How long before Fallout 3 becomes THE definitive Fallout gam : Fallout Series Discussion

» Fri May 27, 2011 6:13 pm

I keep hearing about old time Fallout players saying that Fallout 3isn't proper Fallout.

But let's come from this from a different angle. Already this game has sold probably millions more copies than the first two games combined. It's already reached a far bigger, and far more mainstream audience than the first two games, an audience that will only increase over time.

When you look at the production costs, sheer game size and special effects this game is leaps and bounds ahead, it's like a $20,000,000 remake of a film that was originally shot 20 years ago on a budget of $10,000.

When this happens, in most people's eyes which one is the definitive version?

Look at the Hanninal Lector character played by Anthony Hopkins. Well he wasn't part of the first Lector film. That was Manhunt, and Lector was played by Brian Cox in a completely different manner to Hopkins.

Who is the real Lector? I think most would say Hopkins is the definitive Lector and the original film, although still a solid and decent film is not part of the definitive Lector trilogy even though it started the franchise.

Within a few months it will be the case here.

The old Fallout games played by a few thousand hardcoe RPG gamers on their pc's will be all but forgotten and Fallout 3 will be the definitive start point for the Fallout series.

All future games in the series will then be compared to Fallout 3 and the other games will cease to be relevent, in much the same way as future Elder Scrolls games will be compared to the definitive experience of Oblivion. Nobody will compare Elder Scrolls 5 to Daggerfall or Arena, it will be compared to Oblivion. If it's not like Oblivion people will say its no longer an Elder Scrolls game.

Anyway the reason I say all this is for those whiners who say Fallout 3 is not a proper Fallout game.

Enjoy your whining because in a few months from now it will be seen as the definitive Fallout experience and Fallout 1 and 2 will be perceived as the early, low budget, crude titles from the which game lore of the proper Fallout game (Fallout 3) was based. :thumbsup:

Well, first of all - you are an IDIOT. Usually when a franchise goes from a subculture to mass-appeal means it lost it's soul. Doesn't matter if it games, movies, music or books. What the [censored] do I care if the masses consider Fallout 3 as the starting point for the series? This is not a democracy. Just because a big bunch of stupid people who probably were born in the 90's think something is the best doesn't automatically make it so.

The point is that people in the world are becoming more stupid all the time and more tolerant to any mainstream crap which is feeded to them. It's sad that people don't have interest anymore to things like music etc. and they don't respect it and in which those things are based on. So in that regard many 13-year olders will think Fallout 3 is THE definitive Fallout game but it doesn't tell anything about the games itself. Fallout 3 will never gain such classic status as Fallout or Fallout 2. That's simply because while it is a very nice game indeed, it isn't different or original enough, or even good enough. A bit wasted opportunity because it could have been so much more than just a watered-down version for people who really don't give too much of a damn about anything, or from nowadays game developers who only think about money.

Many say that Fallout 3 added to the series but I think it has only taken too many things away which made Fallout Fallout and added much stuff which many "serious" fallouters could easily live without and switch to original feel and variety. Those 13-year olds can't notice the difference because they haven't played older games. While a good game on its own, this new one just hasn't got that something needed to be THE Fallout.

And you are absolutely right. I'm glad to see there are still intelligent people in this world.

Maybe the conclusion is that Fallout 3 is Fallout "for the new generation". Meaning kids...

» Fri May 27, 2011 3:06 pm

The point is that people in the world are becoming more stupid all the time and more tolerant to any mainstream crap which is feeded to them.

I have a few problems with that statement.

First, people in the world are only as stupid as they have ever been. Second...becoming more tolerant to the mainstream? To be mainstream in the first place requires something to be popular, so unless you actually mean that the mainstream itself is becoming more diverse and open-minded, your statement makes no sense. Third, it is very narrow-minded to assume that just because something is popular and sells it is unintelligent- perhaps games that are admittedly not as complex as older games sell because people most simply don't have the time to play a game obsessively every hour of every day, where the "complexities" of a game could be explored more comfortably. t the end of the day, gaming is just another artistic medium. If I wanted a lot of depth to a narrative, I'd read a book.

