I would totally recommend to anyone that enjoyed fallout 3 to trying fallout 1 and 2.

I found fallout 2 to be especially fun. From simple things like making a character with 1 intelligence and seeing that his dialog options were along the lines of "Ug. me name Olaf. you name suk. lawl. funneh." to the earned perks you gained from gameplay. Like Slaver, Gravedigger, or a personal favorite: Giggalo.

It's an awesome game with a lot of freedom and replayability and just a TON of things to see and do and a dozen ways to do them. So long as you can put up with the old school look, feel, and gameplay.

PCTech714 great post man,you nailed it! :bowdown:,thats how I feel about the series also.

No turn based games after 1995 ? Hm. The way they took things is probably due to the way they've done things, and they can rest assured no one'll care. But anyway, good to see a well thought out counterpoint to all the game's detractors.

I will answer in numerical order.

1. I did buy the new trilogy set thats out on the market.
2. I enjoy them thoroughly, especially having a car with a trunk that actually works. It was a 5/5 experience
3. The A.I completely trashes me and murders me within minutes. Bloody high-waymen .

That doesn't mean that 3/4 perspective & turn-based system is bad though, it means it's unpopular with the current mainstream.
Apart from that I can hardly see any reason why it had to die! It shouldn't if you ask me.
If you agree with that, then the reason for Bethesda doing what they did is fairly simple: it's so they can appeal to the mainstream... which I believe is exactly what the FO1/2 die hard fans are saying.

BTW the 'real time with pause' system that was established by Baldur's Gate is for me an excellent evolution (and compromise if you wish) of the traditional turn based system.
It works perfectly well for me: it keeps the pace fast, it doesn't lose any of the tactical elements of turn based systems + it's hardly dead!


So what you're saying is: the writing of classic RPGs wasn't really all that great so the writing of contemporary RPGs should be even worse.
Ok let's agree: the FO1&2 writing wasn't a literature masterpiece - but that means that I expect the writing of FO3 to be an improvement... and it just isn't.
No matter how bad the writing of FO1&2 was, FO3 is worse... and they didn't even seem try to make it better...
So no. Complaints about FO3 writing are perfectly valid.


Yeah, on the surface it's very faithful to the old ones. The gameplay is strikingly different though.
FO3 gameplay is not FO1&2 gameplay improved or expanded! It's more Elder Scrolls/action shooter gameplay.
It looks like Fallout, but it plays nothing like Fallout...
And I hardly think that the gameplay is a barely discernible point... I always thought that it was the most important point.
Otherwise we could make a Fallout 2D Mario-style platform game with Action Points, Stimpaks, FO monsters and weapons, call it Fallout 4, and it would be a perfectly valid sequel!

(BTW I also found FO3 wasteland to be considerably less 'fun' since it lacks the most playful humor of the first games)


It's great that you liked FO3 so much. It's a pretty good game I think, but I also find the negative criticism mostly valid.
Ultimately it seems that what you're saying is a more sophisticated and well justified variation of "that's how it is so get over it".

There is absolutely nothing wrong about trying to make a product mainstream, if anything I'd argue that is precisely the point any company strives for: to reach as broad an audience as possible.

Isometric views and turn based combat in games didn't have to die and it is no more good or bad than any other game mechanic be it first person, third person, real time combat or whatever. Personally though I have always hated both of these elements; even if I do like the games themselves considerably such as the aforementioned Baldur's Gate (Both Isometric view and Turn based combat) or Phantasy Star III (Turn based combat) , the top down perspective and the turn based combat always lower the experience for me.

As far as the writing is concerned I agree with PCTech714's anolysis; like in Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 (Which I'm currently playing) the writing in Fallout 3 is great in areas, mediocre in others and bad in some. I don't agree that the writing in the previous 2 Fallout games was specifically better; as I've noticed from my current playthroughs of those games, the level of writing is about on par in a non-bs assessment. Fallout 3 has imho a really good story and really good characters, as good as the previous games, the absent humor from the previous games aside, what it lacks is development and refinement; Beth seemed to just want to use them as far as the plot needs them so those details which bring characters more to life isn't very established.

