Hating progress (fallout)
- Thread starter brainslurper
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Because people don't like different, they like things to be the same or similar with minor improvements. Even when it comes down to quirks that make the game harder to understand or just being difficult for others to get into.
I see people complain about Skyrim not being as good as Oblivion because they simplified it in someways. Honestly? I thought Oblivion was an unfinished mess even with mods it was still a tedious unfinished feeling game. Skyrim I'm in love with, they got so many things right I just can't see a single thing Oblivion has on Skyrim. I honestly think that Morrowind besides the combat was better than Oblivion in general, hell with mods I've seen it look better than Oblvion so there's that too.
Also saw a lot of complaints of simplification from Mass Effect to Mass Effect 2, taking out the ammo/armor mods and gun and armor buying I think they were referring to. However yet again that was trimming out what was convoluted and unneeded. I blew through 1 on the hardest mode without swapping out my ammo mods, kept it on some 'general damage' mod and never looked back till I found out I had a better version.
I see people complain about Skyrim not being as good as Oblivion because they simplified it in someways. Honestly? I thought Oblivion was an unfinished mess even with mods it was still a tedious unfinished feeling game. Skyrim I'm in love with, they got so many things right I just can't see a single thing Oblivion has on Skyrim. I honestly think that Morrowind besides the combat was better than Oblivion in general, hell with mods I've seen it look better than Oblvion so there's that too.
Also saw a lot of complaints of simplification from Mass Effect to Mass Effect 2, taking out the ammo/armor mods and gun and armor buying I think they were referring to. However yet again that was trimming out what was convoluted and unneeded. I blew through 1 on the hardest mode without swapping out my ammo mods, kept it on some 'general damage' mod and never looked back till I found out I had a better version.
When I say plausible, I mean that at least they tried and made it look like people are trying to rebuild society, what with houses, farms, proper caravans.Vault101 said:
In Fallout 3 everyone lived in crappy shacks eating canned food, 200 years after the apocalypse! It was stupid! The setting was meant to provide a world that is slowly rebuilding itself, but Fallout 3's world was just stuck in the past!
well I guess the Idea was that the capitol wasteland was a huge shithole compared to other places...I mean there were settelements and people were just kinf of getting by..barley, but ok I can "sort of" see where your coming fromorangeban said:
NV was better in that regard..though when somone said they were poor and starving..I really didnt belive them (because of how easy it was to get back on top after being shot and left for dead...in hardcore mode too)
but yeah I guess NV's Idea was "world rebuilding itself" whereas fallout 3 was "look! wasteland! go nuts" thing is though fallotu 3 had a different feel...it was very post apocalyptic and grim (especially the washington part) whcih NV didnt have (but obviously that wasnt what NV was going for)
In Fallout 2 you could complete the game without killing a single enemy*; you could talk, sneak, science your way through everything. Heck, the writers went even that far as to write a completely retarded dialogue for retards (that is players with an intelligence of 1). That was hilarious.
Anyway, which other game you know of had that kind of freedom? (Not talking about open-world-freedom here)
*That actually depends on how you look at it. If reprogramming turrets to kill the final boss, counts as...well... you killing something, then that would be the one exception in the game.
Fallout 2 > FO:NV > FO3. Even though FO:NV isn't as good as FO2, it's still a worthy successor.
Anyway, which other game you know of had that kind of freedom? (Not talking about open-world-freedom here)
*That actually depends on how you look at it. If reprogramming turrets to kill the final boss, counts as...well... you killing something, then that would be the one exception in the game.
Fallout 2 > FO:NV > FO3. Even though FO:NV isn't as good as FO2, it's still a worthy successor.
NV was grim in a much different and less obvious way.Vault101 said:
To see the grimness of NV you have to look at the political and societal side of it, such as the Followers. They're a bunch of optimistic doctors and scientists who are trying to help people and want peace. Now notice how out of their 6 endings only 1 of them is "good", and Arcade has 11 different endings, only two of which are argueable "good"...nice guys finish last.
