I never said that Fallout 3 was a bad game, but when it comes to video games marketing hype is one of the largest determining factors when it comes to sales.



What's your point?



We don't know that for sure. Doom is very simple in its execution, yet it's still remembered and played today just like Fallout 1/2. I don't feel that Fallout 3 is as timeless as the first two myself due to its reliance on fast action and visuals, but that doesn't mean it isn't.




Turn based is a design choice, and to be perfectly honest I find turn based games to be more challenging than real time games so I don't see how it's "taking the easy way out" for developers.



It is? I think even one Final Fantasy title tends to sell more than Fallout 3 did across all platforms.



While I'm not overly fond of JRPGs, I will admit that I have played some good ones, and I'd be foolish to ignore their influence and lasting appeal. After all, if JRPGs didn't sell they wouldn't be such a popular RPG sub-genre.



Oblivion was isometric? :blink:

The general argument, being one of the people in the said camp that you seem to despise so much, is that when we play a Fallout game... we want to play a Fallout game. It's okay to make improvements like adding the option for real time, maybe even adding the option to switch between third person and isometric like in Neverwinter Nights 1/2. The general feel should remain present though, even with improvements. Essentially, when I play a Fallout game I expect to play a Fallout game, if I wanted to play TES I'd play TES. No one is against improving the Fallout series, but the improvements should be built upon what came before, instead Bethesda opted to cop out and use their vaunted TES style (particularly Oblivion) right down to making the focus more on action than anything else. I killed more enemies with one character in Fallout 3, than I did in all of my playthroughs of Fallout 1/2 combined.

I have no problem with the TES style I liked Daggerfall and Morrowind in particular, but I don't want to play The Elder Scrolls: Fallout when I play a Fallout game.

Can any one say XBLA?

No, but it beats Fallout 3, was echoing the quoted poster's point.

I would.

I should have caught that :banghead:

Mongol General: Hao! Dai ye! We won again! This is good, but what is best in life?

Mongol: The open steppe, fleet horse, falcons at your wrist, and the wind in your hair.

Mongol General: Wrong! Conan! What is best in life?

Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

Mongol General: That is good! That is good.

i had to do it :rofl:

Fallout 3, will not span the test of time, as it is simply a flash in the pan product. Now on the other hand, games like the Classic Fallout's and Civilization will continue on in the popular imagination, and will continue to be played, long after Fallout 3 dies out.

Well, truthfully, it's probably a little early to tell with that.

Sure, people will always consider Fallout 1 as a classic (Bethesda surely did; and they also apparently weren't the only ones bidding for the rights to the franchise - I'd imagine a lot of game developers over the years have had their own ideas on what they'd have done with a Fallout game.) But we'll have to wait another ten years before we can realistically start passing judgement on how Fallout 3 stands the test of time.

I mean hey, I'm hardly a "Fallout 3 really devoted fan," here. I'm not defending the game. I just think, in all fairness, it's a little early to make that call, is all.

What are FO1's strengths?

What are FO3's strengths?

Most players (not all, but I'd say most), will foremost point to the graphics, and in five years (not ten), FO3's graphics will pale and be just as "awful", "low rez", and primitive to the median gamer of the day...

What strengths does FO3 have if it's graphics pedestal is pulled from under it?

How does FO3 compare to its contemporaries? Is it not a "jack of trades", with no exceptionally superior elements?

~not the animation (some will say)
~not the writing (many say)
~some consider the graphics to be dated already
~AI ? (IMO Halo had better AI ~though I could be mistaken at the technical level)*
~Memorable NPC's? (I can't remember more than eight by name)
~Memorable story? (perhaps in infamy)

I don't see FO3 lasting past the last expansion.
(...of course :facepalm:, but you know what I mean.)

* (I Still, I always cringe when a deathclaw won't step over a 6" curb, or a raider takes a dozen shots and keeps attacking with a knife; Yes they flee, and FO3's AI is not terrible, but the point is that it is not exceptional, and not considerable as a strength).

Yes, because I dislike the isometric view and the turn based combat and Fallout 3 feels a lot more immersive to me than the previous ones.

Does this not make FO3 the odd one? The new batch of Coke that tastes like Pepsi?
~serious question
I don't discount you're reasons or opinion... but isn't Fallout 3 basically not like the others? but folks would have the first ones
remade like the new one (even though they created the series fame and reputation done as they were).

I like Halo (for instance), and I absolutely would not like Halo remade using the HaloWars engine. Not "ISO", [and incidentally not turn based either]; But Halo is Halo.

