I love how bent "hardcore" fans are on permantly ending their favorite series becuase they're afraid of, or don't like, change.
Fallout 3 is still Fallout. It still has the Fallout Universe, and has the same storys and conflict, same quirks. All that really changed was that the Fallout humor isn't nearly as overt as it once was (it's still there - but now its a little more high-brow and hidden), its not a slow as hell, unwieldly, outdated turn-based system, and the story got a bit less...involved than the past ones. Than again, Bethesda aren't exactly Pultizer Prizes winners either, so what can you expect. THe story we do have serves as good reasoning tool to move the game along, and adds nicey to the Fallout Universe, showing us more Brotherhood, more Enclave, more Mutant, and more of exactly what the hell happened after the Great War.
My first reaction upon reading this post was to stand up, throw my keyboard out of the window and fast-travel to the nearest bridge and drown myself in the mush filled goo that we city living folks like to call 'water'.
But then I calmed myself down and had a cookie.
There are a scant few games that we can call master pieces in existence at the moment.
One of them is Planescape: Torment. One of them isn't fallout three.
While I enjoyed the experience, fallout three isn't a game that I will play again. There's a whole load of flaws and bad design choices that bogs down the feeling, and while most of the side quests are well writen, the main story line can go and hang itself.
Tldr:
I am a gamer who greatly value story, and the impact we as players can have on that story. I loved planescape torment for this reason, as I did the original two fallout games. For me, it's all about feeling that what I do in the game matters. I want consequences for my actions, and it is here that I feel that fallout 3 failed in the worst way.
In fallout 2, if you gained a negative reputation after slaughtering a whole town and raping it's women, you would be positively shunned by every 'good' aligned character in the game. Your reputation would stay with you and you would be hard pressed to get rid of it. Peoples hated you, and refused you quests and opportunities.
Fallout 3 completely disregards this process by including 'Instant redemption' in the form of church donations. "Oh what is that you say? You blew up megaton? It's alright, I don't hate you. Hand me 1k caps and we're even."
Another thing I value in games (and particularly game series) is continuity. If something important happens in the previous game, a setting is staged or so, I want related events in the following games to reflect this. Fallout 3 almost completely disregard the previous two games in this aspect, giving only passing respect to the story and events of them.
I realize that bethesoft must be able to claim artistic license, since they bought the rights to the franchise, but it still feels like a slap in the face to us who enjoyed the previous two games.
Granted, we who value coherent stories and immersion are a dying breed, gradually giving room to the new 'gamers'. I realize that change is a part of everything, and I can only hope for better quality in coming games.
Rant aside, fallout three lacks in too many aspects for it to be allowed the title master piece. A master piece must, as the name indicates, be masterful in at least one aspect. And though the game is beautifully rendered and have it's good side, there are other games who are better at things than fallout 3.
Mass effect has a better moral system, for example. (story too)
Paragon Fury said:
I love how bent "hardcore" fans are on permantly ending their favorite series becuase they're afraid of, or don't like, change.
Fallout 3 is still Fallout. It still has the Fallout Universe, and has the same storys and conflict, same quirks. All that really changed was that the Fallout humor isn't nearly as overt as it once was (it's still there - but now its a little more high-brow and hidden), its not a slow as hell, unwieldly, outdated turn-based system, and the story got a bit less...involved than the past ones. Than again, Bethesda aren't exactly Pultizer Prizes winners either, so what can you expect. THe story we do have serves as good reasoning tool to move the game along, and adds nicey to the Fallout Universe, showing us more Brotherhood, more Enclave, more Mutant, and more of exactly what the hell happened after the Great War.
I must really disagree. While I give you that fallout 3 moves along with a quicker pace, and that Bethesda have proven themselves to be poor writers at times, the game really deviates too much from the original story. Take the brotherhood of steely knights for example. In the first game, we are given the impression of a very strict, technocratic group, few in numbers and very sociophobic, hard to impress etc. Granted, the second games scales down the BoS a great deal, hell, we hardly even get to interact with them! We are given the impression that they are still there, but a bit more opened to the public, and a great deal smaller. (Or maybe they just didn't have a large hold on that side of the mountains)
In fallout three however, they are suddenly, in the space of a couple of years, a large, militaristic salvation group, happy to lend a hand and a cash of coins to anyone and everyone who asks. This sudden turn is never really explained properly.
