I honestly don't get the Fallout 3 hate.

D

Doidoidoi

First time out of the vault
It's not going to be "oblivion! but with guns!", because if you had read anything on it you would realize it's not gonna be like that. It can still be turned based, if what I read is correct. It is still going to be in the same style, story wise. The main thing is that it won't be isometric, either just first or third person, but be serious, isometric gaming is fairly obsolete by today's standards. It's still going to be violent, but that's a very irrelevant thing to be complaining about. I don't know. I loved Fallout 1 and 2 (in addition to Wasteland) very very much, I thought Fallout 2 was better than 1 for the most part. I love isometric games like baldur's gate and I also enjoyed all of the Elder Scrolls games (which got better and better, thank you).

I just can't see why you guys think Fallout 3 is bad.

And yes, I did just register to talk about this because I just can't believe SA's front page article about this site.
 
And yes, I did just register to talk about this because I just can't believe SA's front page article about this site.
Click to expand...

:roll:
Wait, wait, let me guess... You just felt SOMEBODY had to say that, right?
 
Doidoidoi said:
It's not going to be "oblivion! but with guns!", because if you had read anything on it you would realize it's not gonna be like that. It can still be turned based, if what I read is correct.
Click to expand...
What you read is incorrect. It's going to be real-time with pause, that's a very far cry from turn-based.
Doidoidoi said:
It is still going to be in the same style, story wise.
Click to expand...
Story wise, maybe. But the fact that you have a father restricting you, and are forced to play a 19-year old who wanted to leave the Vault is a lot more restricting than either Fallout or Fallout 2 was.
The setting is completely different. Toilet healing, nuclear catapults, super mutants that look nothing like super mutants, a toaster that fires random items, a town built around a functional nuclear bomb, you having to set off said bomb just to get access to another town (which makes no sense. If you're going to have to blow up entire towns to get in there, there pretty soon won't be anybody left outside said town), ticket-robots with super mutant-killing lasers, minigames instead of actual skill checks.

Doidoidoi said:
The main thing is that it won't be isometric, either just first or third person, but be serious, isometric gaming is fairly obsolete by today's standards.
Click to expand...
Horseshit. The first-person view existed way, way, way before the isometric view was existed. The first real-time first-person view RPG was Akalabeth - in 1980.
Also, why should every game be exactly the same action-based horseshit just because it's fashionable? It makes no sense, and just creates a homogenised, saturated market.
Doidoidoi said:
It's still going to be violent, but that's a very irrelevant thing to be complaining about. I don't know. I loved Fallout 1 and 2 (in addition to Wasteland) very very much, I thought Fallout 2 was better than 1 for the most part. I love isometric games like baldur's gate and I also enjoyed all of the Elder Scrolls games (which got better and better, thank you).
Click to expand...
I think they got worse and worse, but whatever that isn't exactly relevant to the topic of Fallout.

Dpodpo said:
I just can't see why you guys think Fallout 3 is bad.

And yes, I did just register to talk about this because I just can't believe SA's front page article about this site.
Click to expand...
Yet you didn't actually take the time to read through the multitude of the threads around explaining in-depth why we do not want Fallout 3 to be what Bethesda seems to be turning it into.
 
The main thing is that it won't be isometric, either just first or third person, but be serious, isometric gaming is fairly obsolete by today's standards.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akalabeth

Don't you people get tired of fpprpgs? They're almost 30 years old, nobody should make them now!


I swear, there must be a factory of some sort that produces people that come here, start threads how they don't understand and that it's not going to be Oblivion with gunz...
Well, maybe not, but guess what?
It won't be Fallout either! Whooo!
 
Sander said:
Yet you didn't actually take the time to read through the multitude of the threads around explaining in-depth why we do not want Fallout 3 to be what Bethesda seems to be turning it into.
Click to expand...

So here's a question. Why is Bethesda giving the intended audience glimpses of the game this early? Blizzard managed to keep Starcraft II under wraps for years. I can only see three possibilities:

1) They threw a bunch of their ideas together, they're going to gauge customer reaction to said ideas, and they still have a year and a half to change the ideas that the customers hate.

2) They're hoping to win over a major Fallout fandom (I guess that would be D&C now that NMA's out of the running) by tying irradiated carrots to sticks to entice the fandoms along.

3) They're showing off the franchise like a parent shows off a child...yet everyone can take one look at the baby and say "that baby doesn't have the father you want everyone to think he has." (Which is where Bethsoft is right now, IMO.)
 
Story wise, maybe. But the fact that you have a father restricting you, and are forced to play a 19-year old who wanted to leave the Vault is a lot more restricting than either Fallout or Fallout 2 was.
Click to expand...

How is this any more restrictive than FO1 (you must leave the vault to find the water chip) or FO2 (you must leave the village to find the GECK)? Original FO1 was so restrictive that if you didn't pursure the main plot line fast enough you lost the game.

