Does the split in the Fallout fanbase bother you? part 2 : Fallout Series Discussion

» Tue May 17, 2011 11:23 am

I think a big amount of the problem lies with thinking that the same mechanics/pov MUST stay the same to remain a fallout game.

If you paint a duck, make a ceramic duck, paper mache duck, stuff a duck or draw a duck, its still a duck.

There sould be a good storyline and great lore attached to any game to make it part of a series.

that being said, i think a lot of old fans feel a sense fo entitlement.
of course its upsetting when something you love changes, but you dont have to bash those who just came to realize what fallout is/was as a result of that change.

Newer fans, should expect a bit of that from older fans and try to see where they are coming from instead of just saying that the game belongs to gamesas now, so "tough"

I am a "cusp" fan myself. Played a bit of F2, wasnt really anticipating liking F3 as much as i did.
The one thing i will say is that a lot of the lore inconsistancies that are brough up are most certainly not as big of a deal as they are made out to be.

at the end of the day, i will play all fallouts, because i like the post apoc genre and am a fan foo good storytelling and depth of in-game worlds.

» Mon May 16, 2011 11:33 pm

The split definately bothers me.

I think a lot of this division has been caused by the suspicion and hostility of the FO1/FO2 fans to FO3. There HAS been a lot of nasty criticism of FNV by FO3 enthusiasts, but I think the hostile tone in this debate was established largely by the old game fans.

On one hand, if you dislike something (like FO3 for example), you are entitled to your opinion and no one can take that away from you. On the other hand I do often wonder how many of the FO1&2 fans actually played FO3 with an open mind? I believe for a lot of them it was rubbish (or at least unauthentic) before it even came out.

There is also a kind of tribal loyalty amongst the old game fans that I think is a big motivating factor, where you would be considered something of a traitor (or an idiot) to express a love for FO3. You are effectively resigning your supposed intellectual-hardcoe-conneseur status and going over to the 15 year olds camp.

On old skool forums like No Mutants Allowed this effect is way exaggerated. If you think people here can be closed minded and aggressive about FO3 here, have a look on those forums. I don't look on there anymore cos it's a bit like the last remnants of the enclave or something.

To say all FO3 haters are motivated by prejudice and tribal politics would be unfair, but I think a large part of this debate, and also the angry tone of the debate is influenced by these things.

Happily there are alos loads of people like me, who liked all 4 of the big FO games and are looking forward to the next.

Have you seen some of the rhetoric on the new fan side?

"Oh, elitists!"

"Stuck in the past!"

They are just as bad and close minded. When we offer compromise, they say,

"Oh, but Bethesda makes the game now!"

At least we WANT a compromise.

» Tue May 17, 2011 9:26 am

there's bethesda fans and the original fallout games fans, two seperate groups, i like any game bethesda actually makes themselves, so i don't want fallout to be like the old fallout or new vegas, i prefer how bethesda makes games, with plenty of exploration, action, epic moments, dynamic map world, huge dungeons, plenty of fantasy incorporated. so i never want any bethesda game to not have all those elements.

Then I think Bethesda can sell Fallout, and focus on their Elder Scrolls series becuase action, epic moments and plenty of fantasy is what make those games, and not a Fallout game.

If Bethesda sold The Elder Scrolls to Nintendo, and they made it cartoonish and all, how would you react?

Moreso, if the Elder Scrolls game that Nintendo releases gets a 9.9 score, it MUST be better than any Elder Scrolls game that Bethesda made, right?

» Tue May 17, 2011 1:26 pm

Then I think Bethesda can sell Fallout, and focus on their Elder Scrolls series becuase action, epic moments and plenty of fantasy is what make those games, and not a Fallout game.

If Bethesda sold The Elder Scrolls to Nintendo, and they made it cartoonish and all, how would you react?

Moreso, if the Elder Scrolls game that Nintendo releases gets a 9.9 score, it MUST be better than any Elder Scrolls game that Bethesda made, right?

game ratings are relevant, no matter what you want to to say, and most of the big game sites have player ratings along side reviewers ratings, now it may not tell the entire story, so for example games young people like, a lot of fast action shooters where your head is spinning a lot, i prob won't like as much, and a lot of older might not like that as much even thought its a great game for younger people, or a highly rated rpg might not appeal to someone into fast paced shooters, so there is some exceptions to the rating system, but i find the rating system pretty accurate.

» Tue May 17, 2011 8:56 am

Bethesda can be wrong about their own franchise's lore (lol end of morrowind), they can be wrong about Fallout too.

» Tue May 17, 2011 1:40 am

Ratings are bull. Resident Evil 5 got a 9 and everyone knows that RE5 blows hard.

And STILL West you FAIL to acknowledge that Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 both got 9.0s and that some sites give NV 9.0s. Your statistic support svcks.

