:foodndrink:

Yours makes me think of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsc.

Yes, but in terms of direct open-endedness, FPS shooter mechanics, and dreary post apocalpytic styling, Stalker beats the pants off FO3. It has other flaws (bugs being chief among them), but in those three areas, it shines. Since the original post I was quoting asked for a game that combined open endedness with shooter mechanics with a dash of RPG in the form of inventory management and armor choice, I cited stalker as a good example.

The main thing that really sets Stalker apart from FO3, besides the atmosphere (granted by dynamic lighting and shadows) is the fact that it was designed as an FPS. It has iron sights and scopes which actually work. The bullets come out of the gun, rather than come out of the character's belly (before being teleported to a location in front of the gun's barrel; this is why you can't disable autoaim on the PC because if you do, the bullets won't hit where you're aiming), grenades are easily accessible, etc.



There's nothing saying gimmicks can't be useful or fun.

I didn't pick up FO3 until the GOTY edition, and even with the final patch, it is a pretty buggy product. If we're trying to compare FO3 to AP to figure out how F:NV will turn out, lets compare apples to apples.

Obsidian's track record is this.

KOTOR:2 had something like 9 months of development. It shipped 3 months early because LucasArts in its older incarnation ran out of money and folded. LucasArts also got worried at the last second and cut most of the ending when shipping the game. Even with a very short life-cycle, the best parts of KOTOR:2 were better than the best parts of KOTOR in my opinion.

NWN:2 was light years better than the original NWN.

Obsidian has really great writers on their staff. Some of them not only worked on FO1 and FO2, but worked on the original FO3 (Van Buren) that was canceled and never shipped. These guys bid on the Fallout franchise rights (and were outbid by Bethesda) but they really care about the Fallout franchise.

My only fear is that sometimes a staff of really solid designers can be hampered by poor programmers (look at the defunct Troika Studios, who also included Fallout vets, including the lead designer of Fallout 1).

If you're really worried about bugs, don't get it on release day, and wait for patches. Or buy a console version. Since I prefer PC gaming, and I prefer being able to add mods, I'll wait a bit for a few patches and grab the PC version to form my own opinion.

And for what it is worth, the one person I know who is playing AP is a Bioware employee, who is raving about how good AP is.

Until the holiday Steam sales.

on steam the metacritic reviews gave it a 74 which is above average. give it a patch or too and it will probably turn into a good game. my beef is that they didnt include first person view. im sick of this stupid third person fad going on now. it ruined deadspace for me, i was looking for a scary game and it was completely wiped out by that stupid view.

This may sound crazy but I almost want New vegas to disappoint people on this forum because I'm so sick and tired of hearing how much better the old games where and how the feel isn't the same etc. It's rubbish.
Fallout was great in it's day but it hasn't aged well and no, it doesn't matter how many posts people put up on these forums Fallout 1 and 2 are NOT better then Fallout 3.
They are all games with flaws too. All games have them.
Unless you make the game yourself then your never going to get exactley what you want, although I'm pretty sure a few people on these forums could make it themselves and still not be happy with what they got...

New Vegas is little more than an expansion with lots of new tweaks and that's exactley why I can't wait to get my hands on it. I thought they did alot more than most companies when it comes to reviving a series, they really did stay true to the originals in so many ways. Not all ways, but alot.
They could have easily scrapped the whole artwork direction and just made a game with Fallout on the cover and people would have bought it.


It would be nice to see someone actually say something good about Fallout on these forums. Am I the only one who actually likes the game?

A few comments:

• I havent actually noticed as many people being unhappy with New Vegas as were in the build up to F3, im not sure why you would want it to fail. I dont think anyone apart from you wants that.
  
• So you're saying my opinion is wrong, and yours is right. because you say so?
  
• Bethesda didnt revive fallout,and they werent the only company who wanted to make a Fallout game.
  
• A lot of people believe that they did just make a game with Fallout on the cover.
  
• No you're not the only one who likes this game. Its a good game, i just dont like it as much as i like other games.

This isnt the place to bring up this type of conversation, and at least get your facts right if your going to attempt to do so.

