Something to think about. A few words about Fallout 3 .

[Neuron]

I have been reading this site and these forums for many years now and always loved this place.

I decided its time to create a forum user to write my 2 cents about the latest game in the series , the latest abomination: Fallout 3:


I am not happy. i am actually sad.
I am disappointed and i have more negative feelings to write but since there is no point going there since most of you can relate.

I will just post something i found on the Internet today that sums it up:

In comparison to the earlier Black Isle Studios Fallouts, Bethesda's Fallout has: One-dimensional, illogical and forgettable characters with little to no personality. Simple, linear, unoriginal narrative. Poorly-written narrative. Poorly-written dialogue. Poorly-voiced dialogue. None of the series' trademark moral ambiguity. No real freedom (there are unkillable NPCs, unavoidable combat etc.). No real choices or consequences. Tactical combat has been removed. Importance of skills/perks/traits removed. Traits removed. Psychologically and emotionally complex quests no longer present. Nuclear power was a feared thing in post-apocalyptic Fallout, and the issue was dealt with intelligently with much subtle social commentary. In Fallout 3, you can shoot nuclear-powered cars with your nuclear catapult early in the game, in a town built around an unexploded nuclear bomb. Fallout 3 fails to deal with any of the interesting human issues that Fallout did. The game lacks any semblance of thoughtfulness. It's also shorter. And easier. The game abuses and contradicts established lore. Fallout 3 fails to even pathetically imitate it's decade-old predecessors' design, originality or meaningfulness. Let alone exceed it.

Even when considered, unfairly, outside the context of being a sequel, it is an exceptionally arrogant, incompetent and poorly designed game all on its own. The animations are clunky and awkward. AI is atrocious. Combat is awkward. World textures and character models are ugly and lacking. Art direction is poor. Much of the crowded "wasteland" is sloppily and lazily copy-pasted from place to place. The musical score is uninspired and in the style of LOTR-esque epic-fantasy - which is completely inappropriate in this game's setting. To top it off, the whole thing is buggy and poorly optimized. And Bethesda's attitude towards the original games' fans has been utterly pathetic. Not to mention their control-tactics over the complete facade that is gaming journalism.

I would like to add that the whole gaming review industry feels completely sold out now after the fallout 3 reviews.
If the gamestop and ign scandals of the past months didn't convince everyone then these fallout 3 reviews should.

Gamespy gave it 5/5.
Gamespy was my last hope for gaming reviews.


It is all sold out and it is all biased.

Shame on a shitty sequel for the 2 most amazing games ever created.

 

[cratchety ol joe]

imo

/5 isnt enough 5 deferential points isn't a lot, that's like saying something that is as good as 80% is just as good as a 100% game.

I'd prefer proper and objective reviews sectioned for information with a summary 'average' score.

Some places still do this, but even so I feel that 'most' video game journalism has sold out, with little more intention than to help shift copies from the shelves. If I had the resource (i.e. some insuh-haanely huge and non related funding and of course the relevant contacts to be able to acquire the stuff to review) I'd go out of my way to review games personally with the intention of an arbitrary view of each game I reviewed. heck I'd give several of my redundant 6th toe's for such a prestigious honour.

Instead we have to put up with the constant roll of "OMG this is 90%" style reviews.

(little afterthought... I'd employ specific gamers that enjoy certain games, and each would add a little input, kinda like the outsiders view of things... but then I have a LOT of ideas how I could go about doing things, better stick to being a forum whore for now is suppose.)

 

[Freudian]

I find it interesting that these posts filled with general hate are inverted versions of the uncritical celebrations they claim to hate. Neither are objective but filled with nonsense. But filled with self righteousness the posters of course miss that and think they are keen observers of what went wrong.

Obviously OP and the guy he quoted set out to be dissapointed and offended by Fallout 3. They (not surpisingly) succeeded.

