.Don Savik said:
GOTY is not a title that all of the world of gaming gives out to one game. This is not a reason. plus, you could claim that nothing better was out that year.
Why the hate for the Bethesda fallouts?
- Thread starter liveslowdiefast
- Start date
Recommended Videos
GOTY is not a title that all of the world of gaming gives out to one game. This is not a reason. plus, you could claim that nothing better was out that year.
I happen to be a huge fan of the recent Fallout games. I tried to play the original Fallout games, including 2 and Tactics, and I could not get into them. They were horribly cumbersome and so difficult to actually get immersed in.
Also, I wouldn't call the new Fallouts shooters. Yes. Shooting gets done. However, that's 25% of the game at most - combat. I always made my characters into Speech/Science/Medicine, because I hated being locked out of conversation topics or diary entries on computers. I loved the data mining of the series...going out of your way to discover backstory. I loved the feeling of power you have when you're justified in wiping out a certain group...
For example. Old World Blues. It's been out for a long time, so I don't know if spoilers are acceptable, but my brain told me some things...some things that make me very angry. And I will go out and commit a terrible act, but I'm going to feel damn good about it, because I know those smug bastards deserve it.
Also, I wouldn't call the new Fallouts shooters. Yes. Shooting gets done. However, that's 25% of the game at most - combat. I always made my characters into Speech/Science/Medicine, because I hated being locked out of conversation topics or diary entries on computers. I loved the data mining of the series...going out of your way to discover backstory. I loved the feeling of power you have when you're justified in wiping out a certain group...
For example. Old World Blues. It's been out for a long time, so I don't know if spoilers are acceptable, but my brain told me some things...some things that make me very angry. And I will go out and commit a terrible act, but I'm going to feel damn good about it, because I know those smug bastards deserve it.
Did so, but I was also distracted at the time with, what I thought, was good writing and amusement. That's why I said that that was my biggest complaint. And in Fallout 2, yes there were the pop culture references and stuff, but they weren't canon per se. Perhaps I should have used the "Vampires" thing instead of the aliens, but my point stands.Elcarsh said:
The idea is that if the game is not really all that good, at least distract the player in some manner. Make dialogue amusing, scatter some fun encounters and add some interesting characters or monsters. Fallout 3 didn't do that. I remember walking through DC and all I had to shoot were Mutants. Even when the game was trying to toss amusement at me, it was thin and sort of awkward. Compared to Fallout 1, 3 was silly. Compared to 2, it wasn't funny and interesting and clever. It is atmospheric in some parts and the landscape was interesting in certain areas but it's offset by the fact that every time someone opened their mouth, I wanted to shoot them.
I'm not really into thrashing either game because I know I'm a nitpicker but those were just my reasons for disliking it.
Don't tell lies, Vanilla FO3 was about 40 hours max. Still, thats a respectable game lengthlobster1077 said:
The real reason old players hate the new games is because change isn't acceptable.
Really, if you just renamed New Vegas FO3, and made 3 into Fallout: Capital Wasteland, no one would *****.
.Thyunda said:
Combat is a huge part of the world. Since they moved it from the type of movement that was in Fallout 1/2 to open sandbox, you had to populate the wasteland with much more creatures to not make travels incredibly boring (What made them boring was the broken combat). Therefore whenever you went from A to B, at least early in the game you had to encounter some creatures and initiate combat. The fast travel system does rip it to shreds, but the dungeons are still filled with creatures.
First of all I played Fallout 3 before Fallout/2/Tactics and agood thing too, because if I would have played those first I would probaly have not picked up 3. 1st fallout was what 6-10 hours long depending on the difficulty level and wetehr you wanted to go 100%, the 2nd one was probaly double the time but felt kinda artificially lengthened, 3rd one, not long ago I went for 100 % and I got around 125 hours, granted it was the goty with all the dlc so for arguments sake you can remove 25-30 hours but it still leavs us with around 100 hours. And the story. The story is better in Fallout/2? Seriously? The most it could be is about on the same level. And by far the biggest complaint I have with first 2 games is the combat, I have nothing against turn based combat, but if I have 80 someting % chance to hit and I take 5 shots and only 1 will hit then you can fuck right off. Also Fallout/2 are old games and despite of their almost cult status thay have aged and aged horribly. But that's ok because that's what old things do they age and slowly turn into shit. One day Fallout 3 will old and shit but I hope I'm smarter and won't prais it over Fallout 7.
