Fallout: The search for Curly's gold

:thumbsup:

do I have to post up a link to why cant we be friends I will do it.

"Master, what is your opinion about the split in the Fallout fanbase?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9w7ktxgjt8

Sorry Styles, but all I heard (till this very day) is.... Minsc. :biggrin:

Just to weigh in here, for a moment...

Personally, I don't see all that big of an innate problem with there being a split among the fanbase. There's always going to be constant debate among those with various viewpoints about it. The only time I see things become a problem is when people can't just "agree to disagree." I mean, I like sushi and can't stand eggs benedict. Some people feel totally the opposite. Some like them both (and I wouldn't be surprised if some marginal minority even really enjoyed a twisted combination of the two, somehow...) But it's not the end of the world when I meet someone who absolutely loves runny eggs and sauce on an english muffin, even if I don't necessarily agree with them.

On the whole "is it a 'sequel' or not" thing -

That's a tricky one. And I think a large part of the problem is that you have a different set of people making every single iteration of the game - each with their own individual concepts of what a sequel should be and whether or not their game should have another number at the end of it.

Going from Fallout 1 to Fallout 2 - there's a pretty obvious connection. It's even using a lot of the same sprites, and made a few key gameplay improvements (like double-clicking to run, which I'm quite a fan of.) It was also the next game after first one, with no further precedent. So I don't think there's much of an issue there. It was the second Fallout game, so they decided to call it Fallout 2. Fallout: Tactics, they decided to make, well, a more tactical version of the game. Pretty simple. And at this point, Interplay likely still thought they were going to be making a Fallout 3, and wanted F:T to simply be something on the side.

(I won't mention Brotherhood of Steel.)

Then we end up with Bethesda taking over. And Todd Howard. He has his own conceptions of what a videogame "sequel" should be. As far as he was concerned, this was to be the third "big" Fallout game in the series - so by that logic, Fallout "3" makes sense. I don't know what was up with Fallout: New Vegas, other than to guess that Bethesda wanted to be able to Fallout "4" (presumably with more updated graphics overhaul, etc.) I also, for that matter, don't know what didn't call it Fallout 3: New Vegas - because that likely would have cut down on a lot of confusion at the time.

The thing with these naming conventions is that there is no hard and fast rule. Sure, we can all go look up a dictionary definition - but that's only pertinent if the people deciding on these names are following those same rules. Which certainly they aren't. And Fallout isn't the only series (in any media) to have this same confusion.

I think the important thing is that they're all Fallout games (except Brotherhood of Steel, of course.) To even debate about whether one game or another is a "sequel" or a "spin-off" hinges on the assumption that either definition contains an inherent value judgement, or possesses innate qualities that the other wouldn't. Which I don't feel to be true...

My take on this is the reason why the Fallout 1&2 fans hated Fallout 3 was because of the story and play style. I mean the story was touching like a regular high school project but the only characters you get attached to his your dad and the Brotherhood(and even then, not so much). I personally loved the play style of Fallout 3 more than Fallout 1 and 2 but many people differ. Some people liked the top down view, etc.

But the main problem is the story. It's not a bad story by any means but compare that to the story of Fallout 1 or Fallout 2, it just doesn't compare. But then again, Fallout 3 was developed by a separate company with little to no experience with the feel of Fallout in the style they were creating. Pioneers will always have problems. When NV came out, the split was even more great.

Lots of Fallout 3 fans hated the game for reasons unknown to me but lots of Fallout 1 and 2 fans enjoyed the game due to its similarity to the first two games with its reputation system and return of the NCR.

Who knows what Fallout 4 will have in store. But with the release of that game, perhaps Bethesda will appease both of the fan base or perhaps they won't. But in any case, Fallout will continue, no matter how thin the fan base is spread across the plethora of games in the future.

Like you, I certainly consider Fallout Tactics to be a "true," canonical entry in the greater Fallout universe, and completely disavow Brotherhood of Steel. Even despite a few inconsistencies with various games, Tactics still "felt" like a true FO game to me, and seeing it referenced several times during Fallout 3 warmed the cockles of my heart.

Brotherhood, on the other hand, stinks like brimstone and puppy-tears.