Fallout 3 is not like Fallout 1 & 2 . That has been known for since 2003. You have had five years to get used to the idea and failed. Is it out of stubborness? Going into it with a checklist and then penalizing it for not being like F2 says more about you than the game.

It is a pretty big post-apocalyptic shooter/exploration game/light RPG with surprisingly well done atmosphere. That was pretty much what I expected and that is why I am somewhat pleasantly surprised.

If I want F1 & F2 I reinstall them and play through them once again. They certainly are good enough for that.

-------

As for reviews. I find it very endearing that the anti-F3 people have created a belief system where all positive reviews of F3 are symptoms of a corrupt gaming press and if there are any negative reviews you jump all over it praising that guy for telling the truth. You see, no matter what people say about the game your belief system makes you interpret that as a perfect fit in your "F3 is horrible" general view. L. Ron Hubbard would be highly impressed.

 

[TheMutantMe]

I find it interesting that these posts filled with general hate are inverted versions of the uncritical celebrations they claim to hate. Neither are objective but filled with nonsense. But filled with self righteousness the posters of course miss that and think they are keen observers of what went wrong.

But you're not like that. Just sitting in the middle with a perfect, nonsense free, objective view point. Not self righteous at all?

Be fair, your opinion is no more valid then anyone here.

 

[Neuron]

Fallout 3 is not like Fallout 1 & 2 . That has been known for since 2003. You have had five years to get used to the idea and failed. Is it out of stubborness? Going into it with a checklist and then penalizing it for not being like F2 says more about you than the game.

Then don't call it Fallout 3.

 

[Sander]

Fallout 3 is not like Fallout 1 & 2 . That has been known for since 2003. You have had five years to get used to the idea and failed. Is it out of stubborness? Going into it with a checklist and then penalizing it for not being like F2 says more about you than the game.

This is a Fallout fansite. So is it very surprising that we evaluate a Fallout game by how Fallouty it is?

Also, judging a full sequel by how much of a sequel it is is very logical. If they made Half-Life 3 into a really brilliant pinball game everyone is still going to be very pissed off.

 

[cratchety ol joe]

Also, judging a full sequel by how much of a sequel it is is very logical. If they made Half-Life 3 into a really brilliant pinball game everyone is still going to be very pissed off.

Wow, talk about insider info, how'd ya find out about 'episode: pinball' ?

some crazy games idea's people have these days (namely Sander.. but eh, whaddevah)

Edit: to avoid legality nonsense: all TM's related to here are ownership of etc etc, no harm meant.

 

[Neuron]

Painting a car red and drawing a yellow shield with a black stalion on it doesn't make it a Ferrari now does it?

They "stole" everything fallout yet made something completely shitty and different.

Shitty, yes, the game isn't too good judged by its own merits never playing a different fallout game.

sold out gaming sites and mega hype calls it a 10/10. whatever the fuck.

How can a game with such shitty A.I get a 10??!?!?

 

[cratchety ol joe]

also, where did you get your original quote from? It is a very critical piece, and (myself not having play FO3) seems to be throwing some damning accusations, possibly all of which is justified. But I digress, also,

Just my thoughts (pweese don't hurts me) but isn't this thread just a continuation / duplicated thread of the same ol' same (albeit with new info)

not meaning to back-seat moderate or anything.

 

[Freudian]

Fallout 3 is not like Fallout 1 & 2 . That has been known for since 2003. You have had five years to get used to the idea and failed. Is it out of stubborness? Going into it with a checklist and then penalizing it for not being like F2 says more about you than the game.

This is a Fallout fansite. So is it very surprising that we evaluate a Fallout game by how Fallouty it is?

Also, judging a full sequel by how much of a sequel it is is very logical. If they made Half-Life 3 into a really brilliant pinball game everyone is still going to be very pissed off.

When did Bethesda say they intended to make a sequel using the exact same mechanics as in Fallout 1 & 2? Because that is basically what the guy quoted in OP is accusing Bethesda of not doing.