It took me 3 months of constant gaming to get through FO1 and around 5 to get through FO 2.lobster1077 said:
Make no mistake I said COMPLETE, as in, explore every inch of the game, the atmosphere was fascinating, the biggest appeal of those games was the S.P.E.C.I.A.L. system, back then the stats you assign would make a HUUUUUGE difference in gameplay. If you had an intelligence of 1 you wouldn't just have low speech skill, you would LITERALLY go around saying "HURR DURR MOMMY".
S.P.E.C.I.A.L. was stripped down to a mere novelty. I expected that to be fixed in NV bud sadly it didn't. Still, those games were MASSIVE and VERY DEEP for their time.
The fallout 3 review sounds like it was written by a lemon faced rules lawyer. You know the type I'm talking about if you've ever played ANY TTRPG ever. They're the guys who will whip out the rule book and halt the entire game for a fucking hour because the GM decided to deviate from the default setting for whatever reason or another player misinterpreted a single rule ever so SLIGHTLY despite nobody caring and everyone having fun up until that point.Who Dares Wins said:
Fallout 3 was fun and immersive (to a point)I enjoyed it THOROUGHLY and continue to do so to THIS DAY. It was something NEW with an old franchise. Just because it's not like you remember does not automatically make it shit.
Anyone who starts saying it sucks because it wasn't like the first two Fallouts no longer is allowed an opinion because they, just like those Lemon Faced Rules Lawyers, will suck the fun right out of EVERYTHING.
I think they are Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better. I don't think I can stress how much better I think they are. And when I say 'they', I mean Fallout 3, I don't think Fallout New Vegas is all that good, but I haven't been able to sink as much time into it though.
Sure they are pretty different, but I'd prefer that to making the same game again with updated graphics. And I think they made a change for the better, sure they could have made an original IP out of it, but interplay weren't going to do anything with the IP, so I don't see what was wrong with Bethesda updating it.
Sure they are pretty different, but I'd prefer that to making the same game again with updated graphics. And I think they made a change for the better, sure they could have made an original IP out of it, but interplay weren't going to do anything with the IP, so I don't see what was wrong with Bethesda updating it.
I completely agree. Some gamers just don't want change and any of it will just piss them off.Stoneface said:
Because it is not a Fallout game, doesn't make the game bad mind you but that is the reason. It would be like saying Super Mario Kart is Super Mario World 2, yes they have the same themes but they are nothing alike.
Disliked Fallout 3 for the same reason as other posters in this thread have mentioned. The writing. It's god awful. Not just the plot holes, but the characterization or lack of to be precise.
Also the lack of any evident research on Bethesda's part which resulted in canon-breaking stupidity of the highest order (GECK, Aliens etc etc etc).
Also failing to notice the very clear over-arcing theme of society rebuilding itself which was a core tenet in Black Isle's design document for Fallout.
Also the problem with the Capital Wasteland not making any sense at all.
Also the lack of any evident research on Bethesda's part which resulted in canon-breaking stupidity of the highest order (GECK, Aliens etc etc etc).
Also failing to notice the very clear over-arcing theme of society rebuilding itself which was a core tenet in Black Isle's design document for Fallout.
Also the problem with the Capital Wasteland not making any sense at all.
Personally, I managed to get my hands on Fallouts 1 through 3 and New Vegas and found them all to be fairly decent in different ways.
I thought Fallouts 1 and 2 were pretty good, but then I still haven't finished either one mianly because (in my opinion at least) they both have this arbitary habit of not telling you crud.
The first game was particular guilty of this because it gives you a limited amount of days to complete the main quest, seriously, who puts a time limit on an RPG's main quest? this is not helped by the fact you go to the Vault marked on your map by the Overseer to find the Water Chip only to find it nowhere and given no clues at all where to go next.
The second did alot better, it seemed to tailor quests to your abilites pretty well, but there are still afew things I wish the game would give the common courtesy of explaining, I had to consult a game website just to find out I'm supposed to blast open a door in the Arroyo Temple and where I'm supposed to find a time bomb in s specific spot. Edit: on top of that, it doesn't give you a time limit like the first Fallout did, that alone I think makes it superior to the first,
I suppose an actual tutorial would be too much to ask from those 2 games.