To be honest though, I don't think Fallout 3 will be THE definitive Fallout game. Be definition, the original is the definitive, and in terms of atmosphere the first in certainly the darkest and most depressing. Fallout 3 in my opinion certainly trumped Fallout 2 in this regard, but simply by being made so long after the originals it loses some of its authority and it still has in places a little too much in the way of Easter eggs for my liking. Of course definition is no more than a matter of personal preference, but there are my "two cents" anyway.

» Fri May 27, 2011 6:03 pm

Well, first of all - you are an IDIOT. Usually when a franchise goes from a subculture to mass-appeal means it lost it's soul. Doesn't matter if it games, movies, music or books. What the [censored] do I care if the masses consider Fallout 3 as the starting point for the series? This is not a democracy. Just because a big bunch of stupid people who probably were born in the 90's think something is the best doesn't automatically make it so.

The same rant i see on the majority of old players - 'fallout is our own nerdy place. You dont have right to enter our happy place! We hate FO3 because it is being played by masses and is a success!'

Go hell.

» Fri May 27, 2011 11:45 am

I think that, and this is not just for the Fallout series but all games, that in good time, the new ones will be forgotten and it is the originals that will shine.

Fallout 3 may be a good game to the general consensus, but it lacks something Fallout 1 and 2 had - the revolutionary systems, the clever writing, the nostalgic feel. People will always return to old games, be it for nostalgia or because those who were around for them will love them forever.

In five years or so Fallout 3 may pretty much be dead. But Fallout 1 and 2 never will, they will always have loyal followings, even if they shrink over time.

This is true of all games. Wolfenstein 3D and DOOM still have loyal followings, whilst their newer counterparts such as RtCW and DOOM 3 begin to gather dust on players' shelves.

There is nothing, and I stress this to you - NOTHING that could ever be done in Fallout 3 and beyond to give them the charm and nostalgia that Fallout 1 and 2 have, and will continue to have for years to come.

» Fri May 27, 2011 5:11 pm

The same rant i see on the majority of old players - 'fallout is our own nerdy place. You dont have right to enter our happy place! We hate FO3 because it is being played by masses and is a success!'

Go hell.

Of course you are a nerd when you enjoy a game so much you want the next games in the series to be at least as good and give you the same satisfaction when playing it than the original did. So in a way we are all nerdy people. I can't imagine you aren't a fan of some game or gameseries. Wouldn't you want the things you like to become better and better, not take a step back in your eyes?

Now I don't hate Fallout 3. I actually have come to enjoy it. When I just started playing, I didn't like it that much, but that had absolutely nothing to do with Fallout being played by 'the masses'. However some things about Fallout 3 that annoy me would probably not annoy most people, so I might view a game a little differently from the average Fallout 3 player.

But let's view this from another perspective. I'm an old fan and when I heard the news that a new Fallout was being made, I was excited. But when the game came out and I started playing, it didn't feel like playing a Fallout game, it felt like playing a game based around the idea of Fallout but that idea was implemented in a very different way. You want to know how I started enjoying the game? I had to completely erase from my mind that I was playing Fallout, not remind myself to Fallout 1 and 2 with everything I encountered and found in that Beth Wasteland and just enjoy the game for what it is: an action-RPG with some FPS influences. So in a way I just blocked out my gut feelings that said "This is not how Fallout should be". Would you be able to do that with a gameseries you love?

» Sat May 28, 2011 12:51 am

The same rant i see on the majority of old players - 'fallout is our own nerdy place. You dont have right to enter our happy place! We hate FO3 because it is being played by masses and is a success!'

Go hell.

You can play Fallout all you want, but no one has the right to violate the series as Bethesda did. I don't hate Fallout 3 because it appeals to the masses. The game appeals to the masses because it's a no-brain game for 13 year old kids and has little resemblance to the original Fallout concept.