It should be obvious Bethesda isn't going to pour $10M into a turn based isometric text based RPG. They aren't idiots. They intend to keep making games and they do so by making money. Hence they make games that sell.

Obviously they liked the Fallout setting and some of the gameplay elements. So they bought the property and use whatever they like from there. They have, and it unreasonable to demand that they should, no real obligation to keep you or the previous developers happy.

So once again, complaining that the combat isn't turn based, when that has been known for at least four years is borderline retarded. Complaining that the real time combat with VATS is not satisfying (should you feel that way) isn't.

 

[Josan12]

I'm getting really sick of people saying: 'look, it's a different game to the originals ... stop comparing it to them'

IT'S CALLED FALLOUT!! It is therefore claiming to be part of, and be compared to the original FO series. Period.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

^^ (2 Freudian) Yes, but for a sequel you do not normally change gameplay style. Think Final Fantasy games. Unrelated plots, different main characters, different settings, not even all of them are 3D. Yet, each game from the main series is in the series because of similar gameplay, even though mechanics can be different (FFVII materia system vs FFV job system vs FFVIII junction system). The rest of the games are spinoffs: Tactics, Secret of Mana games, etc.

Now look at the three fallout games, and think again. And consider reading this article: http://fallout3.wordpress.com/articles/morbus-gameplay-rant/

I also believe that a lot of people are complaining how the VATS is unsatisfying. There are great RPGs which are not TB, but FO3 isn't on the list.

 

[Public]

When did Bethesda say they intended to make a sequel using the exact same mechanics as in Fallout 1 & 2? Because that is basically what the guy quoted in OP is accusing Bethesda of not doing.

At the begining, nobody knew what the mechanics will be like. Even after the first teaser people still didn't know.

I remember when someone said back then when the first teaser came out (the teaser showed in game look), he or she said that with such a shitty graphics there is a chance that this is going to be ISO view.

 

[Freudian]

^^ (2 Freudian) Yes, but for a sequel you do not normally change gameplay style. Think Final Fantasy games. Unrelated plots, different main characters, different settings, not even all of them are 3D. Yet, each game from the main series is in the series because of similar gameplay, even though mechanics can be different (FFVII materia system vs FFV job system vs FFVIII junction system). The rest of the games are spinoffs: Tactics, Secret of Mana games, etc.

Now look at the three fallout games, and think again. And consider reading this article: http://fallout3.wordpress.com/articles/morbus-gameplay-rant/

There are plenty of series where gameplay has changed significantly over the years. X-com, Super Mario. Metroid Prime, the EA NHL games and tonnes of others. I know some series are really all about "more of the same" but many others aren't.

It is all about what you choose to focus on. Bethesda choose to focus on the setting, the S.P.E.C.I.A.L system and VATS. Not the isometric turnbased part, since it simply is a very old fashioned style and fits most platforms quite poorly.

 

[Pope Viper]

The thing is, that the areas they focused on just aren't good, IMO.

They seemed to be confused as to what direction they were going in, and thus you have quite the hodgepodge.

 

[Freudian]

When did Bethesda say they intended to make a sequel using the exact same mechanics as in Fallout 1 & 2? Because that is basically what the guy quoted in OP is accusing Bethesda of not doing.

At the begining, nobody knew what the mechanics will be like. Even after the first teaser people still didn't know.

I remember when someone said back then when the first teaser came out (the teaser showed in game look), he or she said that with such a shitty graphics there is a chance that this is going to be ISO view.

Yeah, big surprise that the company that have made first person RPGs for ages choose to make Fallout into a first person RPG.

I can understand you guys hoping otherwise, but that was hardly realistic at any point once the licence was Bethesdas.

 

[Kahgan]

When did Bethesda say they intended to make a sequel using the exact same mechanics as in Fallout 1 & 2? Because that is basically what the guy quoted in OP is accusing Bethesda of not doing.