Don't misunderstand me either, Fallout 1 and 2 also suffer from this to great lengths as many characters in both games are simply there to give you some quests and put a new location on the world map; usually characters have little more to show the PC than the first batch of information delivered when you first meet them where they may give: a little background of themselves, a little background of the place you are in, a little info of a person/group or place you are looking for and background info on the quest they will give you. Most of the time it amounts to 1-3 sentences per topic, with a less than occassional exception. As far as storytelling and character development, I don't look to any of the Fallouts for a particularly shining exmaple of excellence; they are merely ranging from solid to less than.

I do wish that story had been much more elaborated in Fallout 3, because I do agree with rebet's conclusion that sequels should strive to improve on the material; I just disagree with the generalization that it is far below its two predecessors.

On the topic of gameplay I hardly believe that it is strictly necessary to retain the exact style of gameplay in order for it to be a faithful sequel; there are plenty of games which change their gameplay mechanics substantially and are just as good if not even more than the previous titles. Does it mean I want a Mortal Kombat style brawler for Fallout 4, no I would not like that, but just because Fallout 2 is turn based and Fallout 3 is real time I do not think it merits a poor evaluation or being discarded as unfaithful/disrespectful. Fallout 3 reinvented its gameplay in order to keep up with the modern times, reach out to attract a larger fanbase and not continue in the same old stale formula which had already been done. Do new players have not as much right to enjoy a property as those who played the previous entries in the license? Just because it isn't exactly the same as the ones that came before then it is automatically a bad thing? Why even bother making a new game at all if Fallout 3 was just going to be Fallout 2 with a fresh coat of paint? After a while things need to change otherwise the grow dull and repetitive; Fallout 1-2 are great but I'm so glad that Fallout 3 isn't another Fallout 1-2.

I certainly understand the criticisms that many players of the originals have when looking at it from their point of view and all points are valid in that those are their own opinions of the game, as such I more than respect everyone's outlook whether pro, con or in the middle. I absolutely don't agree with many of what those criticisms are however because my opinions of what makes a good story, or what makes a good sequel, or what makes a good RPG is different as much as how I anolyze a comparison between the three games.

Well the one thing can be said for all 3 Fallout games, at least none of them are Brotherhood of Steel! :ahhh:

Well, seeing that Fallout and Fallout 2 were mostly developed by the same people who developed the game mentioned in the above quote, I'd say that Fallout may be your cup of tea.

It is what every company stands for. Unfortunately.
You see, each person's taste is at least slightly different from the others'.
Striving to make everyone happy means that you have to cut as many things as most people are likely to dislike while mimicking what most people are likely to like, eventually flattening the final product and deriving it from any chance of serious originality.
Groundbreaking works of art don't come from the mainstream ? in fact the expression "groundbreaking mainstream" is little more than a paradox!
So ultimately, what is most wrong with mainstream is that it mimics almost exclusively the surface of what we've seen many times before without risking adding any progressive elements lest the result become controversial.
But all real progress hides behind controversy ? it's what makes people think, react to and what has a chance of making you view things differently.

It may be kind of odd that I talk about a game as I was talking back in art school, but as I see it Fallout (at least the first one) had any potential to be considered art.


On a side note here: I rather hope and expect even 2D to make a comeback at some point.
Seriously the cameras of most contemporary games with top-down view are annoyingly quirky, and in need of constant readjustment ? while everything worked perfectly well in 2D.
Some games have no business being 3D (generally speaking of course), hopefully at some point people will realize that it's often no more than a pointless, unusable, obsession.


But it's not just about the real time/turn based!
FO3 has the gameplay of an action shooter. No matter if it's an RPG or not? it might be the roleyest playest (sic) game ever made, it might be the very best game, the finest example of digital entertainment design ever in the history of the universe? it still has an overall gameplay that does not derive from it's predecessors in any significant way. I'm not talking about a fresh coat of paint! Is it simply impossible (for professional and experienced game developers) to extend, revamp and evolve the old, functional gameplay of the old games? Is the only way to 'grow' to reject what you have and take the (safe and unimaginative) step of adopting the most common gameplay of today's? Is that not repetitive?