» Fri May 27, 2011 9:09 pm

You can play Fallout all you want, but no one has the right to violate the series as Bethesda did. I don't hate Fallout 3 because it appeals to the masses. The game appeals to the masses because it's a no-brain game for 13 year old kids and has little resemblance to the original Fallout concept.

It depends on what you mean by fallout concept... As long as you define fallout concept as "An emulation of PnP Rolepaying mecahnics", then you are correct.

If however, you recognise those mechanics for what they are: Merely the brush and canvas used to paint the picture, then you see that Fallout 3 has the soul of fallout

As for a game for 13 year olds, only a bad parent would let a 13 year old play this game. It is clearly for mature audiences only.

» Fri May 27, 2011 10:42 pm

Well considering the fact that Fallout 1 is about 10 years old now, probably half of the FO3 players or more haven't played FO1.
So yes it's kinda logical that for them, FO3 is THE Fallout game and reference for future titles.
If a gamer is 20 now, he would have been 10 when he played Fallout 1, wich probably didn't happen

.
The same goes for your point about the Elder Scrolls series.
If you see that each of these games has a production time of 4-6 years, it is not surprising that most gamers will not compare nr. 5 to nr. 2 or 3, but to nr. 4. Simply because the majority never played the older ones.

Furthermore, Bethesda clearly aimed at the mainstream with FO3 (and also with Oblivion for that matter). These gamers never played the first 2.

So to answer your question: Yes, most likely FO3 will be THE fallout game for most people and will probably also be the reference for future fallout titles.

But this doesn't mean that the game is better than the previous ones, as this is and will always be relative.
This is just more about the people playing the games than about the games themselves.

So to each his own I would say. Let the oldschool fans say that the previous 2 games were better and are the only "real" fallout games. And let the new kids on the block say that FO3 is better and is a real fallout game (as far as they can compare ofcourse).

» Sat May 28, 2011 12:34 am

Well, first of all - you are an IDIOT. Usually when a franchise goes from a subculture to mass-appeal means it lost it's soul. Doesn't matter if it games, movies, music or books. What the [censored] do I care if the masses consider Fallout 3 as the starting point for the series? This is not a democracy. Just because a big bunch of stupid people who probably were born in the 90's think something is the best doesn't automatically make it so.

Oh wow, yet another one with messiah complex thinking they know everything and are the keeper of the holy grail of a computer game.

Oh noes, a computer game "lost its soul". Please get outside more.

Heavens forbid intelligent advlts actually enjoyed Fallout 3, but that doesn't fit into your closed little world.

» Sat May 28, 2011 3:16 am

Heavens forbid intelligent advlts actually enjoyed Fallout 3, but that doesn't fit into your closed little world.

I am an intelligent advlt and I enjoyed Fallout 3. But I still think it was only half as good as Fallout 2.

» Fri May 27, 2011 3:15 pm

You can play Fallout all you want, but no one has the right to violate the series as Bethesda did. I don't hate Fallout 3 because it appeals to the masses. The game appeals to the masses because it's a no-brain game for 13 year old kids and has little resemblance to the original Fallout concept.

I played all 3 games, am far older than 13 and have always lived very differently than what anyone could call "mainstream" and love all 3 games and feel FO3 is far from a no brain game and very much is a Fallout game.

How insulting to those like me to insinuate we are somehow stuck in a 13 y/o mind and mainstream when you don't even know those who enjoy the game. My son with a masters in electronic engineering and 38 years old loves this rendition of the game and I've never met too many engineers who could be described as "mainstream" or "masses" or "no-brained".

I bring him up because I am dumber than a box of rocks, just never described as "mainstream". I would happily take being 13 however...sounds much more appealing than my true age.

But when someone insinuates the game is for the masses, no-brained and for 13 year olds it is overly insulting to many, many people. Some day maybe I will rise to your level of understanding. For now...I'll just play this game and have fun.

