You're trying too hard for it.

Wow, that little comment of mine really stirred something up huh :P That wasn't my intention. Though I wont lets this become an argument of opposing spectrums where one side shouts "nostalgia!" and the other shouts...What do we shout? >_<

Anyway, the point has been made, this is Fallout. Not any run-of-the-mill post-apocalyptic RPG that deserves diluting and stripping of its core factors. It's Fallout. There's nothing left to argue on that front.

And usually, as a rule, traditional RPGs are the best kindof RPGs, because they're RPGs, not hybrids.


Wait..Fallout 3 wasn't a limited edition of the Sims?


Falout 1 & 2 had their own Bibles. Nine of them, and a summary. That's more than god

Nuff said.

Accusing people of trolling is below me, so I'll assume that you're being serious. I didn't make anything up. That first sentence doesn't even deserve a response.


Ideology was a bad word. Spirit would have been better. Fallout 3 fails to capture the spirit of Fallout. That's better. It may have been a game, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't matter. There are some loyal fans to those games, the sorts of fans that a sub-par game would not have, especially not ten years after its release. The series had a clear goal in design; PnP emulation, isometric, TB - these were all design decisions, the things that made Fallout Fallout, with the setting being of less importance (though still relevant).


Fallout and Fallout 2 had objectively better writing than Fallout 3. Gameplay is a matter of taste, and, as I said, was part of what made Fallout what it was. Graphics are irrelevant to this and any argument. Provided that everything was clear, they are the least important part of a game's design, at least as far as I'm concerned.


Again, CRPG vs. action RPG. Quite different things, really. I prefer the former. It's all a matter of taste.


What are you talking about? I just said that I found the sounds in Fallout to be better than those in Fallout 3. Not that there were more of them, and they all had specific roles, they just sounded better. The music fit in with the world better too, rather than that orchestral stuff in Fallout 3. But again, matter of taste. You shouldn't attack someone's opinion, provided that they back it up with reasons that make sense.


And I have no idea what to make of this. You're either being sarcastic, and thus that comment makes no sense, or you're being serious, in which case there was no point in replying to you at all, since you are obviously beyond reason.

Please remember to respect one another's opinion here and not fling insults at one another. It is quite fine to have differing views of what makes a good RPG and what does not and to express it here. Remember conflicting views are no reason to fling mud.

I wouldn't bother replying. The one-upsmanship has been done. Beyond squabbling there's not alot else either of you can stand for or against, and I doubt anyone else would chime in. Maybe you should save it for a PM, incase tempers burn a little too high on either side.

I'm sort of hoping that he's a reasonable fellow, and can see my point. Not necessarily agree, just acknowledge. If I can make just one more person understand why the so-called "old guard" dislikes (certain parts of) Fallout 3, it will have all been worthwhile.

Just to make my opinion of Fallout 3 clear, I didn't hate it as a game. I found it lacked in certain areas, but was enjoyable enough, if only for a while.


Making every effort to stay civil.

While I personally understand why, being old guard and liking most of what Bethesda did with Fallout 3, I disagree with those who think it a abomination of the series. Rather I think it saved a series I loved. It does it differently but imho no more or less of an rpg than the first two. Just different.

So understanding does not equate to agreeing. It's like a stand off with each having to agree to disagree. No amount of further explanation or debate or slinging of mud. No amount of looking down our noses at one another will change either of our perceptions. And certainly any indication of "I am superior because I see the flaws and downward spiral of what rpg's are...emulation of PnP...and all that stuff" will change what anyone likes. Neither will "but I enjoy it more this way"...

When the mud starts being slung, the intelligence of the other is questioned and such...it makes for a flame fest which just isn't allowed here and in the end changes nothing at all.


Thank you for that. Maybe it's time to drop it and go back to civil discussion or lock it up because each side believes they are right.

I disagree with saying it 'saved' the series, as what is it being saved from ? The earlier games are still available and can run on modern PCs (I think the GOG version most of all, haven't tried them) so those interested can still get the game quite easily. It might have been dead in terms of development or expansion, but that hardly means the games were in the state that they needed to be 'saved'.

Agreed to a point. The first two games are still there, unchanged (except for bugs fixed by modders) and they stand up as some of the all time best games. When I said saved, I am talking about there never being another Fallout game. There is one now and if one thing is better than, worse than, different than, or whatever...Fallout continues to be made as the new owners see fit. And now we have the bonus of having another "spin-off" of the game made by some of the folks that made the first ones which I think most of us can agree is pretty exciting. That would not have been possible had the IP laid dormant or been left in Interplay's hands. So...yes...the series has been saved rather than forgotten.