Get my facts right? the fact is there are alot of stroppy miserable people on this forum who will moan abotu anything and everything and nothing will change when New Vegas comes out. You's will still have something to moan about.
If they released Fallout 1 again tommorow you would probably moan about that aswell!
If Bethesda made a generic game and slapped Fallout on it why is the artwork and style slapped all over every area in the game? They went alot further than most would but alot of people don't seem to appreciate that so remember that next time before you get all Jedi Master on my ass...

Am I worried about New Vegas: No.

I know it sounds over simplified... But I simply am not putting a lot of weight in the Alpha Protocol reviews... Maybe If Alpha Protocol were a follow-up/sequel/spinoff of a previously succesful game from a different developer, instead of an original IP....

This is essentially just Trolling/Flamebait.
You're complaining about people not being constructive, in a very non-constructive manner. You're moaning about the moaners. Do you not find that somewhat hypocritical? Your post was just a rant, it doesnt even seem relevant.

Oh boy yes we will moan and moan and moan. Just like you are doing.
People here liked FO3 but some had reservations about did it realy live up to what it could have been. I for one always ask that even though I have put no effort into making a game whatsoever. These forums are just a way to connect people with the same interests, In which to air our opinions and discuss them in public. They are also useful for game designers to see what went wrong and come up with solutions for the next or patches with the current.

I have to agree. I know I'm in the minority when I argue that KotOR II is better than the original, but I honestly feel that it is. KotOR was another unimaginative Star Wars product; the same story we've seen umpteen times over (hero takes on an evil empire that has a big bad super weapon). KotOR II offered something new, and actually tried to introduce some needed depth into the setting. It wasn't perfect, but even in its unfinished state I regard it as one of the best stories I've seen from the Star Wars setting. Admittedly I've only seen the movies and played the games, but I can't imagine that any of the novels or comics are any better. KotOR had more polish yes, but KotOR II had more originality and depth.

Neverwinter Nights 2 despite the severely flawed multiplayer component was also an improvement. I do think the campaign despite its cliche nature and irritating first chapter was infinitely better than the bland, soulless Fed-Ex quest campaign of BioWare's Neverwinter Nights and its expansions though. Mask of the Betrayer was just awesome, and while Storm of Zehir was less than stellar there were plenty of things about it I liked such as the overland map. Features like this I wouldn't mind seeing in future products.

Obsidian isn't as bad as many people make them out to be. I think they're one of the best RPG developers out there at the moment. Their games need more polish and better planning don't get me wrong, but they have great potential if they can iron out these problems. I'm not concerned about New Vegas since from what I've seen so far they're trying their hardest to deliver a great Fallout product.



If an RPG averages in the 70s in this day and age it's probably a great game for hardcoe RPG players.

To play devils advocate, we do complain a lot...usually about things that mean very little on a metaphysical and existential basis. And people will always find a means to justify their statements.

+1

Well said!

I think you summed it up perfectly, and as were' on page 10, hopefully you'll get the last word on this!

as for kotor 2 its actually a better game when you get the restored content back in. apparently there was alot of stuff in the game resources just not put in game. a major mod restored most of it and improved the game alot.

nwn2 wasnt lightyears better than nwn. that is just an absurdly false statement with no basis in truth whatsoever.......nwn2 was galaxies (which are several thousand light years) better than nwn. gotcha.

My personal opinion...
Kotor1: Better story, so-so gameplay.
Kotor2: Better overall gameplay, a story they just made up as they went along.

Yes, that's very crazy. Even if NV is the bestest game evar, you'll still have Fallout 3 to go back to if you so choose.

Besides... Give this new direction a chance. You might like it. :vaultboy: :fallout:


That depends entirely on what sort of things you value and use to quantify the "better" game. It's certainly not the objective fact you try to paint it as.

In terms of storyline consistency and writing quality, the two big parts of an RPG for me, Fo1 and 2 beat the pants off of Fallout 3.



You've piqued my curiosity. How exactly did Bethesda stay true to the originals? What, is it the exploding cars? Is it the settlements that are made of scrap metal and airplane parts even though there's several boarded up houses in reasonably good shape just a few hundred feet away?