Anyway, Fallout 3 was my introduction to the francise, and I thought it was fantastic. Granted, the combat gets too easy in later levels, but the game did a great job immersing me into the experiance of exploring a post-apocolyptic America, the harshness, the drama, Bethesda did it's best to create a fascinatingly dark world out of Virginia and made it a great (if depressing) experiance to be here.
Fallout New Vegas made alot of gameplay improvements over Fallout 3, especially in the combat, and it had pretty good writing and characters to go with it, but I felt it messed up the open-world part of the game early on because of how it's nearly impossible to go north from Goodsprings because Obsidian decided putting Deathclaws in the I-15 route and forcing you to loop south to past them is a good idea to put in an RPG Sandbox, Project much?
Another thing is that I found the game harder to immerse myself in then I did Fallout 3, which was disappointing to me 'cause the immersion was what I liked about Fallout 3 so much, and when I first learned about F:NV I thought i might get a similar experiance.
The only other problem I had was with the loading times, I had to put up with a buttload more loading times than I did Fallout 3, which I felt broke the flow of the game quite abit. I know most players complained about glitches, but while I have faced afew of them in my play throughs, I didn't get it as often as I kept hearing other players have.
Overall, I don't really get why the more Veteran fans of Fallout hate the Bethesda Fallouts, I found all the Fallout Games to be decent in their own way, but by the same token, I found they also have problems of their own, with some parts of one game being better than others.
I thought Fallouts 1 and 2 were pretty good, but then I still haven't finished either one mianly because (in my opinion at least) they both have this arbitary habit of not telling you crud.
The first game was particular guilty of this because it gives you a limited amount of days to complete the main quest, seriously, who puts a time limit on an RPG's main quest? this is not helped by the fact you go to the Vault marked on your map by the Overseer to find the Water Chip only to find it nowhere and given no clues at all where to go next.
The second did alot better, it seemed to tailor quests to your abilites pretty well, but there are still afew things I wish the game would give the common courtesy of explaining, I had to consult a game website just to find out I'm supposed to blast open a door in the Arroyo Temple and where I'm supposed to find a time bomb in s specific spot. Edit: on top of that, it doesn't give you a time limit like the first Fallout did, that alone I think makes it superior to the first,
I suppose an actual tutorial would be too much to ask from those 2 games.
Anyway, Fallout 3 was my introduction to the francise, and I thought it was fantastic. Granted, the combat gets too easy in later levels, but the game did a great job immersing me into the experiance of exploring a post-apocolyptic America, the harshness, the drama, Bethesda did it's best to create a fascinatingly dark world out of Virginia and made it a great (if depressing) experiance to be here.
Fallout New Vegas made alot of gameplay improvements over Fallout 3, especially in the combat, and it had pretty good writing and characters to go with it, but I felt it messed up the open-world part of the game early on because of how it's nearly impossible to go north from Goodsprings because Obsidian decided putting Deathclaws in the I-15 route and forcing you to loop south to past them is a good idea to put in an RPG Sandbox, Project much?
Another thing is that I found the game harder to immerse myself in then I did Fallout 3, which was disappointing to me 'cause the immersion was what I liked about Fallout 3 so much, and when I first learned about F:NV I thought i might get a similar experiance.
The only other problem I had was with the loading times, I had to put up with a buttload more loading times than I did Fallout 3, which I felt broke the flow of the game quite abit. I know most players complained about glitches, but while I have faced afew of them in my play throughs, I didn't get it as often as I kept hearing other players have.
Overall, I don't really get why the more Veteran fans of Fallout hate the Bethesda Fallouts, I found all the Fallout Games to be decent in their own way, but by the same token, I found they also have problems of their own, with some parts of one game being better than others.
I haven't played FO1 or 2, but I enjoyed 3 and New Vegas. I preferred NV's story, and the game as a whole more than Fallout 3 but still thought 3 was a good game in it's own right. Yeah, they were riddled with bugs, but they're open world RPGS, there's always going to be bugs in them.
Yeah, Rage is pretty much Borderlands with a texture pack, I don't really see how anything thing other than the post-apocalyptic setting could be related to Fallout. Fallout 3 stands out (to me) as one of the best games of my generation (1992-present). Although I am slightly biased by the 2D screen shots of the previous Fallouts, would you seriously consider them better games than FO3?allinwonder said: