Question for hardcoe fallout fans : Fallout Series Discussion

» Wed Jun 30, 2010 12:36 am

The Fallout games weren't direct sequels anyway, they each had their own plot and characters. Without 1 & 2 there would be no Fallout 3, yet without Fallout 3 alot of people wouldn't play the first two. So why the petty argument? Peoples opinions differs, and each game has strong points and weak points. So stop with the imature outbursts.

» Tue Jun 29, 2010 3:59 pm

If the new Fallout had turn-based combat, they'd lose me as a fan. Instantly. I didn't play the original Fallout or its sequel, but me thinks neither game was a best selling success that attracted so many awards and so many gamers.

It wouldn't lose you as a fan because it didn't have you as a fan in the first place.

hardcoe fans tend to hate change...

I'd love to see change, but it doesn't mean that all change is good by definition. I'd prefer change towards better, more tactical turn-based combat, for example, akin to Jagged Alliance, Silent Storm or The Temple of Elemental Evil.

Why do we have to judge this game against the rest of the series or the other games by the same publisher? It's a great game all by itself.

Because it's a sequel. It's natural to judge a sequel in comparison to previous installments.

» Wed Jun 30, 2010 1:11 am

It wouldn't lose you as a fan because it didn't have you as a fan in the first place.

Then if they wouldn't of had him as a fan in the first place, they would lose revenue stream, as very many fans are like him, I suppose. Less Revenue=Less money for next games development.

I'd love to see change, but it doesn't mean that all change is good by definition. I'd prefer change towards better, more tactical turn-based combat, for example, akin to Jagged Alliance, Silent Storm or The Temple of Elemental Evil.

Turned based combat is very anti-immersive to me, it would lower my entertainment value in this game (not that I don't like turned based games)

Because it's a sequel. It's natural to judge a sequel in comparison to previous installments.

True.

» Wed Jun 30, 2010 4:44 am

I know this isn't directed at me but here we go.............(also I know I didn't cover all the points, give me a break it's 11:30)

Four, Fallout 3's setting does not make sense. It's been hundreds of years after nuclear detonation. Plant life and other sorts of forms of life should be thriving by then. Fallout 3's setting is as though this takes place maybe 10-20 years after the bombs hit, when in fact it's what, 200 hundred years or so give or take?
Go to Oasis, you really need to adventure the game world before complaining about it.

Five, Fallout 3's graphics is not anywhere near the top of the list. Try playing something other than a Bethesda game and you might find out about this game called Crysis. Oh yeah, other games exist, I forgot.

Crysis was all about graphics. It should always go Graphics

Here's a small list of canon inaccuracies between Fallout 3 and the first two :

1.)Super Mutants exist outside of Mariposa. Vault 87, solved.
2.)Vault tech doing FEV research Isn't Vault-Tech under Enclave control? Why not have a FEV research facilty on the East Coast in case the West one got annihilated?
3.)Ghouls are miraculously able to run about 30 mph, despite earlier games having all ghouls have crippled limbs, and specifically stating they are unable to run due to necrosis They certainly do not run at 30 MPH, but they do have little "sprints"
4.)Jet is EVERYWHERE, even in pre-war places sealed since the apocalypse. Jet is a post-war drug - you actually get the inventor of Jet as a party member in Fallout 2
Are you saying popular drugs would never spread? Also Jet may have been a Pre-War drug, rediscovered by Myron
5.)The G.E.C.K. never magically re-arranged your surroundings at the atomic level with the power of God. Canonically, the G.E.C.K. is simply a kit containing a wide variety of genetically engineered seeds, water purification tablets, an extensive library (the entire library of congress, actually), and a pen flashlight, amongst other things.This GECK was built to Braun's specs, not the generalized GECKS.
6.)The presence of Deathclaws Enclave.
7.)Almost every weapon was changed, with no discernible reason WHY. Simple, graphical updates. Look at all most every game with a sequel. The guns will almost never look the same

Answers in Bold

» Wed Jun 30, 2010 4:12 am

Then if they wouldn't of had him as a fan in the first place, they would lose revenue stream, as very many fans are like him, I suppose.

But would appeal to a larger portion of the original audience. Sure, it might have sold less copies, but it doesn't mean it wouldn't sell at all. And not all games need to be big-budget AAA titles. Fallout 1 and 2 weren't.

Also Jet may have been a Pre-War drug, rediscovered by Myron

No, it's clearly stated both by the game itself and by the Fallout 2 devs that he was the creator of Jet. Jet appearing in pre-war locations in FO3 is most likely a result of whoever designed the random loot tables not considering whether each drug makes sense in each location.

