Caesar tell you to put it here?

Game'd still suck. But in a POS "It's more of a joke than real sequel" way than Fallout 3, so I'd just find it funny, rather than offensive.

 

[FrattBorrigan]

So long as it's Fallout. (and not Vista only -_-)

 

[Yata]

Never mind

 

[RPGenius]

Totally agree with MJK. Monkey Island, Simon The Sorcerer, Fallout, Civilisation, starcraft, diablo, warcraft and many more were all classic game series started on the PC.

How many classics like that are springing up from consoles?

 

[Sander]

Totally agree with MJK. Monkey Island, Simon The Sorcerer, Fallout, Civilisation, starcraft, diablo, warcraft and many more were all classic game series started on the PC.

How many classics like that are springing up from consoles?

Mario, Donkey Kong, Sonic, Final Fantasy and dozens of other games.

This is a pretty dumb argument.

 

[Ravager69]

Well, how many of them aren't platform \ adventure \ gay-anime pseudo RPG's?

 

[Sander]

Well, how many of them aren't platform \ adventure \ gay-anime pseudo RPG's?

Whether or not you personally like the games isn't a relevant quality for it being a classic or not.

 

[Yata]

Never mind

 

[RPGenius]

Totally agree with MJK. Monkey Island, Simon The Sorcerer, Fallout, Civilisation, starcraft, diablo, warcraft and many more were all classic game series started on the PC.

How many classics like that are springing up from consoles?

Mario, Donkey Kong, Sonic, Final Fantasy and dozens of other games.

This is a pretty dumb argument.

LIKE THAT. Operative term in that sentence. I'm talking games with more depth than your standard console game. It's not neccesarily a knock on the consoles, but the simple games for console gamers are what's hurting the market for pure cRPGs.

But you're right. This is a dumb argument. Dumb because we're arguing for the simple reason that you have a reputation on the board as some big-bad-ass who tells everyone how foolish they are and why he's great. And you're looking for a reason to argue simply to live up to it. Pathetic.

 

[Sander]

And Sander i fail to see how what RPGenius wrote is a dumb arguement. He simply compared PC classics and asked if there are any console classics like those. And no Mario, Donkey Kong and Sonic are not Fallout, Monkey Island, Civilization, they are much simpler again aimed for the console market.

It might seem that way, but it isn't really the case. If you look at many Atari games in the '80s, for instance, there were a lot of intelligent classics there.

In fact, Monkey Island was a cross-platform game released on consoles as well, as were most SCUMM-engine(LucasArts' Adventure engine) games.

Another interesting tidbit: the most intelligent puzzle games ever made were released for the Mac, not for the PC.

LIKE THAT. Operative term in that sentence. I'm talking games with more depth than your standard console game. It's not neccesarily a knock on the consoles, but the simple games for console gamers are what's hurting the market for pure cRPGs.

The idea that consoles are killing the PC market is a nonsensical one. For one, it costs developers a lot of money to develop for multiple platforms (it isn't just a copy-paste job), and the console market is much more fractured than the PC market.

The only times when a PC version is influenced by consoles are when the game is created as a cross-platform game with a console as the main platform.
But, and here's the kicker: they're still seperate platforms with a different target market, and the PC has greater penetration. Everyone owns one, after all.

The problem doesn't lie with consoles at all. It lies with developers who don't want to make PC-games anymore, for whatever reason.

But you're right. This is a dumb argument. Dumb because we're arguing for the simple reason that you have a reputation on the board as some big-bad-ass who tells everyone how foolish they are and why he's great. And you're looking for a reason to argue simply to live up to it. Pathetic.

Yeah, strike one for trolling. Go cool off in the corner or something.

Here's a hint: if you disagree with what I say, then reply to what I say and don't bring up some weird hidden grievance you have.

 

[ford_prefect]

i don't mind what people says. i'm looking forward to put my hands on FO3, and give it a try. Until then, all this flame is nonsense.

Did anyone really expected FO3 to be as a FO2 empowered?

i'm optimistic about the game mechanics, i plan to give VATS a chance.

as for the ambient, or environ or setting or whatever... well, this is no more interplay (pity that), it's bethesda and they have right to give it their creative approach. We can't judge until we see it. Play the game through, then we will see exactly how open the world is, how mindless the supermuties or how bad their catch for the BoS.

 

[KingAlex]

Did anyone really expected FO3 to be as a FO2 empowered?

I actually never expected a FO3 to be made. But I am dismayed by the fact that it seems to be like a modified version of Oblivion. Not that Oblivions os bad, but to me the current game does not get me "in the fallout mood", for a lack of better words. I will however try it and see what it has to offer, but from the current stuff I have seen, I think that the current developers are focusing too much too apese the current player base, and not so much the true fallout loving fans from the late 90's.

Too me a FO3 that had the same point of view and same base mechanincs as previous innstalments (I would not mind a bit boost in graphics in the form of more detialed looking objects, more variation, and pherhaps not so bound to the square buildings, and such) would be optimal. As it is now the developers are focusing on making the game look good rather then the story and interaction with ingame chars. (Kind of like comparing NWN2 and Baldurs Gate, whereas NWN2 was horribly linear and comabt based, and Baldurs Gate had a bit more focus on the story and interaction.).

 

[Sander]

i don't mind what people says. i'm looking forward to put my hands on FO3, and give it a try. Until then, all this flame is nonsense.

Did anyone really expected FO3 to be as a FO2 empowered?

i'm optimistic about the game mechanics, i plan to give VATS a chance.

as for the ambient, or environ or setting or whatever... well, this is no more interplay (pity that), it's bethesda and they have right to give it their creative approach. We can't judge until we see it. Play the game through, then we will see exactly how open the world is, how mindless the supermuties or how bad their catch for the BoS.

Ah yes, I constantly forget that information the developer divulges willingly as promotional material is completely unreliable and must be bullshit.