It wouldn't have been appropriate to have called the newest game "Fallout 3: New Vegas," since there's very little actually connecting it to the events of that storyline, other than the engine and being set in the same universe. Bethesda and Obsidian were correct in simply dubbing it "New Vegas," more akin to Grand Theft Auto: Vice City and San Andreas using the GTA III engine, yet not being considered direct sequels of that particular game.

And yet you and others fail to give anything that could add up to saying that "Fallout3 is Oblivion-with-guns" to a rational mind. Shrug, OK.

1. You must have played one or both games in such a peculiar manner as to believe that, and must have played with such a lack of involvement as to believe such a thing, missing out just about everything unique to each other's game and game-play. Shrug.

2. So, you would recommend Oblivion to somebody as being "Fallout3 but with medieval weapons".

We'll part company, no point discussing with you further.

Your dictionary does not invalidate the general acceptance of Fallout3 being a sequel (canon) of Fallouts 1 and 2. Fallout3 contains sufficiently enough of the main scenario elements of Fallouts 1,2, that in most peoples eyes make it a sequel and is generally accepted as such. It is a continuation of the post nuclear apocalyptic wasteland scenario that has those main scenario elements of Fallouts 1,2.

The fact that the sequel games are spread over 100+ years does not destroy sequel continuation of scenario story or canon.

Fallout Tactics, not a sequel, not having enough of the same balance of the scenario elements of Fallouts 1,2,3. It's out of kilter basically. The same goes for the Fallout New Vegas spin-off. Both fine Fallouts though, Canon to being "A Fallout", but not canon to the sequels Fallouts 1,2,3, that is the difference.

Stopping the numbers? No, it's nice to know what I'm buying. If I want the closest continuation of the sequel scenarios Fallouts 1,2, and their main game-play elements then I'll buy the Fallout3 sequel and not one of the other Fallout spin-offs.

Does the split in fan-base bother me, no not at all, should we alter future Fallout games to accommodate the few that are out-of-kilter with the rest of us, and for no good reason, absolutely not, for there is no reason to do so. Always there will be a few disgruntled players that dislike the game, for whatever reason, I have read once "I will never forgive Bethesda for the changes they made to the game", there seem to be others thinking along those lines, but bringing the mechanics a bit more up-to-date does not change the sequels validity or make the game worse. On the contrary, high praises were received, and are justified.

No good reason?
We have a truckload of perfectly good reasons for not liking FO3.
And we've accepted the fact (most of us) that the series won't go back to it's original form over night or if even at all.
What we want is a compromise, to bring back the old elements with the new elements so that "both" sides can be happy.
And to give us optional things so that us who like dice rolls over minigames can have it so and us who like turnbased over real time can have it so.


Thing is, they didn't bring the mechanics "up to date", they overhauled some, simplified some and removed the rest.
And those who did praise it, I wonder how many of them actually played the old games, of course they were gonna praise it "as another game", Fallout 3 is awesome on it's own merits.
But how many of them actually played the older titles first, knew what Fallout was about and then praised it "as a Fallout game" ?
Not saying they're wrong in liking FO3 as a game, they're not, they're not wrong in liking FO3 as a Fallout game either.
But going by that it was "praised" by many makes me wonder how many of them actually know what Fallout really is.

I bought Oblivion and played it and you know what?
I haven't played the older titles, so I won't judge it as an ES game, I feel that I have no right in judging it as an ES game since I have no idea what ES really is about. (But that's just me, if someone has only played FO3 and feel that he/she has the right to speak of it as a Fallout game then feel free to do so but prepare to be corrected by elitists and dinosaurs when you're wrong about lore or canon. ) (Not directed at you Sitruc, IIRC you played the old games.)
I can say that I think it's awesome on it's own merits or that it's an awesome "another game" but I can't say it's an awesome ES game since I'm not experienced enough to make that assumption.
So, how many of these critics and people who praised FO3 had actually played FO1/2/T?
Just saying that just because some critics praised it does not mean that they know what they're talking about when it comes to the entire franchise.
Anyone can play a sequel and then review it, but in order to be fair to the game one should really play the previous titles first and then compare with how the original has evolved (or devolved or changed completely) over the course of the sequels.
So critics praised it, not very shocking, new fans praised it, of course they did, it's a post apocalyptic action sandbox game with a giant laser eyed patriot robot.
But I wouldn't call the praise of it as fact that FO3 was an awesome Fallout game, it was an awesome game on it's own merits.

