Will Fallout 3 be remembered?
- Thread starter Tagaziel
- Start date
alec said:
I think this is possibly the most astute observation about FO3 i've read yet. I don't know about you guys, but i'm 29 - pretty much a dinosaur in todays incredibly fast-changing video-gaming world. Kids just like different stuff these days. And who are we (ok - who am i) *wheeze .. my aching bones* to tell them they shouldn't like crap like FO3?
Fallout 3 will be remembered alongside the first two Fallout games, not because of sequencial order, but mainly because FO:BOS is for all intents and purposes these days nonexsistant and inaccessable, and no one seems to like Tactics enough to recommend it as part of the Fallout experience.
However there will be a slight change in the Fallout series preception. Fallout itself will be remembered as simply a post-apocalyptic RPG series, as opposed to several specific modifiers older fans attach to it.
It'll also be remembered as the game that put Bethesda squarely on the game development map in a prominent position alongside BioWare, Obsidian, and Ubisoft. I also believe it sets a solid example as to how cross-platform RPGs should be designed gameplay-wise. While I'm not saying this is a good thing, the fact of the matter remains that until graphics advancement plateaus in about 10 years or so, flash is going to trump depth. Yes there will be space for smaller fringe developers to develop cRPGs like what the RPGCodex clamours for, but they'll never be at the level that reaches Fallout/Planscape/Witcher/Neverwinter's level of complexity. Streamlined free-form but uncomplicated gameplay has become the new standard for videogames in general, not just RPGs.
10 years down the road from now, the general public's view of video games will have changed slightly to a more open home entertainment venue, and only then will people start to look at what else can you do with a video game other than render one million Nazis onscreen or non-linearly deform/destroy the moon with nukes.
Our Stanley Krubricks and Sergio Leones have come and gone, now it's a matter of waiting for our Ridley Scotts and Luc Bessons. And they will come, just not anytime soon.
Till then, Fallout 3 will be remembered as Exhibit A.
However there will be a slight change in the Fallout series preception. Fallout itself will be remembered as simply a post-apocalyptic RPG series, as opposed to several specific modifiers older fans attach to it.
It'll also be remembered as the game that put Bethesda squarely on the game development map in a prominent position alongside BioWare, Obsidian, and Ubisoft. I also believe it sets a solid example as to how cross-platform RPGs should be designed gameplay-wise. While I'm not saying this is a good thing, the fact of the matter remains that until graphics advancement plateaus in about 10 years or so, flash is going to trump depth. Yes there will be space for smaller fringe developers to develop cRPGs like what the RPGCodex clamours for, but they'll never be at the level that reaches Fallout/Planscape/Witcher/Neverwinter's level of complexity. Streamlined free-form but uncomplicated gameplay has become the new standard for videogames in general, not just RPGs.
10 years down the road from now, the general public's view of video games will have changed slightly to a more open home entertainment venue, and only then will people start to look at what else can you do with a video game other than render one million Nazis onscreen or non-linearly deform/destroy the moon with nukes.
Our Stanley Krubricks and Sergio Leones have come and gone, now it's a matter of waiting for our Ridley Scotts and Luc Bessons. And they will come, just not anytime soon.
Till then, Fallout 3 will be remembered as Exhibit A.
Radioactive
First time out of the vault
alec said:
And how old are you sir? just curious, it seems to relate to the phenomenon you're describing, it'd help me understand where you're coming from to know.
I myself am 28, and I've been a fan of the Fallout series since Fallout 1 which I bought around Christmas at the end of 1999, in a double pack with Fallout 2. That Christmas I sat down and played through I believe both, though perhaps Fallout 2 was after I got back home from vacation. Anyway... I would've been 19 at the time and I loved Fallout 1 so much, it immediately had a place in my top 5 games of all time. (FYI the others in there are Thief: The Dark Project, System Shock 2, Zelda: Ocarina of Time, and StarCraft)
Fallout 2 on the other hand... while it had some parts I liked, overall I was pretty disappointed with it. It struck me as so juvenile, too many low brow jokes, nonstop... I can take a dash of that, but the game was just laden with it. Then there were those aliens you'd encounter that were very clearly a reference to the Alien movies, and my memory is hazy here but I just seem to recall that I felt like I couldn't walk two feet without bumping into either a pop culture reference, or a junior high grade sex joke. I'm *no* prude, believe me, but these factors really made me feel like Fallout 1 had had it's good name sort of trampled on before my very eyes. I was not surprised in the least to learn later that a different group of devs had made it than Fallout 1.
Later I got my hands on Tactics, I actually enjoyed it quite a bit. I think it gets a bad rap and I'm not really sure why. Fun game.