The first two games remain unchanged for those of us who wish to continue to play for years to come. And FO3 is here for those who like it to enjoy and a new spin off which might just bridge a gap between everyone is in the works. It's like having a cake and eating it too.

Let's not slice frog hairs here. mkay?

edit for typos

Smacks of the "be grateful you got another Fallout" remarks I hear, frankly. I see your point though, but I don't think Fallout was in any risk of being forgotten, I still remember it and I'm hardly a hardcoe fan. I don't really agree that any Fallout game is better than none - if Fallout 3 had turned out to be another FOBOS for example, most would agree the game should have stayed dead. Just believe that there's nothing it had to be saved from, IP's death == no matter. Done deal at this point, just makes my eyes roll to hear Bethesda "saved" it, that's all.

That is you and I am fine with that as most should be fine with that. I am ever so grateful to have FO3 not because "it's better than nothing" but because I find it a very good, fun game that I now have near 350 hours into. And it took a world I loved (Fallout) and did great things with it. Now I don't expect you or anyone else to agree with me on this. But I am ever so grateful to have it. I loved Fallout (not so much FO2) and I love FO3. I rejoice in their differences and enjoy each for what they are.

As far as "most would have wanted it to stay dead", I know there are some that feel that way...but most? I don't agree with that but then neither of us can prove just how many. From the fact that it still sells very well this long after release, I would say there are plenty who share my enjoyment of the game. If we discuss which is better or best...we as individuals can make that determination for ourselves. But my liking it and you not thinking it worthy of the name Fallout doesn't make one of us right and the other wrong, it just means we enjoy different things in our games.

Accepting one another's opinions and showing respect for those individual opinions is the best we can ever do. So once again...let's agree to disagree and leave the "but I'm right and you are wrong" at the door. Right and wrong just doesn't belong in a discussion of opinions. You nor I nor those that think along our own lines is one bit better than the other....just different.

I'm just thankful for all those modders that changed things in the first two to make them more to my liking and for modders making FO3 more to the liking of those that don't like it as is. Construction sets give us the ability to change what we don't like and that too can be individualized. :twirl:

Again, I understand where you are coming from...I just disagree and do so without any ill will toward you nor with any judgement upon your intelligence or views.

We are all Bozos on this bus.

I didn't say FO3 was so bad as to make me wish the series stayed dead. Note the "if Fallout 3 had turned out to be another FOBOS".

:hehe: I must say I agree with you on that one. But I'm sure some liked that game. I've just not run across them.

I can't be the only person who liked Fallouts 1 and 2 and also likes 3 can I? Is 3 as good as the earlier ones, I think so. As to whether RPGs have declined, PS:T is the only one I'd consider great. And that was in the middle of the CRPG life span.

I don't believe that such people...can exist.

Even I have to agree there. I think that's what saving Fallout means. It means making us forget that game existed.

I am...split on the issue.

When I first played Fallout 1, I had read about it in a gaming magazine months earlier, knowing tonnes of tricks to attain victory without even having seen as much as a screenshot. So, when I finally borrowed the game from a friend, I thought it was just about the greatest ever.

I do, however, acknowledge that my fascination with Fallout 1 was based largely on me being much more easily entertained back then, and it doesn't hold the same appeal to me now.

Fallout 2 was, in my book, the same game as number 1, only with a different story, for better or worse. On one hand, it had all the things that made Fallout 1 so enjoyable, but on the other hand, it had all the things that absolutely svcked about the first one. There is just so many design decisions that I absolutely hate about those two games, that I was relieved to see them thrown in a dumpster for Fallout 3.

I will most likely never speak of the first two games as being bad, but I will also probably never speak of them as being masterpieces, just as I am not very likely to consider Fallout 3 a world-shattering masterpiece. But I do think Fallout 3 stands up really well in the competition, especially since it's essentially based on Oblivion, my favourite game of all time.

Fallout 3 has the barren feeling of the gameworld, combined with the exploration and gritty humour and occassional complete wackiness, that in my opinion is what defines the series.
The series isn't defined, in my eyes, by the isometric view or the percentage-based combat, those are just poor ways of conveying the essence of the game.

