Fallout 3 is a great game. But it lacks the tribal feel of fallout 2. I still love playing fallout 3. But They just don't fell the same when i play them. Does anyone else feel this way???

nope

im a bit into my first play with fallout1 and all i can say is, no.
fallout3 is a great game and i hope 1 gets alot better, when compared to the greatness of 3.

Im not going to cry about it the settlements don't seem nearly as desolate and backwards as in the first two.

The East Coast doesn't have as many hippies as California. It does however have many more politicians and bankers, hence the large number of raiders

The original games (FO2 in particular) did have more "primitive" items, and a wider range of tech in general. Perhaps Bethesda was worried that including more medieval or hand-made weaponry would draw too many TES comparisons.

Makes sense, there's already plenty of "Oblivion with Guns" sentiments.

For myself, Fallout 2 I really enjoyed for that "tribal" element to the game world. (Which makes sense, considering that's what you start out as.) I rather liked having to make due with just a spear, and saving up for some "advanced" gear like a Leather Jacket or a Pipe Gun. I thought that was an interesting change of pace, and sort of a more deliberate acquisition ladder, over Fallout 1. But, they did say that for Fallout 3 they were trying for something closer in feel to Fallout 1, so I don't find it suprising that you don't run into a lot of tribals in Fallout 3.

Fallout 1 didn't have a tribal feel.

I only have watched gameplay footage and briefly played the first few games and i did notice there was more modern weaponary available from the get go, but i think for the game they created it was a fit. To me, the world would probably more something more like Fallout 3 rather than a tribal form. And, I would think the tribal feel exists in the terms of certain groups forming together to reach common goals as a tribe. Megaton, Rivet City, Little Lamplight, Tenpenny Tower, etc... all have overall cohesiveness and similar dress. So I feel like its give and take

They're hardly comparable. Though the originals are the epitome of the franchise. And FO3 suffers for this simply because its the latest rendition that deviates too much from the play-worthy formula.


This. Although if the devs had time to include the different raider factions, then FO1 would have been alot more tribal compared to its current not being at all.

I'm glad. I didn't HATE the tribal thing, but I felt it was overdone in Fallout 2. I still don't get how the Vault Dweller and a bunch of other denizens of Vault-13 went on to form some hodgepodge voodoo tribe.

Well, the Temple of Trials didn't build itself. Most of the tech would have gone into the construction. Trying to build a successful village from scratch would have taken most of their lives, and most of the tribals wouldn't have been decendants, rather wayward settlers. The lack of an education system would have reverted the village to a tribal state after a generation. You could also deduce the Vault Dweller shunned technology, wishing for a simpler life away from being used and exiled.

Oh, could you possibly be more over-the-top with your FO3-hate-on ...? :violin:

Makes sense. I got the feeling in that game that most of your Tribe was actually more educated than first appearances (or at least your Character had the dialogue options to play off as such.) But agreed, I don't think they ended up with a whole lot of resources out where they decided to settle down. A lot easier, most likely, to regress to a more primitive way of life than trying to build a high-tech society from scratch.

And yeah, I also doubt the Vault Dweller took a whole library's worth of instruction manuals and reference with him when he left Vault 101. Most of the Tribe's education would have been oral, and any scientific theory and whatnot passed down from memory by whichever Elder was most informed at the time. For example, in real life we know what an airplane is and even if we don't know the physics behind how they work, we also know they operate on some scientific principles. But trying to describe the same thing to someone who's never even seen a computer is going to be a very difficult task.

Yees that's what it is. I'm going to avoid sarcasm altogether and say that just because my opinion is of a negative nature doesn't make it any less tangible, or any less of an opinion than any other. Take from it what you will, I cannot help that Fallout was a series I fell in love with because of the game it was previously, and not what it is currently. I would think that was a very safe assumption, albeit an assumption nonetheless.

Feel free to PM me if you feel the need for another off-topic, personal attack

Onto what matters. I rationalise the tribal potency in FO2 is because of lack of education in a populating environment. Such a thing was non-existant in FO1 because any tribal community would get eaten alive, and most of the populous were either pre-war survivors (ghouls to argue longevity), military progeny (Lost Hills) or educated Vault stock (V15/Shady Sands), even the Hub had a library.


I believe the Vault Dweller took with him a Vault Dweller's Survival Guide, which naturally contained all the basic principles of surviving out in the wastes, and is how the Elders knew of the G.E.C.K. He may have even taken some science manuals with him, and a scouts handbook for good measure, though science in its execution would have meant very little without the resources.