BOS I rented at one point, played about 20 minutes of it before I got sick of it, it just felt really sloppy and bad. I think it's reputation seems deserved. Then again... I have a friend who played it and it was the only Fallout game he has ever played, and he said it was quite good in his view... so perhaps if you don't have the other Fallout games to judge it by, maybe it really does have something to it *shrug* I don't know. I don't have any plans to play it again.
Well, so that leaves Fallout 3... which is obviously what we're talking about here. I just wanted to give you guys some background on my history with the series, I had an account here some years ago I believe but just made a new one to reply to this thread because I forgot what that old one was called... so since this is sort of an introduction post for me I hope you will all forgive the wordiness.
Anyway... Fallout 3. Personally, I think it's fantastic. It's not perfect but it's a really amazing achievement as far as I'm concerned. I've had my gripes with it, like the immortal children thing, and just to prove that point about not being a prude with Fallout 2 stuff I said... I actually think Fallout 3 could stand to have more sex related material in it.
Still, I would rate it something like a 9.7 or 9.8 out of 10 for sure. The more I play it the more I realize how great it is, I'm up to like 135 hours played and I simply don't do that... very very rare for me to spend that much time in one game unless you count a MMORPG. With Oblivion and Morrowind, frankly I lost interest... I wanted to like them a lot more than I did. Something about both games just failed to grab me. I appreciated the skill involved in crafting them, I liked being given a big sand box world to play around in... but I think it was just sort of too generic and bland for me.
With Fallout 3 Bethesda has really redeemed themselves in my eyes, and it's not that they were really maligned in my eyes before, I just was growing increasingly worried about how bland and generic their games felt, my first exposure to them was Daggerfall when I was 16 in '96 and it felt like while some things about their games were improving, obviously, other things were backsliding... I couldn't quite put my finger on it but like I said, Morrowind and Oblivion just weren't holding my interest.
This time, with Fallout 3, it's holding my interest big time. There's always some new area or wrinkle I find to keep me going... and I think they absolutely nailed the Fallout world and feel. I don't understand people who say it isn't really a Fallout game... hell, much as Fallout 2 annoyed me and much as I felt it was a slap in the face to Fallout 1, you'd never catch me claiming it didn't deserve the "2" in it's name or anything silly like that.
Face it, when you get right down to it it seems that the Fallout series has been a troubled one, no 2 Fallout games have ever really been made by the same group of people. Now, I imagine a few did carry over from Fallout 1 to 2, but from what I've heard it was almost a complete change out of the dev team right?
So yea, to act like this is some rock solid series that was going along just fine until Bethesda got their grimey mits on it and ruined everything... seems rather silly to me. The series had at least 1, many would say 2 questionable entries already, it had pretty much withered on the vine, and I think everyone should at least be glad for Bethesda keeping it alive.
I'm glad for much more than that, I think it's a fantastic game. What really bugs me is when other long time fans of the series tell me I'm not a real fan because I like Fallout 3... very arrogant.
I think in the near future there will be a general understanding that great films (and by extension games) from 1980 onward had cash-in sequels and that the sequels should be ignored when considering the artistic merits of the original.
for example if you take a university course in science fiction today you'll probably talk about Alien, The Matrix and maybe Jurassic Park. all three had countless terrible sequels but they're ignored. it will be the same with fallout.
for example if you take a university course in science fiction today you'll probably talk about Alien, The Matrix and maybe Jurassic Park. all three had countless terrible sequels but they're ignored. it will be the same with fallout.
In Tactic's defense, it's a good tactical game. Not a good Fallout game, but fun none the less. I suppose because I don't have arthritis yet I can only hope that the kids of the future will not remember Fallout 3, nor think that's the medium of gaming. One can dream, one can dream...
The difference between the Matrix films and the Alien and JP films is that the Alien franchise purposely deviates from past incarnations for the sake of giving new directors a chance to show their vision of the Alien universe, and the JP films are pretty much about dinosaurs eating people. The Matrix films on the otherhand is the consistant vision of the Whachowski(sp?) brothers, left to their own devices to take a great premise and drill it into the ground in subsequent films.
Typically whenever a film company gets ahold of a IP birthed from a different source, they tend to "reimagine and retell" a story we're quite familiar with for the sake of new visuals and actors. To the benefit of video game production companies, they will typically honor what has been done, and then "reimagine" the next incarnation.
Best comparison to Fallout 3's relation to its forefathers are UbiSoft's Prince of Persia games, or Tell Tale Games' Sam and Max adventures. The basic forumla is there, the interpretation and presentation have changed.
Typically whenever a film company gets ahold of a IP birthed from a different source, they tend to "reimagine and retell" a story we're quite familiar with for the sake of new visuals and actors. To the benefit of video game production companies, they will typically honor what has been done, and then "reimagine" the next incarnation.
