Fallout 3 not a 'proper' Fallout game?
- Thread starter Hotshots
- Start date
Recommended Videos
No, the main enemy in Fallout is humanity itself.Hamish Durie said:
Humans caused the Resource Wars, humans caused the Great War, humans created FEV, humans created the post-apocalyptic world of Fallout.
Actually, recall that said Baby is Ashur's own Kid. Its not a random Baby from somewhere. Now recall the whole Background as well, Ashur being from the Brotherhood and actually having a Plan to solve both the Trogg Plague and the after-issue of rebuilding Pittsburgh and potentially more parts of the Wasteland.ChupathingyX said:
Wernher wants to get the Baby to get the Cure and..thats it. He has no long term goal other than him being in charge instead of Ashur. Ashur makes a logical reasoning as to why he does what he does, his long-term Plans and that he isnt entirely happy about the methods he has to use. Wernher is utterly unknown. For all we know he could be WORSE than Ashur in the long run, yet siding with Wernher is the "good Option". Honestly the outcome of the Choice is more what i liked rather than the "steal baby or dont steal baby" Choice of it.
And by that Reasoning the Honest Hearts Ending is: Kill Group A, Kill Group B or Kill everyone. Moral Choice? None. Alright, i havent played it yet so i dont know the entire reasoning behind it all but from what i know from the Lore, wiki helps, its basicly a semi-pacifist tribe vs a not-so-pacifist tribe, one being led by the former Legate of the Legion. Doesnt really strike me as moral in any sense of the word as to which side you slaughter, as the direct outcome has little implied impact.
Lets look at the entire history of just the Fallout Series. The First Villian is the Master, intelligent, reasonable, logical. He tries to undo certain factors which led to the Great War, the obvious one being racial differences.Chibz said:
Second we got President Richardson who wants to release a mutated version of FEV into the Air to circulate over the Mainland US and kill every living being, pure, mutated and so forth so they can recolonize the Mainland. Race implies a big part there, Mutants arent pure. Therefore Mutants arent Human at all, no one who was affected by any Radiation is. Everyone else who might die is collateral damage. Why? Because the Enclave believes they are true Humans, no one else.
Tactics had as Villian the Calculator. A AI which has gone rogue due to some malfunction and its internal corrupted Programming. It is made by the Enclave and other Companies before the War who technically made it happen by cutting corners in construction. Tactics is however not considered fully canon so there you go.
Fallout 3 has Eden and Colonel Autumn as Villians. One wants to do the same thing that Richardson did in Fallout 2, kill the "mutants". Why? Because, as said above, they arent human. Colonel Autumn on the other Hand just wants to control the purifier, to rebuild the wasteland and create a new United States.
New Vegas, the de-facto main villian is Caesar. Because he is soooo evil and his Legion is super strong and no one can stand against them, except apparently you. Ideologically the Legion is evil for several practices, yet all the other Factions, at least House and the NCR are incompetent at best. Meaning no side is actually the good side in it.
So thats all the big bad People. And you claim that the Master was silly?! That was honestly the best Villian ever created in the whole Franchise who wasnt evil because he was REQUIRED to be evil. Colonel Autumn being a close second.
But it was a surprisingly good game on its own. It was basically like playing post-apocalyptic Champions of Norrath.CD-R said:
I meant he was silly more in appearance & name. The same way I refer to Kefka as silly (and as a gay clown, but that's neither here nor there).A-D. said:
As for the NCR/House? NCR is more incompetent (which doesn't make you evil). House is greedy (Which very well might).
Well I could just tell you the endings of Honest Hearts or you could just look them up yourself.A-D. said:
But basically excluding the "kill everyone", the other two options are much more grey because the end results are complete opposites of each other, both with their pros and cons.
You can side with either Joshua, or Daniel; with Joshua certain factions benefit from the ending and some don't, if you side with Daniel, the opposite happens with the opposite factions receiving different ends.
It all comes down to personal preference, that is a grey choice.
I prefer a poor shooter to a combat system that is so bad, it may turn newcomers against turn-based combat forever.
Gameplay is criterium #1, so I shouldn't even like the original Fallouts, but I do.
I suppose what the originals have in their favour is that they are hard, for WRPGs, but the hard mostly comes from random rolls that are fatal. Just reload.
Real challenge, not so much.
The only real strategy is to follow NPC directions early on, so you'll go pass through the easier areas first, building your PC for mobility and APs along the way.
The only real FO1 tactic is to look for corners, then move around corner, shoot baddies, retrace steps, end turn, repeat.
In FO2 you can also defeat some strong melee critters, by attacking and moving out of range in one turn. It's all about AGI.
What's left is a great setting, good atmosphere, nice dialogue and some C&C.
The amount of freedom you had and the way the game reacted to your choices set the bar for RPGs at the time, but it has been surpaced since in that area by games like Arcanum.
So Fallout 3: copies most of the setting, retains some atmosphere, bad dialogue and some shallow black-or-white game consequences. Add a crappy lineair plot. Combat improves from terrible to poor.