In your opinion they are poor ways of conveying the essence of a game. Assuming of course, Fallout was ever considered a definition in these aspects, rather than a way of conveying a PnP ruleset, which Fallout just so happened to work beside. I would bet that most people that played the original Fallouts, wouldn't have been able to enjoy them unless they appreciated both the ruleset and the games themselves. I have never played PnP on umm, pen & paper. But I enjoyed the rendition of the ruleset ingame. I also appreciate that it makes the game about your character and his/her limitations. FO3 takes away from this in such a painful manner, that any remnants of the previous ruleset are more insulting than if they were taken out altogether. FO3 is pretending to be something it's not, and something it clearly never will be. Bethsda may aswell move away from that farce and just lose identity with the ones that can't accept FO3 as a true sequel, either party doesn't need the other, and I doubt Bethesda would meet them in the middle on their own ground. Why should they be so afraid of losing identity with the franchise and its roots, when so many people embrace this new rendition, comparable in more of a likeness to Oblivion than the originals of its respective series, which I think sums it up perfectly. If Wasteland 2 has to become the new Fallout, that's more than enough of a compromise for me at the very least. But Fallout is gone in essence, as much as it remains in name.

You do realise that they designed the ruleset first before everything else IIRC....

Not that I'm disagreeing... but why? (please, be specific)

That's because its most certainly the intention. The whole idea is that your PC is skilled, and succeeds or fails based solely and entirely on his or her personal skill [which you chose]. This means that if your PC can't pick a lock, then you don't get to see what's behind the door. The percentages are for impartiality sake, and they represent what occurs at the time you use them ~maybe he fails, maybe the lock is stuck, maybe its easy to open, maybe its impossible, or maybe he's not skilled enough ~even if he usually has no trouble with locks (each situation is unique).

I like adventure games too. but what you are describing is an RPG where you design a character, give him a name, determine his strengths, weaknesses, and skills, and then shelve the lot of it and play the game as yourself. That's not too unlike playing the child in the beginning of F3 and getting cross that you can't lockpick the door ~he's a toddler... he can't pick a lock (even if you can). Its the same when you play a guy with very low agility,and hop all over the place dodging attacks ~That's broken gameplay.

Subjective judgment, there are also plenty that believe the opposite, that RPG's have made leaps backward.

To me, this is understandable, especially if one is not playing for strictly the appearances and sounds. Modern RPG's have trapped themselves in an insidious pickle... CRPG's [in stretching for the most realistic appearance they can manage], have willingly taken the full burden of depicting the gameworld upon their shoulders, a load that once was mostly handled by the player's apt imagination ~only consumer Desktops can't yet support the full weight of a world, so they take short cuts and omit what they can. IMO it would be better not to have offered such realism when it is hamstrung by such limited scope. The realistic appearances make the rest expected (and quite jarring when found missing). RPG's don't have to be that insanely detailed, they are better when abstracted a bit (not just because they can tackle a larger scope, but because the artist can never out-match the player's own ideas of how it should be).

Fixing the leaks in Megaton.

Disarming the bomb in Megaton.

Tranquility Lane (you don't have to kill ANYone, aside from turning on ).

Gathering Slaves for whats-his-name in Paradise Falls.

Getting into Vault 87 (, or ... then, just , and voila, you're in!

The Replicated Man.

Part of the Wasteland Survival Guide - the one with the Mirelurks, and the sensor. You specifically need to NOT "kill stuff" for that one.

... those're just off the top of my head.


Obscurity. Fading into nothing more than a memory. The ignominy of ending on the incredibly sour note that was FOBOS.


It's the franchise that was saved, not it's prior incarnations.


So do I. you can come over here, and sit next to me. ^_^

That's all well and true, but you can't actually complete the game without killing anything. This was something which was possible in the first two Fallouts, and indeed most quests could be completed non-violently in the original (to my recollection). Fallout 3 did not give the option to do the same; though you could run past most things (whee), most quests lacked diplomatic solutions. Fallout 2 could be done diplomatically (though most side-quests could not), excepting the critters in the Temple of Trials, but again, you could run past them, and Horrigan could be killed without fighting yourself.


I do not agree that the series was "saved". If it had fallen into the hands of a different developer (Obsidian, inXile, even BioWare), I feel that a better job could have been done. Considering the case of the series dying vs. being acquired by Bethesda, I find the former to be better option. If you can't make a sequel that lives up to its precedessors, then perhaps a better idea would be to come up with an original IP? Bethesda certainly has the marketing power to push such a thing.


