So, yeah, Fallout

[Bitterman]

A lot of news recently, about Fallout 3. A lot of buzz going around. A lot of hope built up again. A lot of talk.

I finally got around, to sitting down and laying it all out in a post of how I feel about Fallout. Not just 1 or 2, the whole franchise, if you will. Various reasons, mostly it's just how I feel about things, and I enjoy discussing games in detail. Most of it I had mentioned in breif to people here and there over the years, but now I've finally sat down and tried to put it all together into one place where everyone can read it.

I'd like to share it with you people. Sharing is cool, and communication builds postive things.

It's on Nurk, my page. Some of you have read it already, some of you have not. So I'm posting the link here now, to give you all a chance to glance at it.

http://www.desolation.org/nurk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3788#3788

And please, I encourage you to leave feedback. As I say, about communication and all.

Thanks.

 

[Warped314]

*pat pat*

there there, those nasty Interplay people won't bother you any more.

 

[Roshambo]

Heh, more brutal than I've put it, and good points about Fo2.

The one major correction I have to add is that we HAVE NOT compiled a full list of the Fo2 easter eggs. It is, as you put it well, the entire fucking game. We stopped at what I've estimated to be about 40% of them, and I've long since stopped updating the page, it even has my gamestats email addy still listed there. Cataloging the entire batch would be as pointless as Fo2 easter eggs are lame.

Second of all, while New Reno may have been the most polished part of the game, it was far from the setting of Fallout.

Compared to The Master, Frank was indeed a bland generic big boss guy.

As for Fallout Tactics, you're still going to have to try better to get me to accept a game that was billed as "Jagged Alliance 2 but in the Fallout universe", by one of the people at MicroForté, and delivered a lot less. FFT had polish. FOT had excuses, poor design, and is still incomplete, at least from a developer viewpoint. That is, unless half-ass patching is the way of the future. I would also like to mention that it was through critiques of the game's material that resulted in "minor things" like a world map. The game was going to be MUCH simpler before then.

Then, after what you bitch about in Fo2, Fallout Tactics and FOS screw it up even more. They [Chuck and Co.] kill Harold off, which should have been an obvious bad thing in terms of backstory.

Then, you just go into a complete case of breakdown, mainly because your material hardly has any backing. Perhaps if you had played these games you'd sound like something else than a vaporware apologist. Or shall I point out the gas station in FOT. Hmmm, what was the cause of the Great War? Thank you.

Pick a stance and stick with it, or don't whine when people point out that the two titles you're defending are by far worse than what you complained about in Fo2. WE didn't make the games that way, WE are not responsible for them sucking, killing off Harold between Fo1&2, or whatever. Try to remember that. It's very funny to read you bitching about one thing, and then go on to gloss over the same points when they could be applied to the games you apologise for, but moreso. What? Did you drama kiddies fail to notice that there was some reason for the bitching, and again it was for the very same points you mention. It does make you look asinine as the proof is very available outside of playing the game, although some people have made their experience quite thoroughly documented.

I'm not even going to start on the rest of the thread, other than to say that Voltaire is a complete fucktard. Yes, we "sabotaged" such poor design, and forced them to kill off Harold and to completely fuck up the Fallout setting. Keep going, kids. The most amusing aspect is the skewed history, some could stand to browse through the archived forums a bit more. EDIT: Nevermind, it's just Moonbiter the Attention-Whore.

Then maybe some of you will figure out why some say to let Fallout die is because ever since the original, Interplay has been doing quite a fucked job with the setting, progressively worse each sequel.

Is the point clear, now?

EDIT: Guess I was wrong.

Tactics was great you fuckers. The lack of freedom wasn't that bad if you realized that it just asn't an RPG. Action wise it ws great.

Great, if you've never played anything else in the genre.

BOS on console was a perfect hack n slash, and as Bitterman stated a company has to make money to succeed and theres money in hack n slash right now.

Perfect? Holy shit, the "Professor" is an idiot! Apparently, other games like Run Like Hell and Daikatana were also their cup of tea and amazing, but just because they are their first experiences in the genre, that doesn't make them anywhere close to great.

 

[Bitterman]

No, Reno wasn't the setting, but in FO2 it was the most fun I had in the game. Between trying to decipher the existence of this downed vertibird, and why deathclaws talk now, Reno was a nice place of cohesiveness and depth.