» Tue Jun 29, 2010 4:52 pm

Then of course, there's the amazing shoulder mounted nuclear warhead launcher known as the Fatman. No. Just no. This weapon in itself is a symbol of the game itself. It's a fun weapon, I admit. Blow things up, cause mayhem, etc. But it's not realistic, doesn't fit into the storyline, etc. In fact, to a normal human being, the weapon doesn't make any damn sense at all. Half of the game doesn't make any sense at all.

Yeah.... That's based on a real weapon you know that right?

» Wed Jun 30, 2010 5:34 am

As I said before, the Davy Crockett was not hand-held and didn't have such a ridiculously short range. Not really comparable.

» Wed Jun 30, 2010 2:13 am

But would appeal to a larger portion of the original audience. Sure, it might have sold less copies, but it doesn't mean it wouldn't sell at all. And not all games need to be big-budget AAA titles. Fallout 1 and 2 weren't.

No, it's clearly stated both by the game itself and by the Fallout 2 devs that he was the creator of Jet. Jet appearing in pre-war locations in FO3 is most likely a result of whoever designed the random loot tables not considering whether each drug makes sense in each location.

True about the first part, but remember they are in business to make money. More copies sold, the better(to them anyways).

I thought it might be the loot tables but, wasn't sure(I've no GECK access ).

» Wed Jun 30, 2010 1:05 am

As I said before, the Davy Crockett was not hand-held and didn't have such a ridiculously short range. Not really comparable.

They both shot nukes.

» Tue Jun 29, 2010 7:17 pm

Yes, Fallout 3 is worthy, even better Imo. I still enjoy the old ones from time to time, but I just simply cannot get enough of Fallout 3. Some people wear special nostalgia goggles that they never remove, so they hate anything changed about their precious video game series. The Fallout "fans" even cried foul about stuff in Fallout 2. Don't pay attention to them. Just go with you're own opinion.

» Wed Jun 30, 2010 3:08 am

I'd love to see change, but it doesn't mean that all change is good by definition. I'd prefer change towards better, more tactical turn-based combat, for example, akin to Jagged Alliance, Silent Storm or The Temple of Elemental Evil.

So you must love tactics.

» Wed Jun 30, 2010 1:13 am

I loved FO1 + 2 Because of its graphics and its over all self.
FO3 is still over all a good game, But not my type

» Wed Jun 30, 2010 7:42 am

Pistol, have you ever played Fallout 1 or 2? Do you seriously believe that Vault 87 is a great explanation? That's a shoddy explanation and you know it.
Fallout 1 & 2 were the first Fallout games I played, and for a long time I was biased enough to register to NMA and join the whining army of Canon Crusaders.

For Vault 87, it is fairly logical for me. In fact, it's very logical for me. Nuclear war was at the doors, and the Enclave would have moved FEV research to a safe place for post-war use. Sadly, due to reasons regarding what Supermutants ended up as, The Enclave eventually decided not to use FEV for creating human superweapons.

Two, the Brotherhood does not have the resources to go cross continent in search of technology. If you actually ever played Fallout 1 and 2, you would know this. They did not have the transportation or manpower to be able to embark on such an expedition half way across the continent.
Again, I did play Fallout 1 and 2.
Plus, there is no proof that they didn't have resources. In Van Buren they would be in war with NCR, but since the game was cancelled, it is non-canon. With Enclave's destruction in FO2, the BoS would not have enemies and would be free to travel around. Also, Fallout 3 uses Fallout: Tactics as the source for the BoS transportation around frmr. USA.

Three, if you played Fallout 1 or 2, you would know why Jet should be literally impossible to exist in Fallout 3. Fallout 3 portrays it as though Jet is a "Pre-War drug". Jet is a post war drug. Second, even if people tried to smuggle it from California to Washington D.C., do realize that they would first have to get past Raiders, Radscorpions, and all other sorts of dangers in the world.

Again, I did play Fallout 1 and 2.
Fallout 3 does not state that Jet is a pre-war drug. Level designer (whoever he was) did a mistake when he put Jet in V112, but Fallout 3 canon clearly does not state the origin of Jet, thus the answer is found from Fallout 2, where it is stated to be created by Myron.
"Second", we don't know how dangerous the trop cross the United States Wasteland is. It's very possible that the inland is much less dangerous than the more populated coasts. Jet may also have come with the Brotherhood, but that is only a guess.