And Bethsoft never said that they wanted to stay true to the originals?

 

[Ausdoerrt]

^^ (2 Freudian) Yes, but for a sequel you do not normally change gameplay style. Think Final Fantasy games. Unrelated plots, different main characters, different settings, not even all of them are 3D. Yet, each game from the main series is in the series because of similar gameplay, even though mechanics can be different (FFVII materia system vs FFV job system vs FFVIII junction system). The rest of the games are spinoffs: Tactics, Secret of Mana games, etc.

Now look at the three fallout games, and think again. And consider reading this article: http://fallout3.wordpress.com/articles/morbus-gameplay-rant/

There are plenty of series where gameplay has changed significantly over the years. X-com, Super Mario. Metroid Prime, the EA NHL games and tonnes of others. I know some series are really all about "more of the same" but many others aren't.

It is all about what you choose to focus on. Bethesda choose to focus on the setting, the S.P.E.C.I.A.L system and VATS. Not the isometric turnbased part, since it simply is a very old fashioned style and fits most platforms quite poorly.

Mario was called "Super Mario" on NES and SNES. The 3d incarnations mostly use different naming. Besides, gameplay didn't change much from 2d Mario to 3D mario - it's still an arcade-style game. They didn't turn it into a racing game (and the Cart was a spinoff and labelled such)

Metroid was for the 2D games. The 3D games are Metroid Prime. Kinda like FO and FO:Tactics

The Heroes of Might and Magic games switched well from 2D to 3D as well. 3,4,5 were all on different engines, races were changed, playing style was changed, but it was still a TB strategy.

In fact, I fail to name a series that made transition into a different game genre without being a spinoff.

 

[Per]

Yeah, big surprise that the company that have made first person RPGs for ages choose to make Fallout into a first person RPG.

I can understand you guys hoping otherwise, but that was hardly realistic at any point once the licence was Bethesdas.

Well, we've received considerable criticism for a) not taking on faith that Bethesda would stay true to the franchise instead of going the Oblivion route, and b) being ungrateful despite the game supposedly having all the qualities we could ask for.

 

[Freudian]

^^ (2 Freudian) Yes, but for a sequel you do not normally change gameplay style. Think Final Fantasy games. Unrelated plots, different main characters, different settings, not even all of them are 3D. Yet, each game from the main series is in the series because of similar gameplay, even though mechanics can be different (FFVII materia system vs FFV job system vs FFVIII junction system). The rest of the games are spinoffs: Tactics, Secret of Mana games, etc.

Now look at the three fallout games, and think again. And consider reading this article: http://fallout3.wordpress.com/articles/morbus-gameplay-rant/

There are plenty of series where gameplay has changed significantly over the years. X-com, Super Mario. Metroid Prime, the EA NHL games and tonnes of others. I know some series are really all about "more of the same" but many others aren't.

It is all about what you choose to focus on. Bethesda choose to focus on the setting, the S.P.E.C.I.A.L system and VATS. Not the isometric turnbased part, since it simply is a very old fashioned style and fits most platforms quite poorly.

Mario was called "Super Mario" on NES and SNES. The 3d incarnations mostly use different naming. Besides, gameplay didn't change much from 2d Mario to 3D mario - it's still an arcade-style game. They didn't turn it into a racing game (and the Cart was a spinoff and labelled such)

Metroid was for the 2D games. The 3D games are Metroid Prime. Kinda like FO and FO:Tactics

The Heroes of Might and Magic games switched well from 2D to 3D as well. 3,4,5 were all on different engines, races were changed, playing style was changed, but it was still a TB strategy.

In fact, I fail to name a series that made transition into a different game genre without being a spinoff.

And Fallout 3 is a post apocalyptic role playing game, just like Fallout 1 and 2 was.

But if you feel more comfortable calling it a spinoff or not a true sequel, I think you can go ahead and do so. It's just a semantic issue and not worth wasting time on anyway.