Maaaaan, you're so completely wrong... Think of it this way: F1 and F2 were the originators. Without them there would not be neither F3, nor NV. Even more: these games have shown how to build a single-character RPG the right way. How to keep player engaged and interested. They have created a cult, which helped F3 become a good game, and NV (which can be considered a real Fallout 3 'cause it is developed by Black Isle's heir studios Obsidian) a great game. F1 and F2 are timeless classics. They are much deeper and variative then modern Fallouts. Only here you can really enjoy playing the diplomat, or brute, or freak, or whoever you want. That's simply it.brainslurper said:
I wasnt critcizing fallout NV for its lack of "grim"-ness I was just saying that it had a very different "feel" to fallout 3, which is hard to explainChupathingyX said:
of coarse evil tyrants trying to take over, and the people who are cought in the middle is very grim indeed
No. No. NO. NO. The atmosphere in NV was LIGHT YEARS ahead of Fallout 3 when it came to feeling like Fallout. Also, Bethesda does the QA for all their games, NV's buggines was Bethesda's fault.MiracleOfSound said:
Oh I know you weren't criticising, it's just that you said NV didn't have a grim feel. I was just pointing out that NV was grim but in a more subtle way.Vault101 said:
Just to get this out of the way before my main argument: It's not an FPS with RPG-Elements. If anything, it's an RPG with FPS-Elements. If it was primarily an FPS, you wouldn't take up so much time talking and negotiating and just exploring. And you wouldn't have Quests that would let you decide doing things without engaging in combat. I know it sounds stupid, but just because a game let's you shoot in First-Person, it's not automatically a First-Person-Shooter.mireko said:
Anyway, as for my stand in this debate:
I first got really interested in the FO-Series when I read a preview for FO3. I liked how they described the freedom of choice and the atmosphere. Coincidentally, I got FO2 as a gift for subscribing to the magazine that published this preview. I installed and was hooked for weeks! I finally got 3 on Christmas. I played and enjoyed it. But after I was done (completely done, with DLCs and all) I asked myself some questions: Why should I poison the water of the Capital Wasteland and ruin my father's work because a computer I blew up just days ago told me to? Why does the BoS want a rampaging thief, cannibal and slayer of the innocent to fight for them? Even though one of them refuses to follow me because of my actions? She seems to know that I'm an a**hole. Did she just not tell the others or what? And why should I blow up the Citadel? Yeah, I get some nice equipment when I do that, but first of all, that is some stupid motivation for killing off the faction I spent most of my time with and second, I don't even KNOW about that! Also, are the people of Washington retarded or something? They had 200 friggin' years and the best they have to offer is a settlement built out of plane parts and one inside a ship! AND BOTH HAVEN'T EVEN GOT 100 INHABITANTS!
The thing with the BoS and the Enclave didn't really bother me. I thought it was well explained that Lyons was just a good person who couldn't see the people suffer (especially because, like I said, they all seem to be retarded, while he comes from a place where there are settlements you could very well call a Metropolis) and there were people in his chapter that supported his viewpoints and others who didn't. Okay, that doesn't explain why the PENTAGON only has the shoddy T-45d Power Armor and there are only TWO suits of the regular T-51b (and one of them only if you installed Operation Anchorage) in the entire Capital Wasteland, but still.
And the Enclave...well, there were still soldiers patrolling the Core Region after the Oil Rig was destroyed and Navarro still had Vertibirds, if I remember correctly. Also, Raven Rock was a base built before the war, so it still could have had a lot of technology inside it.
So, my biggest gripes were the lack of real choice in the main story, the lack of consistency regarding my actions (I can understand that my father can forgive me for blowing up Megaton, but I don't get why the White Knights of the Wasteland still see me as their savior just cause I share some genes with a scientist!) and the thing that in the Fallout Universe, the DC Area seems to be occupied by morons who experienced the Great War by going out of their houses, looking at the nukes and saying "Ooooh, nice!" (hence the little number of people still living. For goddness' sake, there's a 'town' with TWO PEOPLE LIVING IN IT! WHY DON'T YOU GO TO MEGATON OR RIVET CITY?) and the rest, who managed to survive and have offspring was unfortunately 'blessed' with a genetic code that stopped their descendants from developing any kind of new civilization in TWO-HUNDRED YEARS! California had that after just 84!
I still liked the game, but NV and especially FO2 (haven't played FO1) are far superior in terms of consistency and logic (for those complaining about the science in the FO-Universe: It was explained somewhere, that the science in the Fallout-Universe works differently from ours. Hence the ability to become a zombie-like creature from too much radiation)
Allow me to whore myself into this thread and point out my review: http://spoilerwarned.wordpress.com/2011/05/21/retro-futurism/
With that out of the way... From my pov the "cannon inconsistencies" excuse has been proven to be a matter of just how much of a fanboy you are. I'm the biggest Fallout 2 fanboy out there and I loved Fallout 3, Bethesda's writing killed the FO spirit a bit, true, but I think Fallout 3 was a step in the right direction. As New Vegas would have been if Obsidian had only been allowed to do the writing and nothing else.
With that out of the way... From my pov the "cannon inconsistencies" excuse has been proven to be a matter of just how much of a fanboy you are. I'm the biggest Fallout 2 fanboy out there and I loved Fallout 3, Bethesda's writing killed the FO spirit a bit, true, but I think Fallout 3 was a step in the right direction. As New Vegas would have been if Obsidian had only been allowed to do the writing and nothing else.
Bioshock was a genuinly good game, for the time it was really good. Surely it becomes a little too easy after a while, but the narrative is good, the characters are well-written and it really has atmosphere. I'd say it will still be good after ten years from now, even though loads of people will be saying that it doesn't look realistic enough.skywolfblue said:
Anyway, I never played the first 2 fallouts, So I can't really express my opinion about them. But I have to say that I consider Fallout 3 to have more atmosphere than NV, It's more immersive. The major flaw for me is the assault rifle and guns in general. That(AR) thing is arse. The Vault wanderer can't aim for shit. Fallout NV was just a bit too yellow and cowboyish, not what I think of when I think Fallout. It's too intact.