Four, Fallout 3's setting does not make sense. It's been hundreds of years after nuclear detonation. Plant life and other sorts of forms of life should be thriving by then. Fallout 3's setting is as though this takes place maybe 10-20 years after the bombs hit, when in fact it's what, 200 hundred years or so give or take?
It was left that way so it would be Fallout. If the Capital Wasteland was all green and candy, you would be whining why didn't Bethesda be loyal to Fallout setting. Why it was pushed 200 years post-war is because Fallout canon could be adapted into FO3 without serious collision with FO1/2 or having to rely on their storylines.

Five, Fallout 3's graphics is not anywhere near the top of the list. Try playing something other than a Bethesda game and you might find out about this game called Crysis. Oh yeah, other games exist, I forgot.
Crysis. Woo-hoo. That's one. If so, Fallout 3'd come second. If you state that FO3 is in the bottom of the list, then I'd like to see that list and good explanations for each "why is this better than FO3 in terms of graphics"

Here's a small list of canon inaccuracies between Fallout 3 and the first two :

1.)Super Mutants exist outside of Mariposa.
Vault 87.
2.)Vault tech doing FEV research
Vault-Tec was organized by the Enclave, which in turn was the United States government, which in turn ran Mariposa/The Glow. Vault-Tec was just a shadow organization.
3.)Ghouls are miraculously able to run about 30 mph, despite earlier games having all ghouls have crippled limbs, and specifically stating they are unable to run due to necrosis
Gameplay aspect. It was vital to have running ghouls in order to make them a challenge should you fight them. In Isometric and turn-based previous games, Running and walking in combat were the same things, and thus the ghoul walking didn't matter.
4.)Jet is EVERYWHERE, even in pre-war places sealed since the apocalypse. Jet is a post-war drug - you actually get the inventor of Jet as a party member in Fallout 2.
Design flaw. Whoever was responsible for level design didn't read his Fallout canon. Blame him.
And again, I did play Fallout 1 and 2. I do very well know who Myron is.
5.)The G.E.C.K. never magically re-arranged your surroundings at the atomic level with the power of God. Canonically, the G.E.C.K. is simply a kit containing a wide variety of genetically engineered seeds, water purification tablets, an extensive library (the entire library of congress, actually), and a pen flashlight, amongst other things.
Correct.
6.)The presence of Deathclaws
California isn't the capital of the United States. With for example Raven Rock military base in D.C., I wouldn't be surprised that some FEV research took place there. The deathclaws might have also emigrated to D.C., since there are only a handful of them in Old Olney. Another guess, some deathclaws might have escaped from the Enclave like they did in Fallout 2.
7.)Almost every weapon was changed, with no discernible reason WHY.
Why should they remain the same? What difference does it make to you? Fallout weapons were completely fictional in the first place. Plus, smaller laser/plasma wepaonry is more realistic since FO1/2's plasma rifle, for example, must have weighted A LOT.

And contradict yourself much there Pistol? First you say Fallout 3 combat is difficult, yet you also say in FO 2 you can't kill anything without the most advanced weapons and armor? You can in fact finish Fallout 2 without the use of Power Armor. You just actually have to be decent at the game.
My point is that FO2's combat was severely unbalanced. Getting killed in Leather Armor and then whooping everyone in APAMk.II got very frustrating in the long run, at least for me.

If you googled "Fallout Bible" which is a compilation of all the lore and canon straight from the original developers, you will find that there is alot of contradiction between Fallout 3 and the first two games.
I have read the Fallout Bible several times through. Don't worry, I have done my homework. Many others apparently haven't, but I certainly know vast majority of Fallout canon (both old and new) after spending dozens of hours reading it.

In fact I do own the game. I play it, quite abit. I've beaten it, twice. It still isn't on the level of Fallout 1 or 2. I do like how you call Fallout 1 and 2 "mediocre" games, when in fact they both consistently are listed as two of the greatest games of all time.
I do admit that "medicore" was a word too harsh. However, I still don't regard FO1 or 2 as absolutely fantastic games. Their setting and dialogues are excellent, but for example they lack freedom (in exploration and RPing) and both of the games are very short.

» Tue Jun 29, 2010 11:11 pm

I still don't regard FO1 or 2 as absolutely fantastic games. Their setting and dialogues are excellent, but for example they lack freedom (in exploration and RPing) and both of the games are very short.

Fo1&2 lack freedom (in exploration and RPing).... they lack freedom (in exploration and RPing)!!
what?!

I believe someone's (I say someone because I have trouble understanding who said what in that post

) confusing exploration with 'being able to go into every single utterly insignificant nook and cranny' (which does appeal to me in fact) and 'RPing' with 'First person action gameplay with skillpoints'!

Fallout 2 lacks RPing... seriously, that's one of the weirdest statements I've seen around here!

