I can't play Oblivion very long at all. I put it down about 2 weeks after I bought it and have never really cared to pick it back up. I will hand FO3 that it feels more alive than Oblivion.
Why are Fallout 1&2 better than Fallout 3?
- Thread starter Judgement101
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Everything in Oblivion was sort of samey. Most caves and temples had the same design and it made it really repetitive and RPGs are normally not supposed to be that way.Savagezion said:
If you mod it yes, and it had that guy that played some voice on a show I've never watched.....sorry about the vague awnser.JohanGasMask said:
i didn't think they were better and i played them after i played FO3 which introduced me to them i just assumed people were looking back through rose-tinted nostalgia or what ever the phrase is and to be honest i got bored half way through FO2
WHAT!? Fallout 1 was released in 1997 for fucks sake! Of course the world isn't going to be as "lively" or as graphically enjoyable as Fallout 3. You know, SINCE IT ISN'T FROM BEFORE THE 21-CENTURY.Judgement101 said:
Comments like that really piss me off.
I played the first two fallout games in around 2000. Those were fucking brilliant games. The atmosphere, the level of freedom, the absolutely breathtaking writing.
You like RPG-games, and isn't a complete twat? I'd say you would like Fallout 1 and 2 much better than 3.
You like shooters with some RPG-elements, a flawed dialoguesystem and broken mechanics? Go with Fallout 3.
Any true RPG-fan will always see the light in amazing games such as the two original Fallouts - just like they will in Planescape:Torment, Baldur's Gate and the like.
I didn't care for Oblivion, and I didn't care for Oblivion:Nuclear Wasteland either. Bastardizations of two of the greatest games that have, and will, ever be(en) made. The story is shit in both games, and regardless of colourful characters, I will never truly enjoy something like that when it has "Fallout" written on it.
As a standalone game, maybe. Fucking with my favourite series in gaming history, not regarding Baldur's Gate, though? No way.
Judgement101 said:
Well it comes down to what kind of games you like. The thing to understand is that Fallout 1 and 2 were designed for a pretty hard core RPG crowd. The original Fallout even sold based on referancing an even older game called "Wasteland" which is arguably a prequel to this series.
A pretty deadly game, with heavy stat and gear management, and a lot of wierd, quirky events is what made Fallout popular.
Fallout 3 in comparison turned the game into an action-RPG hybrid, and despite the inclusion of VATS seriously downplayed stats. One of the things that made Fallout 1 and 2 replayable was that there was a lot of obscure things you could do by having very high attribute numbers which were pretty much unobtainable on one character. In comparison in Fallout 3 it's possible to be "perfect" and max all the skills, very little is dependant on your base attributes.
It's also noteworthy that Fallout was pretty much infamous for being "just plain wrong", it had a lot of really warped stuff you could do in it. One classic thing for example is that you could get into a lesbian marriage, and then shop your wife around to sell her as a slave to various factions. Not to mention do things like blow kids away with a minigun or whatever if you were so inclined. Then of course there was a side job you could take with the right attributes where you could get paid to star in porn movies....
Comparitively speaking Fallout 3 didn't really push any envelopes with it's content or it's writing. It was very much "sanitized".
That said, Fallout 3 is a VERY good game, but it's not a good FALLOUT game, a distinction that I think is important to some of these arguements. Strictly speaking Bethesda probably would have done better to develop their own post-apocolyptic franchise rather than trying to create a sequel to a series they simply didn't have the guts to do correctly... never mind missing a good portion of the point of having stats and such and making an "RPG" with the way they set up their engine.
-
I'm willing to generally accept that Fallout 3 outsold Fallout 1 and 2. However consider that when Fallout 1 and 2 were made there were less gamers. Fallout 3 came about during the "mainstream rush" that hit gaming, and it's design was intended to appeal more to that demographic rather than the hardcore RPG gamer crowd that the original games were aimed at.
A lot of the criticism aimed at Fallout 3 comes from it being perceived as a "sell out" so to speak.