The same goes for the super mutants. Why, when they where on the decline in the second game, are they suddenly amassing in great numbers in dc? It makes no sense, really. Sure, I played through that quest, I know what it's about, but it's too many, too soon.
As for the humor, I can't agree there either. There's something lacking in the jokes made, sure they're there, but it isn't the same as the first game. Fallout 2 took it almost too far, but the feeling was there. Do I even have to mention the fat-man? Fallout 3 is more in-your-face than both of the two first games combined. High brown and hidden indeed.
Maybe it's just me, but I kinda had enough of Fallout 3 after playing through the original. I had no desire to shell out for a few extra missions in three different expansions, and I wouldn't want to replay it with a different GUI.
Fallout should just go away for a while. Good game, but far to repetitive, and peaked many hours before it's longwinded conclusion.
I think he's referring to the apparant lack of interactivity involved in having the computer aim your blows/shots for you. Gamers with this mentality really need to stick to FPS and stfu. There is a whole different aspect to gaming called strategy that they don't seem to grasp. I'll admit that I love FPS as much as anyone, but it's not the only kind of game out there.
My first reaction upon reading this post was to stand up, throw my keyboard out of the window and fast-travel to the nearest bridge and drown myself in the mush filled goo that we city living folks like to call 'water'.
But then I calmed myself down and had a cookie.
There are a scant few games that we can call master pieces in existence at the moment.
One of them is Planescape: Torment. One of them isn't fallout three.
While I enjoyed the experience, fallout three isn't a game that I will play again. There's a whole load of flaws and bad design choices that bogs down the feeling, and while most of the side quests are well writen, the main story line can go and hang itself.
Tldr:
I am a gamer who greatly value story, and the impact we as players can have on that story. I loved planescape torment for this reason, as I did the original two fallout games. For me, it's all about feeling that what I do in the game matters. I want consequences for my actions, and it is here that I feel that fallout 3 failed in the worst way.
In fallout 2, if you gained a negative reputation after slaughtering a whole town and raping it's women, you would be positively shunned by every 'good' aligned character in the game. Your reputation would stay with you and you would be hard pressed to get rid of it. Peoples hated you, and refused you quests and opportunities.
Fallout 3 completely disregards this process by including 'Instant redemption' in the form of church donations. "Oh what is that you say? You blew up megaton? It's alright, I don't hate you. Hand me 1k caps and we're even."
Another thing I value in games (and particularly game series) is continuity. If something important happens in the previous game, a setting is staged or so, I want related events in the following games to reflect this. Fallout 3 almost completely disregard the previous two games in this aspect, giving only passing respect to the story and events of them.
I realize that bethesoft must be able to claim artistic license, since they bought the rights to the franchise, but it still feels like a slap in the face to us who enjoyed the previous two games.
Granted, we who value coherent stories and immersion are a dying breed, gradually giving room to the new 'gamers'. I realize that change is a part of everything, and I can only hope for better quality in coming games.
Rant aside, fallout three lacks in too many aspects for it to be allowed the title master piece. A master piece must, as the name indicates, be masterful in at least one aspect. And though the game is beautifully rendered and have it's good side, there are other games who are better at things than fallout 3.
Mass effect has a better moral system, for example. (story too)
Paragon Fury said:
I love how bent "hardcore" fans are on permantly ending their favorite series becuase they're afraid of, or don't like, change.
Fallout 3 is still Fallout. It still has the Fallout Universe, and has the same storys and conflict, same quirks. All that really changed was that the Fallout humor isn't nearly as overt as it once was (it's still there - but now its a little more high-brow and hidden), its not a slow as hell, unwieldly, outdated turn-based system, and the story got a bit less...involved than the past ones. Than again, Bethesda aren't exactly Pultizer Prizes winners either, so what can you expect. THe story we do have serves as good reasoning tool to move the game along, and adds nicey to the Fallout Universe, showing us more Brotherhood, more Enclave, more Mutant, and more of exactly what the hell happened after the Great War.