Aside from that, I do think it's a shame that Bethesda didn't bother to get a bit more creative with the setting and just did, what seems like, a crude copy of the existing one.
A world with such potential shouldn't be limited to variations of the same old FEV, Enclave and BoS stories.

» Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:53 pm

Fo1&2 lack freedom (in exploration and RPing).... they lack freedom (in exploration and RPing)!!
what?!

I believe someone's (I say someone because I have trouble understanding who said what in that post

) confusing exploration with 'being able to go into every single utterly insignificant nook and cranny' (which does appeal to me in fact) and 'RPing' with 'First person action gameplay with skillpoints'!

Fallout 2 lacks RPing... seriously, that's one of the weirdest statements I've seen around here!

Aside from that, I do think it's a shame that Bethesda didn't bother to get a bit more creative with the setting and just did, what seems like, a crude copy of the existing one.
A world with such potential shouldn't be limited to variations of the same old FEV, Enclave and BoS stories.

I don't want "finding every nook and cranny" from Fallout 1/2, but having a bunch of small towns and a small marker moving in a world map is not really what I'd call exploring.

For RPing, no, I don't mean "First person action gameplay with skillpoints". I mean adapting into different situations rather than the force-fed Vault Dweller/Chosen One story. Besides casual porm starring and caravan guarding, there are pretty much no side-jobs in FO1/2. NCR Rangers is one. I'd like to really be a NCR Ranger with regular anti-Slavery campaigns but all I get is a short operation to drive out some slavers out of their homes. Then they are all like "Yay you did it here have this Ranger pin which you will sell to next trader you see for $10" and that's it. Good karma and money follows, yay.

» Wed Jun 30, 2010 1:42 am

So RPing = factions then?
Ok, there weren't any follow-up rangers quests... but come on... FO2 was so full of 'side-quests' that it kept constantly putting your character's morals to the test!
(and again "there are pretty much no side-jobs in FO1/2"........... what?!)

(and, not that it makes any difference really, but I believe that factions, as used by Bethesda, are mostly a characteristic of games... by Bethesda. I don't remember any other game with such approach.
If that's what RPing is all about then the only games that don't lack it are the Elder Scrolls (excluding Arena) and FO3!
-- now somebody might pop in and give examples of other games that had factions... all right, exception exist and they are probably inspired by TES anyway)

» Wed Jun 30, 2010 7:34 am

So RPing = factions then?
Ok, there weren't any follow-up rangers quests... but come on... FO2 was so full of 'side-quests' that it kept constantly putting your character's morals to the test!
(and again "there are pretty much no side-jobs in FO1/2"........... what?!)

(and, not that it makes any difference really, but I believe that factions, as used by Bethesda, are mostly a characteristic of games... by Bethesda. I don't remember any other game with such approach.
If that's what RPing is all about then the only games that don't lack it are the Elder Scrolls (excluding Arena) and FO3!
-- now somebody might pop in and give examples of other games that had factions... all right, exception exist and they are probably inspired by TES anyway)

Have it your way. I find that the RPing is living your own life instead of fighting along the usual quests and that's how I feel. Boo-hoo.

» Wed Jun 30, 2010 4:39 am

This is what I think about the list of contradictions.

Maybe the things that ended up on the East Coast instead of the West Cost because Bethesda wanted a game that old fans could find something familiar in and that new fans could pick up. Lets be honest, they needed something remotely challenging to put in the DC Ruins. Raiders aren't a challenge, the only Feral Ghoul that is challenging are the Broken Steel ones and if they populated it with BoS and Enclave the access to Power Armour would be stupidly easy.

As for the BoS having titles like "Knight" and "Paladin", maybe it was just there so players could tell which one is strong than the other one.

Anyway, that's my opinion. To be honest, I think Fallout 3 is a great game (Have yet to play F1 and 2), but it's fun nonetheless. I don't blame people for comparing a game to the previous sequels, after all, I have done that myself and I probably will again when (if) Fallout 4 is released.

» Tue Jun 29, 2010 6:32 pm

Have it your way. I find that the RPing is living your own life instead of fighting along the usual quests and that's how I feel. Boo-hoo.

So basically any RPG that isn't The Elder Scrolls or Fallout 3 isn't an RPG to you? That's... interesting.

» Wed Jun 30, 2010 3:47 am

Vault 87 is a really bad explanation. Even if that is so, fine. Let's just say the Enclave did in fact engineer Deathclaws and Super Mutants on the East Coast (according to canon). Does it make any sense though why there are literally thousands of Super Mutants running around D.C.? In fact, there are so many Super Mutants, neither the Enclave nor the Brotherhood of Steel are able to keep them in check. They simply continue to multiply like rabbits from literally out of thin air. Or are you saying the Enclave had the resources (after what happened in Fallout 2, I doubt it) to do so? That's a big plot hole. Ok, so you explained how Super Mutants came to D.C. However, there is no explanation as to why there are so many. I don't see any green goo of Vats or the Master running around, do you? And according to the Fallout 3 canon, these Super Mutants are far less intelligent than their West Coast cousins. So I don't think they just magically "learned" to reproduce.