On the other hand, if most people who did praise FO3 praised it as a Fallout game then uhm...
Well, then I guess FO4> will be Skyrim With Guns. :laugh:
And of course I'll leave it, it's obvious then that since "gaming" has moved on there is no place for me left as I'm stuck in my old ways.
No reason for me to stick around and annoy the rest cause gaming has moved on.
So we'll see how it is with FO4, either it's more Fallout than NV was or it's Skyrim With Guns.

I would've thought the similarities would be pretty obvious but since I'm dealing with Sitruc here let's go through a few:

1st/3rd person perspective
Real-time combat
Item Degradation
Level Scaling
Magic clothing
Oblivion style fast travel
Open world map
Minigames
Inventory system
Random exploration
Skills run from 0-100
Ability to maximize all of your character's skills
Sneak system

And there's more. But I can't wait to hear about horses and zoomed in dialogue in response.



I doubt it. Unless you can tell me how my peculiar gameplay style or lack of involvement caused me to consider some of those things I listed as very similar to Oblivion (and not at all similar to Fallout 1 and 2).



If they had only played Fallout 3 I would certainly say with confidence that Oblivion is a very similar game in a different setting.



Aw I wanted to hear about how vampires drastically differentiated the two series. Oh wait.

Hell, the reason I bought Oblivion was because people said that it was so similar to Fallout 3.

Spin off

Yeah

But their still are canon

Personally, I think "Oblivion with Guns" has a number long-held negative and derogatory connotations. That phrase, alone, has contributed a good deal to this split in the fanbase (not like it really needed any extra fuel, to begin with.)

At the same time, however - I think it's undeniable that there's a lot of similarities between Oblivion and The Elder Scrolls series, and Fallout 3 (and of course, Fallout: New Vegas.) Frankly, I don't see why there's any real debate about this at all.

Sure, they have different rule sets - the stats you use, and the means through which you acquire them are fairly different. But in a videogame, I find those tend to be rather secondary to the actual in-game experience. What's far more important are the means by which you interact within the game world, and the methods through which those interactions manifest. I find there's a definite connection between Bethesda's past games, and what Fallout 3 ended up being.

In Oblivion, you explore a vast and highly-detailed world through a combination of first and third-person perspective. You have a large open map interspersed with places to visit, quest, and find loot. You have a number of potential solutions to most obstacles - which tend to boil down to combat, stealth, and dialog. You have a Main Quest that you can follow at your leisure, but many players would say that the real "meat" of the experience is to be found in simply roleplaying your character and going through the side-quests and other events which you will encounter while playing the game. As opposed to something like Mass Effect (which is generally agreed to have a more narrative bent,) Oblivion focuses on "immersion," and leaving things open to the player as much as possible.

In Fallout3, you explore a vast and highly-detailed world through a combination of first and third-person perspective. You have a large open map interspersed with places to visit, quest, and find loot. You have a number of potential solutions to most obstacles - which tend to boil down to combat, stealth, and dialog. You have a Main Quest that you can follow at your leisure, but many players would say that the real "meat" of the experience is to be found in simply roleplaying your character and going through the side-quests and other events which you will encounter while playing the game. As opposed to something like Mass Effect (which is generally agreed to have a more narrative bent,) Fallout 3 focuses on "immersion," and leaving things open to the player as much as possible.

I have friends that have come to me to recommend roleplaying games to them. Those that enjoyed the Elder Scrolls games, I had no reservations telling them to play Fallout 3. The mechanics function a bit differently, but unless I'm mistaken even the button configuration is exactly the same. The fact is that a player coming from Oblivion to Fallout 3 is going to have no trouble at all settling in and figuring out how the game works. It's not like going from Fable to Dragon Age, for example. Fallout 3 is (I feel,) obviously a "Bethesda game," through and through. It has a bit of a different flavor, and some things are a bit different - but I find it is essentially drawn on the same canvas, so to speak.