The difference between the old and new, in short then is the difference between a badly damaged masterpiece and a mediocre derivative work.
That is CRPG land in a nutshell.
Gameplay is criterium #1, so I shouldn't even like the original Fallouts, but I do.
I suppose what the originals have in their favour is that they are hard, for WRPGs, but the hard mostly comes from random rolls that are fatal. Just reload.
Real challenge, not so much.
The only real strategy is to follow NPC directions early on, so you'll go pass through the easier areas first, building your PC for mobility and APs along the way.
The only real FO1 tactic is to look for corners, then move around corner, shoot baddies, retrace steps, end turn, repeat.
In FO2 you can also defeat some strong melee critters, by attacking and moving out of range in one turn. It's all about AGI.
What's left is a great setting, good atmosphere, nice dialogue and some C&C.
The amount of freedom you had and the way the game reacted to your choices set the bar for RPGs at the time, but it has been surpaced since in that area by games like Arcanum.
So Fallout 3: copies most of the setting, retains some atmosphere, bad dialogue and some shallow black-or-white game consequences. Add a crappy lineair plot. Combat improves from terrible to poor.
The difference between the old and new, in short then is the difference between a badly damaged masterpiece and a mediocre derivative work.
That is CRPG land in a nutshell.
Well, given he fell into one of the Vats and got mutated and absorbed other Animals and Humans..well yeah the Blob thing was kinda a given there.Chibz said:
And what i meant with the Relation of Factions in NV is that no side is utterly good. They all have serious flaws, some more so than others. The NCR for example is also greedy, though in a different sense from House.
My biggest complaint about the newer fallout games is the level cap. In F2 I once had a character that was well into the 40's (game was beatable at 20 for those who never played it), had taken over the stables as a massive equipment depository, and had more drugs than all the pharmacies in the game. You can't do things like that in the new ones, and that saddens me.
I preffered Fallout 3 to Fallout New Vegas at the the start, but when I came back to 3 I found it strange, not as I remembered it. I still enjoy it, as well as New Vegas, but the differences in aesthetics make the games feel very different from each other at times.
actually...Steefness said:
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=121
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=1516
On topic: I'm with the OP. I loved Fallout 3, and I have a lot of time into it... but the feel is less a Fallout game and more a Fallout tribute game... which is what I used to say about Tactics. Fallout 3 is that, but more so.
That's because Fallout is about rebuilding civilisation, not living like people who have no hope and admittting their fate. Instead of sitting around and sucking their thumbs there are people who are actually trying to create large cities and bring society back to the wasteland...you know, people like....Tandi.Hamish Durie said:
Random youtuber-
Interplay is trying to get the Fallout franchise back from Bethesda... please don't let Interplay get it back... otherwise Fallout 4 will be just shit. Other fallout games were gay.
5 days ago Like?Reply
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MUST RESIST URGE TO RAPE YOUTUBERS
Testicular brained, can't play anything but shoot people in head every 5 seconds games, people in my fallout? It's apparently more likely then I think because this thing is actually getting likes :/
Interplay is trying to get the Fallout franchise back from Bethesda... please don't let Interplay get it back... otherwise Fallout 4 will be just shit. Other fallout games were gay.
5 days ago Like?Reply
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MUST RESIST URGE TO RAPE YOUTUBERS
Testicular brained, can't play anything but shoot people in head every 5 seconds games, people in my fallout? It's apparently more likely then I think because this thing is actually getting likes :/
I don't know why you believed Fallout's combat was particularly hard. Most of the difficulties in combat stemmed from how you created your character.veloper said:
Naturally say getting the Gifted Perk, raising your perception to 10 and tagging Small Guns would make you easily dominate with the 10mm against anything you find easily being able to get stronger weapons really early on. As long as you knew what you were doing Fallout was not really that hard of a game to play. Neither was the second one for that matter. Baldur's Gate by contrast was significantly harder, especially since it ran on the broken AD&D ruleset. I still have fond memories of having to reload savegames of my character being instantly killed by arrows as soon as I entered a room. Most of the strategy I found in Fallout was to kill your allies and take their equipment. Like I tended to kill Ian as soon as I got him and take his stuff, then massacre Shady Sands and sell the things I find on the people there. In a way I found it quite immersive.
With regards to Arcanum you know it was developed by some of the same developers correct? Plus it plays practically the same as Fallout just with a horribly broken combat system. Fallout's combat was replayable because you could beat the game effectively as a melee exclusive user just as easily as a ranged weapons user. You just needed to allocate your points accordingly. In Arcanum the game was twice as easy playing a magic user/melee weapons user then a tech/ranged weapons user.
With Fallout 3 the biggest problem I felt was how consolised the combat felt. I never felt like I was actually getting better at combat, just that my bullets were doing more damage for some reason. Not to mention I was fully convinced that my bullets were just BBs after headshotting a Raider 10 times and not even flinching. If you think Fallout's strategies were low, how do you compare to Fallout 3's VATS into a room and just absorb bullets as you take only 10% damage from them?