That said, while showing their age technologically (and to a mainstream gamer who is obessesed with flash, that is going to make them 'crap', which sort of showcases the differance in mentality to some extent), Fallout 1 and 2 are *much* better when viewed from the perspective of RPGs and judging by those values than Fallout 3 is.
I'm looking forward to "New Vegas" and seeing what Obsidian does with it, despite using the same engine. I doubt we'll see it return to hardcore RPG gaming, but the writing might be better. In geneal Fallout should make me go "WTF, that's just wrong" despite being jaded at least once an hour or so the first time I play through.
I already said that you can't really complain about graphics or audio due to the time it was released. (Does anyone read previous posts anymore?)s0denone said:
Well you got me there...Mod-ing. But even they are pretty much the same i still enjoy Fallout 3 probably because i havent played Oblivion.Judgement101 said:
Also, DLC can make Fallout 3 more fun. If DLC was released for 1 and 2 they might have been better.
I like Fallout 3 much better than the original. Story driven gameplay is good, but not at the expense of fun.
-Combat was a pain in the ass in the original. Turn based systems never really did anything for me (though it works better in JRPGs and the like because there are more people on your team), especially a system based on shooting then running away with no chance for enemies to catch up. Plus the whole "ok, I shot you, your turn" thing is dumb.
-The overhead view gives the player a very unfair advantage and it takes away the suspense of battle. The player shouldn't be able to see anything outside of their field of vision.
-Right from the start, you are thrown blindly into the game, which leads to several reloads. Despite the writing, that's not fun.
-Combat was a pain in the ass in the original. Turn based systems never really did anything for me (though it works better in JRPGs and the like because there are more people on your team), especially a system based on shooting then running away with no chance for enemies to catch up. Plus the whole "ok, I shot you, your turn" thing is dumb.
-The overhead view gives the player a very unfair advantage and it takes away the suspense of battle. The player shouldn't be able to see anything outside of their field of vision.
-Right from the start, you are thrown blindly into the game, which leads to several reloads. Despite the writing, that's not fun.
The writing was a big part. Mostly I think what I think was better was the number of legitimate options one had for solving a particular problem. In Fallout 3, you generally had to fall back on the ole "Shoot people in the face" trick to finish quests.
Not when you say comments like you just did.Judgement101 said:
And DLC might have made 1 and 2 better? How about this...1 and 2 didn't need DLC because they were fine the way they were. I don't know whats so hard to understand about the fact that some people enjoyed the first two because of everything it was capable of doing with the technology at the time.
Nobody is saying FO3 is bad, we're just saying that it can never achieve the depth that the first two did simply because it HAS to live up to the standards of today's games.
Are you fucking with me? The only response you've given to the one other guy with my point is:Judgement101 said:
How does that make up for anything? Please answer my point of GAMERELEASEDIN1997 vs GAMERELEASEDIN2008, when talking about ability to ensnare people in graphics and environment.
The original 2 Fallouts used the infinity engine.
Oblivion and Oblivion: I like deserts use the Gamebryo engine.
Are you seriously debating the "livelyhood" of game worlds when they are more than 10 years apart? Are you that foolish?
But no. I found that the horrible voice-acting of the people in Oblivion: I wasted my money in the wasteland and I all got was a t-shirt paid for separately to detract from my ability to immerse myself in the world. The three or four actors playing all the roles may have something to do with it. Also that they voice-acting was outright frighteningly awful, just like in the original Oblivion.
You didn't read my post where I stated my opinion. Thats where I said that graphics couldn't be complained about. I'm starting to think you're just trying to find reasons to make me seem like a Fallout hating troll.s0denone said:
I think people should stop comparing them. If you look at game play from both generations it is so radically different.
Fallout 3 had awesome combat, world and graphics.
Fallout 1/2 had awesome role play, dialog and writing.
Fallout 3 had awesome combat, world and graphics.
Fallout 1/2 had awesome role play, dialog and writing.