Hating progress (fallout)

[brainslurper]

What I would LOVE to see for Fallout 4 is have Bethesda build the world, make the atmospherics and the visuals and build the physical aspects of the quests, and for Obsidian to do all of the writing (but for the love of God never let Obsidian near a one or zero).

Let's hope they do good on this one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGg6m7CEluE
And Obsidion didn't do that bad of a job on New Vegas, but they didn't do that great of a job either.

I thought the core game was better then F3, but the F3 DLC was far better then the FV DLC. SO MANY ACRONYMS!

I've not even finished Dead Money so I can say much for the New Vegas DLC, but Fallout 3's DLC was pretty good. As for the core games, there are things I do and don't like between Fallout 3 and New Vegas, but most of those things are game mechanics related instead of story. Come to think of it, I usually knock the story for exploring every other nook and cranny I can find until I have all the coolest stuff in the game. For example, I have the All American in New Vegas which, in my opinion, is the most kicka$$ rifle ever and I've barely done anything with the story.

Dead Money is probably the furthest you can get from the aptmosphere of fallout, and it is very bugggy and has difficulty issues. Honest hearts comes in second as a trudge from one side of a canyon to another. The only thing I can say against bethesda's DLC was the MotherShip Zeta had too much content and no relation to the fallout universe.

 

[boag]

What I would LOVE to see for Fallout 4 is have Bethesda build the world, make the atmospherics and the visuals and build the physical aspects of the quests, and for Obsidian to do all of the writing (but for the love of God never let Obsidian near a one or zero).

Let's hope they do good on this one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGg6m7CEluE
And Obsidion didn't do that bad of a job on New Vegas, but they didn't do that great of a job either.

I thought the core game was better then F3, but the F3 DLC was far better then the FV DLC. SO MANY ACRONYMS!

I've not even finished Dead Money so I can say much for the New Vegas DLC, but Fallout 3's DLC was pretty good. As for the core games, there are things I do and don't like between Fallout 3 and New Vegas, but most of those things are game mechanics related instead of story. Come to think of it, I usually knock the story for exploring every other nook and cranny I can find until I have all the coolest stuff in the game. For example, I have the All American in New Vegas which, in my opinion, is the most kicka$$ rifle ever and I've barely done anything with the story.

Dead Money is probably the furthest you can get from the aptmosphere of fallout, and it is very bugggy and has difficulty issues. Honest hearts comes in second as a trudge from one side of a canyon to another. The only thing I can say against bethesda's DLC was the MotherShip Zeta had too much content and no relation to the fallout universe.

I liked hearing the alien interrogations, and I kinda felt bad for the abducted medic and the cowboy.

 

[brainslurper]

Faithful to the originals? *Vomits allover the screen* Not by a fucking long shot. Good game sure. But hardly faithful.

Fallout 3 was a decent game in its own right. But a shit Fallout game. (I spent 300+ hrs in it )

The earlier ones just captured the atmosphere so much better and had alot more variety in terms of characters and things you could do. And they were more RPG's while F3 is a Shooter with some RPG elements.

F:NV was a step in the right direction.

The fact that the first two had more segments of black humour made the seriousness of the various of topics and things you ran into so much more grim at times even though you were having a chuckle.

Fallout 3 is just.... Grey and bland mush. And the story sucked a hairy asshole and was a huge let down. F:NV's story was alot better by F3's standard.

A better story only counts for so much when the game won't let you see the effects of your actions.

Translated into; Fallout 3 is absolute shit, your words. Because it doesn't do that.

Yes, yes it does. I wonder if you people had ever played fallout 3. Bethesda didn't develop so many outcomes that it would be impossible to represent them in the game world, so with DLC you could play after the end of the game. Also, Fallout 3 actually had a reason to stop you at the end of the story. In new vegas, you had just spent hours shaping new vegas how you wanted, and they don't even let you see it.

 

[A-D.]

Why did you compare the sidequests in Fallout 2 to the Main quest in Fallout 3 and blame the latter for lack of choice?

The main quest in Fallout 2 also leaves you little options aside from save your town or dont and the quest isnt completed.

If you wanted to do a fair comparison, you would have compared those quest with helping the kids in little lamplight, or help that abandoned kid in the ant town, or doing harolds quest, or the Big Town quests.

Actually i compared the Morality of all Quests. Fallout 3's Quests all essentially boil down to 3 Choices. Be Good, be Evil or avoid them. The Outcome is very clear cut in each of them, especially so in the Mainquest, which ties into alot of secondary Quests.

But yes i could have compared the Mainquests, but if i had done so, i would also have to compare Fallout 2 to its Predecessor, which would make for a very very long Post. Because even the Mainquest in Fallout 2 pales in comparison to the one in the very first Fallout, especially so when we consider the Choice of "Big Bad". The Master was and will always be the best Villian in the Series, the Enclave, for as much as a Boogeyman as they were, are not really up to par with the Master. Which may i point out is one of the Reasons as to why i hate Fallout 3 for that, they reused the Enclave, especially so they reused the whole Goal the Enclave had. If Bethesda had removed Eden, and simply used Augustus Autumn as the "big bad" it would have been a much better Game, because while Autumn was part of the Enclave, all he wanted to do was remake the United States, he had no desire to taint the Water or anything, so Bethesda dropped the ball there.

But even so, when we then look at New Vegas, we see the same trend, the Legion can not compare to what we fought before. Most of the "evil" of them even seems shoehorned in. I mean lets remove the Fact that they see Women as Slaves, as inferior, what else is there really left to call them evil? In fact, if you remove their Slavery altogether, they are miles ahead of the NCR, the designated "Good Guys".

Point being, Fallout 3 was morally too clear-cut. The Reason i consider The Pitt to be utterly superior to the Maingame is because of that. The Pitt gave me morally Grey Choices. There was no good or evil besides whatever the Designers designated as such. Think about it, you can either support the Guy who knows what he is doing is wrong but considers it a necessary Evil to further Progress, or the Guy who you know nothing about, you dont know his ultimate Goal or anything, he simply wishes to take over with no real longterm Plan or Solution. He just wants to rule, not be ruled. So what is the real evil choice? What is the good one even? Fallout 3, in most all Areas except The Pitt, Tenpenny Tower and Harold's Quest utterly lacked that grey area that Fallout always had, there was no real good or evil to follow, at least not in the sense that the Good Choice from a Moral Perspective also meant that its the good thing in the game. You can be a saint, but that doesnt mean the World will become a better Place for it. Equally being evil shouldnt mean the World goes down the drain.

Its just my Take on it, Fallout 3 isnt a bad Game, its actually really good, but to me, its just not really part of the Series, its more of a Spin-Off, a good Spin-Off but still just that.