Why is Fallout Tactics so underrated/Disliked?

[Negativity]

I've noticed that Fallout Tactics is one of the most disliked Fallout games in the series, maybe second to Brotherhood of Steel. I feel that people like to shit all over this game when they haven't played it, and then people who have played it compare it directly to Fallout 1 and 2.

Honestly I don't think Fallout Tactics was ever meant to be a Fallout 2 sequel, Actually, the name tells you that much. It was meant to be a linear squad based tactical shooter, which it succeeded in being. It shed it's heavy RPG components like meaningful dialog and exploration in favor of greater combat mechanics and better gameplay.

What do you guys think?

 

[naossano]

I would rank it after Fo1, Fo2 and FoNV, but WAY above Fo3, Fo4, FoS and Fobos.

It mostly get the lore right, offer insight on the BOS, has the best combat system and was obviously made by people that loved Fallout. And it doesn't pretend to be a sequel.

About why some people dislike it :

- For the old fans, it was the third Fo game released after Fo1 and Fo2. The first Fo that wasn't an RPG and that didn't provide all those dialogs and interractions with NPC and factions that were so praised by the fanbase. Also present more canon discontinuity than the previous game. For a little while, it was the worst game of the series. Of course, way worse Fallout games kept being released in the following years, but the first impression held strong. I think that those worse games helped to reedeem FoT, but not for everyone.

- For the new fans, i don't think they ever played any of the pre-Bethesda Fallout games. But they are aware of Fo1 and Fo2 good reputation and FoT and FoBos past bad reputation. Plus, they know Fobos is not canon and FoT is semi-canon. Less games to bother learning about. Better focus on wikis and lore videos that focus on the numbered episodes and New Vegas, IF they are even inclined to learn about the lore.

In any case, if the current trend keep going, i don't think there would be any point in caring about any official canon.

 

[Negativity]

I would rank it after Fo1, Fo2 and FoNV, but WAY above Fo3, Fo4, FoS and Fobos.

It mostly get the lore right, offer insight on the BOS, has the best combat system and was obviously made by people that loved Fallout. And it doesn't pretend to be a sequel.

About why some people dislike it :

- For the old fans, it was the third Fo game released after Fo1 and Fo2. The first Fo that wasn't an RPG and that didn't provide all those dialogs and interractions with NPC and factions that were so praised by the fanbase. Also present more canon discontinuity than the previous game. For a little while, it was the worst game of the series. Of course, way worse Fallout games kept being released in the following years, but the first impression held strong. I think that those worse games helped to reedeem FoT, but not for everyone.

- For the new fans, i don't think they ever played any of the pre-Bethesda Fallout games. But they are aware of Fo1 and Fo2 good reputation and FoT and FoBos past bad reputation. Plus, they know Fobos is not canon and FoT is semi-canon. Less games to bother learning about. Better focus on wikis and lore videos that focus on the numbered episodes and New Vegas, IF they are even inclined to learn about the lore.

In any case, if the current trend keep going, i don't think there would be any point in caring about any official canon.

I think some of the new fans would play the old Fallout games if Bethesda ported them to console. Don't know if they could pull it off.

 

[Deleted member 98605]

I liked tactics and the little shit that goes against canon could be easily ignored. It fits fine with the Fallout universe on a 'this happened' scale, but offers little in mental exercises or aesops or themes.

The main thing was genre-shift, really. You play a commander who will win for the BoS. That's it. You get a say in how the new Brotherhood Empire will be, but that's it.

Otherwise, just shoot up some mutants in a tank.

 

[NMLevesque]

It looked combat heavy, linear, lacking in the story and choice department. I'll give it a try someday. Sure it's not the worst Fo game, but trying another uninspired, lore unfriendly, gameplay shifting title with a weak main plot just doesn't have me excited. Either way it doesn't benefit from any massive hype trains leaving the station, modern playability, or 'newest game favoritism' to boost its perceptions. So it's an old game with a bad reputation that can't be reccomended without qualifications (semi-canon) because it is legitimately flawed. Makes sense that people aren't lining up to try it.

