Honestly, you come across as a typical fanboy who was disappointed before you even had a chance to be let down. As soon as you saw the name Bethesda, you knew what you were going to say about this game, because you knew beyond any shadow of a doubt that the resulting product would be below your well established standards on what a game with the name Fallout should be.
As soon as I
heard about the direction they were going to take it, I was sceptical and I was pissed. I don’t hate Bethesda just for the sake of it; I have played Morrowind and Oblivion and those games are OK for what they are. But in no way should Fallout be like Oblivion. They are just not the same kind of game. Or at least they weren’t. They are now. And yes, the resulting product is below the established standards of Fallout 1 and 2. But it wasn’t an instantaneous conclusion. I held out on judgement for a while longer than most of the more ‘rabid’ folk of the Fallout community, but in the end, it is not the game I was hoping for.
Oh you got me. I hadn't played the original Fallout games. I hadn't even heard of the damn things before 3, because Interplay's advertising is about as compotent as a two year old working a job in rocket science. I'd heard of Blizzard's similar RPG-fare like Diablo, and even heard of less popular games (Apparently) like Septerra Core, but the Fallout series was dust in the wind before the 360 sequel.
Was that sarcastic or did you really not know of the original games? It is true that they were not very well advertised…even I randomly came across Fallout 1 when I went to the store looking for a game to buy, way back in ’97. I didn’t see it on TV or hear about it anywhere…just by chance but that shouldn’t be held against anyone. Some of the best products are the ones that don’t need to be advertised.
Septerra Core is a game I have been wanting to play for a while actually…have you played that one?
Not to say that they're bad games or anything. I watched a few playthrough videos and they certainly look like something I'd check out, if not a bit dated.
They certainly are dated…they came out about 12-13 years ago! But they are still great! The same way Chrono Trigger and Cross are. I’d also like to say that since you didn’t play the originals, you have hold just as much water in this argument as I do...
Just out of curiosity, have you played Fallout 3 at all even? Gotten through the main story questline? Completed any of the side quests? Even gotten out of the vault yet? If you have your complaints will hold a bit more validity, but if not it just hammers in the point that you came into this game with harsh judgements from the start.
Whoops. I’ve played Fallout 3 as you have played Fallout 1 and 2. I will, mind you...once I finish FFXII and some decent game altering mods come out...which I guess is the bright side of things...there is a chance that some more meaningful substance will be added to the game. I'll never play a vanilla FO# though. So yes, I came to the table with harsh but not unreasonable judgements.
But when you get down to it, the only reason you hate this game so adamantly is because of your mindset from playing the first two.
True, but how is that any different than how most people react? People become attached to the first version of a TV show, movie, game etc (assuming it is good) that they see and they compare past and future versions to the one they saw first. If I never played the originals, I may be liking Fallout 3 right now. And if you played the originals, especially back when they came out, you might be singing a different tune yourself. We are at different starting points. I started with Fallout in ’97 and I thoroughly enjoyed (and still do) the games, so much that they are among my favourite games of all time. I will naturally compare any future iteration to my beloved originals. Fallout: Tactics, lacked the feel of the originals…but hey it is a “tactics” game and as such it is OK (certainly not a favourite though)...if they labelled that one as Fallout 3 back in 2001, well I’d have less nice things to say. Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel…never played it, don’t think I need to play to know that it is a crap Fallout game, again easily ignored because it wasn’t trying to be a continuation of the core series. Fallout 3, again I compare it to the originals. Obviously Fallout 3 reigns supreme in graphical detail and environment. But it is missing the intricate dialogue options, meaningful choice and consequence, interesting plot and quests (for the most part). Instead they chose to focus on graphics, explosions, blood, gore, guns (portable nuke launcher...seriously?) and combat in general.
I'm sorry to beat a dead horse, but that's nothing but nostalgia. You wanted Fallout 2 - Part 2, not Fallout 3. You didn't want a first person shooter with RPG elements, you wanted an RPG with gun elements.
No. I wanted Fallout 3 – Van Buren not Fallout 2 part 2. And yes, I wanted an RPG because that is what Fallout is [was], not a FPS w/ RPG elements. If you really didn’t know about Fallout 1 or 2, you may not know of the original Fallout 3 that unfortunately got canned because Interplay went bankrupt. That is the game I was hoping for and to add insult to injury, the damn game was almost done. A new Fallout game that was true to the originals but updated with newer technology (a natural evolution with games). I wasn’t hoping for Fallout 2 part 2 with Van Buren. I wanted a new Fallout game that was true to the originals and that is what the original Fallout 3 was going to be.
I don't know why you seem to be so hung up on something done wrong. You bold the words intricate and intelligent. Was 3 too easy? Was it too much geared towards a crowd of gamers who like to jump into a game and not be bombarded with complex battles that require deep thinking and in depth strategies else you discover a game over screen right off the bat?
See there is a slight error in how you think of the Fallout series. Yes it has been geared towards a crowd of gamers who like to “jump right in” but Fallout wasn’t about
complex battles that kill you off in a matter of seconds. Most of the battles were not complex and hell, it didn’t even have to be about combat. What was “complex” (at least by today’s standards) was managing and fore-planning of stats, skills, traits and perks and how you use those in the game. Those defined what character you played and thus how you played. Perks you only gained every 3 levels (so choose wisely). Traits gave you a positive
and a negative effect and couldn’t be changed except once through one perk. (e.g. Finesse Trait: “Your attacks show a lot of finesse. You don't do as much damage but you cause more critical hits.”). Stat and skill checks also played a more important role in the originals (but I know they are still present in FO3) Beth chose to give a perk every time someone levelled up and chose to eliminate traits altogether (or at least roll them into perks and take out the bad part) (e.g Finesse Perk: you have a higher chance to score a critical hit on an opponent in combat, equivalent to 5 extra points of Luck.) They also gave less importance to the SPECIAL stats, as you can more readily boost them throughout the game, whereas in the original, you were pretty much stuck with what you picked in the beginning, save a few +1 items along the way and the power armour (both mid/late in the game). So yes, they did gear it more towards the casual gamer as it is more flexible/less rigid but that isn’t where my argument lies. The originals had multiple dialogue paths and meaningful and usually permanent results to different paths. Beth has different dialogue options as well, but they basically lead to the same outcome. And even worse, negative outcomes don’t always stick! You just leave and return and hostiles become friendly!!! Are you kidding me? This is where my panties are bunched, the lack of meaningful choices and consequences.
