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 gameworlds when they are more than 10 years apart? Are you that foolish?
But no. I found that the horrible voiceacting of the people in Oblivion: I wasted my money in the wasteland and I all got was a t-shirt paid seperately 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 voiceacting 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.
Considering that you're consistently refusing to answer any point I make, it would very much appear to be the case. I wasn't working under that assumption, or trying to make you out to be such, no, but I may be inclined to believe so now.
"Please stop being a fool", is all I can ask. You stated on page one that you couldn't even see how the writing was better in Fallout 1 and 2 when compared to Oblivion: Hardcore Desert Landscaping... So maybe you are just a troll. I may very well think that at this point.
I think you have a point. If you compare Fallout 1/2 as an rpg and Fallout 3 as an FPS with RPG elements then they are both good in their respective genres.
I played everything in the Fallout franchise when it came out, excepting the lamentable "Brotherhood of Steel" console game (and no one will gig me on that, either).
That said, how does Fallout 3 stack up against the likes of FO1/FO2/FOTactics? It's like comparing a smoothie to a cappucino. The originals were all top-down isometric turn-by-turn games, whereas FO3 is essentially a huge Oblivion total-conversion.
And that's not an insult. It actually IS an Oblivion total-conversion, with entries for the original magic system still lodged in the modding tools. Which does not, actually, make FO3 inherently bad --- it just means it's hard to directly compare it to the original.
That basic design decision affects everything else. The switch to first-person means the whole D.C. Wasteland had to be modeled and specifically designed, whereas most of the game map in FO1/FO2 is utterly unpopulated and uninteresting stretches of waste. It also meant that the combat system had to go FPS, a huge negative strike for a lot of old-school FO fans. Although this was ameliorated somewhat with the VATS system and its attempt to import some element of the "action points" and "critical locations" from the original, it was still too different to be comfortable for a lot of folks.
Another big issue was how "unpopulated" even the actual population centers were, again brought on by the change in perspective; the originals tended to have had about the same number of NPCs in a given town. But the full 360-degree view with an actual horizon brought out just how uncrowded things really were. Still, there's a godawful lot of whining about the quests, bugs, and RP elements in FO3 that apply equally to the originals.
As an example, in FO1/FO2 you talked with NPCs via a small window, containing the NPC's animated head, using a standard conversation choice tree. In FO3, you do the same thing, except the whole world freezes as you talk to the given NPC. Where FO3 falls down here is that it doesn't have a very wide range of possible responses coded in that are affected by the player's stats, like Intelligence --- FO1/FO2 did. Because the responses don't much change in FO3, game replayability is more limited. In the originals, you would play a distinctly different game depending on where you invested your character build points, but FO3 is a lot more linear with most quests having only one real solution.
In part, this is because FO3 actually has a lot more scripted quest content than all the previous Fallouts put together. I have here next to me both editions of the Fallout 3 Strategy Guide...it's THICK, a bloody damn bible, and most of that is quest material. The task of cross-referencing all the different possible responses obviously got geometrically more difficult the bigger and wider they made the gameplay region. So we ended up with a wider, but shallower, game experience.
Personally, I consider FO3's biggest single unforgivable sin was Little Lamplight...
Nevermind many of the other complaints about its characters and what you can or can't do there: there's actually a major game-killing bug which they knew about when it shipped. If you visit Little Lamplight before the main quest tells you to --- and since the game is sandbox-oriented, there's no particular reason you can't or obviously shouldn't --- two critical dialogue options disappear and will never come back. Those two options are absolutely required for getting PAST Little Lamplight.
So if you visit there, then continue the quest, and end up coming back, you'll find you STILL can't get those options. Both routes you would otherwise have through Lamplight are permanently blocked, with the result that you actually have to use the "noclip" console cheat to get past the otherwise-impassable barrier.
Other major complaints were that you could not do many of the things you can in the original games --- gambling, drug dealing, prostitution or even slavery. In FO3, you can choose to be a slaver, but even this is a very restrictive (yeah, lawl) option. The open-morality games of previous Fallouts went largely missing in FO3.
Now, myself, I actually love FO3 --- but NOT the vanilla version. I use about fifty separate mods to add more areas, more quest content, more realism and just plain more fun. If not for the modding community, I'd have hung this game up long ago.
I think you have a point. If you compare Fallout 1/2 as an rpg and Fallout 3 as an FPS with RPG elements then they are both good in their respective genres.
Simple answer: The first two Fallout games were RPGs. Fallout 3, much like Oblivion (and even Morrowind to a lesser extent), are RPG/Shooter hybrids. Really, most RPGs designed for consoles fall into this category. If you truly like RPGs - and understand the differences (in writing and gameplay) that used to exist between the genres - it's obvious why you would prefer the original installments in the series.
All this is not to say I didn't enjoy FO3 (or Oblivion or Morrowind) - I just felt a little sad about what might have been in an alternate timeline where Black Isle never closed down and isometric RPGs still ruled the land like the dinosaurs of old. Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal console RPGs!
THIS is complete BS. Trust me. There has been near constant praise for the first two Fallout games way before Fallout 3 came out, not our fault that no one paid attention to the Fallout name till 3 came bout. Hell, Escapist itself has written a few articles about how freakin' great the Fallout series is way before 3 made it on the scene.
Yeah, but now I just want to keep annoying you as punishment for your first post.
I played the first two Fallouts about a year after Fallout 2 came out, because a co-worker was going on about how it was the best RPG ever. I played the first one and it blew me away (you gotta remember that at that time, a cutting edge video card was 1MB SVGA), and the second one was a lot more of the same, which is exactly what I wanted it to be.
