Poll: The Fallout Series

[Axolotl]

Are you honestly going to tell me Fallout 3 was cheerful?

Compared to Fallout 1 and 2, yes. In Fallout 1 the only person in the game who's really altruistic is the Master, everybody else is either power-hungry or lost in their own disillusions. Fallout 2 is even darker, one of the characters who can be in your party murders 100 slaves, why? So that he can perfect a drug which will enslave the entire wasteland. The darkest 3 gets is paradise falls, which is a largely generic slaver camp.

 

[Valiance]

Having played Fallout 1 and 2 after playing the 3rd, I see no major differences in how the atmosphere is. On that, I agree with you.

Although you have to admit that Fallout 1 and 2 are, i essence, the same game, but 2 having more entertaining skins that distract me from the fact that it seems a hell of alot like the first.

Bethesda really nailed the atmosphere. Fallout 1 could be awesome but it has a few major flaws that distract me from saying it's great, while Fallout 2 took all those flaws, fixed them, and was excellent, albeit with a few bugs, but not nearly as many as Fallout 1.

I think Fallout 2 is the best in the series, personally. If you don't like the turn-based combat, you should try Fallout Tactics. I really enjoyed it but never finished it since I tried starting it while I was still playing a few other games more often.

 

[Gerazzi]

I didn't really see anything wrong with the VATS aiming system, aside from the fact you'll almost never use it unless you want to see enemies' heads fly off in slow motion, it doesn't do much more damage and the critical percent is the same, so veterans of shooters easily play the game. I DO see something flawed with the grenades though.

 

[orangebandguy]

I really liked Fallout 3, it made a bold effort trying to get away from the grinding turn based combat.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

It's not a clone of Oblivion. I hate it when people say that.

Me too. It has a completely different aesthetic, atmosphere and combat system and the character building is leagues apart from oblvion.

Saying Fallout 3 is 'Oblivion With Guns' like saying that Portal is just Half Life with a portal gun.

 

[Dr Spaceman]

Most of the people who actively complain about Fallout 3 not being worthy of the Fallout name are mostly people who live on No Mutant Allowed's message boards. Seriously. Go read some of those posts. It's ridiculous how much animosity they show towards the game because it's different from the originals.

And you know what? I'm glad they stripped out some of the cultural references. Coming across a Doctor Who telephone booth may be fun, but is incredibly jarring when the rest of the world is so absorbing.

 

[SimuLord]

Fallout 3's setting really didn't do it for me. I couldn't get past the "Oblivion with guns" element of it (not that I mind Oblivion's gameplay, it just works better in the Elder Scrolls universe) and the ending was a complete shit sandwich on rye (I'm well aware they're going to fix it, but charging $9.99 to do with DLC what they should've done with a patch is a dick move.)

Oblivion and Morrowind are two of my all-time favorite games (#7 and #8, respectively), but Fallout 3 doesn't crack my top 50.

 

[veloper]

okay this should be fun

1. FO3 gameplay isn't very much like Oblivion, so this doesn't really apply beyond the real-time aspect

2. turn based tactics is great in games like UFO and JA2, but the original FO wasn't exactly a good example of TBT. You controled just one PC, not the party and the best option was to simply pull the trigger 90% of the time. The exception being high agility characters with speed perks, who could run around a corner, shoot and retreat back behind the corner in one turn.

3. Bethesda built upon the screw ups already present in Fallout tactics (but fortunately not the FO games that followed after that).

 

[spudz47]

IMO F3 made the series more appealing to the rest of the gamers who aren't harcore RPG fans. And that's a good thing, because F3 has plenty to show and the fact that the rest of the Fallout games weren't as popular as this one was a waste.
1. Making the game similar to Oblivion IMO is laziness on the part of Bethesda, but nothing more. It's still a good game even though it reminds us of a game set thousands of years ago.
2. Turn based combat was necessary for the old-school F3 fans. It was implemented perfectly and I see no reason for the TBC to be off the game.
3. Bethesda didn't screw up F3 at all. It made the right impact and the game doesn't give the series a bad name like some other games do these days...

 

[Baby Tea]

1) It isn't Oblivion's Game play. Oblivion let you play the game in a bunch of ways, Fallout has one: Guns. Sure you can use melee weapons, but it's done so poorly, and it's stupid when everyone else is firing weapons and shotting you with rockets. I'm sure you could beat a deathclaw or one of those giant mutants with a super sledge, but it would be a stupid way to play, when guns would do it way way faster (And with less of a risk). Oblivion had everything almost even, save magic.

2) Turn-based gameplay is fine if done right. Fallout 1 and 2 were done very well. It was not just 'combat', it was strategic. A lot of games use turn-based to good effect. The civ series, Fallout, the UFO games. It's not everyone's cup of tea, but that can be said about any game mechanic.

3) Screw up? No. No because it isn't the same story. You have no relation or mention of the previous protagonist of the other two games. Was it a 'good Fallout story'? It was ok in parts, but it wasn't the same charm or dark humour as the first two. Something was definitely lost.

 

[AkJay]

This is titled the "Fallout Series" so why is just Fallout 3 on the polls? why not put the whole series, 1, 2 and 3?

 

[thereverend77]

My only history with playing fallout games was playing through fallout 3. To this day, I've never even SEEN a copy of Fallout 1 or 2, much less played them. But I really, really like fallout 3. So, to answer the questions...