For example - Starcraft is more than simply "Warcraft with guns." But I don't think anyone's actually going to try and argue that they're two entirely different games. They're both obviously made by the same company, with the same design philosophies. I find the same to be true as regards Fallout 3 - and yet for some reason there's this stigma to finding any connection whatsoever between the two titles. Even though I find that they're not only patently obvious - but I'd be surprised if Todd Howard himself wouldn't say that they used Obvlivion as something of a template when creating Fallout 3. It's certainly not like they completely rewrote their playbook when they made that game, after all...

The degree to which that level of continuity is acceptable is going to differ, depending on how you feel about that change going from Fallout 2 to Fallout 3. The mileage will vary from person to person.

I hate the split, I know I've been contributing to it (especially on this section of the Fallout Forums) but I can't stand seeing my favorite game of all time being continually and unnecessarily bashed repeatedly. New Vegas was supposed to be the hybrid that ended the split but it made it more clear and caused all people trying to say it's better to be neutral to be ignored.

I like Fallout, I'm relatively new to the series but I like the idea and the premise.

I want to see where it goes like most (if not all people) who bother to go on these threads.

Lets just try and settle the differences on a new thread, no flaming, no bashing just a nice pro and con discussion.

Above sums up the open-play base-game-structure of Oblivion and Fallout3. Similarities of base-game-structures that could be found between many of the hundreds of games out there.

Base game structure is not THE game, no-no there is a vast difference to the game itself by what you build into that base-game-structure as "Todd Howard himself would likely agree".

Fallout2 certainly had that similar open-play base-game-structure as well. Fallout 2 came out before Oblivion so to some Oblivion would be the same as Fallout2 but with different weaponry, the same as they say that Oblivion is Fallout3 but with different weaponry.

No-no-no, the difference in games is what is built into the game structure, the game content, game-play, scenarios, story-line, quest-lines, endings, characters, progressions, etceteras, everything in fact, the permutations and variations of which are almost limitless.

THAT is what makes the difference between games when you immerse into them with their differing role-plays and contents. Immersing into the Fallout3 role-play, little else around me existed, Oblivion did not exist, only the Fallout1 Fallout2 Flavour-and-Feel sameness of continuation in Fallout3.

I really do admire your ambition and optimism. I think the OP of this topic had ambition of there being intelligent discussion as well, but as I pointed out, forums on the web are notorious for not having that. Though in the general discussion area I have seen intelligent discussion in answers to questions, here as well, depends what group gets involved.

The split in differences was mostly not along preference lines, but just arguing it seems for that sake of it, or just trashing the game maker and game, without any proper thought and making wild claims. There are always those on forums, not in a fan-base as such .. far from it.

It has to be remembered as well the ages of those posting, but even the mature can talk a load of rubbish, for example take my government ... please.

But good luck.

The only thing i dislike about the split is the elitism that comes with some older fallout fans.

I've heard plenty opf "this goes against cannon" and "that goes against lore"

I call BS on that thinking alltogeher. Fallout 1 and 2 varied drastically different- the purpose of the vaults was even changed.
whether or not it was done well or not, the enclave werent part of the fallout pla nuntil F2 was being developed, so you liking it or not doesnt have any bearing on it changing the actual lore of the game..
Things like original devs not being cohesive on things like how gouhls were made. (was it FEV? Radiation? Both?)
further illustrates that F1 and F2 were not as iron clad in their lore as older fans would have you believe.

The only thing I dislike is that many people are willfully not caring about what Fallout is.

How do you mean though? its really going to depend on who you are, even within turn based or FPS communities.

adding new lore and uncovering info on a mostly untouched aspect is not the same as completely negating the validity of the lore itself.

That's because Fallout 2 EXPANDED lore, not contradict it. Fallout 3 violated it.

"Where did they touch you?"

"... in my.... lore...."

"Those sick bastards!"



:P

i like bethesda's fallout just fine, obsidian is making fallout without the exploration, without the random encounters and without good combat or decent enemies to fight after level 15 and no dungeons and instead putting more effort into the story and dialogue etc, so that should please the old fallout fans, but as far as when bethesda actually makes a fallout game, i prefer their style,, dungeons, exploration, lots of decent combat, lots of places to hide and stalk enemies etc.