What I liked about FO1:
1)
Awesome main antagonists. Probably my favorite between FO1, FONV, and FO3. In the latter two, you're fighting other human factions. But in FO1, you're fighting something thats non-human, and that adds an 'extra scary factor' by default. Combine that with the fact that FO1 takes place the closest to when the missiles flew (when humanity was at its weakest/least civilized), and you feel like you're truly fighting for the human race. It made the entire game epic.
You yourself said you loved F1 but never elaborated on what you actually liked about it.
Aight. Aapparently what I've said is not enough (maybe justifiably so, since I did spend a lot of time defending FO3 while attacking FO1). Could give impression I hate FO1, so here's more about what I like about it.
2)
I liked how FO1 was harder/more difficult than FO3 and FONV. In the latter, being more of an FPS with an RPG touch (words I already used), the experience was much more straightforward. The question of 'how' to do something never really came up in FO3 and FONV, or at least, much more rarely. Whereas in FO1, I constantly had to 'puzzle' how to get over certain situations.
This was especially true, as I'm sure you're aware, in regards to the end of the game - taking out the mutant base and infiltrating the cathedral of the children. The end of FO3 was incredibly easy- shoot Colonel Autumn, then shoot everyone else. Same with NV (I was NCR) - shoot all the legion guys, kill the legate. But in FO1, I had to solve the puzzles, and because I wasn't playing a heavy combat character, really, really had to think my way through - which was awesome. In short FO1 was more challenging than the newer ones - and challenge makes a game feel more 'alive'.
Also, in real life - things aren't 'auto-scaled' to your abilities. FO1 got this superbly right. FO3, as you know, auto-scales everything to your level.
I'm having a harder time fighting a raider at lvl 20 than I did at lvl 5? WTF?! thats FO3.
3)
Time limit. This is related to 2), and is in fact a love-hate relationship for me, but since I'm defending FO1 atm, will stick to the bright side. As frustrating as it was, it did, with full certainty, make the game feel more 'alive'. I loved the eerie note on my pip-boy saying, "hurry up, dip shit - you got 91 days left". I gained even more respect from the game when I found out that the endings are also related to the timescale in which you do certain things and when you beat the game - as even after the water chip is turned in, the mutants are on the rise.
Imagine if NV did the same with Caesar's Legion - that you had a time limit to finish NV in, and depending on how long you take and what order you do things in - certain NCR camps would get burned down.
FO1 handled this superbly, and its related to 2) in giving it that hardcore, realistic feel. The downside is losing a more casual experience of being able to act as my usual introverted, completionist self - but was it worth it? I'd say so. It was at least a nice change from the other FO games.
4)
Realistic combat. In FO1 power armor actually made me feel epic. Guns couldn't get past my DR, and it made 'sense'. Head shots were deadly. I probably don't need to say much here - its beating a dead horse - how realistic combat is in FO1 compared to FO3 and FONV is, I think, pretty obvious.
5)
Overhead traveling map/empty wastelands. Threw both of these together. I much prefer a map that lets me travel (and takes days) to get from one place to the other. In FO3/NV, I understand what they're trying to do - and to some extent its effective - by providing a huge-ass world that you can walk around without ever having to consort a travel map. But I've hated that stuff since TES - because I felt like it made the world feel - "smaller", not "bigger". Just take the fact that you can walk from one end of FO3 wastelands to the other in about an hour or so....
In FO1, entire 'days' went by as you traveled from settlement to settlement. Add in the hardcore element of -being on a time limit-, and you had an unforgettable experience.
Also, while were on this topic - I loved (some may disagree) the fact that FO1 was mostly 'empty'. FO2, FO3, and especially FONV feel a bit like amusement parks to me - there's an eventful building/place around every corner. While that may be entertaining, I prefer a game thats more realistic - FO1, the wastelands are surprisingly empty - and I love that feel.
Now to be lore-correct, the other FO games 'do' come later, and so it makes since for the wastelands to be maybe be less empty. It comes down to preference - I want to 'feel' like I'm in a world that just got bombed (not 'just', 80 years, w/e). And FO1, at least with this mentioned mechanic, gives this to me in a way that the other Fallout games cannot.
6)
Less Railroading/more personal choice. FONV (and probably FO2, haven't played it) have this as well. I get to choose what factions I support. Hell, I can even join the Raiders if I want to. I can even work with the Master Mutant and eff over humanity. I can do -what I want to do-.