Fallout 2's gameplay is frustrating, especially the first run through it. It is enjoyable however if you know what you are doing. It appears unbalanced, but many veteran Fallout 2 players can drop Deathclaws and Enclave troops with ease.

I totally disagree. The BoS is not the Encalve. They don't have the means of transportation, man power, resources, logistics, etc. to be able to support a full fledged expedition across the United States. Especially one that can and most likely will end in failure. And remember, the NCR and the Brotherhood are near one another. Much easier to fight a war when you are in the same region. It's a totally different story when you go across the continent of North America.

And no, the 200 year point is because if you look at Betehsda's settlements, they are filled with the population of 10. Only Rivet City, Underworld, Megaton, and Tenpenny Tower show any signs of productivity and moving forward (and they are still light years behind their West Coast counterparts). There is no signs of progress at all of any lifeforms, plant life, etc. (outside of that ridiculous explanation of Harold becoming a tree, which people still like to point out). The West Coast has made so much progress, that there is an actual body of government, the New California Republic. You would think with the advanced technology that is located in Washington D.C. (oh and there is) that somebody would have established something. In fact, the economy of Fallout 3 is based on what, 4 people and their Brahmin running around? Come on. Seriously?

I don't hate Fallout 3, I think it's good. It has alot of faults though, and does not follow the canon very well. In fact, Bethesda has shown that they CAN produce quality settings and storyline, without relying on the old Fallout canon. I actually liked the Pitt DLC, and felt it was probably one of the most underrated DLC packs. It has moral decisions (that actually make a significant impact) that are not black and white, and the setting is one that is believable (the town has been kept alive due to raider protection, it's economy is based off the ammo press/slavery, etc.). However, Fallout 3 just does not have enough of that, which is why I believe that it isn't as good as it could be.

» Wed Jun 30, 2010 12:38 am

So basically any RPG that isn't The Elder Scrolls or Fallout 3 isn't an RPG to you? That's... interesting.

:confused:

» Tue Jun 29, 2010 6:59 pm

Personally, I'd say that Fallout 1 is a superior game to Fallout 3 in terms of writing, immersion, and challenge. Sure, Fallout 3 is a great time and the modding community is one of the best in the gaming world, but Fallout 3 is shallow and insultingly easy compared to Fallout 1.

» Wed Jun 30, 2010 5:03 am

There is no signs of progress at all of any lifeforms, plant life, etc.

How long would irradiation take to vanish from the environment .. and how lone would a scorched country take to be reseeded by nature, presumably from somewhere that survived outside of the country, such as seeds carried by birds after the ground was no longer irradiated. Depends.

It not something that has bugged me, reality-wise. However having said that, there is actually a kind of burnt looking scrub that you can turn on with the Turn-on-grass button.

There is usually a plausible explanation for most, if not all, of what is presented as reality or it's representation.

Redevelopment of a country would not necessarily happen universally, depends on the size of the country, the devastation, the rate of progress and the rate of decline of non-liveable radiation, etceteras. There is too much we don't know, and too many reasons that it should be as it is.

Fat man launcher, similar to an RPG or Bazooka, yes.

Enjoy the game and don't fret about it ......

» Wed Jun 30, 2010 7:24 am

Personally, I'd say that Fallout 1 is a superior game to Fallout 3 in terms of writing, immersion, and challenge. Sure, Fallout 3 is a great time and the modding community is one of the best in the gaming world, but Fallout 3 is shallow and insultingly easy compared to Fallout 1.

I find that hard to swallow. Especially since you can beat Fallout 1 in under 20 Minutes. Before you drag on about how it's all about challenge, I'm a thousand percent sure that any modern gamer is going to refer to some kind of FAQ for the game.

MODERN GAMER, not you old veterans. Clearing that up just in case you start raging.

Also, Fallout 1 had variety in how you do things, as does Fallout 3.

Clearing that up also because I can't have people going around insulting my favorite video game series.

» Wed Jun 30, 2010 3:36 am

Have it your way. I find that the RPing is living your own life instead of fighting along the usual quests and that's how I feel. Boo-hoo.

The problem with that statement is that RPGs didn't have the features you attribute to them until the late nineties. To this day, the only series that really fits with your idea of an RPG is the Elder Scrolls series.

So yeah.