What about the most critical of problems most people I know had issue with? That you cant play the game in the way you choose? I couldn't play a high charisma, completely talky character in this game like I did in the last two (sure there was the stupid Temple of Trials in FO2 but that is effectively only 1 fight). You were limited by a fairly combat heavy gameplay in what was a very empty wasteland. There was often little to actually interact with in the world (on a sentient level anyway) and I often found little reason to run around and explore, maxing out every aspect of my character was easy without needing to really focus on doing do.Chibz said:
Personally I found the main plot atrocious, and no you cant drop a 'its a video game narrative'. There are absolutely brilliant videogame narratives, so I hold the same standard as I would to any other medium. Your father is just kind of a jerk who seems to have absolutely no foresight whatsoever leaves you to rot at the hands of a somewhat extreme overseer (who then subsequently demonstrates his irrational nature by not immediately checking your quarters when they start looking for you and instead goes after his own daughter) wait...why am I after him again?
Never eally found many funny moments in Fallout 3 either. Maybe it was just me but I guess I dont find the random Canadian surviving a nuclear explosion to be 'black humour' and more 'doesnt make sense' as opposed to the egotistical stylings of Myron. Then again "Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has them and they all stink." Thats a Fallout 2 quote btw...see what I did there (yea I know its not originally from that but thats where I first heard it).
>.>
<.<
I got lots of personal things I found a bit uncomfortable in this kind of rpg. Magic stat boosting items (i swear I was waiting to see my +3 Gun of swiftness drop from a random loot chest), wierd custom weapons. Nothing seemed real enough for me to actually get immersed in the world, everyone and everything felt like a video game trigger, invulnerable npcs, random villages in the wasteland, a colony of children who can hold off both slavers and can sit right next to the largest concentration of super mutants in the wasteland (seriously, I cant get over how Little Lamplight makes no sense, can be such a giant middle finger to the player AND manages to imply a creepy child sex theme all at the same time). Its a game that completely removed any sense of scale by letting you detonate a nuke right at the start of the game and then expect you to care what is going on about some kobolds in a mine somewhere, let alone your father.
Honestly, I can see people enjoying it but the way some people hail this game like it was the peak of gaming is just plain confusing to me. It seems there are many games that do the same thing only better but whatever. Thats personally why I don't like it, fallout 1 and 2 weren'tpart of my childhood, i played them in 2000 and really enjoyed them so I think i can safely say nostalgia isn't the factor here.
EDIT: WTF?? I HAVE TO WATCH AN AD TO ENTER THE CAPTCHA????
The modern Interplay are not the same Interplay/Black Isle who made Fallout 1 and 2.Malikaw said:
The only current developer who can make a good Fallout game is Obsidian, you have to remember that Obsidian is made up of people from Black Isle so they know the Fallout universe.
I read all of that in Vault 87, because I was looking for some kind of explanation why these ones were idiots. What I got was a handwave. Why would the Enclave make a crappier strain of FEV? If all the samples were created at Mariposa, where the did the different strain come from? And God forbid we should get an actual explanation for what the mutants' goals in the DC area are. It takes brains to supply an army with all those guns they have, but we never see any that aren't morons. There's no good reason for Super Mutants without the Master, and I think Bethesda knew that, but went ahead anyway. Bethesda did a lazy job of writing.Blatherscythe said:
As far as the ghouls, well, you name all the ones that are interesting in one sentence. The rest are common NPCs or ferals. In Fallout 2, most of the ghouls are settled in their own communities, something more than a museum gift shop. Ferals are a random encounter, not something you see every five minutes. At least the Bright Followers are a step in the right direction.
Is it wrong then that I prefered Fallout 3?
I liked the story (before the ending expansion DLC), gameplay was good, humor made me chuckle, played it way more than New Vegas. I can't compare it to anything before because I haven't, and honestly, don't intend to, play them.
I liked the story (before the ending expansion DLC), gameplay was good, humor made me chuckle, played it way more than New Vegas. I can't compare it to anything before because I haven't, and honestly, don't intend to, play them.
Huh, interesting, a cousin of mine played fallout 2 for a bit, he'd never played a PC game before let alone a turn based game (hes used to playing things like call of duty, though he did play Fallout 3 and its why he tried this) and he seemed to pick it up without much problem. He told me after he stopped playing, that he didnt like that you had to talk to all these people but like how he could then shoot them and move on anyway.veloper said:
So yea, he loved Fallout 3 but combat wasnt the issue with him, it was more the fact that he needed to sit there talking to people rather than going around shooting.
So you didn't find the fact that Betehsda insulted your intelligence to be a bads thing? I'm pretty sure when the game tells you to sacrifice yourself you stopped and thought to yourself "why can't I send my ghoul/super mutant/robot companion inside, they're immune to radiation?". Also weren't you aware of the fact that the whoel storyline is about a purifier even though after 20 years a lot of the radiation would be gone and even then, using a very simple filtering system of buckets, dirt and rocks you can get rid of most of the radiation in water?sms_117b said:
Isn't that kind of ignorant of the original Fallout games and Fallout universe though? You could at least go on the Fallout wiki and read the timeline or watch some videos on Youtube.