People say a lot of things, trying to gain some interest. Like how on the back of the Road Kill (PA vehiclar combat) it bills it as "Grand Theft Auto meets Twisted Metal Black." It leans more twoard the Twisted Metal in how it plays, and I guess Grand Theft Auto because you're in a car, and it's mission driven. An obvious ploy to pike interest.

JA2 in the Fallout universe. It can be seen, because they're the same style of game. In execution however, JA2 is a classic, and people hate FO:T.

Perhaps if I had spent more time playing FO:T, my view would be different. But I know what I experienced, and I hold some optimism. Gee, optimism, hope, shoot me.

I'm not going to say F:BOS was a great hns. It was fine, in the same vein that Evil Dead: Fist Full of Boomstick was fine, it got old shooting deadities after 3 hours, but being a fan of the serries, the game was fine. F:BOS did more to condem itself in the first half hour of publicity then it ever could have in actual play. People were pissed they weren't getting another RPG, and were vocal. When they saw what they were getting, they were even more vocal.

I do agree with your final point tho. It should just rest in peace, for god's sake.

 

[Roshambo]

No, Reno wasn't the setting, but in FO2 it was the most fun I had in the game. Between trying to decipher the existence of this downed vertibird, and why deathclaws talk now, Reno was a nice place of cohesiveness and depth.

I will agree that it had design, while it didn't fit, it was still pretty good.

People say a lot of things, trying to gain some interest. Like how on the back of the Road Kill (PA vehiclar combat) it bills it as "Grand Theft Auto meets Twisted Metal Black." It leans more twoard the Twisted Metal in how it plays, and I guess Grand Theft Auto because you're in a car, and it's mission driven. An obvious ploy to pike interest.

Then they should be held accountable to such claims if they are going to make them. "Hello, FPS XYG would be like Unreal Tournament, but put into a tribal setting." What do you get from that? That you should expect something of the same gameplay, or at least the same quality, from the name-dropping bastards unless they make specifications.

JA2 in the Fallout universe. It can be seen, because they're the same style of game. In execution however, JA2 is a classic, and people hate FO:T.

People see a lot of "blind hatred" for the game, but that's mainly the drama whores who need to use such a flimsy excuse. I don't like the game because it doesn't fit into the Fallout universe, regardless if it's a squad tactical or RPG. Many people are the same way. When you start to rewrite the backstory, you end up with serious problems with the fans who care for more than game mechanics, which happened with both FOT and FOS.

Perhaps if I had spent more time playing FO:T, my view would be different. But I know what I experienced, and I hold some optimism. Gee, optimism, hope, shoot me.

The demo was far from the full game, really. It's not like Freddy Got Fingered, where you can tell the movie is crap within 5 minutes. This time, the demo managed to be better than the game. That was what surprised me.

I'm not going to say F:BOS was a great hns. It was fine, in the same vein that Evil Dead: Fist Full of Boomstick was fine, it got old shooting deadities after 3 hours, but being a fan of the serries, the game was fine. F:BOS did more to condem itself in the first half hour of publicity then it ever could have in actual play. People were pissed they weren't getting another RPG, and were vocal.

That's cute. Did you steal that one from Moonbiter? People objected to the game because it had little to do with Fallout, had shit for storyline, and etc. I'm really not fond of explaining what went on to people who like to try and skew things to their advantage. It wasn't because people weren't getting a CRPG, don't bother with that straw man now. It wasn't because it was going to be for the consoles. The main killer was the first press release, especially the items mentioned within. The items were so laughable, and it kept going downhill from there. After people received one game that was barely supported, could you blame them for not wanting to wade through another miasmic botching of the setting, especially since it's worse this time around?

Or is it a new fad to ignore the universe and just go for the killing?

When they saw what they were getting, they were even more vocal.

Obviously, since it was crap, especially compared to other games of the same genre and had little to nothing to do with Fallout. After the game was released, most of the die-hard apologists at GameFAQs stopped trying to defend the game because apparently they did buy the game like loyalists and got exactly what we said they would.

Also, and a very amusing point to note. Fallout got its popularity by being played by people, not just those in the Fallout community, and word of mouth spread. If a game is good, despite what people say, then it will flourish. If a game is crap, it becomes more obvious than a machine gunner off a church pew and people will say such all around. Apparently, someone has played the game, and from what I've seen only ShadowPaladin and others who haven't played the game have anything remotely good to...well, no, it's all been "It doesn't suck! Give it a chance!"