With Fallout I'm the same way, for me FO without the TB combat is like Eggnogg without the nutmeg (and strangely made a very thin instead of a thick drink; and I wouldn't care if the bulk of consumers wanted a thin "eggless" nog with no nutmeg ~but I would if they sold it as Eggnog )
*This is a figurative example... the specifics are moot.

I'm sure it will fare the same as Morrowind (that is still sold in retail today), due to its moddability.

As for a remake of FO1&2, I'd not mind something similar to the remake of Prince of Persia on X360. A remake in the FO3 engine would turn out something like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4o8RrEDWXE, maybe?

Yes it did [fare well, and it did last]. (but wasn't it also a better game?)

There's a Khan's raider camp map for Duke Nukem too, both of these are cool, and both cannot provide the gaming experience of the original... They provide a cool twist on it, but its not really a good replacement. (IMO)

I'm torn on this idea. The first one of the series that I played was 3. Then after reading all the praise that the first two got, I went out and got them. I honestly can't stand the first two games. I can't play them for more than 10 minutes before my head wants to explode. The idea of turn based combat with guns is just ridiculous. The fact that you can't take cover or move around while someone's shooting at you, because it's not your turn,,, well that makes me want to scream. The fact that you can see every room inside of buildings is very lame too. If they were to be completely redone with the new real time combat system, then I'm all for it. If it was just the same thing with better graphics, than I think that's a waste of time and resources that could be put to better use.

I'm not here to defend Fallout 3. I'm just saying - ten years down the road we'll be able to see whether or not it counts as a "classic." Heck, look at Duke Nukem. Everyone remembers that game, but it was hardly what you could call a "good" game. It's most memorable elements were a misogynistic protagonist and some pixelated strippers. That's hardly the first (or last) game to have a certain self-parodying sense of humour - but for some reason that's the one that sticks out in people's memory.

Whether or not a game is remembered over the years generally has little to do with it's standout features - it's simply the ones people look back on and fondly remember playing. I mean Fallout 1 was hardly genre-defining. It wasn't the first RPG to have turn-based combat, isometric gameplay, a classless skill system, etc. And whether or not any of those elements were the "best," is highly subjective. It also wasn't exactly the first post-apocalyptic RPG, either. (I doubt even Wasteland could viably take that title.)

When you get right down to it, it's remembered simply because it was a game that a lot of people had fun playing; and that fans continued to play on and off over the years. There's reasons why that's so, but it still comes down to "I liked this game because it had things I liked; and I enjoyed playing it." FO3 is hardly any more genre-defining, sure. But if people are still playing it ten years from now, then I'd say it would count as a "classic." And that's not something anyone can call at this point. One way or another.

Its not literally apparent but Combat rounds in FO are assumed to occur simultaneously. If you look at turns as representing how each entity perceives the fight from their own perspective, and that all attacks per round occur at roughly the same time... Well its not totally accurate, but it can be easier to visualize what's going on during play.

Yeah, that's a common misconception about turn-based games. If you can't wrap your head around what a "turn" and a "round" are, then you're not going to find much enjoyment in it. It's like Abstract Art - if you don't like it, it's usually because you just haven't bothered to try and understand it yet.

So I wrote this really long drabble about how I disagree with many a sentiment here about how awesome and innovative the original games were versus how forgetful and pathetic Fallout 3 was, but as I read what I wrote I realized that I almost sounded angry and petty and that's not me at all.

So instead I'll say that while I most certainly enjoy the original Fallouts, I think Fallout 3 is just as memorable as the original titles and a worthy follow up to some of the most imaginative and original worlds that I have enjoyed in games. It has a bunch of problems to be sure, but then I'd argue that Fallout 1-2 are plagued with many a similar problem such as: Lousy AI, terrible inventory and merchant systems, overwhelmed by 1 dimensional hollow npcs, quests are generic as anywhere else, bad interface, boring (For me) combat/exploration between cities, and writing which isn't 1/4 as good as credit given.

A point about the writing, I love everything that was created as the base of the Fallout World. By this I mean the lore, the world itself, the timeline, the brilliant satire of pre-nuclear war hysteria and 50s sci-fiction pulp, mixed with jabs at capitalism, McCarthyism and post-apocalyptica. The ideas and concepts put into Fallout were incredible. What I take exception to when I argue against the writing of Fallout 1-2 is the writing ingame itself; sure VD's response are occasionally witty or funny, but I argue that most of the characters in the previous Fallout games were just as generic and mundane in terms of their dialogue and stories; they must certainly are not generally deep or particularly developed, typically they only have 1 or 2 topics directly related to the quests or the immediate town you are in/going. They are not complex or particularly developed characters or stories; KotOR 2 (Which I hate with a passion) had much deeper characters and writing than all 3 Fallout games combined.