 

[mkba]

in some ways FoT is like Xcome , i really like the debt of the combat system and the obligation to have a crew skilled in a diversity of skills , and the possibility to drive a ***** tank

 

[Cobra Commander]

Guess is because it's not a rpg.

Like Halo Wars for example. I played and it is a good game, but who fucking care about it? Until I liked it I do not care and would have traded it for a traditional Halo any day of the week.

 

[Negativity]

I liked tactics and the little shit that goes against canon could be easily ignored. It fits fine with the Fallout universe on a 'this happened' scale, but offers little in mental exercises or aesops or themes.

The main thing was genre-shift, really. You play a commander who will win for the BoS. That's it. You get a say in how the new Brotherhood Empire will be, but that's it.

Otherwise, just shoot up some mutants in a tank.

To be honest, at the midpoint in the game, blasting your way through mutants is so much fun.

It looked combat heavy, linear, lacking in the story and choice department. I'll give it a try someday. Sure it's not the worst Fo game, but trying another uninspired, lore unfriendly, gameplay shifting title with a weak main plot just doesn't have me excited. Either way it doesn't benefit from any massive hype trains leaving the station, modern playability, or 'newest game favoritism' to boost its perceptions. So it's an old game with a bad reputation that can't be reccomended without qualifications (semi-canon) because it is legitimately flawed. Makes sense that people aren't lining up to try it.

I'd say that yes it is combat heavy, that was the point of the game, but it definitely isn't how you describe it. It's definitely not uninspired, actually the level design is really good, a nice variation of new enemies, challenging gameplay etc. Also not lore unfriendly, it just gets a few tiny things wrong about the BoS, other than that nothing is really noticeable. I'd also say that there isn't a massive gameplay shift, it does focus mostly on combat, although most missions could be done with sneak with speech being out of the option, but again I'd think most of us play Fallout 1 and 2 through with combat anyway. The plot is weak, almost not there, I honestly didn't know what was happening all the way through the game. Then again it does lend in to that soldier attitude, you say jump and i say how high.

in some ways FoT is like Xcome , i really like the debt of the combat system and the obligation to have a crew skilled in a diversity of skills , and the possibility to drive a ***** tank

Yeah the tank was awesome, and so was the other vehicles. Yeah it was great having a mixed crew, although i'd say that melee characters were pretty redundant late game.

Guess is because it's not a rpg.

Like Halo Wars for example. I played and it is a good game, but who fucking care about it? Until I liked it I do not care and would have traded it for a traditional Halo any day of the week.

I can understand that thinking. But as you said halo wars is a great game, and so is tactics. I suppose it's one of those games you have to try.

 

[naossano]

It looked combat heavy, linear, lacking in the story and choice department.

It has more endings than Fo3. Also, the few choices (and\or fail states) it provides are a bit more subtle than save or destroy Megaton for no other reason than the location of your room. And the story department is much much better than Fo3 or Fo4.

 

[Negativity]

It has more endings than Fo3. Also, the few choices (and\or fail states) it provides are a bit more subtle than save or destroy Megaton for no other reason than the location of your room. And the story department is much much better than Fo3 or Fo4.

I'd have to disagree. You couldn't choose to do anything in Fallout Tactics, maybe choose to save barnaky, but that's it.

 

[NMLevesque]

I'd say that yes it is combat heavy, that was the point of the game, but it definitely isn't how you describe it. It's definitely not uninspired, actually the level design is really good, a nice variation of new enemies, challenging gameplay etc. Also not lore unfriendly, it just gets a few tiny things wrong about the BoS, other than that nothing is really noticeable. I'd also say that there isn't a massive gameplay shift, it does focus mostly on combat, although most missions could be done with sneak with speech being out of the option, but again I'd think most of us play Fallout 1 and 2 through with combat anyway. The plot is weak, almost not there, I honestly didn't know what was happening all the way through the game. Then again it does lend in to that soldier attitude, you say jump and i say how high.