Best comparison to Fallout 3's relation to its forefathers are UbiSoft's Prince of Persia games, or Tell Tale Games' Sam and Max adventures. The basic forumla is there, the interpretation and presentation have changed.
Radioactive
First time out of the vault
Rabban said:
I guess I don't understand this idea that seems to say, subsequent games in a series can't change anything about the basic game type or play mechanics or they're no longer true ____ games. It got cancelled but StarCraft, an RTS series, was going to have a third person sneaker/shooter called Ghost as many of you will remember, was that not going to be a real StarCraft game? In my view, it was.
Halo is an FPS but there's a Halo RTS coming out soon... is that not a true Halo game? I consider it to be. WarCraft games, and World of WarCraft, both legitimate WarCraft games...
I guess for me the important thing is that the setting and feel are the same, not so much the play mechanics or camera view.
Starseeker
Vault Senior Citizen
lol, I agree with alec, it's like the point I tried to raise with my game design thread. The thing is, the more "discussions" I go through in this sub forum, the more I am convinced that it's pointless to debate whether or not "FO" 3 is a great (no, it's not ok, not good, not bad, it has to be GREAT) game.
Regardless of numbers of people(who may or may not work for Beth) who seem to sign up just to wax lyrically about how great this game is(with all of them "claiming" to have played FO1 & 2, wait, maybe they did, Todd played 10 hours, right?), it seems fruitless to at least try to explain to them, what is good game design, or what is a "true" RPG?
It reminds me of the time when FF7 came out, and all the kids hailed it as the Second coming.
All of the sudden, I can sort of understand why zero punctuation always seem so angry.
But, maybe this is the point. The more they try to appeal to the mass market, the more they try to get respect from main stream media, the more likely they are to go for the lowest common denominator. Fans, in the end, are just a niche market. In today's corporate world of go big or go home, niches are cast aside, because we don't fit the market profiles of the young, hip, and impressionables.
Then again, being a member of the corporate world, I wonder why they didn't hire better PR people, Pete & Todd don't exactly stand out as good PR men.
Regardless of numbers of people(who may or may not work for Beth) who seem to sign up just to wax lyrically about how great this game is(with all of them "claiming" to have played FO1 & 2, wait, maybe they did, Todd played 10 hours, right?), it seems fruitless to at least try to explain to them, what is good game design, or what is a "true" RPG?
It reminds me of the time when FF7 came out, and all the kids hailed it as the Second coming.
All of the sudden, I can sort of understand why zero punctuation always seem so angry.
But, maybe this is the point. The more they try to appeal to the mass market, the more they try to get respect from main stream media, the more likely they are to go for the lowest common denominator. Fans, in the end, are just a niche market. In today's corporate world of go big or go home, niches are cast aside, because we don't fit the market profiles of the young, hip, and impressionables.
Then again, being a member of the corporate world, I wonder why they didn't hire better PR people, Pete & Todd don't exactly stand out as good PR men.
Starseeker said:
To my credit, I've played a fuck-ton of Fallout 1/2/Tactics. I doubt Bethesda pays thralls of fans to post on the NMA forums. If anything they'd make a new Fallout fansite and forum. Aside from "LOLZ NMA SUKS! FO3 RAWKS!" contributors, people that post on this forum are fans of Fallout.
What is happening rather is a polarizing event in Fallout fandom. You have people that are only fans of FO3, people who are Fallout fans with all incarnations (except FO:BOS, that's a game just about all Fallout fans can agree to ignore), and people who are Fallout 1&2 fans.
It's kinda like what's happened to Star Wars fans with the new triology.
I happen to fall in the middle with being a fan of Fallout 1/2/3/Tactics, a fan of Fallout as a whole. A new game will always bring new and old fans around. I doubt NMA as a whole will completely shun FO3, and will probbably fall back to treating it like Fallout: Tactics (and oddly giving Tactics a boost in praise which it deserved in the first place). However, if the site decides to become forthright and say that it's only a fan site for Fallout 1&2 and sometimes Tactics weather permitting, then that's fine. But until that sad day, while NMA continues to call itself a resource for all things Fallout, it should be expected that fans of the series challenge each other as to what is a Fallout game.
Ausir said:
I think the titled numerical weight of a successive product is a bit overvalued.
StarCraft: Ghost was going the next addition to the StarCraft series, and it happened to be a FPS. Whether or not it was going to contribute something to the universe other than lasering targets and exploding Zerg is another topic all together. Plot and universe continuity typically ties storylines together, not presentation or titles.
Take for example the Riddick property. It's succession is movie-dvd cartoon-video game-movie, as far removed from sequel commonality as possible. However each successive entry is a sequel of the Riddick series in plot and universe continuity, but only the last three share a common tag.
Then again this could just be a familiar arguement over a simple definition of "what is a sequel", and that's loaded arguement.