Go blame VideoGameReview.com for their negative news article as well in helping kill the game. See what their response is, and while you're there, see how nobody really wants to admit owning the game because there's no reviews about it.

I would also suggest that you get your facts straight about this, too. FOS was not licensed to a third-party developer, and frankly I'm surprised you came up with that when in reality FOS was developed by those who were known as Digital Mayhem, under Chuck Cuevas' production direction. Chuck Cuevas, producer of yet another Interplay title, Suck Like Hell. It doesn't take much to see where this game never had a chance to be anywhere near good.

EDIT: The Glow in Fo1 also explains some of the DeathClaws' origin, and more about them in Fo2. FEV-mutated Jackson's Chameleons, to be precise.

 

[dipdipdip0]

I can't speak on Tactics, because I'd never played the game extensively. I just didn't find it to be very good compared to other games in the genre, and I didn't care for flying Brotherhood of Steel GI-Joe gas-guzzlers (just as HH asked, "what was the cause of the Great War?" .

With FOBOS, I'm very much tired of hearing from people that the community whined about FOBOS for its being on the consoles and not an RPG. You simply wouldn't find this kind of vitriol were the above two the only problems. The game simply didn't resemble Fallout in the slightest (do I really have to point that out?), and just about every comment made by the devs in interviews showed that they didn't have the slightest fucking clue what Fallout was about (seriously, go dig up a few of the Bumblefuck Chuck interviews). If you must know, I sure did play the game. Almost beat it too, but I just wasn't having any fun. I again found with this game that it just didn't hold up when compared to others games of the same genre. I couldn't find much to like about the game and its poor quality really should speak for itself: you even had those who'd play-testered the game popping up on the web expressing their disastisfaction with the game and the lack of concern on the devs' part.

Also, if, as you say, we're solely responsible for the death of IPLY (ignoring the piss poor quality of their games of late and horrible management), then so be it. They weren't in the business of making good games anymore -- so what's the point?

 

[Roshambo]

Wait...we're responsible for the death of Interplay? Yay! Beer all around!

And, of course, those who would get upset with the above have absolutely no idea of what's been going on with Interplay.

 

[Role-Player]

People were pissed they weren't getting another RPG, and were vocal. When they saw what they were getting, they were even more vocal.

I think this excludes any future attempts at taking you seriously, at least in regards to this matter.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Heh. I like the people over there talking about the hairy Deathclaws. Yes, the hairy Deathclaws are the sole reason FO:T is a pile of rubbish.

In reality, it's "yet another reason" right on the end, at the bottom, of a long list of reasons. Primarily starting with:
Where the hell did all the working vehicles come from? Who's supplying the Gas for those?

Beyond that you're looking at the 50's setting and then a string of consistency errors, which is about when the hairy Deathclaws come into it. Right after "Talking Deathclaws years before they were actually developed by the Enclave".

Seriously, people, grow up. Consoles are where the money is at

I've never really believed this no matter who said it. I think the only reason shit games (and the majority of console games are watered down shit) sell on the console is because of a lack of choice. PC games will get you 1000 titles released every year. Console games might have 100, if you're lucky, most of which are "[GAME] Version 2 - 10". There's a perception that $ConsoleGame = $Money. Who here is really dense enough to believe that?

and Interplay is a company that needs what? Money. They were willing to try anything, to save the company. It was a gamble, but because of the narrow sight, and stubborn heart of the community. It failed.

That's right, we killed Interplay. I hope you're happy.

Well, I am happy but we didn't kill Interplay. You're talking about a company with at least 5 franchises that I can name off the top of my head (Descent, Freespace, Fallout, Baldur's Gate, Dark Alliance) that successfully failed to milk any of them. Oh, apparently Dark Alliance went great. And...? That pretty much sums up Interplay's successful games released for the passed what, 3 years? In the meantime though, they managed to cancel Jefferson, cancel Fallout and reportedly cancel at least one or two other games. Oh, but they were PC games of course so they wouldn't have made money anyway. Regardless of the fact that Interplay, as a pure PC gaming company, was worth approximately $200 Million US at one point during its life. My how times change.

 

[Ancient Oldie]

My opinion of Fallout Tactics is as follows; It suffered from one major flaw, and that was the inclusion of the Fallout name.