I must really disagree. While I give you that fallout 3 moves along with a quicker pace, and that Bethesda have proven themselves to be poor writers at times, the game really deviates too much from the original story. Take the brotherhood of steely knights for example. In the first game, we are given the impression of a very strict, technocratic group, few in numbers and very sociophobic, hard to impress etc. Granted, the second games scales down the BoS a great deal, hell, we hardly even get to interact with them! We are given the impression that they are still there, but a bit more opened to the public, and a great deal smaller. (Or maybe they just didn't have a large hold on that side of the mountains)
In fallout three however, they are suddenly, in the space of a couple of years, a large, militaristic salvation group, happy to lend a hand and a cash of coins to anyone and everyone who asks. This sudden turn is never really explained properly.
The same goes for the super mutants. Why, when they where on the decline in the second game, are they suddenly amassing in great numbers in dc? It makes no sense, really. Sure, I played through that quest, I know what it's about, but it's too many, too soon.
As for the humor, I can't agree there either. There's something lacking in the jokes made, sure they're there, but it isn't the same as the first game. Fallout 2 took it almost too far, but the feeling was there. Do I even have to mention the fat-man? Fallout 3 is more in-your-face than both of the two first games combined. High brown and hidden indeed.
I was refering more to the socio-political humor, but if you want to go for the obvious Fatman joke, then by all means.......
As for the BoS ....if you didn't get the message from the game, Elder Lyons's BoS is not repersentative of the BoS as a whole - the Outcasts are more like West Cost BoS then Lyons's group. Hence why the West Coast doesn't talk to Lyons's much anymore. And I assume that you didn't play FO: BoS, as it shows even there that many BoS factions were starting to go in Lyons's direction, by trying to help the locals of their area, with varying levels of success. And besides that, its been almost 15 years since Lyons got to the East Coast - a lot could have (and apparently did) happen.
The Super Mutants are unrelated to their West Coast brethren as well. It is clearly laid out that the East Coast Mutants are the result of a completely different set of experiments than the West Coast, most likely originating within Vault 87, only sharing the fact that they were FEV as the basis.
My first reaction upon reading this post was to stand up, throw my keyboard out of the window and fast-travel to the nearest bridge and drown myself in the mush filled goo that we city living folks like to call 'water'.
But then I calmed myself down and had a cookie.
There are a scant few games that we can call master pieces in existence at the moment.
One of them is Planescape: Torment. One of them isn't fallout three.
While I enjoyed the experience, fallout three isn't a game that I will play again. There's a whole load of flaws and bad design choices that bogs down the feeling, and while most of the side quests are well writen, the main story line can go and hang itself.
Tldr:
I am a gamer who greatly value story, and the impact we as players can have on that story. I loved planescape torment for this reason, as I did the original two fallout games. For me, it's all about feeling that what I do in the game matters. I want consequences for my actions, and it is here that I feel that fallout 3 failed in the worst way.
In fallout 2, if you gained a negative reputation after slaughtering a whole town and raping it's women, you would be positively shunned by every 'good' aligned character in the game. Your reputation would stay with you and you would be hard pressed to get rid of it. Peoples hated you, and refused you quests and opportunities.
Fallout 3 completely disregards this process by including 'Instant redemption' in the form of church donations. "Oh what is that you say? You blew up megaton? It's alright, I don't hate you. Hand me 1k caps and we're even."
Another thing I value in games (and particularly game series) is continuity. If something important happens in the previous game, a setting is staged or so, I want related events in the following games to reflect this. Fallout 3 almost completely disregard the previous two games in this aspect, giving only passing respect to the story and events of them.
I realize that bethesoft must be able to claim artistic license, since they bought the rights to the franchise, but it still feels like a slap in the face to us who enjoyed the previous two games.
Granted, we who value coherent stories and immersion are a dying breed, gradually giving room to the new 'gamers'. I realize that change is a part of everything, and I can only hope for better quality in coming games.
Rant aside, fallout three lacks in too many aspects for it to be allowed the title master piece. A master piece must, as the name indicates, be masterful in at least one aspect. And though the game is beautifully rendered and have it's good side, there are other games who are better at things than fallout 3.