1. Not a thing, if you ask me. It works well for a game like fallout.
2. As much as I like new age RPG's such as oblivion, fallout, and fable, my heart still lies with turn based RPG's. Maybe it's just nostalgia for a simpler time or whatever, but my favorite RPG's are the likes of Final Fantasy 3 and 7. My guess is that the creators of fallout wanted as many people to enjoy it as possible, so they gave you the option to play it as a First Person Shooter or a turn based RPG with guns. Kind of like how they gave you the option to play in first or third person.
3. As I said, fallout 3 was my first. I love the world they created, it's deep, it can be creepy, it can be funny, it feels really, well, real. I don't know what changes were made to the world or the storyline or anything, as I know absolutely nothing about 1 or 2.

 

[cherimoya]

i'd like to remind some posters in this thread that fallout 3's VATS is not turn based combat or gameplay in any way. VATS (un-modded) is just what bethesda came up with when they realized that the whole core of fallout 3's aim and shoot game was flawed. (in vanilla, your shots do not go where you aim them, there is a system in place that alters and guides your shots to specific areas once your reticule has gone red.)

i'd also like to remind the original poster that turn based gameplay was (with very few exceptions?) all that existed when the first fallout games came out. your view on turn based gameplay sounds similar to the person who is too young to realize that records used to be recorded in monotone because methods of recording in stereo were not financially viable at the time, but who criticizes how the first rolling stones record sounds.

finally, there are a LOT of reasons to play turn based games. it's almost as much of a sucker's bet to argue that statement as it would be to argue "all FPS gameplay is mindless."

you mentioned diablo, and i'm sure i'm in the minority here when i say that diablo's gameplay was completely insipid. to win battles you clicked. a lot. clicking. diablo reminded me of extensive file operations in windows explorer but with loot. turn based games allowed the player to pay attention to what we were doing, to make our decisions with as much thought and immersion as we wanted and to see them played out. turn based gameplay allows a wealth of decisions and customization that is still valid in games today.

so yeah, i'd just like to remind some people that just because you were blessed (or cursed?) to have started gaming in the era of the pentium doesn't give you the right to blindly disrespect the methods of gameplay that existed before your wealth of clock cycles. turn based gameplay is still as valid as anything else. it's just DIFFERENT.

 

[McClaud]

I'm just going to mention this now -

I'm waiting for the No Mutants Allowed group to show up and cry at the people who liked Fallout 3 (like me), because that's what they've been doing for months now since Fallout 3 came out. They continuously post reviews and ***** about them being biased, calling people names.

Look, I empathize with those guys that Fallout 3 is not comparable to Fallout 1 & 2, and that there was better humor in the first two. However, I don't agree with their inability to let go of the isometric, turn-based combat, and their grudge with Bestheda. Fallout was going to be in the title regardless, Bestheda bought the rights to Fallout fair and square, and no amount of crying and moaning is going to revive Interplay and have them miraculously release their version of Fallout 3.

The 90's are gone, get over it and learn to play games for the fun of it instead of analyzing EVERY F**KING RPG to Fallout 1 and 2. Thanks.

Oh, and to answer the OP's questions:

1. Oblivion was boring, Fallout 3 was not. Nothing wrong with using the same engine and some of the same gameplay since they aren't the same game.
2. The appeal plays back to the early 90's when a lot of stuff ran 16 bit, and graphics weren't that great. And it works for things like boardgames and card games. That's about it.
3. No. They may have erred with the ending part, but it was pretty good all around.

 

[TZer0]

Removed.

 

[Kedcom]

I've been enjoying Fallout 3 altho I would perhaps say that it can be a tad samey in parts (if I see another derelict subway....) and quite a sedate game, it's quite different from most other things out there. In an enjoyable way.

But to answer that question about turn-based strategy - If you ever play the original UFO-Enemy Unknown you'll see how a turn based game can actually be incredibly tense and challenging. Go play it! In fact, I might go play it right now

 

[Altorin]

My only issue with Fallout 3 is that the end seemed to be a little rushed. Not so much the ending.. just having a little cutscene at the end of a game isn't that new, It's pretty much expected.

But the actual game seems to come apart at the seams right at the end. The story seems to squeeze down to this tiny little vestigial tail right at the end, and it bothered me.

The game itself is pretty awesome. People who said that the game was missing the charm/humor of the old fallout games weren't paying attention, especially to the computer diaries. I found lots of hidden laughs throughout the game.

 

[McClaud]

But to answer that question about turn-based strategy - If you ever play the original UFO-Enemy Unknown you'll see how a turn based game can actually be incredibly tense and challenging. Go play it! In fact, I might go play it right now

Yeah, there's nothing wrong with those kinds of games. RPGs, though ... depends entirely on how the pace works.

One of my favorite quirks and laughs about Fallout 3 is the Garys. Gaaaarrrry ... oh, hello Gary!

 

[More Fun To Compute]

The 90's are gone, get over it and learn to play games for the fun of it instead of analyzing EVERY F**KING RPG to Fallout 1 and 2. Thanks.

Fallout was a landmark game. Comparing other games to it is fair game and if they don't live up to it for some people then so what. Accept it and move on.

Oh, and we did play games for fun before the year 2000.