midshipman01
First time out of the vault
Hi everyone, obviously new here if you check the post count. I have been checking out the board, and specifically this subforum, for a few days now. I've got to say that you all are definitely up to snuff with your Fallout trivia, but your nostalgia for the original titles has really jaded the general outlook of Fallout 3 on this board. Here is how things really are...
The biggest complaint I'm noticing is that the story lacks some...I dunno, pizazz. I can get on board with that for the most part, it definitely could have been more enticing along the way and more profound at the end. The real problem, however, is not that Fallout 3's story was weak. Many, many games, movies, and books have worse. The real problem, on this forum, is that the story is no longer told through miles and miles of text. Picture yourself as a writer. You have 2 games sitting in front of you. One full of static screens with text boxes just waiting to be amassed, and another with live action segments of realistic conversation length. It seems obvious to me that the static game will lend itself to a healthy, developed story line because I can write a friggin book if I want to. I can write paragraphs about specific armor types in the inventory screen, or take characters on a whirlwind 20 minute dialogue that would never actually take place.
The real kicker here, is that no matter how much more content I add to this static box pile, it WILL NEVER BE BETTER than the live action title. Watching a character's facial and hand expressions will always create a more immersive storyline than a picture of their face next to text. Watching my character pull his arm up to view the pip boy, and viewing all in-game information in that format, will always be more immersive than leaving the game to reach a Pip Boy menu screen. I'm sorry to say it, but nostalgia is not a good enough reason to deny this. You may have quite liked the story development of F1 and 2, but a third game that mimics those story development tactics would be a step backwards, or at least sideways, for gaming. Especially RPG gaming, where immersion is paramount. In 1997, this was the only way to achieve a vast game experience. Now, that is not the case and I doubt that format would have been chosen today. It's archaic, unwieldy, and has been done infinitely better by a 99c used paperback.
The combat seems to be another point of interest for Fallout 3 flaming, and honestly a rebuttal to that does not require much from me. Here goes. "Please.". That's it. Done. Please tell me in what way turn based combat is advantageous over VATS or live action combat. It doesn't look better. It isn't realistic. Some say, "it's a tactical combat system"...uh, ok. All combat systems are tactical, the only thing that changes is the tactic required. At very least, VATS is an acceptable substitute for turn based combat. At very most (and probably most correct), it takes turn based combat to the place it always wanted to go: Allowing tactical attacks, but in a real-time setting without having to leave the game and enter "fight mode". Again, this is an archaic system that has only been improved by the implementation of real time combat. Turn based is NOT immersive and I wouldn't accept an argument to the contrary. Your love for it is purely nostalgic and I know this because it offers no advantage to a well-executed real time system.
As for "isometric view" (ooohhh ahhh!), you do realize that this was a concession made for technology's sake...right? You are sick in the head if you think Fallout 1 or 2 would EVER have been developed if that perspective if Fallout 3's 3-D sandbox were possible (Diablo 3 is not compelling evidence to the contrary). If Bethesda had retained the isometric view in 2008, it would have been an insult to consumers, but mostly Fallout fans who should have wanted to see actual improvements on the formula. No true fan would want to see the same drivel returning sequel after sequel. A series stays interesting through evolution, not rehashing.
Which brings us to the final point. Bethesda did not fail. If anyone did fail, its you. You, who should have been most appreciative of the time and effort that is so clearly evident in every technical aspect of this game. I'm not saying it's the best game in the world. It's not. But to say that it is "depressing" or some such is doing a disservice to the series you claim to love. Look at that game world. It's massive, gorgeous, and littered with thoughtful detail in every nook and cranny. There are tons of NPC's, most of which have an entire convo tree or SET of convo trees in different situations. There are tons of weapons, tons of clothing choices, tons of random items. This is a great game. It's art. To call this a failure to the franchise is ridiculously narrow minded as is pointing to random, minor glitches as evidence that the entire game is not worth your time. This kind of whiny nitpicking is a sure fire way to NEVER receive that kind of effort again. Lucky for you, those "13 yr old Halo noobs" who love Fallout 3 (interestingly, making them more appreciative of quality gaming) have made this a success despite the hardcore fan base's blind nostalgia.