Mass effect has a better moral system, for example. (story too)
Paragon Fury said:
I love how bent "hardcore" fans are on permantly ending their favorite series becuase they're afraid of, or don't like, change.
Fallout 3 is still Fallout. It still has the Fallout Universe, and has the same storys and conflict, same quirks. All that really changed was that the Fallout humor isn't nearly as overt as it once was (it's still there - but now its a little more high-brow and hidden), its not a slow as hell, unwieldly, outdated turn-based system, and the story got a bit less...involved than the past ones. Than again, Bethesda aren't exactly Pultizer Prizes winners either, so what can you expect. THe story we do have serves as good reasoning tool to move the game along, and adds nicey to the Fallout Universe, showing us more Brotherhood, more Enclave, more Mutant, and more of exactly what the hell happened after the Great War.
I must really disagree. While I give you that fallout 3 moves along with a quicker pace, and that Bethesda have proven themselves to be poor writers at times, the game really deviates too much from the original story. Take the brotherhood of steely knights for example. In the first game, we are given the impression of a very strict, technocratic group, few in numbers and very sociophobic, hard to impress etc. Granted, the second games scales down the BoS a great deal, hell, we hardly even get to interact with them! We are given the impression that they are still there, but a bit more opened to the public, and a great deal smaller. (Or maybe they just didn't have a large hold on that side of the mountains)
In fallout three however, they are suddenly, in the space of a couple of years, a large, militaristic salvation group, happy to lend a hand and a cash of coins to anyone and everyone who asks. This sudden turn is never really explained properly.
The same goes for the super mutants. Why, when they where on the decline in the second game, are they suddenly amassing in great numbers in dc? It makes no sense, really. Sure, I played through that quest, I know what it's about, but it's too many, too soon.
As for the humor, I can't agree there either. There's something lacking in the jokes made, sure they're there, but it isn't the same as the first game. Fallout 2 took it almost too far, but the feeling was there. Do I even have to mention the fat-man? Fallout 3 is more in-your-face than both of the two first games combined. High brown and hidden indeed.
Damn that's the first time I got a rant on my opinion this big, I'll wear it like a medal.
In all seriousness I'll reword what I said "it's a master piece to me" I overlook many of the flaws (NPCs walking into walls) for how open worlded the adventure is and how truly non-linear it is. I haven't played the first one or the second one (only viewed vids) and they did too look really good, but I'm more of an FPS fan so I could already tell that I'd like 3 better just for gameplay reasons. Yes the game has flaws but a game this big excuses itself to me.
I'm highlighting the "to me" bits because this is my opinion on it, I know people who say fallout 3 is a big pile of flaming boring poo, but I have a lot of fun with it. I'm not knockin' ya, you're entitled to your opinion and I did word my post poorly labeling Fallout as a great game no matter what rather than an opinion which I feel we're all entitled to and shouldnt be knocked for (unless you favor Nazis or something, then you might get problems)
Also about the brotherhood they DO talk about why they're helping people out and the elder has become a wastelander sympathizer who wants to help the everyday man, most of their supplies and people are exhausted in this game too. The TRUE brotherhood are the outcasts who are simply gathering technology and are very much not inclined to talk to you unless you do some big, big, big favors to them. They have a actual base in DC and they're open to training people to become BoS members (sort of I think). They're not massive, they even say how desperate they are at times.
It's truly a great game for many reasons, yes not one without some flaws but who cares let's go do some psycho and shoot some super mutants!
I was refering more to the socio-political humor, but if you want to go for the obvious Fatman joke, then by all means.......
As for the BoS ....if you didn't get the message from the game, Elder Lyons's BoS is not repersentative of the BoS as a whole - the Outcasts are more like West Cost BoS then Lyons's group. Hence why the West Coast doesn't talk to Lyons's much anymore. And I assume that you didn't play FO: BoS, as it shows even there that many BoS factions were starting to go in Lyons's direction, by trying to help the locals of their area, with varying levels of success. And besides that, its been almost 15 years since Lyons got to the East Coast - a lot could have (and apparently did) happen.
The Super Mutants are unrelated to their West Coast brethren as well. It is clearly laid out that the East Coast Mutants are the result of a completely different set of experiments than the West Coast, most likely originating within Vault 87, only sharing the fact that they were FEV as the basis.
