A Cure for Ignorance : Fallout Series Discussion

» Fri May 27, 2011 12:12 am

When I heard the Bethesda was making an open ended rpg game with a post nuclear war setting, I was eager to learn more. I read the posts of hardcoe fallout fans on these forums and the comments made on site such as gametrailers. These fans were terrified by the idea of anyone other then Interplay, a company I had only vaguely heard about, making a 'Fallout game'. Now, I have played games since I was old enough to mash buttons on a controller, so i knew that only a great game could have such dedicated followers. Therefore, i tried out both fallout 1 and 2 prior to the release of the 3rd 'true' installation in the series.

Man, did those two games blow me away. Sure, the graphics were outdated and the gameplay had a steep learning curve, but i had never played games so ahead of its time. All of the characteristics that Mass Effect was praised for (the good vs evil decisions that actually had consequences and multiple dialogue options that didnt feel tacked on) could be seen on these two outdated games. Truely, respect needs to be paid to these two games. Many games that are being introduced to the fallout world for the first time have only a handicapped understanding of the complexity and well done world behind the series.

On the other hand, hardcoe fallout fans disregard fallout 3 injusticely and feel taht bethesda betrayed teh series. People, Bethesda saved fallout! Sure, Interplay developed two great games with fallout 1 and 2, and I wished them all of luck with their Fallout Online project; however, Interplay was not succeeding in making a transition of the original fallout to a more modern approach. This resulted in spinoffs that were merely shadows of their predecessors. Fallout, despite all of its glory, was doomed to the fate of other highly influencial games such as Shining Force, Street Fighter, Sega in general (how seriously plays Sonic anymore?), and other series that were the pinnacles of gaming of their time but failed to adapt to the changes in the gaming industry. Bethesda, with their experience from making Morrowing and Oblivion, had the ability to do such a thing. I truely salute Betheda for three things: 1) Keeping the feel of the original Fallouts without being a mere mimic 2) Improving on all the flaws of the Oblivion system and 3) Going beyond just having a 'if it ain't broken, dont fix it' additude in improving on there earlier mistakes by making huge changes in the gameplay system of the series.

These views are my opinion and i feel eager in hearing yours.

» Fri May 27, 2011 7:00 am

I agree indeed Bethesda saved Fallout, and perhaps Interplay or whats left of it. However at the same time, I feel ripped off. Fallout 3 is frankly to me nothing like 1 or 2. In fact to me it doesn't follow up well to Oblivion. I feel fairly ripped off. Its as if they assumed that you would play it three times for all the different Karma endings. Hell the ending I got was so forgettable and so crappy it left me in a duhhhh...what state for at least 10 minutes. Surely I didn't pay for this.

This rendition was so bad it has frankly permanently scared Bethesda's name. They are slow to adapt, slow to update, and slow to evolve. Nothing has changed with Bethesda since day one which is good and bad. Believe me I was there with Daggerfall (Which by the way add the nudity back in!). It's the same crappy graphics and animation. However this game was always carried by it's content.

Except now.

I don't know about anyone else but I will probably not buy another Bethesda game. I will go with the many other RPG games out there.

» Fri May 27, 2011 3:33 pm

I agree indeed Bethesda saved Fallout, and perhaps Interplay or whats left of it. However at the same time, I feel ripped off. Fallout 3 is frankly to me nothing like 1 or 2. In fact to me it doesn't follow up well to Oblivion. I feel fairly ripped off. Its as if they assumed that you would play it three times for all the different Karma endings. Hell the ending I got was so forgettable and so crappy it left me in a duhhhh...what state for at least 10 minutes. Surely I didn't pay for this.

This rendition was so bad it has frankly permanently scared Bethesda's name. They are slow to adapt, slow to update, and slow to evolve. Nothing has changed with Bethesda since day one which is good and bad. Believe me I was there with Daggerfall (Which by the way add the nudity back in!). It's the same crappy graphics and animation. However this game was always carried by it's content.

Except now.

I don't know about anyone else but I will probably not buy another Bethesda game. I will go with the many other RPG games out there.

i don't think bethesda will care. if the general negative forum sentiment reflected how people thought about their games, they'd have long gone bankrupt. so see you later!

» Fri May 27, 2011 10:40 am

I agree indeed Bethesda saved Fallout, and perhaps Interplay or whats left of it. However at the same time, I feel ripped off. Fallout 3 is frankly to me nothing like 1 or 2. In fact to me it doesn't follow up well to Oblivion. I feel fairly ripped off. Its as if they assumed that you would play it three times for all the different Karma endings. Hell the ending I got was so forgettable and so crappy it left me in a duhhhh...what state for at least 10 minutes. Surely I didn't pay for this.

This rendition was so bad it has frankly permanently scared Bethesda's name. They are slow to adapt, slow to update, and slow to evolve. Nothing has changed with Bethesda since day one which is good and bad. Believe me I was there with Daggerfall (Which by the way add the nudity back in!). It's the same crappy graphics and animation. However this game was always carried by it's content.

Except now.

I don't know about anyone else but I will probably not buy another Bethesda game. I will go with the many other RPG games out there.

I entirely disagree, I think fallout 3 was well done and stayed true to the series. Of course its very different from fallout 1 and 2 in a lot of aspects, it wasnt made by Interplay after all. I still think Bethesda made a convincing setting and world for fallout 3 and I for one wouldnt want another turn based, top down view fallout. Do fallout fans really want their series to end up like street fighter, making cheap remakes years after the originals with no innovation?

» Fri May 27, 2011 2:18 pm

i plated both fallout 1 and 2 and enjoyed them (the 1 more than 2 eheh) so was awaiting F3 with lot of expectation and i must admit that i'm pretty satisfied by it

the game for sure have some flaws but imo it capture pretty well the post atomic atmosphere of previous games (expecially the first one)

if i have to move some critics will be mostly about a bit simplified combat and the "unexpected lenght/ending" of main quest... but to say that the game is not true to fallout or ruined the serie seem a bit too much, expecially for a game that have an awesome atmosphere

» Thu May 26, 2011 11:38 pm

I don't understand this fascination with lists about which is better than what... Its almost as if we're in the Vault City Lists office or something.

FO1, 2 and 3 are brilliant, all in their own way, and I'm really enjoying 3. The wasteland no longer seems like it could just be anywhere, and the survivial factor has been ramped to a level which FO1/2 couldnt reach... Something is lost, but something, something is found, as the song goes.