I personally liked the game, and the majority of people I know who played the game (excluding the dedicated Fallout fanbase) enjoyed FT also. Just take a peek at the ratings most review sites gave the game, and the personal reviews at GameFAQs. The general opinion isn't that it's a horrorshow like it's made out to be, but a good game that was enjoyed by most.

Now why is it that, in general, most people like this game, yet the fallout fanbase hates it. The answer is quite simple; most people either haven't played the original Fallout games, or don't pay as much attention to the minor details like the dedicated fans do. Whenever I look at a FT thread on NMA, the detractions are often in the vein of:

- "Deathclaws don't have hair!"
- "Gasoline powered cars?! HA!!!"
- "Vault 0... WTF?!"
- "Iguana-on-a-stick... that's some bullshit."
- *insert plothole here*

However, if the game never had the Fallout name to begin with, all those complains would disappear with it. I'm pretty sure several of the FT's detractors out there would've actually liked the FT game if it was called something differently, whether they would admit to it or not.

Is it as good as Jagged Alliance 2? Fuck no!!! JA2 is second to none when it comes to squad-based strategy games. If I was to apply the same chain of logic on other squad-based games, then all other games in that genre would be shit, also. IMO, JA2 is the standard that all games should be compared to in that genre, and stating that FT wasn't good because JA2 was better is bullshit; just because a game isn't as good as another one doesn't automatically make it crap.

So, people on both sides of the good vs. crap FT opinion have valid points. If I was a hardcore FO fanatic who picked up a copy of Tactics, and halfway through playing the game, noticed several glaring plot-holes that didn't mix with the universe, I would have every right to be put off. However, if this is the first Fallout game that I played, and therefore didn't know much of the backstory, or am willing to overlook those details, and focus more on the game's principle strengths, then yes, I would have every right to say that the game is pretty damn good.

I think Bitterman made a good point about FO2; it had several major issues that, when compared to the first Fallout, didn't mix very well either. But, why isn't this game shredded apart when it's put under close scrutiny also?

As for FOOS, I totally disagree with Bitterman. Although you can't compare a couple of screenies to the actually experience of playing that game, you need to take into context what exactly occured before the game was released. It's crap for not only the reasons stated above, but for several in-game issues (I'll admit it, I actually rented the game ), its pre-release treatment of a large group of some of its most loyal fans, as well as the reputation of the folks behind the game.

Although I don't agree with half of what Bitterman said (he should've thought things through instead of letting his emotions carry him away at the end), I can see where he's coming from; we aren't exactly lenient when it comes to differing opinions on the Fallout games, and we're especially quick to flame someone over them. Don't get me wrong, NMA isn't for the thin-skinned, but really, when we start reviewing other people's reviews ("They don't think that game sucks like we do. They're STUPID!"), we're taking it a bit too far. It's like those ctrl-alt-del comics that are often posted on NMA (irony?), with the kid who is obsessed with FO3's cancellation, and therefore dedicates all his energy and time to destroy Haerve in some petty attempt at revenge over a video game. Although not to the extent that the kid takes it to, there are several Fallout fanatics out there like that kid, and that's rather sad in a despicable trekkie sort of way.

Also folks, let's be real, console games don't always equal cash, but there's more money to be made off of them when compared to PC games. Most of the highest selling games are on consoles, and the more mainstream video games become, the more prevalent this trend will be. KOTOR is a good example; It sold more on the X-Box than it did with the PC. It doesn't mean that PC games won't sell well, and, in certain genre's, will often outperform their console counterparts; but, there's no denying where more capital can be generated nowadays. Interplay should have stuck with making PC RPG's IMO, but their choice on focusing more on consoles isn't without merit, as can be seen by Dark Alliance sales. I think we're letting our wish for a FO3 cloud out Interplay's reasoning for making console games.

However, saying that we were responsible for the fall of Interplay, especially when we are the ones that tend to buy most of their games when they're released, is pure bullshit. Interplay fucked up because they were under the guidance of inept leadership, as well as the result of poor sales generated from a string of shitty game releases.

 

[Roshambo]

My opinion of Fallout Tactics is as follows; It suffered from one major flaw, and that was the inclusion of the Fallout name.

You suffer from that many missing fingers? There's more problems with the game than just the Fallout universe being botched. If the conversion of the old forum were complete, I'd show you multiple threads that go into more of the problems, and this doesn't even count those from V13 and other locations.