I concede that I am not one to really judge humor. I can recognize a joke when I see it, but I need a while to digest the meaning behind the joke if it's a satirical one. Maybe I didn't give fallout 3's sense of humor a chance to begin with. Moving on then.
Did you mean Fallout Tactics: BoS or did you actually mean Fallout : BoS?
I did play through FoT:BoS, and while it was an enjoyable game in it's own right,
a tactical turn based wasteland simulator (don't see too many of those), and the multiplayer bit was surprisingly fresh and entertaining,
I hardly gave it more than that.
And, though it is only my own opinion (that is surprisingly well shared by many others ;3) , that game shouldn't really belong in the canon in the first place. I mean, Blimps? Hairy Deathclaws? Vault Zero? Really now.
If you mean Fo:BoS then you just lost a great deal of internet points in my book, and I shall be hard pressed to take your posts seriously in the future.
Tldr:
My other point on this subject stands thus: If we for a moment disregard the existence of FoT:Bos and the other spin offs (Something which bethesoft obviously hasn't, granting me yet more reasons to doubt their artistic talents ), the time between the first and the second fallout is 80 years. Let that sink in for a bit. 80 years.
Quite alot, wouldn't you say?
If the BoS had any intentions of 'reclaiming the wastes' or somesuch, I think that they would have made alteast some progress in the areas linking directly to their original base of operations, north, south and west of their first bunker. Following that logic, wouldn't you say that they would've gained a larger foothold in the second game? We see three very small bunkers (as far as I can remember) and a scarce few members of the BoS in Fo 2.
I must say that I am doubting that something would suddenly galvanize their very slow progress into a sparkling swoosh of activity spanning just 30 years from the end of the second game after such a long period of inactivity. But, I admit, stranger things have happened.
What I am trying to say is that we know way too little about what actually happened during those 30 years, or rather, what happened AT ALL to the BoS during the 110 years following the fall of the master and it's mutant army, to be able to tie up the loose ends that are sprawling like tepid rotten worms between the Fo 2 and Fo 3, and I don't really think that bethesoft did a good job at trying either. It just feels as if they thought 'HEY ARMORED KNIGHTS IN THE WASTELAND COOL LET'S ROLL WITH THAT' and didn't flesh out the story enough.
Regarding the supermuntants, your point is valid and I wont touch the FEV issue with a ten foot pole.
Snotnarok said:
Damn that's the first time I got a rant on my opinion this big, I'll wear it like a medal.
In all seriousness I'll reword what I said "it's a master piece to me" I overlook many of the flaws (NPCs walking into walls) for how open worlded the adventure is and how truly non-linear it is. I haven't played the first one or the second one (only viewed vids) and they did too look really good, but I'm more of an FPS fan so I could already tell that I'd like 3 better just for gameplay reasons. Yes the game has flaws but a game this big excuses itself to me.
I'm highlighting the "to me" bits because this is my opinion on it, I know people who say fallout 3 is a big pile of flaming boring poo, but I have a lot of fun with it. I'm not knockin' ya, you're entitled to your opinion and I did word my post poorly labeling Fallout as a great game no matter what rather than an opinion which I feel we're all entitled to and shouldnt be knocked for (unless you favor Nazis or something, then you might get problems)
Also about the brotherhood they DO talk about why they're helping people out and the elder has become a wastelander sympathizer who wants to help the everyday man, most of their supplies and people are exhausted in this game too. The TRUE brotherhood are the outcasts who are simply gathering technology and are very much not inclined to talk to you unless you do some big, big, big favors to them. They have a actual base in DC and they're open to training people to become BoS members (sort of I think). They're not massive, they even say how desperate they are at times.
It's truly a great game for many reasons, yes not one without some flaws but who cares let's go do some psycho and shoot some super mutants!
I see what you are meaning, and if you have fun with it, by all means, continue to do so! If you prefer FPS's in general then I admit that I am happy that you enjoy a more deeply storydriven game with RPG elements aswell, and I encourage you to go on and play untill your eyes bleed (no I wont pay the medical bill).
Who knows, maybe we are part of the group of peoples who will eventually turn the gaming industry around and force developers to realize that we actually want story and variation in our games that we shell out $52 for, and not dime-a-dozen movie based shooters? I'd like to believe that.