They weren't. Baldur's Gate was developed by BioWare and only published by Black Isle.

Planescape is my favored [~RPG] above Fallout, (but IMO Fallout is the better game).
Planescape is a joy, and [I've read] was a real nightmare to localize ~it has an estimated 900,000+ words in the dialog tree.
Its a masterpiece.

( but be warned... Its bugged, and not entirely fixed by the patch ~don't use the ice knife spell [removed with the fan patch IIRC], and
find the official and unofficial patches.)

I played them in the most non sequential way

Started Fallout 2 and became frustrated in the Temple of Trials - quit the game. Some months later I bought Fallout 1, loved it, so I decided to give Fallout 2 another try. Once I realised the Temple of Trials was the only boring (and unneeded!) part of the game, I loved Fallout 2 as well. Then I played Fallout 3.

So for me it's FO2, FO1 and then FO3.

Its possible to simply walk through to the end ~If you step beyond an enemies notice (maybe about 7-9 hex), you can just click the "End Combat" button, and the fight ends.

I guess you're right. I was saddened to see so many people abandoned FO2 after just the temple of trials!

I personally think that a VATS system (but done better) is an evolution of turn based, real time with pause, to me, is so much more ideal than turn based for an RPG

In any situation in life that I can think of, I would always choose not taking turns over taking turns when it's 100% not needed at all, like ordering at a restaurant, I would rather the waiter bring both plates out at the same time than bring mine out after my friend is done eating his when they are both ready to be served, I think by definition, not taking turns is ideal, or else it would be fun to not have something while someone else does

And in the case of RPGs, turn based combat doesn't seem to fit unless it's like Final Fantasy, turn based RPGs are mostly real time, you do everything in real time except for combat, and then when combat does come up you are suddenly hurled into a completely different system that forces you to wait while rats that do zero damage and don't give you any XP take their turns, sharing your time with rats that do no damage and give no XP is terribly uncalled for, I have to create my character with this nuisance in mind

And then if you piss a whole town off you have to wait for every crackhead to take their turn, they couldn't make combat speed toggles go high enough for that to not be a huge problem

I think real time with pause can completely replace turn based combat as a system forever, you're not forced to wait for anything and you're not forced to use your own skill to overcome the character's

I think Bethesda is trying to evolve the turn based combat system for RPGs, they failed, but I think they're trying to find a system that allows the freedom of a completely real time game and still make it so you aren't forced to use your skill with a keyboard, I would rather they did that then try to implement both real time and turn based, which has never worked in any that has ever tried it, or rehash the point and click real time with pause that every other game has already done.

In real life I would rather run like hell away from a super mutant armed with a minigun
But come on... turn based combat isn't supposed to 'simulate' real-life combat. It's supposed to give you the time to choose your next move from as a large as possible an array of different options - which is pretty much what most RPGs (including FO3) try to do outside of combat (by giving different dialog choices etc.)
In FO3's real time combat as soon as I'm out of action points and if the enemy's near I just start clicking like a maniac! It doesn't give me enough time to consider my options.
Outside of combat there's no pressure... you have all the time to decide what you need to do, that's why it makes sense to limit turn-based gameplay to combat only


Yes I agree, that is extremely annoying when it happens.


Real time with pause is for me an excellent alternative.
Turn-based still has it's pros over it, but it's mostly necessary for a hardcoe tactical approach - which I can accept that is probably not needed for most RPGs.


I hardly think they failed in what they're trying to do
Hey, they did 'revolutionize' the genre with (the fairly action heavy) Daggerfall! I don't think they couldn't do it for Fallout if they cared to.

TB combat does not simulate real life.

VATS is *not* an evolution of TB combat. The only evolution in TB combat would be change of grids (hex grids....circles [yep, circles, I'll explain if you want]). Playing a game in TB, or real time, or RTwP will lead to very different gameplay each time.