Pretty much the thing you have to keep in mind Radioactive is that a lot of people here have their own definition of what is a proper "Fallout" sequel and in turn have a set of expectations in order to meet the criteria of earning the coveted "3" that has eluded us for so many years of tries, tears, and tantrums. My position and criteria could be interpreted as too lax and bastardizes/castrates what the "Fallout" games were about. I could interpret others' positions as shallow and the equivelent of a sitcom clip-show episode. The only common part is that we're fans of the franchise.
I think one could make a strong argument to the video game industry on old gamers vs. new gamers when it comes to the Nintendo Wii. The Wii has an incredibly anemic processor and GPU when compared to XBOX 360 and PS3. The Wii is intended, bottom up, to be more about innovation and gameplay than graphics. Not even Nintendo thought it would catch on as well as it did, and the video game industry followed a similar course. That is why the number of quality third party Wii software seems to be pretty limited in comparison to XBOX, PS3 and PC. Meanwhile the sales of Wii still DOMINATE. Presently they are the most abundant of the consoling platform. You know what the industry is doing now? Moving towards making more Wii titles.
So what does that have to do with Fallout 3 vs Fallout 1&2? Simple. The divide between old and new gamers - gameplay versus graphics. I think most of us on this board qualify as "old gamers". We love a game with extremely dated graphics yet extremely good gameplay. We like the concept of good graphics, but to us, gameplay should come first. I think the video game consumers HAVE already spoken on where they generally stand. The sales of the Wii somewhat prove that. People who like the Wii like gameplay before graphics.
Now I know this may open me to flame or dub me a "Nintendo Fanboi" or whatever nonsense internet people spew. I think future events of the video game industry (providing our recession here lifts eventually) will speak for themselves. If I'm wrong, you will see more LOLSHOOTERGRAPHIX!!!*DROOLONSCREEN* games. If I am right you will see developers focus on ways to make games fun (the only real way you can push a game on the Wii). The real question is whether PC gaming will ever get love from that trend. Namely, will the future high sales of gameplay oriented Wii products influence games like Fallout 4? Will developers 2 years from now be pressed to focus on fun BEFORE presentation?
I certainly hope so. Here's to hoping Fallout 4 doesn't cater to the mindless droves of ZOMGFPS
Edit (So I don't waste more space in the thread): Oh and I obviously voted on the "lower end" of that poll. Fallout 3 is, in my opinion, a symptom of the "FPS Formula" that Beth seems to subscribe to. If it is remembered, it will be on the backs of FO1,2 and 4 (if we ever get one that does it right). FO3 should have been made a spin-off.
So what does that have to do with Fallout 3 vs Fallout 1&2? Simple. The divide between old and new gamers - gameplay versus graphics. I think most of us on this board qualify as "old gamers". We love a game with extremely dated graphics yet extremely good gameplay. We like the concept of good graphics, but to us, gameplay should come first. I think the video game consumers HAVE already spoken on where they generally stand. The sales of the Wii somewhat prove that. People who like the Wii like gameplay before graphics.
Now I know this may open me to flame or dub me a "Nintendo Fanboi" or whatever nonsense internet people spew. I think future events of the video game industry (providing our recession here lifts eventually) will speak for themselves. If I'm wrong, you will see more LOLSHOOTERGRAPHIX!!!*DROOLONSCREEN* games. If I am right you will see developers focus on ways to make games fun (the only real way you can push a game on the Wii). The real question is whether PC gaming will ever get love from that trend. Namely, will the future high sales of gameplay oriented Wii products influence games like Fallout 4? Will developers 2 years from now be pressed to focus on fun BEFORE presentation?
I certainly hope so. Here's to hoping Fallout 4 doesn't cater to the mindless droves of ZOMGFPS
Edit (So I don't waste more space in the thread): Oh and I obviously voted on the "lower end" of that poll. Fallout 3 is, in my opinion, a symptom of the "FPS Formula" that Beth seems to subscribe to. If it is remembered, it will be on the backs of FO1,2 and 4 (if we ever get one that does it right). FO3 should have been made a spin-off.
Gooscar said:
Do you understand the difference betweem "spin-off" and "sequel"? A sequel is an entry in the franchise that continues the style, theme, setting and gameplay of previous titles. A spin-off is an entry that bases on previous titles, but does something completely different.
That's why Fo:T, Fo:BoS and Fo3 are spin-offs and Fo2 is a sequel.
Mikael Grizzly said:
I think this nails it on the head for me. FO3 should have been: Fallout: Capitol Wasteland. I was hoping that the first person perspective would have been utilized more as an option than as a redefinition. 3d RPG with optional turn based or real time action, a well rendered 3d world with options for any view you want. Instead, I got an FPS with a sprinkle of RPG =(