I personally liked the game, and the majority of people I know who played the game (excluding the dedicated Fallout fanbase) enjoyed FT also.

Keep in mind the number of people who really do like the game are in fact small. If they liked the game, they would play it, right? Then why did GameSpy ditch it? Because nobody was playing it.

Just take a peek at the ratings most review sites gave the game, and the personal reviews at GameFAQs.

Well, since it was more complicated than most console fare, I don't really count console kiddies loving the game. As for most review sites, I guess you just lub that shiny 81% at GameRankings.com. Those reviews were also made, ironically enough, with the hopes that the game would be patched. Many of those reviews were right after the game was released.

In fact, many at PCGR.com and other sites loathe FOT because it not only botched the setting, it wasn't worth playing unless they were clannie ilk.

Many did make favorable reviews, but when the hype and thin veneer of polish that they put onto the game wore off, people dumped it like a cheating date and didn't bother.

The general opinion isn't that it's a horrorshow like it's made out to be, but a good game that was enjoyed by most.

Survey Says: Crack!

Now why is it that, in general, most people like this game, yet the fallout fanbase hates it.

What hallucinogens are you currently taking to achieve the above effect? You might have some truth in the above, if you made the comment right before FOT's release up until the hype wore off.

The answer is quite simple; most people either haven't played the original Fallout games, or don't pay as much attention to the minor details like the dedicated fans do.

That includes the apologists, who apparently don't see the flaws in the game's design, Fallout universe related or otherwise.

Whenever I look at a FT thread on NMA, the detractions are often in the vein of:

- "Deathclaws don't have hair!"
- "Gasoline powered cars?! HA!!!"
- "Vault 0... WTF?!"
- "Iguana-on-a-stick... that's some bullshit."
- *insert plothole here*

You might want to revise that to "Whenever I look at a FT thread on NMA, I seem to only notice:", as there's been a lot more discussion about the bugs, unfinished parts of the game, crap for balancing, and much more.

However, if the game never had the Fallout name to begin with, all those complains would disappear with it.

I'm fairly certain the same fuck-ups would have been present in the game no matter what the setting, or the setting was to the point of being rendered superfluous as the attention to detail given to its construction were incompetently performed. People generally noticed this quickly, as FOT had the largest number of pre-orders of any Interplay game from their web site, but that also died down quickly after the game was released.

I'm pretty sure several of the FT's detractors out there would've actually liked the FT game if it was called something differently, whether they would admit to it or not.

Well, if you just solely care about the mechanics, I'm sure you and afew more clannies would just be thrilled to go romping around in the buggy as shit multiplayer. Or you could go romping around in the buggy as shit single-player, and enjoy the shitty level design, shitty mechanics design, and much more that amount to "shitty'.

Dan Levin wasn't the only source of shit in the game.

What happened to FOT was the same for many other mediocre releases. It had a dud release, resulting in all that is left is a few people modding the game, there's no official support anymore, and someone walked away with the money you paid for it while grinning like a fiend.

To them, you bought the game and that's all that matters.

So, seriously, if the game wasn't so bad, then why have a number of crews folded for it? JA2's a game that's been out longer and has far more people still following it, even when it was just the core game. FOT should have a number of teams still around, but quite frankly it seemed that FOT was more of a headache for people to keep on their HD than otherwise. People moved on, people lost interest, and that was hardly because some people didn't like it. It was because people didn't have interest in the game as much, and drifted away to the next shallow shiny thing.

In fact, people like dolo have given excuses and made others scapegoats in order to avoid having to do anything they said they would. If anyone wants to keep believing the drama queens and whistling their tune, you can go buddy up with them, we don't want their heavily edited version of events.

 

[welsh]

Bitterman-
I think one of the ironies of this post is that while you are chastising the fallout community for being critical, you and the other posters are pointing out the same problem.

The problem is a simple one- the makers of the game have been negligent on the issue of quality.

Fallout 1 was a great game. Perhaps a bit short for some people, but a great game. Fallout 2 was a poor sequel, done too fast and without having it's priorities straightened out. A lot of the fans loved it, but as you pointed out, it was incomplete. It was made and shipped out to fast when perhaps a bit more time and care might have led to a better game.