It's good that I didn't see "Turn Based is obsolete!" or any bullcrap of that sort, since, as any real gamer knows, real time is older than turn based.

VATS is OK I guess, nothing like Turn Based, it just adds a *tiny* bit more tactical options than real time.

Fallout aside... When you play Chess, do you not embrace the common rules as a means to deduce your opponents possible/ and or probable options? Do you not contemplate the cause & effect of your potential actions before making one. This is a common foundation of all but the simplest turn based games (IE. Candyland). In almost every [TB] combat game I've played this was all but required in order to win favorably (IE. avoiding a Pyrrhic victory). Fallout's combat is a bit simplified, but still qualifies in this respect.

Turn Based and 'Real Time/w Pause' do not seek the same goal ~they are not [usually] just two ways of doing the same thing.

• RT/wP seeks to halt the game at a given point to allow the player to "change their course" ~of action, (usually to stop hitting one guy and start hitting another, but could be to quaff a potion or use another ability or item); But always the path is single minded and linear, as the PC shifts from one course of action to the next.
  (Like in Baldur's Gate).
  
• Turn Based can, (but need not) imitate RT/wP, in that yeah... the player is equally allowed to just "stop hitting one guy and start hitting another", but the game usually supports a deeper reasoning and rewards those that make use of it. In Chess, I might move my Knight to a given spot because in three moves it will be able to defend one piece while attacking others and be in good position to cross the board should my opponent decide to Castle. Chess has nothing to do with pretending to be the knight, or debating whether an armored knight can be slain by an unarmed queen. Its about structured combat using a framework of rules as an equalizer. Chess depicts a battle in the abstract. ~Rome Total War... is not Chess in realtime with better graphics.
  
  The game Disciples is another TB game where the player simply must examine the battle and choose the best action/attack &\or target for a given unit during its turn in the combat round ~or more than likely they start losing units (of which they have 1 to 6). Disciples 2 is a wonderful [multiplayer capable] game featuring turns within turns, where a player's turn lasts 1 in-game day, and affords them the option of casting defensive (or offensive) spells on their adventurers, on enemies, or even on areas of the world; they can explore the land with each and every party of adventures they employ (could be several), seizing undefended towns or cities (or conquering defended ones); start riots in the opponents cities or other forms of espionage, poisoning, assassination, duels [via TB combat ]; Land stealing, pickpocketing; adding town fortifications; spell research; mercenary hiring, creature summoning; buying and selling loot ~or just plain initiating TB combat between a party of their heroes and an NPC enemy (which entails careful battle, because all enemies gain XP's after combat too and can level up on the spot ~ so reckless engagement and retreat can cause your enemies to become quite powerful). This is not a game that's suitable to RT or RT/wP, and yet even though its not strictly an RPG ~its closer than some that are called such.

Fallout was deliberately turn based ~it was a tenet of the series design. The whole point to the series was blatantly to be the best implementation of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dc6gvAzuipU&feature=channel_page they could make on a computer. The owner of the GURPS license withdrew from the deal and they altered it just a bit, but it was still the same game with the same goal. A goal that was not apparently to be a realtime FPS with dialog. That kind of game was certainly possible at the time and even before. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuPkbMFiWh8 is a prime example (and Tim Cain worked on that too ~it shipped in '95? I think. He did some sound/audio code for it IIRC). FO3 basically abandons the series core concept for the common vogue in games today ~which is also exactly opposite to what Fallout did in its day.

I would rather they did that too. I like all styles of play (including TB/RT/RTwP), but still... IMO anything but TB is wrong for a Fallout sequel. Spinoffs are fair game though, and should strike new ground with tangent gameplay ~but a continuation should evolve ~not mutate.

Ever heard of Blizzard, Sid Meier and Will Wright? They'd disagree with you.

I don't necessarily agree with you in every instance. Groundbreaking achievements can be the product of either obscure and cult as much as mainstream offerings depending on your definition of groundbreaking and medium used. Not only independent/obscure films such as The Wrestler and There Will Be Blood are groundbreaking; heavily mainstream films such as the Godfather, the original Star Wars, Aliens or Lord of the Rings were groundbreaking just as much if not more. Similar examples can be found in literature, art, games or music.