In my first play through of FO3, I played a crazed cannibalistic raider. I killed everyone on sight, including BOS boyz, and ate their bodies. And yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyet......the game ends with me saving the DC wastelands and joining the BOS.
It was so bad, I had to play a second time as a goody-two shoes "daddy's girl" kind of character, just to fit in with the story I felt they were 'forcing me to tell'. Was it still enjoyable? Yes, much more so on the second playthrough, because it felt more consistent. It was a fun story. But does it also suck that I was railroaded? Well, I obviously felt so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I could go on with other reasons.
Now, things I didn't (in fact hated) like about FO3. I'll keep these points brief, because on a site like this, I'm sure its beating a dead horse. And then kicking the body.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)
Effed up physics. I shoot a raider in the head, and it... 'falls' off. Exploding cars, etc - ok check.
2)
Railroaded "Play it their way" style. Already mentioned this. Check.
3)
Three-Dog. Enough said. Check. Check, check, and check.
4)
Unrealistic combat. An AK (I call it an AK dammit) can apparently punch through power armor. You can get shot in the head and not die. Etc. Check.
5)
Easy to max skills - be good at everything. Check.
6)
Terrible companions. Although, (go ahead and throw a can at me), I didn't frankly think the companions in FO1 were terribly interesting or memorable - NPCs that join your 'party' were a hell of a lot memorable in say, Baldur's Gate - FO3 had this issue as well. But it even felt worse - somehow, I can't describe why. I don't even REMEMBER the companions you could take in FO3 - and I've played it twice. So, they must have sucked.
Now an interesting question is if you approach FO3 with the caveat that its NOT an RPG, its an FPS with an RPG touch - then how many of these points are forgivable (at least moreso)? Maybe 2 and 5. Maybe even 6. Definitely not 1, or 4. COD has them beat on those points for crying out loud. And definitely not 3. In -any- genre, -ever-, 3 is not justified.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You obviously didn't understand the "hidden message". The BoS didn't wanted you to join at all. They wanted you to go away... into your certain death, so you won't show up again. As the guy next to Cabbot says, you aren't the first one who wanted to join and you aren't the first one who was send to the glow. Nobody ever came back from that place, everyone died.
Lexx makes a good point here - but I did get it - if you read my discussion with Oppen. I said this:
Aye, Oppen - I did get the vibe from BOS in FO1 that, at least at first, they were trying to just get me killed. And that was actually a pleasant surprise - since it was different from the FO3 more 'altruistic/nice guys'. Hence my disappointment when I got back to them, and they were all like, "ok, come on in".
Basically what I said. I thought it was cool they were trying to send me to my grave. What a bunch of A-holes. And what would have made it even cooler, is if I was playing an Ironman game. It probably would have worked and scared me into not going!
But, I'm -sorry-, when I got back and they accepted me just like that - it seriously broke immersion for me. Ok, sure, that quest demonstrated that I'm -capable/resourceful-; I got that.
But it does -not-, in any way, demonstrate that I'm -trustworthy-. Or that I even give two flying doves about their cause of preserving technology. Or that I care about their ideals or even -want- to help them. It felt like a tough-guy raider club that initiates its members via natural selection; not the techno-centered isolationist group that wants to preserve technology with a cause; ie, the group it was meant to be.
In FO3, the chapter was -renegade- ; with the additional characteristics of:
a) More inclusive (ie, should be easier to join)
b) More altruistic (ie, cares about humanitarian issues).
And before I was invited to join THOSE guys (the ones that are supposed to be more inclusive), I had already:
1) Risked my life, alongside theirs, fighting off waves of super mutants in the DC downtown area.
2) Single-handedly traveled the city ruins, collecting parts, and building a satellite dish to broadcast the signal of their staple news channel GNR over a much larger distance; adding to the cause of the propoganda war against the Enclave, their main public enemy in FO3.
3) Helped my father build Project Purity (this renegade BOS faction actually cares about being humanitarian, so in this context, its good reputation. It wouldn't have mattered in FO1/FO2, I grant you.)
4) Got captured by the Enclave, their arch enemy in FO3 in the battle for the fate of the wastelands, and saw some of its leaders (Col. Autumn) face-to-face. I managed to escape. Oh yeah, and I blew up their ENITRE base.
Enough to get their attention?
If I'm playing a goodly character in FO3 (albeit annoyed that it railroads me to play one), than the story regarding joining the BOS, as compared to joining them in FO1; is more convincing and more immersive. I felt like I earned my place in FO3 in the BOS. I did -not- feel that way in FO1.