What the fans wanted was a good fallout sequel. Those who had gotten Fallout 1 or followed it from Wastelands wanted a good sequel. After Fallout 2 there was demand for a good Fallout 3. Simply that- a good, complete, enjoyable fallout 3. One that was consistent in plot and story, one that was free of bugs, with fewer stupid easter eggs and more good game play.

Instead we got Tactics and FOBOS. I can't speak for FOBOS as I don't own a console. I haven't played it but what I have seen suggests the same problem that Tactics suffers- the designers were not paying attention to quality nor did it seem they were paying attention to the expectations of the community. Tactics was highly embraced by the community until it came out. Following Jagged Alliance 2 and considering the inconsistencies in plot, the bugs, the uneven game play - it failed to live up to the communities expectations (and the maker's promises) of quality. When the truth of Fallout Tactics was revealed, the fans were justifiably pissed off.

The problem? Those in charge were screwing up.

They were making inferior products that didn't hold up to expectation. Even if they were branching Fallout into new realms of game play, they were doing a shodding job of it.

Doesn't the community have a right to expect good quality? I mean, it's our dollars that pay for it.

But worse- The community wanted Fallout 3 and expected it. At times they have been promised it. There is a rule of customer service- give the customer what they want. That didn't happen.

If there are so many fan sites its because they love the game. If they are vocal it's because they are vocal about that love of the game. Fallout gets around now more out of word-of-mouth than sales. I haven't seen Fallout jewel case at Walmart in ages. Yet people are still picking it up and loving it.

Yet you are blaming them, the community, for the failure of the franchise?

In my opinion the community has every right to be pissed off.

The producers are marketing a game under the Fallout name with the expectation that we will buy it out of loyalty. God knows that's why I bought Fallout Tactics.

But customers are not sheep to be sheared nor should we forget that what we love about fallout was our individual game experiences, not interplay. It's another rule of business- respect and appreciate your customers because they allow you to do the thing you love.

We might appreciate those who made Fallout 1 and 2, but we should be allowed our expectations that the designers will not take our loyalty or love of the game for granted. We expect quality, and instead get disappointment.

And there lies the failure.

But not with the fans. The fans have the right to expect quality. Considering the love and dedication that Fallout gets, a developer should be happy for the opportunity to make a Fallout 3. Few games have had that kind of devotion. And according to you this is a bad thing?

That Interplay has failed to appreciate that opportunity reflects their ambition, their misunderstood priorities, their lack of respect for their customers and their negligence. The fans expected that they would be appreciated and that appreciation would be rewarded with quality. Interplay doesn't understand that.

It's sad to think of the BIS folks who have to look for jobs, or those who have been or will be downsized. It is unfortunate that many talented people have been forced to relocate or change jobs because of decisions not of their control.

There is another rule of management- the buck stops here. If management is fucked up, if it can't get its priorities straight, if it fails to appreciate it's customers, than management needs to go or get it's shit together.

 

[Grizzly~Adams]

Why don't all you FOT haters just admit it. Your just pissed off because it wasn't Fallout 3. Not everyone was pissed off when FOT finally came out, I can't even remember one bad reveiw(at first). Yeah it need some patchwork, but it wasn't nearly as bad as FO2.

I thought it was a good game, not a great game, but a good game. And I have played Silent Storm, JA2, X-com, and other tactical games. I wouldn't say its among the best, but its still a good game. I wasn't expecting it to have a great story, or be totally true to the setting. Its not a fucking RPG, It was a tactical game. And R. Lee Ermy was in it!!!1

Its just stupid how all you sctrict PC RPGing Fallout junkies need all your little fetishes fullfilled. Yeah it was "flawed" and didn't live up to your expectations, but not that many games do. I would like to see you make something better.

 

[Montez]

Why don't all you FOT haters just admit it. Your just pissed off because it wasn't Fallout 3.

I won't admit it because it's not true. I dislike Tactics mainly because it's a boring game and has the one of the ugliest color schemes I've ever seen. I bought it a couples months after playing FO1 and 2, so at that point I wasn't even thinking about FO3 and I was so frustrated with the linearity and dullness of it that I didn't even notice the inconsitencies with the other two games.

 

[JJ86]

Why don't all you FOT haters just admit it. Your just pissed off because it wasn't Fallout 3.