Considering that Fallout was originally supposed to be "as close as you can get to playing GURPS, short of playing GURPS", I'd say that the PnP emulation aspects of the originals were very much a part of what defined it (it didn't end up using GURPS, but the intent is there). That was pretty much the first thing that was decided on (back then Tim Cain was the only person working on the game). The decision to make it PA came afterwards, so, no matter what it is "in your eyes", this is part of what made Fallout Fallout.


I liked Fallout 3 well enough (or at least I didn't dislike it), but only as a game in a vacuum. As a Fallout game, I despise it.


While I agree about respecting other people's opinions ("I like Fallout 3 more than Fallout 2"), it isn't applicable if they're just plain wrong ("Fallout is a bad game"), or fail to back up certain claims with facts, or at least educated viewpoints ("Fallout 3 is a great Fallout game"). The way I see it, there are several levels of objectivity:
-Whether you like Fallout 3 (subjective)
-Whether Fallout 3 is a good game (objective, but note that no one person exists who is qualified to say such a thing, as everyone is biased to some point)
-Whether Fallout 3 is a good Fallout game (objective based purely on the original developers' intents, subjective based on what you want to consider as a defining point)
Take that as you will. Now, I think that there is plenty of room for discussion in some areas. If someone can come up with a good argument as to why they see Fallout 3 as a good Fallout game, I'll consider it, refute the points I don't agree with, and perhaps someone will come out of the conversation (read: not argument/flamewar) with a fresh perspective on things.
As for "agree to disagree"... that's the inevitable conclusion when a conversation starts going in circles, but I don't think we've reached that point just yet (but you're the mod, so the ultimate decision is yours). Once people start saying pretty much the same things three times (or people start flaming each other, of course), I'd say that the conversation has reached its logical conclusion.


Doesn't work so well for those of us whose computers are ill-suited to run themselves (let alone any video games released in the past decade). It would be nice if the developers actually went all the way and fixed all of the bugs in a game, if not prior to its release then at least by one year after the fact. I'm not attacking Bethesda here, as the original Fallouts weren't fully patched either.

Is there a limit as to how large these posts can get? I don't want to break something, so I'll just leave it at that.

At the end of the Temple of Trials, you have to fight the guy in front of the door. Not to the death, sure ... but it's a fight, nonetheless.

As for Fallout 1? Sure, at least in theory (and a lot of luck) you can complete the main quest without combat ... but you'd have to be insanely lucky to do it. And more than one of the side-quests requires combat of one sort or another. (Deathclaw, anyone?)


Plenty of people - yes, myself included - feel that FO3 does "live up to" FO1 and FO2.


I disagree with your concepts of objectivity on all counts. ALL THREE of those judgemetns are purley subjective.

I feel that FO3 is a great Fallout game ... and I don't need to back that up with anything. It's my opinion, period; opinions need not be proven. They simply are.

No you don't. You can convince him that there is no need to fight. You might need a decent Speech skill, but I always had the option when I got there (I often tag Speech).


Luck? You'll need to know to get Vree's autopsy report, and to have a set of robes. So, yeah, some luck is necessary if you don't know beforehand, but it is possible, and not too hard. And yes, some side-quests can't be completed in a civil manner. Hence the "most".


I'll get to that later.


The first one isn't. Whichever way you want to look at it, whether a person likes a game is purely up to them, so that part is fact. As for the other two, perhaps. The third is true. Fallout 3 does fail as a Fallout game if you consider the ideals of the original developers, because it is NOT PnP emulation. If you use some other standards to judge Fallout 3 then it is purely subjective, so that part is true also.
As for the second point, I don't see how that's wrong, but that one is very much an "in my opinion". As I see it, the quality of an item is objective. It's just that no human alive can anolyze something without any biases (to my knowledge; perhaps there are some idiot savants that can, I don't know), making it a moot point. But let me provide an example. Let's use Fallout 3.
The RT combat IS bad compared to any FPS. VATS IS unbalanced, considering that you take 10% damage and your enemies can not do the same. The world does not logically work; there is no agriculture, leaving some questions as to how people survive which are not answered; the slavers have no reason to exist (no one else in the wasteland has slaves); etc..
Those are purely objective. Whether you can accept those flaws is subjective. I find the lack of cohesion to be rather jarring, maybe you can successfully suspend your disbelief.


I'm providing reasons why Fallout 3 is not a good Fallout game. You are not disputing them, you are merely claiming that it is. Opinions in the vein of "like/dislike" need not be proven (though I like to justify why I like something); opinions in the area of "is/is not" should.

...