While many of Fallout 3's f;aws aggravate me to no end, I do defend it because I think Fallout 3 is consistantly unfairly bashed while Fallout 1-2 are repeatedly placed in an undeserved way too high a pedestal; outside of the concepts and ideas the original Fallouts introduced they are no more unique or better than a standard "Good" RPG in their execution.

How is it unfaily bashed ? It's flaws are picked on as they stand. Outside of the SPECIAL, most of the criticism doesn't fall back on constant comparison to the originals. I guess everyone will have to bash 1 and 2 in order to "bash" 3, heh. Good to see your answering the call to defend the game though, whatever would it do without you. As for Fallout 3 being memorable, I doubt it will be, partly due to the game itself but for the most part due to gamers today, they seem to have a short memory span for games. Forget them all for some new shiny "AAA" title.

I have this problem myself ~but from the opposite camp.

If you read an "anti-FO3" member's posts overall, and not center on a particular two or three, I would think you will find few that vehemently hate FO3 outright. Its my impression that most of the criticism boils down to FO3 being an off-track sequel (IMO), and not being a terrible game of its own. I don't like it; but I am impressed by it and have fun playing it ~Think that's impossible?

Well Imagine you loved playing Dawn of War, Imagine DOW2 was a First Person game that could not be played with a wide area view... and centered around a rogue battalion of compassionate Spacemarines that only had diplomatic options to end the conflicts in each sector (its a puzzle game!). Not only does it not allow the vantage you expected (and preferred), but it also does away with established series combat mechanics and even presents known factions behaving against their known credo. If this were your favorite series... would you think it a good sequel? (regardless of of merit).

Yeah, I don't think anyone here is actually of the position that Fallout 1 was the Ultimate Avatar of RPG Perfection, absolutely beyond reproach and without the slightest issue; or that Fallout 3 has absolutely no redeeming characteristics. I get the sense that most of the hardliners here have at least had fun with Fallout 3. I don't think it quite lives up to what I'd wanted from a sequel to one of my more favorite games of all-time (not THE favorite, but it was up there.) But then again, nothing really would have.

Just because I happen to feel that Fallout 3 is more of a spin-off than a sequel, doesn't mean that I just wanted a carbon copy of Fallout 2, either. Or that I wouldn't have agreed with any degree of change. (Frak, I don't even really have a problem with a real-time Fallout game - I just would have preferred otherwise.)

Sometimes these little "debates" lead to some very polarized views, and some unrealistic exagerrations of what people's positions actually are. Very few things in life are really that black and white.

Actually, Fallout has been my favorite series since I was a baby, I said when I first played it that the worst part was the mechanics of the combat, the view was common so it didn't bother me, but now fixed iso is unacceptable to me and rotatable iso makes me queezy, I expected those things to be improved, and they were in my opinion, the game just wasn't as good as the first two, I still don't see a drastic change in the way the game is played, not enough to say its like if Dawn of War was changed to FPP.

They actually are making an FPS Warhammer title (and it might be a lot of fun), but thankfully its not a DOW "sequel". Myself I might have really enjoyed a rotatable ISO FO3 (that was not just a hack ~but the intended mode of play).

As to gameplay... What happens in Fallout if you break the law (in Junktown say...); What happens in Megaton? What happens if you murder some miners in Redding, or kill some Casino guards in Reno? In Fallout 3 I can point a rifle at Paladin Bale's head in front of the other Brotherhood guards; I can shoot to miss, and be told, "not so close" or "watch it" ~ I can shoot him outright in the face and talk to him later. Fallout 1 simply accounted for or omitted certain options should an NPC die (or stop liking you). Fallout 3 is so plot dependent on specific NPC's that its breakable if they die ~so they can't.

I'd call that a drastic change.

I would like it because I can't get into the older Fallouts, but I love the story. It won't happen though.

If the goal is to have Fallout 1 and 2 rereleased for a new audience to enjoy them, I would rather they release them on Xbox and Playstation through their download service... all it would really take is converting the mouse pointer to an anolog pointer, much like Sam and Max did for its recent Xbox release. This would get new people playing them, would make some money, and more importantly would keep the games they way they were intended to be.

If the goal is to make new Fallout 3-style games out of Fallout 1 and 2, I would rather they concentrate on new titles... those games already exist as they are, and I'd rather see new content. Plus, those games would probably not match Bethesda's style enough to redo them without significant changes.

I'm all for DVD-like rereleases of classic games and think it should be done MUCH more often, but keeping the original spirit intact.