I think anyone that is intimately familiar with FOT knows how bad it was botched. I'm not saying it was the most terrible game on the planet but given the existing engine it could have been a hell of a lot better. Given a slightly improved engine it could have been a legend. It really would have taken very little to make it more of an RPG blend which would have done much to appease everyone. The balancing and story could have been improved with a little extra effort. With better QA/QC the game would have worked on everyone's machine perfectly instead of only about a 1/2 success rate. Seriously that is the worst aspect of the engine was the drain on even the best computer's resources. Microforte really fucked that up. But of course Bitterman never mentioned that as the main reason for the game's unpopularity - he only mentions hairy deathclaws. It tells you alot about who really knows FOT.

 

[Wooz]

Not to mention you can get shot through a wall.

 

[Role-Player]

Why don't all you FOT haters just admit it. Your just pissed off because it wasn't Fallout 3.

Because its not true. Perhaps if you tried less mouth-stuffing and tried to use whatever shred of cognitive prowess you might have (apparently nil, given your post), you might've realized we were just pissed off because Tactics was lacking, plain and simple.

Not everyone was pissed off when FOT finally came out, I can't even remember one bad reveiw(at first).

No, not everyone was pissed off. Most were just looking at the game expecting it to be something good instead of a half-assed effort.

Yeah it need some patchwork, but it wasn't nearly as bad as FO2.

Curious, i always thought Tactics' bad pathfinding, bad colision detection, Perks that didnt' worked (and likely, still don't), graphical errors, bad design (from the game's setting, to the SPECIAL system, to some of the areas), unbalanced weapons, badly designed multiplayer, etc., made it a hell of a lot worse than Fallout 2.

Then again, what do i know? I only played the games, and nowadays, that doesn't seem to count to uneducated kiddies plaguing the internet.

I wasn't expecting it to have a great story, or be totally true to the setting.

Its good to know you weren't expecting consistency in the products you buy. You're precisely the type of braindead sucker IPLY loves to call a consumer. Congrats, kid, you passed the "Gimme crap and i'll gladly eat it!" test.

Its not a fucking RPG, It was a tactical game.

And that's supposed to make up for all its problems, right?

Its just stupid how all you sctrict PC RPGing Fallout junkies need all your little fetishes fullfilled.

No, what's stupid is how we recurrently have to deal with your kind, who blatantly show they haven't got a clue of what they're talking about, and instead of actually using what little cerebral power they might have, prefer to repeat ad nauseum the same unfounded and asinine claims which aren't even their own, just the same old crap repeated by morons who prefer to blame a gaming community for a game's bad reception, when the only ones to blame are the idiots behind the companies.

I would like to see you make something better.

How about granting you a Moron tag? That's defintely more entertaining than Tactics ever was.

 

[Grizzly~Adams]

Jeesh, someone has a nice big chip on there shoulders...

Why don't you some of your "cognitive prowess" and find a hobby, and try not to childlishly insult someone who just states thier opinion.

Edit - Just a little advice, Your elitist vocabulary doesn't make up for lack of maturity or personality.

 

[Brother None]

Uhm, Grizzly, it has been explained, in detail, that Tactics was received with great enthusiasm amongst the Fallout fans. I remember, I was there. Granted, we were dissapointed it wasn't Fallout 3, but we weren't going to burn on it just for that. DaC and NMA gave it honest and positive coverage, as far as I recall, and it had a huge number of pre-orders.

In fact, you could say it had built a fan-base before being released. Remember, vault13.net was a Tactics fan site.

So how is it we hardcore RPGers hated Tactics for not being Fallout 3?

Admit it, Tactics, much like BoS now, had to stand on its own feet. But unlike BoS now at least it had an enormous fan-support to help it through. Heck, TO already had a Tactics clan before the game was released, I think. But Tactics failed to be succesfull and appreciated despite the fact that everyone was biased *in favour of it*

If that doesn't define "this game sucks", I don't know what does

And you may like it, ok, but don't shoot of your mouth about us being biased against it when that's just bullshit.

 

[Richard Fox]

Um are you all saying fallout 2 and tactisc sucks? Fallout 2 despite its major bugs WAY better than fallout 1, i cant belive you think the opposite. Just download the patch and its fine. Well ok when ft 2 was released the bugs was a pain in the ass.

ft tactics is a very good game, look at the reviews, its quit popular. In fact i love it, just becausse it isnt fallout 3 doesnt mean it sucks.

No fallout 3 without the original creators in my opinon....