» Fri May 27, 2011 6:16 pm

But when someone insinuates the game is for the masses, no-brained and for 13 year olds it is overly insulting to many, many people. Some day maybe I will rise to your level of understanding. For now...I'll just play this game and have fun.

Well i used to have feeling about masses, but now, i think it is cleary possible, and more it is the way to make game for broader audience to ensure lots of money to do a nice production.

The game is simpler enough as someone who never played the series can play it confortably; the same for rpg people x normal people. Both can enjoy it.

When people claim that the product gone "dumb", i dont think it gone dumber. It was the same with the claims over Oblivion. The game became more intuitive, more easy to find things and to play it. If games remain forever isometric and with long and complex text based dialogues, it will bore a lot of people, and the game would be ultimatly unprofitable, so it would never happen.

So is it. You can have the game, popular as it is, or no game at all, unless all the nerdy gamers are up to pay 10k each copy.

» Fri May 27, 2011 11:45 am

I for one, would've loved to see the isometric view coming back. If you played Fallout 1 and 2.. you'd know why. What I enjoyed most was the tactical aspect using turn-based strategy. And nothing is more convinient than isometric view. Though, for example GTA3 started introducing classic top view ability too.. so it would be nice if someone could make a mod where it's automatically 3d isometric. Wait.. we also need someone to mod a turn based mod then. Uhm.. well just forget what I said.

I for one never want to see the return to isometric. It had it's place, yes, many of my favorite games were isometric(Baldur's Gate, Planescape, Fallout 1/2, X Com, Ultima, etc), but it was/is a legacy of sprite based games. With 3D graphics, it isn't needed. Something along the lines of Neverwinter Nights or something would be more to my tastes. I like being able to play with the camera, zoom in to see details, zoom out to get a better picture, rotate the camera if I go behind a building, pan the camera down to see a little further ahead, whatever. It's not a question of "flashy graphics", it's just less frustrating for me.

» Fri May 27, 2011 8:48 pm

I for one, would've loved to see the isometric view coming back. If you played Fallout 1 and 2.. you'd know why. What I enjoyed most was the tactical aspect using turn-based strategy. And nothing is more convinient than isometric view. Though, for example GTA3 started introducing classic top view ability too.. so it would be nice if someone could make a mod where it's automatically 3d isometric. Wait.. we also need someone to mod a turn based mod then. Uhm.. well just forget what I said.

Having seen Fo3, and to a lesser extent, the game that convinced me FO3's direction was right (stalker), I think back to isometric would be a bad idea.

One of fallout 3's greatest strengths is being able to see the horizon, and the buildings around you. One of the classic fallout series faults was how generic some of the buildings looked - Lets face it the LA boneyard could have been any town, any city, anywhere in the post apocolyptic world- It didn't have the unique character that FO3's view allows.

Fallout 2 improved upon this slightly, with San Fran Chinatown clearly unique, but still wasnt enough to make it seem like San Fran (Where is the Bridge? The Row houses? The Cable-Car tracks.)

Being able to see the Washington / capitol monument in the distance gives the enture location character - this snt just anywhere, this is the the ruin of the capital of what was once the most powerful nation in the world - you could get a similar effect by revisiting the boneyard and being able to see the holywood sign in the distance, if you could see that, then it wouldnt just be anywhere, it really would be LA.

This doesnt neccesarily need FP view, but Isometric view tends to have the camera looking from up high to the ground.... There's not a lot of unique character that the ground can bring.

» Fri May 27, 2011 5:31 pm

Having seen Fo3, and to a lesser extent, the game that convinced me FO3's direction was right (stalker), I think back to isometric would be a bad idea.

I think the exact opposite. Can't wait for Age of Decadence myself.

Being able to see the Washington / capitol monument in the distance gives the enture location character - this snt just anywhere, this is the the ruin of the capital of what was once the most powerful nation in the world - you could get a similar effect by revisiting the boneyard and being able to see the holywood sign in the distance, if you could see that, then it wouldnt just be anywhere, it really would be LA.