So your basic point of view is if I make something catered to the tastes of the majority then I am no longer making a quality product simply because I reached out to the masses as opposed to the likings of a select and specific fanbase?

Just because a majority or any amount of other people do not like the attributes you like yourself doesn't make them wrong or what they like bad, it simply makes them like something different from you.

In all honesty, I think you exaggerate the level of quality of Fallout. The concepts behind it and the world and lore created for it can certainly be very inspired but the game itself is hardly art. The original Fallout RPGs have almost as much a problem with generic and bland dialogue, cardboard 1 dimensional characters, uninspired quests as Fallout 3. These two games are too often placed on too high a pedestal brought on by nostalgia that clouds the many gameplay and design flaws that are found amply throughout.

I just finished the original about 2 weeks ago and I'm currently playing Fallout 2 and they are great games which are loads of fun. But they are also not the grand RPG playing experiences some suggest; same thing happened with Morrowind, too overhyped and overrated. Which isn't to say that you're wrong to have liked them better than Fallout 3, that's your tastes and I respect that.



I don't know whether 2D will ever make a comeback, I don't think so but I have no real opposition to them coming back or not. Personally I dislike the top down perspective altogether, I always have, as it disconnects me from the experience by being too far away. Nevertheless I have enjoyed plenty of top down games ranging from Diablo to Baldur's Gate to Shadowrun to Command and Conquer.

I like 3D games just fine but this is really a matter of taste the same as above.



So because they shifted to a first person perspective it is safe and unimaginative? Since when?

The argument that putting the game in first person is repetetive is just as valid as saying that leaving it in isometric turn based is also repetetive as just about all 90s Comp RPGs were this way, so really what's your point? They decided to change the formula with a different perspective than what was used before and that inherently is neither insulting to the previous series nor poor design; it is simply what it is, a different perspective.

The only way this would insult the previous games was if it somehow took something away from the previous games and the fact that Fallout 3 doesn't have the same exact formula as them doesn't take anything away from them when I play them. There are plenty of problems I would argue Fallout 3 has but not sticking with the same formula in and of itself isn't one of them. There isn't some master code written out there somewhere where it says it must have exactly the same gameplay otherwise it is crap, there is no legitimate reason to argue the game svcks or insults the others because it changed the gameplay any more than I might have said this is just a rehash of the same tired crap with some silly additions masquerading as an evolved system had I played Van Buren instead (Which I wouldn't have said, I would have enjoyed it for what it is).



Yup have a few Blizzard games, have Sid Meier's Pirates...although you must forgive me as Will Wright escapes me at the moment.

Which part would they disagree with? I will assume you mean it is the part where I said that using the same thing over and over might get dull, if that's what you meant then sure they might disagree and that's fine. I know I like to order the same filet mignon whenever I go to a specific restaurant I like to eat at and I don't hold sticking with the same proven thing against those people/teams you mention.

But I stand by my viewpoint that just because it isn't the same system as the previous ones then that does not mean the game is automatically a bad game. Just like I wouldn't have said it was a bad thing if it had stuck with the same gameplay.

As long as the game is an RPG, whether it be first person action or turn based isometric or third person real time, then it's all that's required to be measured as a follow up in the series. Mind you I'm not judging main quest storylines, the loss of advlt material or alien abudction DLCs, I'm simply and specifically addressing the validity of the game being judged solely by how the player plays it.

Just because it plays different doesn't mean it's unworthy in and of itself; now the fact that you and others expected/hoped for something different is your tastes and another matter altogether.

My two cents...

Well for one we have different views about what ‘mainstream’ is… I hardly consider films like ‘The Wrestler’ and ‘There will be blood’ obscure and cult… come on… if it goes for an oscar it’s hardly ‘obsure’! Neither I think that the Godfather, the original Star Wars or Alien(1) are the epitome of mainstream… but that’s a discussion for some other forum.


Not strictly. My point of view is more like this: You’re not making a quality product if you make something that imitates the surface of what is proven to cater to the tastes of the majority, with the sole intention of catering to the tastes of the majority.