Your first post was you didn't understand what the hype was all about, even though my post had clearly explained it
You're right - I didn't. But, given points 1-6 on why I liked FO1 so much, along with others that I just didn't take the time to mention, added with an effect of 'growing up with the game' - I can see why people are in love with it. The same way I'm in love with Baldur's Gate and XCOM.
YOu then move on to play devils advocate (but apparently not very well),
Funny, because I'm always giving specifics, whereas you and shihon continue to make these vague "your arguements have so many fallacies" and "you don't play advocate very well" and other nearish-ad hom. attacks (not quite, but close) that do nothing to address the actual content of what I'm writing.
FO3 was not all that different from FO 1 which is clearly ludicrous
No, not quite. I said some of the things that people complain about in FO3 are also in FO1.
All I meant was that - sure you can find examples of bad/poor dialogue, or poor questing, in FO3 - but if you look, you can find it in FO1 as well - and its not fair to knock FO3 down for some of its poor quests and give FO1 a free pass. Stuff I personally didn't like in FO1 regarding dialogue/quests (won't elaborate, already did that in earlier posts)
1) Radscorpian WoWesque-style quest.
2) Deathclaw WoWesque-style quest.
3) Killian being too white/Gizmo being too black; typical thieves guild v.s. lawful good captain of the guard.
4) As I already mentioned, BoS induction.
5) Occasional dialogue/blurbs here and there; like the identical conversations with identical NPCs in Shady Sands; typical 'whats your story - not even paraphrasing lol' in dialogue with many NPCs, the assassin trying to kill Gizmo in broad daylight in front of the two guards, just because I'm there to trigger the event; and then still having to get evidence, despite that this is a wild-westish (my impression at least) town and there's five witnesses who heard the assassin mention Gizmo by name. Funny enough, this wasn't even the first attempt - I wonder if the past ones were as 'blatant'.
Lastly, your points only go to show how you only understand the surface aspect of the original while the deeper aspect meanings of those same quests just fly over your head or were never experienced at all
Again, like Shihon, there are no specifics here. You guys just keep saying, "well, you didn't experience it the way we did" and "you only got the surface meaning". Yet no enlightening specific content to tell me where I was led astray. Just that 'I'm wrong'.
I think you're partially right on the experience part. You guys -grew up with this game-. No matter how much I enjoyed FO1, I will never be able to experience it quite the same way you guys did - because I do not have that nostalgic component. If you didn't grow up with BG or XCOM (not sure if you did or didn't), and I got you try it - maybe you'd like it, maybe you wouldn't . But even if you loved it, you wouldn't be able to have that same experience I did growing up with it. This is just an opinion of mine - but I do think the Nostalgic factor plays a role in how we experience things differently. I'm not saying that negates every point you make - and blame everything on nostalgia - but at the same time, I think it has an effect too.
This I believe really pisses off a lot of members the most.
Why?
If I got some kid to play BG1 and he threw it back to me, after playing it, saying it was totally lame, I wouldn't be pissed. To each their own. I'd make joking jabs at him sure, but I wouldn't 'get so pissed off about it'.
Everything is about as superficial as a Michael Bay film
This made me lol, because I also hate michael bay films. Something we can agree on, at least.
No, I don't want to see Shia Lebeouff kill Megatron with a cube in move 1,
No, I don't want to see Optimis killed, then BROUGHT BACK AGAIN IN THE SAME MOVIE in two,
and 3...y'know what, nevermind. Thats a different topic.
And NO, its not about personal interpretation when the only people who defend F3 were often the same mainstream gamers who really do not give much of a rats ass about what made the originals so awesome.
It IS about personal interpretation. I can hate things about MB films all I want, for my own reasons - but truth is? They sell like a hot sandwhich. I'd frankly feel kind of arrogant to say that the VAST MAJORITY of people who like those flims 'lack ability to critically discern quality material from trash'.
when the only people who defend F3 were often the same mainstream gamers who really do not give much of a rats ass about what made the originals so awesome.
I defend F3. Does that make me a mainstream gamer? - despite that mainstream gamers...don't play games like FO1 in the first place? (much less consider it one of their fav. games). Or XCOM, BG, etc.
Sometimes I get a 'you're with us/or against us' vibe from FO1 fans in the sense that you can't like both the old games and the new ones - maybe I'm totally wrong though.
EDIT: Tried to condense this post down. I'm a very wordy writer - sorry about that.
)