I do like the level design. That is one upside. The aesthetics are solid for sure. I meant more the story. The BoS again, mutants again, some kind of genocidal megalomaniac tied to the vaults again, along with some of the same shticks about ghoul prejudice, tribals, and what not. Which could be fine, I guess, but it didn't feel like they did much with them except the BoS kind of. Mostly they were just sort of there, and not much else, if that makes sense. If they were all original factions, then even if their depiction wasn't particularly deep it would still be original. As for the lore part I don't think getting the origin of the BoS wrong is tiny, but overall we might just have different idea of what makes something lore unfriendly.

It has more endings than Fo3. Also, the few choices (and\or fail states) it provides are a bit more subtle than save or destroy Megaton for no other reason than the location of your room. And the story department is much much better than Fo3 or Fo4.

More endings yes, though that isn't to say more consequences for your actions. I suppose if you prefer some kind of expository monologue to tell you what happened after, that's fine, I do, but that's one part of the story (that most stories don't have). The quest rewards are barely even a part of the story. The Replicated Man isn't about some plasma rifle and a perk. Big Trouble in Big Town isn't about some measly experience, maybe some supplies if you want, or a luck raising billiard ball. That's just silly.

Saving Megaton means making sure a conspiracy to detonate its namesake doesn't kill everyone. It starts out as your idea because you think it's dangerous, but the Sheriff is quite clear that he would want it done. He offers to pay you, not set you up with a house. That part is a surprise, and just the reward. Destroying Megaton is about Burke and Tenpenny. Tenpenny will pay to get things done on a lark, like letting you convince his residents to let ghouls in despite being a bigot himself. Burke is a strange fellow who tries to tempt you with money and a disturbing take on the town. Which is his own, not Tenpenny's, showing that he has his own motivations. Say, tricking a rich and indifferent man into paying him into doing what he already wants to do. Which comes across as a darkly classist thing, that ties into the whole Tenpenny power thing...as you might have noticed.

Don't get me wrong, some of the writing is bad or a bit too goofy for some (as is Fo2 for that matter), but it's not the 1-dimensional picture you're suggesting.

 

[TorontoReign]

I'd have to disagree. You couldn't choose to do anything in Fallout Tactics, maybe choose to save barnaky, but that's it.

You can't choose the ending in Fallout 3, but you can in Tactics. It's all the same in Fallout 3. You also have to actually pay attention when leveling your squad up while using tactics unlike Fallout 3.

 

[NMLevesque]

Karma, last few quests, sacrificial chamber decision, and FEV decision all affect the ending you receive. It's not very different, but it's not "all the same".

It's not as though you can't just turn down the difficulty with Tactics like you can with Fo3. If you want options or to play at a higher difficulty you do need to pay attention to your build and with how you fight.

 

[Negativity]

You can't choose the ending in Fallout 3, but you can in Tactics. It's all the same in Fallout 3. You also have to actually pay attention when leveling your squad up while using tactics unlike Fallout 3.

I don't quite understand what you're saying, how is tactics any different to Fallout 3? In Fallout Tactics, you choose to stop the calculator by destroying the computer or controling it, there's not really much choice, the Brotherhood still win on all endings. The only thing that gets affected is the outcome of the brotherhood, whether they're xenophobic, whether they can expand etc .. Exactly the same with Fallout 3. You choose whether to take control of the Purifier, or you corrupt it with the FEV. Then you have the choice of who to sacrifice, which is very in tone with the tactics ending, do you sacrifice yourself or your allies? It's very similar in my opinion.

Also I'd probably say that most Fallout endings are the same. In fallout 1 you have to destroy the master, in Fallout 2 you have to destroy the enclave oil rig. And I know you can turn the vault over to the lieutenant, but you can do the same in Fallout 3 with the purifier codes. You can't really do much with an ending, Fallout 3 did it fine.