The biggest complaint I'm noticing is that the story lacks some...I dunno, pizazz. I can get on board with that for the most part, it definitely could have been more enticing along the way and more profound at the end. The real problem, however, is not that Fallout 3's story was weak. Many, many games, movies, and books have worse. The real problem, on this forum, is that the story is no longer told through miles and miles of text. Picture yourself as a writer. You have 2 games sitting in front of you. One full of static screens with text boxes just waiting to be amassed, and another with live action segments of realistic conversation length. It seems obvious to me that the static game will lend itself to a healthy, developed story line because I can write a friggin book if I want to. I can write paragraphs about specific armor types in the inventory screen, or take characters on a whirlwind 20 minute dialogue that would never actually take place.
The real kicker here, is that no matter how much more content I add to this static box pile, it WILL NEVER BE BETTER than the live action title. Watching a character's facial and hand expressions will always create a more immersive storyline than a picture of their face next to text. Watching my character pull his arm up to view the pip boy, and viewing all in-game information in that format, will always be more immersive than leaving the game to reach a Pip Boy menu screen. I'm sorry to say it, but nostalgia is not a good enough reason to deny this. You may have quite liked the story development of F1 and 2, but a third game that mimics those story development tactics would be a step backwards, or at least sideways, for gaming. Especially RPG gaming, where immersion is paramount. In 1997, this was the only way to achieve a vast game experience. Now, that is not the case and I doubt that format would have been chosen today. It's archaic, unwieldy, and has been done infinitely better by a 99c used paperback.
The combat seems to be another point of interest for Fallout 3 flaming, and honestly a rebuttal to that does not require much from me. Here goes. "Please.". That's it. Done. Please tell me in what way turn based combat is advantageous over VATS or live action combat. It doesn't look better. It isn't realistic. Some say, "it's a tactical combat system"...uh, ok. All combat systems are tactical, the only thing that changes is the tactic required. At very least, VATS is an acceptable substitute for turn based combat. At very most (and probably most correct), it takes turn based combat to the place it always wanted to go: Allowing tactical attacks, but in a real-time setting without having to leave the game and enter "fight mode". Again, this is an archaic system that has only been improved by the implementation of real time combat. Turn based is NOT immersive and I wouldn't accept an argument to the contrary. Your love for it is purely nostalgic and I know this because it offers no advantage to a well-executed real time system.
As for "isometric view" (ooohhh ahhh!), you do realize that this was a concession made for technology's sake...right? You are sick in the head if you think Fallout 1 or 2 would EVER have been developed if that perspective if Fallout 3's 3-D sandbox were possible (Diablo 3 is not compelling evidence to the contrary). If Bethesda had retained the isometric view in 2008, it would have been an insult to consumers, but mostly Fallout fans who should have wanted to see actual improvements on the formula. No true fan would want to see the same drivel returning sequel after sequel. A series stays interesting through evolution, not rehashing.
Which brings us to the final point. Bethesda did not fail. If anyone did fail, its you. You, who should have been most appreciative of the time and effort that is so clearly evident in every technical aspect of this game. I'm not saying it's the best game in the world. It's not. But to say that it is "depressing" or some such is doing a disservice to the series you claim to love. Look at that game world. It's massive, gorgeous, and littered with thoughtful detail in every nook and cranny. There are tons of NPC's, most of which have an entire convo tree or SET of convo trees in different situations. There are tons of weapons, tons of clothing choices, tons of random items. This is a great game. It's art. To call this a failure to the franchise is ridiculously narrow minded as is pointing to random, minor glitches as evidence that the entire game is not worth your time. This kind of whiny nitpicking is a sure fire way to NEVER receive that kind of effort again. Lucky for you, those "13 yr old Halo noobs" who love Fallout 3 (interestingly, making them more appreciative of quality gaming) have made this a success despite the hardcore fan base's blind nostalgia.