Reading the first part of my rantific post you'll see where I stand on the BoS question, but I admit that the BoS splinter members where a very nice touch. It was fun just walking around with them and see what they did, though I had hoped that they'd have a larger role to play.
I am still too bummed out about the ending of the main story line
OH NOES RADIATION EVEN THOUGH I AM IMMUNE TO IT WITH ALL MY RAD X'S AND THE POWER ARMOR AND MY PERKS HOW COULD I HAVE EVER EXPECTED THIS AAAH
(and I finished the game a month after release) to arse myself into buying any of the DLC's, so I wouldn't know about that.
I was refering more to the socio-political humor, but if you want to go for the obvious Fatman joke, then by all means.......
As for the BoS ....if you didn't get the message from the game, Elder Lyons's BoS is not repersentative of the BoS as a whole - the Outcasts are more like West Cost BoS then Lyons's group. Hence why the West Coast doesn't talk to Lyons's much anymore. And I assume that you didn't play FO: BoS, as it shows even there that many BoS factions were starting to go in Lyons's direction, by trying to help the locals of their area, with varying levels of success. And besides that, its been almost 15 years since Lyons got to the East Coast - a lot could have (and apparently did) happen.
The Super Mutants are unrelated to their West Coast brethren as well. It is clearly laid out that the East Coast Mutants are the result of a completely different set of experiments than the West Coast, most likely originating within Vault 87, only sharing the fact that they were FEV as the basis.
I concede that I am not one to really judge humor. I can recognize a joke when I see it, but I need a while to digest the meaning behind the joke if it's a satirical one. Maybe I didn't give fallout 3's sense of humor a chance to begin with. Moving on then.
Did you mean Fallout Tactics: BoS or did you actually mean Fallout : BoS?
I did play through FoT:BoS, and while it was an enjoyable game in it's own right,
a tactical turn based wasteland simulator (don't see too many of those), and the multiplayer bit was surprisingly fresh and entertaining,
I hardly gave it more than that.
And, though it is only my own opinion (that is surprisingly well shared by many others ;3) , that game shouldn't really belong in the canon in the first place. I mean, Blimps? Hairy Deathclaws? Vault Zero? Really now.
If you mean Fo:BoS then you just lost a great deal of internet points in my book, and I shall be hard pressed to take your posts seriously in the future.
Tldr:
My other point on this subject stands thus: If we for a moment disregard the existence of FoT:Bos and the other spin offs (Something which bethesoft obviously hasn't, granting me yet more reasons to doubt their artistic talents ), the time between the first and the second fallout is 80 years. Let that sink in for a bit. 80 years.
Quite alot, wouldn't you say?
If the BoS had any intentions of 'reclaiming the wastes' or somesuch, I think that they would have made alteast some progress in the areas linking directly to their original base of operations, north, south and west of their first bunker. Following that logic, wouldn't you say that they would've gained a larger foothold in the second game? We see three very small bunkers (as far as I can remember) and a scarce few members of the BoS in Fo 2.
I must say that I am doubting that something would suddenly galvanize their very slow progress into a sparkling swoosh of activity spanning just 30 years from the end of the second game after such a long period of inactivity. But, I admit, stranger things have happened.
What I am trying to say is that we know way too little about what actually happened during those 30 years, or rather, what happened AT ALL to the BoS during the 110 years following the fall of the master and it's mutant army, to be able to tie up the loose ends that are sprawling like tepid rotten worms between the Fo 2 and Fo 3, and I don't really think that bethesoft did a good job at trying either. It just feels as if they thought 'HEY ARMORED KNIGHTS IN THE WASTELAND COOL LET'S ROLL WITH THAT' and didn't flesh out the story enough.
Regarding the supermuntants, your point is valid and I wont touch the FEV issue with a ten foot pole.
Snotnarok said:
Damn that's the first time I got a rant on my opinion this big, I'll wear it like a medal.
In all seriousness I'll reword what I said "it's a master piece to me" I overlook many of the flaws (NPCs walking into walls) for how open worlded the adventure is and how truly non-linear it is. I haven't played the first one or the second one (only viewed vids) and they did too look really good, but I'm more of an FPS fan so I could already tell that I'd like 3 better just for gameplay reasons. Yes the game has flaws but a game this big excuses itself to me.