» Tue May 17, 2011 5:41 am

game ratings are relevant, no matter what you want to to say, and most of the big game sites have player ratings along side reviewers ratings, now it may not tell the entire story, so for example games young people like, a lot of fast action shooters where your head is spinning a lot, i prob won't like as much, and a lot of older might not like that as much even thought its a great game for younger people, or a highly rated rpg might not appeal to someone into fast paced shooters, so there is some exceptions to the rating system, but i find the rating system pretty accurate.

If the next TES, after Skyrim, would change to look like Ocarina of Time or something, and got 9.0+ but you hated it because it doesn't have what you think a Bethesda game should have (oops, remember - it's not a Bethesda game anymore!) you would STILL have to like it, right, because the ratings are soooo good!

» Tue May 17, 2011 10:04 am

Also, let's consider that American sports games regularly score above 7.5 . Fun for what they are, but not great games for gamers. Game scores and game quality are by no means bedfellows, though it would seem as if they should be. They are a game and one human's reaction, subjective based on their preferences. Not at all scientific or judicious.

» Tue May 17, 2011 12:13 pm

Also, let's consider that American sports games regularly score above 7.5 . Fun for what they are, but not great games for gamers. Game scores and game quality are by no means bedfellows, though it would seem as if they should be. They are a game and one human's reaction, subjective based on their preferences. Not at all scientific or judicious.

And humans can be bribed.

» Tue May 17, 2011 1:10 am

And humans can be bribed.

We are so corrupts

» Tue May 17, 2011 7:40 am

Westoftherockies, you always fall to ratings. Fallout 1 got like 60 on IGN's Best Games of All Time in 2003!

» Tue May 17, 2011 4:06 am

Oh hey, people are still throwing around the "Fans of Fallout vs. Fans of Bethesda" thing.

Cool.

» Tue May 17, 2011 4:33 am

(Sadly, yes. I have not seen such Blind ignorant devotion since the Ronald Reagan Movie fan festival.) :rolleyes:

» Tue May 17, 2011 2:44 pm

It's veteran fans who resent a game butchered for casuals, and well, the casuals.

» Mon May 16, 2011 10:42 pm

what exactly is a causal gamer? And you have to be a casual gamer to enjoy fallout 3?

» Tue May 17, 2011 12:12 pm

Ratings are bull. Resident Evil 5 got a 9 and everyone knows that RE5 blows hard.

And STILL West you FAIL to acknowledge that Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 both got 9.0s and that some sites give NV 9.0s. Your statistic support svcks.

i prob would of liked the early fallouts, but bethesda makes their games so you don't even have to do the main quest and it will still be fun, just cruising around finding the towns, talking to people, fighting enemies, exploring dungeons and big buildings, they purposely make their games so you can totally ignore the main quest if you wanted to, they put enough content in their games so you don't have to rely on the quests for the fun to happen, and thats a big difference than a lot of other game developers i think.so when people say, oh the story in FO3 is lousy, it just doens't matter to me, actually i liked the story fine in FO3 and NV, the story isn't what i'm looking for in a game. and so a bethesda made game is fun regardless of how great the story is or isn't.

» Tue May 17, 2011 2:38 am

It's veteran fans who resent a game butchered for casuals, and well, the casuals.

Once again, thank you for a completely biased and generalized characterization of all Fallout 3 fans. :facepalm:

» Tue May 17, 2011 9:02 am

We are so corrupts

I read somewhere there was a guy that got fired for not giving a game a high score and gave his opinion instead. I think it was for Kane and Lynch.

» Tue May 17, 2011 12:09 pm

For me, what defines Fallout is the "feel" of the game rather than the mechanics itself, which is why I can enjoy a 90s TBRPG just as I can enjoy the modern FO3 and FONV. I'm a lore and setting geek, so those are the primary considerations for me.

» Tue May 17, 2011 1:02 am

For me, what defines Fallout is the "feel" of the game rather than the mechanics itself, which is why I can enjoy a 90s TBRPG just as I can enjoy the modern FO3 and FONV. I'm a lore and setting geek, so those are the primary considerations for me.

i dont mind the mechanic change, i own at FPSs, but that is the problem, they are breaking continuity of lore and setting.

» Tue May 17, 2011 6:26 am

(.......I got to think about this before i write something detailed, seeing all these arguments is giving me a headache, and something is not right here.)

» Tue May 17, 2011 12:43 am

It's veteran fans who resent a game butchered for casuals, and well, the casuals.

Fallout 3? A casual game? Really?

» Tue May 17, 2011 2:38 pm

I read somewhere there was a guy that got fired for not giving a game a high score and gave his opinion instead. I think it was for Kane and Lynch.

Yes, Kane and Lynch 2:Dog Days, never played it myself, but he was the only paid critic kissing the games ass, and he coincidentally got fired recently after his review, it caused quite a stir.

» Tue May 17, 2011 3:55 am

Fallout 3? A casual game? Really?

It's true. You don't really need to wear that tie.

» Mon May 16, 2011 11:17 pm

Fallout 3? A casual game? Really?

Well, its lack of difficulty because it allows you to be overpowered pretty quickly made it one.