 

[TorontoReign]

I don't quite understand what you're saying, how is tactics any different to Fallout 3? In Fallout Tactics, you choose to stop the calculator by destroying the computer or controling it, there's not really much choice, the Brotherhood still win on all endings. The only thing that gets affected is the outcome of the brotherhood, whether they're xenophobic, whether they can expand etc .. Exactly the same with Fallout 3. You choose whether to take control of the Purifier, or you corrupt it with the FEV. Then you have the choice of who to sacrifice, which is very in tone with the tactics ending, do you sacrifice yourself or your allies? It's very similar in my opinion.

Also I'd probably say that most Fallout endings are the same. In fallout 1 you have to destroy the master, in Fallout 2 you have to destroy the enclave oil rig. And I know you can turn the vault over to the lieutenant, but you can do the same in Fallout 3 with the purifier codes. You can't really do much with an ending, Fallout 3 did it fine.

Oh you are taking into account the DLC that tried to fix the ending. I would argue it did not do it fine, it was utter shit, but to each their own. They did offer a little choice there however shallow it might be. I like how FNV did a good ending without the DLC.

 

[R.Graves]

Fallout 3 did it [ending] fine.

A hahaha no.

It Has two endings and neither mattered. Also broken steel renders the game with no ending. Meanwhile 1/2 have endings for each town and new Vegas took it a step further and gave the companions their own endings.

You can't really do much with an ending,

See new Vegas and it's 186 unique endings.

 

[lolpop109]

A hahaha no.

It Has two endings and neither mattered. Also broken steel renders the game with no ending. Meanwhile 1/2 have endings for each town and new Vegas took it a step further and gave the companions their own endings.

See new Vegas and it's 186 unique endings.

I think A game can end and not end. For example the witch. Of course you get the narration and the credits but after that you can continue on it does't have as many different slides as NV. Fallout ending has 2 really main choices and then ends the story. Witch I guess is fine but then DLC to fix the ending. I mean i don't mind it so much but Jesus NV was a dam sight better. Although saying that it did fuck my save game because I didn;t realise the game would end and that would be it. Glad NV didn't try and fix the ending because it made me play the game again and thats important

 

[R.Graves]

I think A game can end and not end. For example the witch. Of course you get the narration and the credits but after that you can continue on it does't have as many different slides as NV. Fallout ending has 2 really main choices and then ends the story. Witch I guess is fine but then DLC to fix the ending. I mean i don't mind it so much but Jesus NV was a dam sight better. Although saying that it did fuck my save game because I didn;t realise the game would end and that would be it. Glad NV didn't try and fix the ending because it made me play the game again and thats important

New Vegas endings didn't need fixing... wouldn't have minded if they went back and added more.

Also broken steel doesn't add a new ending so the game literally has no ending

 

[lolpop109]

New Vegas endings didn't need fixing... wouldn't have minded if they went back and added more.

Also broken steel doesn't add a new ending so the game literally has no ending

I was trying make the point that the game does't need to 'end' as such. Like the witcher 3 you get the ending but you can go an do the side quests. I guess the world get little bland stuff. The thing was the fallout 3 after the DLC was that it was't in the game to begin with. The problem was't that the DLC didn;t give it a definitive ending it was ;

The ending original ending was so poorly written you had to kill yourself for no apparent reason. Basically the only route you could go down with was going in there witch was stupid.

Go into the thing < Kill your self = ending

Fine I don;t mind this if fawkes was't there or whatever and it actually made sense but they change it too

Go into the thing < Kill yourself < Your not dead = Add to after game play and story

Fine but surely that should of been the original idea. Witch make the original decision even more dumb.

Nv had all the different ending slides but gameplay towards that end thing was similar although NV was logical and made sense they could of done the after game

Have battle < Let player continue

It makes more sense for the player to want to contuie after NV main story than fallout 3

But I guess the big issue with that is NV had more choise that more would of been effected. I mena after fallout 3 they could have the purifed water places ect. But after NV you would have to change alot fo the factions etc. That would of probably been too hard to do because NV actually had choices

 

[R.Graves]

I was trying make the point that the game does't need to 'end' as such.

Could not disagree more. A fallout game needs as many endings as you can give it.