I wouldn't mind an (optional) first person view for exploration, but switching to isometric in combat.

I for one never want to see the return to isometric. It had it's place, yes, many of my favorite games were isometric(Baldur's Gate, Planescape, Fallout 1/2, X Com, Ultima, etc), but it was/is a legacy of sprite based games. With 3D graphics, it isn't needed. Something along the lines of Neverwinter Nights or something would be more to my tastes. I like being able to play with the camera, zoom in to see details, zoom out to get a better picture, rotate the camera if I go behind a building, pan the camera down to see a little further ahead, whatever. It's not a question of "flashy graphics", it's just less frustrating for me.

You do realize that when people refer to "isometric" these days in regards to gaming, they don't mean actual isometry (even Fallout wasn't really isometric), but simply the 3/4 view, in full 3D, with fully zoomable and rotatable camera, akin to NWN2 or Diablo 3. "Isometric" is a mental shortcut.

» Sat May 28, 2011 2:03 am

You do realize that when people refer to "isometric" these days in regards to gaming, they don't mean actual isometry (even Fallout wasn't really isometric), but simply the 3/4 view, in full 3D, with fully zoomable and rotatable camera, akin to NWN2 or Diablo 3. "Isometric" is a mental shortcut.

It's an *incorrect* mental shortcut.

» Sat May 28, 2011 1:04 am

Yes it is, but a widely used one, by gamers and developers alike. The word "isometric" in gaming came to represent the style of gameplay and type of viewpoint, however incorrect it is.

» Fri May 27, 2011 12:13 pm

even Fallout wasn't really isometric

How not? What was that then?

» Fri May 27, 2011 8:08 pm

Trimetric.

» Fri May 27, 2011 3:18 pm

Trimetric.

Did you realize that both trimetric and dimetric are same as isometric (2d graphics), but are diferent concerning the view angle?
As matter of fact, it is the same technology, 2d faking 3d.

» Fri May 27, 2011 7:12 pm

Yes, I do. Just saying that calling it isometric is mathematically incorrect. First came the mental shortcut of calling every game using that technology "isometric", then the other, calling every game with a similar viewpoint and gameplay style "isometric", even if in full 3D.

And it is the latter that every proponent of isometric games in this forum means, even if he's technically using the word incorrectly (as are developers of e.g. Diablo 3).

» Fri May 27, 2011 4:37 pm

fallout 3 svcks because they didn't make it like fallout 1 and 2....they missed a little and made it elders scrolls with guns. Its still a cool game and everything...i enjoy it, it gives me something to do... but bethesda lost some cool points with me when they made this game, but lets hope fallout 4 is better...

» Fri May 27, 2011 11:38 pm

fallout 3 svcks because they didn't make it like fallout 1 and 2....they missed a little and made it elders scrolls with guns. Its still a cool game and everything...i enjoy it, it gives me something to do... but bethesda lost some cool points with me when they made this game, but lets hope fallout 4 is better...

Fallout 3 svcks because it's a bad game. Not because it isn't enough like Fallout 1 and 2.

» Fri May 27, 2011 1:38 pm

I played all 3 games, am far older than 13 and have always lived very differently than what anyone could call "mainstream" and love all 3 games and feel FO3 is far from a no brain game and very much is a Fallout game.

How insulting to those like me to insinuate we are somehow stuck in a 13 y/o mind and mainstream when you don't even know those who enjoy the game. My son with a masters in electronic engineering and 38 years old loves this rendition of the game and I've never met too many engineers who could be described as "mainstream" or "masses" or "no-brained".

There are always exceptions to the rule. I was speaking generally.

» Fri May 27, 2011 11:52 pm

Fallout 3 svcks because it's a bad game. Not because it isn't enough like Fallout 1 and 2.

Now this is a very very smart and intelligent way to express some ideas "this games svcks because i dont like" nice kiddo.