Of course. Fallout 3 is TES re-drapped in a sci-fi cloak (this goes very deep too).

Fallout 3 tries to copy (and improve upon) Fallout 1's environment (and does a fantastic job of it) ~But Fallout was set 84 years after the bombs, and Fallout 2 was set 80 years after that; and the world had begun to heal ~Then Fallout 3 is set 200 years after the bombs and it sits in a completely devastated time capsule where everything was utterly stagnant two centuries and nothing that occurred in Fallout 1 or 2 seemed to have had any affect on it.

Think about this... The USA is scarcely over 200 years old itself, and was an agricultural society of farmers and settlers for half that time then it went industrial and had cars and warships and later atomic bombs and eventually put a man in orbit ~all in within about one lifetime).

In Fallout3's case... Its like nothing happened in 200 years time. Megaton sits in trash surrounded by a piecemeal wall built of salvaged sheet metal. They have micro fusion power and live in tin shacks.

No vehicles except Enclave virtibirds ~that I know of.... but there were a few wind powered "cars" before the the 1600's, and a steam powered one in late 1600's. ~ Yet they've had Fusion power for 200 years and have no motorcycles, carts, or wagons. No working a motor bikes of even http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/bike.jpg variety ~and no bicycles either.

Yet in Fallout 2 The PC fixed a Highwayman and had no trouble racing across the wastes from town to town

All that was needed was something like http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/chrysalis_motors_highwayman-1.jpg,
(or perhaps something better/different ~but not nothing :nono:)


Fallout's towns and people seemed plausible given the circumstances; Megaton is decidedly not, and you have but to talk to Moira to realize that someone greatly misunderstood the original setting and concepts of the Fallout IP.

It feels different because it is different ~way [too] different; and in ways that have nothing to do with graphics or FPP.
Ways that are IMO highly unfortunate.

I couldn't agree more. :/

I could

Ahem. Gizmo puts the point accross in a way I seem to constantly fail in doing. I am very prone to getting sidetracked

*wanders off*

I'm a little more accepting of Fallout 3's departures from some of the founding concepts of the original series, but I have to agree that there are a number of departures. I think a number of them were conscious changes from existing canon, and a new Developer wanting to take the game in a different direction - but it's still going to upset the purists among us to varying degrees.

Personally, I think a lot of it has to do with different approaches to game design and storytelling. I got the impression in the original series that to a large extent they created the world from the ground up for what makes sense. (ie, deciding on an overall level of technology that would be appropriate for the world and going from there.) And with Fallout 3 it's more about creating a certain tone and various towns, and then working backwards to justify it's logic. (ie, for Megaton - they decided they wanted a town built around a bomb and then came up with a reason for why that would happen.)

Sort of like the two approaches towards creating Alien creatures for science fiction. One approach is to work out the environment the alien comes from, and then deciding on what evolutionary adaptations would make sense. The other creates a cool-looking alien and then works backwards from there to decide what sort of world would concievably create that specific set of adaptations.

Obviously, it's not a wholly either/ or sort of thing. Fallout 1 was obviously created with a certain "retro-futuristic" aesthetic in mind, and a lot of the rationalizations came after the fact to explain why you see things like vacuum tubes in a world that was destroyed in our own future. But I do think it points to why certain things feel different in Fallout 3 as opposed to Fallout 1 or 2. Fallout 3 seems to have started out with a highly detailed vision of the game world, and a certain idea of how the player was going to approach the game - then they tried to find ways to fit the existing game mechanics into the rest of the design. Whereas with Fallout 1 it seemed more like they designed the ruleset and then during the level- and overall game-design process tried to come up with ways to implement those rules.

Personally I liked all three games quite a bit, but for quite different reasons.

Any tribals would have been enslaved or destroyed in the DC area. It seems the DC area is more civilized than the West Coast area of the first two Fallouts since you have more communities and factions around.

DC area is more civilized than the West Coast, with its NCR, Vault City, San Fran and The Hub, as well as the BoS headquarters? With more factions around? You gotta be kidding me.

Why even build the temple of trials when the village is basically a couple of teepees with a couple of rows of crops? None of that makes much sense, IMO.

Besides, that whole tribal thing, which did make some sense, didn't much appeal to me in the first place, so no, I don't miss it much.

The Temple of Trials was a pre-war building.

Yes, OF COURSE. It was an ANCIENT pre-war building... literally!!!
(yeah,yeah I know it was a part of a museum or something... but really, even ChrisA have some doubts about it.)

btw, are you the same Ausir from MH forum? if you are, well that's great.

MH?

Actually, never mind. Got my coffee, hah, changed my take.