Fallout 3 vs Fallout Tacticts

Which one do you prefer as a fallout game

  • Fallout 3

    Votes: 5 19.2%

  • Fallout Tactics

    Votes: 21 80.8%
  • Total voters
    26
Tiny Tim

Tiny Tim

Still Mildly Glowing
Fallout Tactics is generally regarded as a poor game and one that breaks the lore. It is considered non-canon or semi-canon. Of course, i know by now that fallout 3 and 4 demolish the lore so i got curious about it.
How do classic fallout fans view tactics in comparison to fallout 3 ?


I'll add that i enjoyed 3 for what is ( exploring, killing, looting, leveling up, sleeping in abandoned homes, decorating my house etc ) despite its poor writing, but then again i hadn't played any other fallout games at the time so i imagine i'd be pretty pissed too if i had. And i have never touched fallout tactics but i kind of want to lately. I just finished 2 again and i have an urge to try it out.
Is it more Fallout than Bethesda's Fallout 3? Is it any good as a game?
 
I think most here view Tactics rather favourably compared to Fallout 3. It's not an RPG and it doesn't pretend to be, so that's a plus. The lore is hit and miss, but the writing in general is competent and the game is certainly fun and playable. Unlike Fallout 3, which is generally thought to be a terrible mess in both writing and gameplay, and it also pretends to be an RPG and a true successor to the original games.
Tactics was disappointing because people were expecting Fallout 3. It's not a bad game, but it's also not what people wanted.
 
I would dare to say Fallout 3.

Even though it had shitty writing and shitty gameplay, the game still succeded when it came to giving people freedom to do side-stuff. Of course it was black and white and nothing compared to New Vegas.

If Fallout 3 was called 'Post Nuclear Cakeplay' it would not look so shit compared to the other Fallout games.

This is not the case for Fallout 4 for example, 4 is shit both as an fallout but also as a game. It just... doesn't work.

Tactics is meh. There is nothing groundbreaking but the story and the gameplay is fine. It just shouldn't be a Fallout game.
 
I would say Fo3 for immersion, but FOT for story. In fact, instead of being free-roaming like the rest of the Fallout series, FOT is what I would expect if the PC ever joined the BoS: you get assignments from your supervisors and slowly move up the rank (and get more freedom on how to do things).

It seems, the "real" contest should be:

Fallout BoS and Fallout3&4, which one is more WORSE?
 
Tactics is more favorable. Not only the gameplay is more fun and varied, Tactics instead of sitting on 1950s stereotypes and leftovers tries to push the lore a bit further into at least 1960s. Not to mention how well it does Brotherhood of Steel while doing the same thing as bethesda, expanding it's role on a new territories.
therealyesman said:
This is not the case for Fallout 4 for example, 4 is shit both as an fallout but also as a game. It just... doesn't work.
Click to expand...
Thank you.
rockitten said:
Fallout BoS and Fallout 4, which one is more WORSE?
Click to expand...
Same. 3 is a bit better than both of them due to better 'old-world' building, creating a believable 'Fallout' city.
 
I might actually pirate it right now to try it out. From what i've seen on youtube the intro and the ui are MUCH more "fallout" than fallout 3, maybe even the 60s atmosphere which seems interesting. But i'm not sure i'll dig the militaristic approach. And of course, the into already states that the BOS came from a vault. Oh well.

Since it's a rogue chapter though, maybe it doesn't matter. Maybe they didn't know their history like ceasar said in fallout new vegas ( i found this in an old nma comment )


( go to 5:27 )
 
Fallout Tactics is miles ahead of any Fallout game made later (except for New Vegas)

- They kept the isometric perspective.
- Allowed to choose between real time and turn-based. It also features multiplayer maps. You control your fucking team mates.
- The ability to climb, crawl, drop mines, drives vehicles, and many other new features. Character building is also enhanced.
- They dwelved quite a lot on the BOS on a believable way.
- It has four ending, which is four times the number of Fallout 3 endings. Some of those endings were awesome
- It has a few inconsistencies, but much less than Fo3 and Fo4. They were not only more faithfull of the lore, but also had a better understanding of the Fallout universe. Some of the twists they brought to the table were perfectly fitting with the series.
- They could make an OK Fallout game even if they weren't the original team, weren't americans and had much less budget and time to make the game. Beth has zero excuses to screw up more than them.
- It is quite lacking on choices and consequences, compared with Fo1, Fo2 and FoNV, but they called it TACTICS and didn't pretend it was an RPG. On the other hand, it has much more C & C that you would expect from a game like that. Sure 99%, of the missions are mandatory if you want to finish the game. Yet, depending on how you handle them, you can expect quite a lot of consequences along the road, with the team mates you can have, some small plots in later missions, your overall reputation with traders, and of course, some of the ending. It is more than some so-called RPG, and it is not always obvious *In your face* kind of consequence, unlike The Witcher.
 
So, just wonder, are you guys okay with such "Fallout game":

A. "Civilization" style strategy game playing as the Elder of BoS, Chairman of Institute, Master of Mutants, President of Enclave/NCR and Caesar of Legion and independent factions like Mr House, Minutemen...etc and build your empire to dominate East/west coast

B. A XCOM styled turn based small squad tactics game.

C. CoD/Far Cry styled FPS with some story-specific options.

D. Mass Effect/Dragon Age styled adventure game with a railroaded story.
 
Depends if it is a spin-off, a mod, a numbered sequel, if it is not canon, semi-canon or non-canon.
You would notice that FoBOS receives much less complains than Fo3 or Fo4, despite not being much better.