That's it? The art direction? That's the big similarity you're toting out?



People say plenty good about Fallout. They just say less good about Fallout 3. That being said, FO3 has its good elements. However, these good elements are often overshadowed by more fundamental bad elements. It's subjective, what's "good and bad" of course, but for me, the lack of consistency in storytelling, characterization, and the subpar world building really dampens my enjoyment of FO3.

Example: Look at Canterbury Commons. It's a trade hub. Why? It's in an inconvenient location far north of downtown DC and well away from Megaton or Rivet City; it's very much out of the way of traders going between more prosperous settlements. It's not noted to produce anything of value, and it lacks any observed or implied means of feeding itself. It also has a giant ant problem.

Why, exactly, does a settlement like that exist? Compare the Hub in Fallout 1. Strategically placed in the middle of the map, with the support infrastructure to store large amounts of water (which it leverages to become an important power in the region).

Or take Talon Company. They're fighting with the mutants all over the Capitol building... Yet we never find out why, or even what their motives are in general, beyond how they apparently don't like you giving water to beggars. Nor do we find where they got access to all that combat armor or those laser rifles and pulse grenades, to say nothing of the artillery. (My money is on Enclave catspaws, with the Enclave paying and equipping Talon to perform forward reconnaissance before they show up in force, but there's absolutely no explanation anywhere in the game to explain their behavior.)

On the other tentacle, one thing I thought FO3 got right was the Brotherhood. I know some of the other purists will start backing away from me slowly when I say this, but I thought the Lyons Brotherhood with the transformation into a more benevolent and interventionist sect was interesting and nice to see. If you go out and interact with people, it's a natural human reaction to start to sympathize with them. Particularly when they're getting killed and eaten or dragged off to be dipped in the FEV vats and you ave the power to stop it. It could have been epic in its svckitude, but fortunately Bethesda also gave us the Outcasts, to help establish that not everyone in the Brotherhood agrees with the direction its taking.

In fact, FO3 has lots of good concepts. I mean, town built around the worship of an atomic weapon? Hollowed out aircraft carrier city? Yes please. But the execution here is flawed primarily because there's little rationale or explanation given to how these settlements interact with one another. The Brotherhood/Outcast schism is probably the most well developed and interesting dynamic in the game, but even that can't make up for the totally undeveloped ideas elsewhere.

Fortunately, I expect New Vegas will change this given Obsidian's tendency to approach problems from a story standpoint first. The game might, and probably will have other problems... But one thing Obsidian has never flubbed is the story, and to me, that is the most important thing about Fallout. Well, that and Ron Perlman ending narrations that don't judge you and actually talk about the consequences of your actions.

I never liked mini-games, but so far they have never stopped me from enjoying the rest of a game before. They have been boring and even tedious at times, but never game braking. So I use to trust that what ever Obsidian did to the mini games, I would still be able to find a lot of fun in FONV.
That was until I played AP, and ran in to the hacking game (PC). As a result FOVN have gone for a “pre-order the collectors edition” to a “wait and see”.

Nicely put Cpl Facehugger. very well to the point.
For that I insist we all buy Ron Pearlman to Narrate your life in as neutral a tone as possible for you.

Fallout 3 was different than the original two games, there's no denying that, but Fallout 3 sold more than 5 million copies on consoles alone, and has a huge fan-base who never even played the originals because of it. The sheer amount of criticism fans of the originals express towards FO3 on this forum is mind-boggling. I can confidently say I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen a fan of the originals, but not so much Fallout 3, compliment Fallout 3 without criticizing it in the same post. Even you, just now, Cpl. Facehugger, did it. You basically said it's good, but... *cue paragraph after paragraph of criticsm*. Now, does that mean that criticism isn't warranted? Of course not, no game is perfect. But why do fans of the originals feel so compelled to never, ever say it's good, without also criticizing it in the same post? It's as if there's an unspoken rule between them that forbids it.