I'm highlighting the "to me" bits because this is my opinion on it, I know people who say fallout 3 is a big pile of flaming boring poo, but I have a lot of fun with it. I'm not knockin' ya, you're entitled to your opinion and I did word my post poorly labeling Fallout as a great game no matter what rather than an opinion which I feel we're all entitled to and shouldnt be knocked for (unless you favor Nazis or something, then you might get problems)
Also about the brotherhood they DO talk about why they're helping people out and the elder has become a wastelander sympathizer who wants to help the everyday man, most of their supplies and people are exhausted in this game too. The TRUE brotherhood are the outcasts who are simply gathering technology and are very much not inclined to talk to you unless you do some big, big, big favors to them. They have a actual base in DC and they're open to training people to become BoS members (sort of I think). They're not massive, they even say how desperate they are at times.
It's truly a great game for many reasons, yes not one without some flaws but who cares let's go do some psycho and shoot some super mutants!
I see what you are meaning, and if you have fun with it, by all means, continue to do so! If you prefer FPS's in general then I admit that I am happy that you enjoy a more deeply storydriven game with RPG elements aswell, and I encourage you to go on and play untill your eyes bleed (no I wont pay the medical bill).
Who knows, maybe we are part of the group of peoples who will eventually turn the gaming industry around and force developers to realize that we actually want story and variation in our games that we shell out $52 for, and not dime-a-dozen movie based shooters? I'd like to believe that.
Reading the first part of my rantific post you'll see where I stand on the BoS question, but I admit that the BoS splinter members where a very nice touch. It was fun just walking around with them and see what they did, though I had hoped that they'd have a larger role to play.
I am still too bummed out about the ending of the main story line
OH NOES RADIATION EVEN THOUGH I AM IMMUNE TO IT WITH ALL MY RAD X'S AND THE POWER ARMOR AND MY PERKS HOW COULD I HAVE EVER EXPECTED THIS AAAH
(and I finished the game a month after release) to arse myself into buying any of the DLC's, so I wouldn't know about that.
It's cool, I heard Fallout 2 had a better cannon story, I never played it I only played Fallout 3 (I wasn't into PC gaming much until recently) I'm going to try it but I really feel more immersed in the gameworld (except for NPC walking into walls of course). It's all a matter of preference I guess. I don't need a story to make a good game, it just depends on the game, if it's a shooter, no story please, RPG yes yes yes please. But I figure why you would be upset, when they put new games out off of the older ones sometimes they loose their focus. Infact it's probably better that I haven't played the other Fallouts so I can enjoy this one more, when I try the other games I'll see what people mean but I'll still be able to enjoy fallout. Not sure if my idea here gets across but I'm trying haha.
It would be cool but there is just so much wrong with fallout 3. The bad voice acting, terrible dialogue, and awful storyline would really stand out if you did it this way. The AI would certainly get an upgrade and the game might even look nicer. You could zoom the camera in and out and around, but in the end the only thing fallout 3 has for it is exploring the world and shooting and blowing shit up. Those get removed if you change it to an isometric game.
So, sure it would be cool, but then people would actually see fallout 3 for the piece of shit it is.
Fans are whining complaining dipshits....... you all obviously know the ad. I like the FPSRPG style of fallout3, and I don't like the isometric thingy.
If they'd just given you an option at the beginning of the game "turn-based mode or FPS mode", they could've made both crowds happy.
Baneat said:
Fans are whining complaining dipshits....... you all obviously know the ad. I like the FPSRPG style of fallout3, and I don't like the isometric thingy.
Fuckers focus on that isometric shit too much, that was just the camera angle. A modern Fallout game would have a rather zoomed-out 3rd person camera, I imagine.
I've enjoyed F1 and 2 immensely, and yeah, the isometric view does have something endearing, but the FPS view helps A LOT with atmosphere. I'm all for remaking the first two with the F3 engine, though it's very unlikely to ever happen.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
), the time between the first and the second fallout is 80 years. Let that sink in for a bit. 80 years.