I have a number of reservations about FO3 but I think this complaint is absolutely baseless.
 
you must leave the vault to find the water chip
Click to expand...

Yet, you can finish the game without returning it.

you must leave the village to find the GECK
Click to expand...

See above.


However, that's not the worst part. The worst is that you are already defined as being 19-year old and also you have already defined relationships, like with your father and apparently with a high-school honey.
Now, that might be cute and all for an adeventure game, but we're talking about what is supposed to be an RPG here, and in an RPG you are the one that should define your character.
 
Even if main quests in FO1 and 2 were lame...
Let me ask you something- what the hell?
I thought you wanted a BETTER sequel? So you think that because previous games had lame main quest it's okay for FO3 to have lame main quest too? Hell, FO2 had talking-almost-everything, let's put talking-almost-everything into FO3 because it was in FO2.

Jesus Christ, and people are saying that WE want a carbon copy...

*moan* Rabid Fallout fanboys want expansion pack to FO2 and nothing more *moan*
 
Black said:
Even if main quests in FO1 and 2 were lame...
Let me ask you something- what the hell?
I thought you wanted a BETTER sequel? So you think that because previous games had lame main quest it's okay for FO3 to have lame main quest too? Hell, FO2 had talking-almost-everything, let's put talking-almost-everything into FO3 because it was in FO2.

Jesus Christ, and people are saying that WE want a carbon copy...

*moan* Rabid Fallout fanboys want expansion pack to FO2 and nothing more *moan*
Click to expand...

I never said what I wanted, if you actually read my post all I did was point out that the main quests in FO1 and 2 were just as restrictive. If you want to pretend I said other things just so you have something to complain about go for it.

Yet, you can finish the game without returning it.
Click to expand...

Only after the patch, not in the game as released.
 
Yep, I agree, main quests in previous FOs weren't perfect. But wouldn't it make more sense if FO3 had better main quest? I thought sequels are supposed to be better?
To me, it sounds like justifing "FO1 and 2 had restrictive main quest so I don't see why FO3 should have less restrictive"


We all know that previous FO's weren't perfect yet it looks like if there's something similiar in FO3 that previous FOs had and that wasn't so good, it automatically is good because "it was in Fo1/Fo2".
 
FeelTheRads said:
However, that's not the worst part. The worst is that you are already defined as being 19-year old and also you have already defined relationships, like with your father and apparently with a high-school honey.
Now, that might be cute and all for an adeventure game, but we're talking about what is supposed to be an RPG here, and in an RPG you are the one that should define your character.
Click to expand...

Planescape: Torment anyone? Maybe the best crpg ever and the character in it already had a defined history.

Yeah still I actually agree with you that isn't a good thing for Fallout as I always liked how I could completly create my own character, but it does work for some games.
 
H.A.D.E.S. said:
Planescape: Torment anyone? Maybe the best crpg ever and the character in it already had a defined history.

Yeah still I actually agree with you that isn't a good thing for Fallout as I always liked how I could completly create my own character, but it does work for some games.
Click to expand...

Has it ever occurred to you that Torment is great in spite of the pigeon-holing, not because of it?
Besides, Fallout and Arcanum beat it to a pulp.. anybody who disagrees is wrong, obviously!
 
P:T takes a lot from eastern crpgs, it's very different than Fallout.

Besides, Fallout and Arcanum beat it to a pulp.. anybody who disagrees is wrong, obviously!
Click to expand...

Torment is the best (and I mean it!) crpg ever made :<
 
Doidoidoi said:
It's not going to be "oblivion! but with guns!", because if you had read anything on it you would realize it's not gonna be like that. It can still be turned based, if what I read is correct. It is still going to be in the same style, story wise. The main thing is that it won't be isometric, either just first or third person, but be serious, isometric gaming is fairly obsolete by today's standards. It's still going to be violent, but that's a very irrelevant thing to be complaining about. I don't know. I loved Fallout 1 and 2 (in addition to Wasteland) very very much, I thought Fallout 2 was better than 1 for the most part. I love isometric games like baldur's gate and I also enjoyed all of the Elder Scrolls games (which got better and better, thank you).

I just can't see why you guys think Fallout 3 is bad.

And yes, I did just register to talk about this because I just can't believe SA's front page article about this site.
Click to expand...

I could honestly give a rat's ass whether it's isometric, turn based, first person etc, as I don't really have a problem one way or the other. What I do have a problem with, is Beths track record in developing anything other than that of a cookie-cutter FPS themed lite RPG. They may be able to dazzle a large number of morons with "Uhh's and Ahh's" when it comes to graphical renders of characters and environments, but those of us that crave a little atmosphere and context to a RPG think otherwise. They, BethSoft, haven't produced a quality RPG in many years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top