What original Fallout fans are doing is like the phrase "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar," and you guys are using vinegar. I've spent enough time lurking on NMA and DaC to see how original Fallout fans feel about Fallout 3 fans, and to say the standard Fallout 3 fan is characterized as a bumbling idiot over there is an understatement. Attitudes like that are what stop Fallout 3 fans from actually trying out the originals. I'm sure that original Fallout fans would have more respect for a Fallout 3 fan who has played the originals and still likes Fallout 3, than one that hasn't, but when all you see are original Fallout fans criticizing the game you love, why should you try out the game they love? I'm pretty sure spunky onion hasn't even played the originals, because he acts like they're horrible when they're really not. But when he sees original Fallout fans act like Fallout 3 is horrible when it really isn't, it's hard to blame him for feeling the way he does.

By the way, complementing it without criticizing it after this post just because I said you guys don't doesn't count

It's simple actually. We do it to give a balanced critiscism of the game. It's not right to talk about the just the good aspects while ignoring the flaws. If people want that, they can check out the many varied rewiewers who gave FO3 "10/10 GOTY MATERIAL RIGHT HERE" rave reviews without any mention of the deeper issues.

If someone has considered those issues and says "I don't really care about a rational and self-consistent world, I love Fallout 3", then that's fine. But if they just sit and praise FO3 without having thought about its flaws, then their opinion isn't balanced and well-developed. As thinking men, it is our responsibility to preside over our great democracy educate these people, so they can form balanced opinions of the game and contribute interesting and valid points to our consensus.

In all honesty, I feel the need to criticize every game that has flaws, in hopes of the knowledge of those flaws entering the public consciousness and from there percolating into developers' minds, so that hopefully they'll fix them in the next DLC/Expansion/Sequel. Don't hate us because we point out flaws. Thank us for pointing them out, so that there's less chance of developers making those mistakes in the future!



Well, I like the Brotherhood, like I said earlier. Tranquility Lane was a neat little location too.

(Though most of the other vaults besides 101 were rather at odds with what the vault program was meant to do; vaults were never military research facilities or super-soldier production bases. They were meant to test human response to various social conditions. The prewar government had places like Mariposa and West Tek for unethical human research. )

Bethesda will also have quality checks on the game, as they did with Rogue Warrior, and look how good that game turned out.

But seriously, Alpha Protocol isn't an open world game like FNV. Until I play it, I can't judge it just on a few reviews. The problem is, unless it is an open world game, I avoid it altogether. The days of playing level based games for me are over, as the replay value isn't there for me. Same problem with Mass Effect 2 when they dumped the open map planets from ME1.

The good news is, FNV has a team with the creators behind FO1 and 2, plus the agme engine's already in place, which gives them a lot more time for story, interactions, fine tuning and so on.

I think Obsidian will do a nice job with FallOut New Vegas.

(And one reason the graphics look flat is partially due to the fact almost every pic so far is set during the evening hours, when the sun is almost down, resulting in flat shading with little contrast, compared to the bright daylight of noon.

But that's the thing, most of the original Fallout fans that I've seen don't give balanced criticism, they just give criticism. The majority of the original Fallout fans I see on here act like it's their life's mission to stop the spread of the evil attitude known as "liking Fallout 3." Most of Fallout 3's fans here seem to be aware of Fallout 3's problems, yet they're still fans. Hell, it's nearly impossible to be on here and not be aware of it's problems, considering spending only a few days in the New Vegas forum will teach you all about how terrible Fallout 3 supposedly was. It's one thing to tell people about Fallout 3's problems, but it's another to never mention Fallout 3 without mentioning those problems.

I gotta side with you on this one. I started my Fallout fandom with Fallout 3, and actually find the originals almost nearly impalletable (I can't play them for more than an hour without getting a headeache). Yeah they're good games, but even they have their issues. To look at Fallout 3 and all it's flaws, one also needs to look at the rest of the series and some of the bugs and issues that were present there.

Pretty much every person I see here is voicing an opinion of some sort. Sometimes it involves criticism, other times, only praise. Sometimes it is both. And not none of them seem to agree on everything. Some people only seem to come here to carry out thinly veiled character assassinations, but their numbers are thankfully dwindling.

It's just typical debate on a forum, nothing more really.