There are a small group of people like me who are RPG traditionalists and really adhere to turn-based combat. Amongst my favourite games are the Fallouts, X-Com, and Dark Sun, all of which are turn-based combat games. I was highly skeptical once I heard that Fallout 3 would be in the Oblivion engine, and even more skeptical when I first saw footage of the V.A.T.S., but damned if I wasn't going to play it, even if to be able to explain why I didn't like it. Fortunately, I enjoyed Fallout 3 quite a bit, and loved the V.A.T.S. system, but I still thought the humour was a bit sharper in the first two Fallouts, and I hear that they were programmed so that it was possible to finish the game entirely through dialogue choices and a high enough Intelligence/Charisma skill.
It'll be really hard to capture how mind-blowing the first two Fallouts were for their time, in the same way that you can't just start playing Syndicate now, after having played through GTA 4, and say that Syndicate isn't as good. A lot of newer gamers also will not be able to go back and play X-Com for the first time after being a big fan of the Halo series and realize what the big deal is. If you play through Morrowind and Oblivion and then play Ultima VII, same thing. But for their time, these games were innovative, ground-breaking, and in the case with all of these, actually quite timeless in the fact that I can still play them and have a lot of fun to this day.
Fallout 2 was pretty much a rushed, rehash of fallout 1. I never understand how NMA can say that Fallout 3 is so bad it shouldn't be cannon, but consider fallout 2 complete with exploding cows, a fallen whale and flower pot and the time travel quest to be the peak of interactive story telling. Honestly FO1 is a great game without a doubt, but I don't really understand all the praise people tend to heap on 2.
ok ok those fallen whale pot of flowers and time travel are EASTER EGGS! Dear lord are you that thick that you didn?t notice that? that time travel brings you to fallout 1 were you by mistake damage the water chip that the hole first ones about geten a new one and the whale is FUCKEN HITCH HIKERS GUIDE OMFG did you not get that? Or the bridge of death from The Holy Grail? Really? you didn?t get the easter eggs? or that the numbers in the corner of the map on the world logo are the serial numbers that they call look in star wars when he?s a storm trooper trying to save the princes or the longitude and latitude are the level of the death star and holding cell numbers/floor numbers for were the princes is getting held? really you think it?s bad because you found the EASTER EGGS?????!?!?!?!?!?!
I knew of the Fallout series before FO3 came out. I never played them, (BEFORE buying fallout 3) but I was aware of what they were. As for FO3, I enjoy the atmosphere/sandbox, which is incredibly fun to play in. FO1 and 2 are fun for a one-run through (story) but don't have as much replay value IMO. (this is information I have because I DID play them after beating fallout 3) Maybe that's because bethesda cheated when making FO3 and gave it waaaay too much replay value. And spiffier graphics. And a bigger world. And a kick-ass mod community. And pointless-but-fun DLC.
Edit:
Typo. I meant to say that I hadn't played FO1 and 2 before FO3 came out, but after it did, I played them. I enjoyed FO3 enough to try the originals. They were fun, but I still enjoy the 3D one more.
I knew of the Fallout series before FO3 came out. I never played them, but I was aware of what they were. As for FO3, I enjoy the atmosphere/sandbox, which is incredibly fun to play in. FO1 and 2 are fun for a one-run through (story) but don't have as much replay value IMO. Maybe that's because bethesda cheated when making FO3 and gave it waaaay too much replay value. And spiffier graphics. And a bigger world. And a kick-ass mod community. And pointless-but-fun DLC.
I have bolded the parts of your posts that are hilariously absurd, if not simply essentially too silly to let pass.
Also, I have put in italics the parts of your post that are well thought out, and that I enjoyed reading.
You find Oblivion: Reborn! In the future! To have more replay value than Fallout 1 and 2? That is absolutely staggering. What made you come to that conclusion? The fact that almost all of Oblivion: Desert Recreation is linear, where as Fallout 1 and 2 are not?
I knew of the Fallout series before FO3 came out. I never played them, but I was aware of what they were. As for FO3, I enjoy the atmosphere/sandbox, which is incredibly fun to play in. FO1 and 2 are fun for a one-run through (story) but don't have as much replay value IMO. Maybe that's because bethesda cheated when making FO3 and gave it waaaay too much replay value. And spiffier graphics. And a bigger world. And a kick-ass mod community. And pointless-but-fun DLC.
I'd hate to let this one pass by...but you said you never played them...yet you passed judgement on them, stating the first two don't have as much replay value? That makes sense...how exactly?
Well, as someone who played FO3 before 1&2, I must say they were interesting, but really did not age well. I just couldn't get into them. It wasn't the graphics so much as the old UI and just a few other really out-dated design choices. The open-endedness (even a word?) was cool, but I guess I should've played them when they were new. IMO Fallout 3 is just the generally better game.
EDIT- Oh, and Fallout 1 is NOT the greatest RPG ever. Baldur's Gate 2 is.
I have all Fallouts and I can say that the old ones had better story and they were all connected.
And also if your intelligence was down you LITERALLY a fucking moron.
Fallout 3 and New Vegas have better gameplay but less weapons but I have seen older weaponry in a trailer of New Vegas and that equals sweetness.
I knew of the Fallout series before FO3 came out. I never played them, but I was aware of what they were. As for FO3, I enjoy the atmosphere/sandbox, which is incredibly fun to play in. FO1 and 2 are fun for a one-run through (story) but don't have as much replay value IMO. Maybe that's because bethesda cheated when making FO3 and gave it waaaay too much replay value. And spiffier graphics. And a bigger world. And a kick-ass mod community. And pointless-but-fun DLC.
I'd hate to let this one pass by...but you said you never played them...yet you passed judgement on them, stating the first two don't have as much replay value? That makes sense...how exactly?
fallout 1&2 have a more apocalyptic world (with the possibilty to become porn star and killd kids) it has a better reprensentation of a post-nuclear world (in my opinion)
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.