The result can still be good – but that would require more effort and/or money, and since people will buy it anyway, (which is the goal) making it good would be just a waste of investment… so it usually isn’t - and when it is, it's most likely incidental.

I expect that you’ll bring up taste and subjectivity to answer me, so let me make it clear that I firmly believe that quality is not a matter of personal taste.
(For one, if I did believe that my general dislike of FO3 is purely subjective I wouldn’t bother to argue it!)

And I say that without any intent to degrade FO3 fans for their taste.
I just believe that people often don’t bother to look under the surface of what a work has to offer them (be it game or film or song or whatever you want) as long as they are kept entertained with what’s on the surface (which might be very entertaining indeed). ie Different people have different demands from different things. If you simply seek painless entertainment (which I expect is what most want from a game) then by all means go for it, no objections from me – but if you argue quality, you step into ‘objective’ territory.



I said it had the potential to be considered ‘art’ not a ‘technical achievement’ and I’ll stick by that.
I’d love to argue this further but that would require us to try and define ‘art’ and you understand that’s a huuuuuge subject.
Plus it's extremely difficult to do it on a game forum since people rarely regard computer games as anything more than painless entertainment, so I’d rather drop it.



Will Wright is the ‘sim’ games guy.

How does one measure quality "objectively", then? Outside physics, there is no consensus on how to measure 'quality', hence one can hardly speak about it being objective.

As I said, I have no wish to get to into that, because it's a huge messed up topic.
But just consider this:
Trying to convince me that your opinion is purely subjective is little more than a paradox.
Subjectivity cannot be argued. If you feel the need to argue an opinion then either it's not subjective or you're crazy or you're just wasting your time completely.

And you certainly have a right to your own viewpoint, I'm just pointing out that quite a few of the most influential names in the industry would disagree with you. In video games, sequels should ideally stick close to what the predecessors set down while introducing some new mechanics and features to keep it fresh. That's what Blizzard believes, that's what Sid Meier believes, and that's what Will Wright and many more developers believe.

The big problem with your argument (as valid as it is) is that Bethesda didn't want to do something fresh, instead of breaking out of their comfort zone they just remade TES with a post apocalyptic skin and slapped the name Fallout 3 on it. Fallout 3 is no less repetitive than Fallout 1/2 as it's not much different from Arena, Daggerfall, Morrowind and Oblivion. Fallout 3 only superficially resembles Fallout and Fallout 2, once you get below the surface you start to see TES more than you see Fallout.



I do believe that Fallout 1/2 are better games than Fallout 3 sure, but believe it or not I prefer the TES style over the Fallout style. Morrowind stands as one of my favorite RPGs, Oblivion not so much but I do think that Daggerfall and Morrowind were landmark titles. What I don't like is TES' style in a Fallout game; especially Oblivion's rather shallow take on TES. As a Fallout game, Fallout 3 should have taken what was passed down from 1/2 and improved upon it, instead they changed it completely and I just find that unnecessary and unacceptable. Fallout 3 is a good game in its own right, but as a Fallout sequel... no I don't think it even comes close to being acceptable.

My taste isn't as simple as "Fallout 3/TES sux LOL!"

The thing is... the Fallout franchise went over to a new developer - a developer whose RPGs had been first person & 3D from the start. Isn't it better for a developer to keep doing what they do best instead of making a sequel in a style they have no experience with? They could've finished Van Buren, but that wouldn't be 'their' game.

I compare it to what happened to the Prince of Persia series when it went over into Ubisoft's corporate hands.

I think it would have been wiser from a business standpoint for Bethesda to have tried something new, and get some experience with developing a new style of RPG. Bethesda's lamented first person RPGs aren't going to always be on the top, this industry has phases like any other. The thing about those other developers I mentioned is that they produce multiple styles: Starcraft isn't like Diablo, Civilization isn't like Pirates!, The Sims isn't like SimCity. Bethesda on the other hand, is equatable to a one trick pony. They only know how to do one style, and that's all they're good at.