Although, i would try out a strategy game or a rogue like in the Fallout universe.

I could see a Tell-Tale-like spin-off with a mostly-linear story, if said story happenned within the hub or shady sands, right in the middle of the NCR. You couldn't obviously create an entire city (although, Beth and Obsidian tried with the failure that everyone noticed), especially full of people and stuff. But make enough content to show what it is like to live in such a beacon of rebuilt world.
 
naossano said:
Fallout Tactics is miles ahead of any Fallout game made later (except for New Vegas)

- They kept the isometric perspective.
- Allowed to choose between real time and turn-based. It also features multiplayer maps. You control your fucking team mates.
- The ability to climb, crawl, drop mines, drives vehicles, and many other new features. Character building is also enhanced.
- They dwelved quite a lot on the BOS on a believable way.
- It has four ending, which is four times the number of Fallout 3 endings. Some of those endings were awesome
- It has a few inconsistencies, but much less than Fo3 and Fo4. They were not only more faithfull of the lore, but also had a better understanding of the Fallout universe. Some of the twists they brought to the table were perfectly fitting with the series.
- They could make an OK Fallout game even if they weren't the original team, weren't americans and had much less budget and time to make the game. Beth has zero excuses to screw up more than them.
- It is quite lacking on choices and consequences, compared with Fo1, Fo2 and FoNV, but they called it TACTICS and didn't pretend it was an RPG. On the other hand, it has much more C & C that you would expect from a game like that. Sure 99%, of the missions are mandatory if you want to finish the game. Yet, depending on how you handle them, you can expect quite a lot of consequences along the road, with the team mates you can have, some small plots in later missions, your overall reputation with traders, and of course, some of the ending. It is more than some so-called RPG, and it is not always obvious *In your face* kind of consequence, unlike The Witcher.
Click to expand...
And let's not forget :
-Alliance making with actual impact on the gameplay and storyline (like if you help some of the non-human NPCs along your way or not, with the consequences that can be experienced inside the brotherhood bunkers. I try to keep it as spoiler free as possible, sorry if it's vague.), which is super nice, since the game would have been fine without it, but yet, it is there and it works.
-Team management. Simple, but efficient. Being able to optimize your squad by hiring the proper recruits when speaking to the quartermaster, it's a nice touch.
-The humor from Fallout 2 is there, but discreet enough to be ignored if that's not your thing.
-The grittiness of Fallout 1 is there too. Salty language and adult situations ahead.
-One of the very few games that provoked the adrenaline rush, for me. One mission feels like Black Hawk Dawn, another one feels like Stalingrad. Few games, even recent ones, have managed to capture these atmospheres this good, in my opinion.
-The music is very good too. First Fallout soundtrack made by Inon Zur, if I'm not mistaken.
 
Why pit Tactics and Fallout 3 against eachother. Of course "Tictacs" is better, and it doesn't even have to be a good game - let alone good Fallout game - to be that.

A much more interesting (as in closer call, not really interesting as a mental excercise) "battle" would be with PoS, which is much closer relative to Fallout 3 anyway.
 
Tactics for me as it is a spin-off and labels itself accordingly. For all its atrociousness like hairy deathclaws and death metal PA, it is fun if not sometimes extremely tedious.

Fallout 3 fails for the simple fact that it markets itself as a direct successor while not even being close to a good one, if one at all.
 
I've not played enough of Tactics to really judge.
But from the sounds of it, I wouldn't mind calling it Canon.

It certainly beats BoS and 4 in terms of canon.

(How the Hell did Bethesda screw up the lore so much they managed to make a game more canon breaking than BoS?)
 
I don't understand the Tactics hate now. When the old games were out and Tactics was released I understand because people wanted more of a RPG but now...

The canon is a fucking joke guys. If Hairy Deathclaws and Vault 0 bother you that much then just stop caring about Fallout because CABOT HOUSE, GHOUL IN FRIDGE, AND LORE DOESN'T MATTER is all I need to see to stop saving Fallout lore into my brainbox. Even the weapons don't bug me as much now. The world was never meant to be perpetual 50's like in Fallout 3. If we had Van Buren along with Tactics it would be held up as a good example of a spinoff done right. We are actually lucky the retcons aren't worse at this point. T60's will most likely be replaced with something even cooler for Fallout 5 ad nauseum.
 
I don't intend to play the ghoul in the fridge game. Canon stops before the titles other than Fo1-Fo2-FoT-FoNV.
 
Well I guess now is as good a time as any to finish my Tactics playthrough...hmmmmm....Tactics Let's Play you say? No I couldn't.
 
DarkCorp said:
Tactics for me as it is a spin-off and labels itself accordingly. For all its atrociousness like hairy deathclaws and death metal PA, it is fun if not sometimes extremely tedious.

Fallout 3 fails for the simple fact that it markets itself as a direct successor while not even being close to a good one, if one at all.
Click to expand...
Actually, hairy deathclaws could make sense, considering the fact that they come from California and may have had to cross frozen mountains to get to the midwest. Considering that they mutate super fast -this is the point of their existence, after all- and that mutation usually makes you more able to survive your surroundings, they could have gotten hairy during their trip in the more cold regions. At least, that's how I always pictured it, a super species capable of adapting itself to its immediate surrounding in a very short term, thanks to its enhanced genetics. In my opinion, their hair didn't make them look goofy. It made them look even more dangerous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top