Hello people.

I've learnt the series with Fallout 3, and while there are some parts that I really disliked in that game (green tint, emptier world than TES, long intro/tutorial in the vault before you can get free to do what you want...) I thought it had a very good atmosphere feeling and potential. And Fallout 4 seems to me to be moving to the right direction, but I haven't been with the series since the beggining.

But after been seeing lots of people in these forums saying Fallout 3 (and now 4) aren't Fallout enough, I decided to read some wikipedia about older Fallout games, and watch let's play videos on youtube.

Immidately I noticed that indeed FO3+4 look and play rather different in comparison to FO1,2,Tactics. The old Fallouts reminded me another game I had played, Commandos, a bit. They were top-down 2d games with point & click movement. And I found that about the rest half of the game was about giving the player the interactive novel experience, like the old adventure books, printed books that after a bit of narration would ask the reader "what you gonna do now ?" presenting him options, and advising him to turn to specific page depending on his choice.

Bethesda has taken a different approach to Fallout indeed. They are going for action sandbox with heavy RPG elements game. Which in its own isn't bad. But surely its different than what Fallout used to be.

My curiosity has to do with the old Fallout fans, and I wonder what they expected or wanted from a new Fallout game. Would you prefer to see a 'back to basics' approach, and a return to point & click gameplay ?

Like the Doom series is doing with the latest Doom ? I understand that Bethesda went from point & click to action character movement and a more 'action' approach to combat, because its been the norm, the standard, in the industry for quite some time. While point & click is non existent outside of some MMOs and and old style 2d adventure games. And turn based combat is something only JRPGs have kept. Do you see this change of the series to a more action-ish, real-time combat, as more of an unnecessary try to modernize the series, that makes Fallout loose its identity, instead of a linear progression in the franchise ? I mean do you believe that Fallout should close its eyes to what happens in the rest of the gaming industry, and keep the style it had in the 90s ?

And how much did you liked the interactive novel style and gameplay that the old Fallouts featured ? Do you think that a modern game heavily influenced by this type of literature could be well received and succesful, and most of all, fun and interesting ? Would you like to see this part more accented and important in a new Fallout game ?

I try to understand how most old-school Fallout fans envisioned the series would be in our times.

What kind of game would make you to feel and say "This is what Fallout should be."

I recently watched a video on Van Buren and I can honesty say I'm glad they cancelled it. I started with Fallout 3, but if I had started with 1 or 2 I probably wouldnt be a fan. Why? Because the combat was [censored] boring. Turn based games can be extremely intense when done right, however, nobody likes reloading for the 17th time because they missed that 90% shot at point blank range.

Look at Jagged Alliance 2. Great idea but utterly unplayable without cheats or mods. Personally, I'm glad Fallout is taking the road it is.

Fallout 3 was the pinnacle of a fully realized world (at the time, obviously Fallout 4 has the ball in its court) but Fallout 2 was the pinnacle of its story telling. In my mind, Fallout 4 will become the ultimate child of these two ideas. This first game on this new hardware is a game, yes, but its also one big experiment. I hate to say stuff like this, but Fallout 4 is going to be a big beta for the next Elder Scrolls/Fallout. They must learn what is good and bad with this new tech and the new mechanics they are allowed to make now and combine with the hardware. Fallout 4 will be the best yet. but the next title I imagine will be a hundred times better. They learn from not just from the older game in the series but the fans, and that's what makes them great.

The old school fans want a return to isometric turn-based combat so they can criticize it.

You might want to reconsider that statement. To quote Todd Howard: "look, we can't apologise for being a role-playing game. We have to build a first-person shooter, and it needs to be a really, really good one. We spent a lot of time on that."

Not that they even know what RPG is about. They think it's about picking flowers and making potions.

Anyway

You focus way too much on the gameplay, graphics and whatnot. That's relatively unimportant. What's important is player freedom (of decisions, not movement), complexity and verisimilitude of the world, rich lore, rich dialogues... Not just running around emptying dungeons, completing isolated linear quests and being subjected to cliché dialogues with characters that have depth of a Petri dish.

Edit: Seem Uncle Al there is a nice example of someone who absolutely doesn't understand what Fallout had been about. And Bethesda is the same, sadly.

Never play Fallout 4, but Fallout 3 has is a fun game to do some exploration and see some gore in VATS......and that′s it.

Awful Fallout.

Fallout NV is not top-down 2d with point & click movement and its a awesome Fallout game. In fact, my favorite.

Does every RPG have to be the same as the last? RPG = ROLE PLAYING GAME. You can be a ruthless killer or a saint. Blow [censored] up or fix [censored] up. Its a simple idea, very simple, and of course it has changed over the years and everyone has their version. If you want to pick flowers and make potions but not make armor, your playing a role. I'm sorry if some other game has standardized your meaning of an RPG but Fallout/Skyrim is a full blown RPG. Its takes RPG very literal. Your allowed to play a role, any role. BUT just because you are playing a solider in Call of Duty are you playing a role? RPG has become very skewed over the years and it seems like no one really has a strict definition anymore. Everyone thinks they know exactly how an RPG should be, but in reality, no one had a clue. Used to it was: clever mechanics, inventory, a great story, many possibilities for stories, and plenty of options when making your character. Fallout and Elder Scrolls has all of that.

Fallout 3 was my introduction to the series as well and I greatly enjoyed the game. I enjoyed it more then NV to be honest.

But the same people saying the older FO1 and 2 are better then current Fallout 3 and NV, are likely the same people hating on Skyrim for not being as good as Oblivion, or how neither of those two are as good as Morrowind or older TES games.

And I get it.

Example I love the older Final Fantasy games up to and including 8 (didn't like 9) and 10. Everything after that? I have not enjoyed them at all. And I worry that with the remake of FF7 (which I do eagerly anticipate) that its going to be changed so much for current gen systems it won't be the same game I love.

But for people to be already saying "I don't like FO4" when its not even out yet? Sorry but your being dumb. Give the game a chance when it comes out. It looks awesome.

Indeed. That is Beth's weakest point. They can create a great setting but they struggle to fill it and keep interesting. Take Fallout 3 for example; the Capital Wasteland is great to explore but that's about it. Quest are unimaginary, boring and lack choices&consequences. Story and dialogue are abhorrent. NPCs have less personality than a tree stump. Now let's compare that to Obsidian's New Vegas. Good story, rich dialogue, choices have consequensces, quests can be completed multiple ways, etc.

I really, REALLY hope Beth has taken notes about NV's strengths and used them in Fallout 4. It's a tall order but one can hope.

I'll admit, I'm on the "Oblivion's story was better" train, but overall, Skyrim was the better came.

Oblivion was my intro to Bethesda and Fallout 3 was my intro to Fallout.

Fallout and Fallout 2 defined the experience. A computer roleplaying game that does its utmost to emulate a PnP/tabletop setup, roleplaying a specific character through strong and internally consistent set of rules for better and worse. The later games, Fallout 4 included (judging from all info available), do nothing of the sort as they are more minute to minute world simulations with avatarism as their chocie goal (it's not so much that you have a character anymore, but that you have a simulatable costume to playpretend in). The perspective, preferences aside, is of lesser matter as long as the game works towards the goal it was set up; it doesn't anymore. The narrative, while important, is of lesser matter as even the best narrative can not compensate for the gameplay.

It doesn't provide that experience anymore. That's the problem. Going from character heavy RPG to a blockbuster action simulaton mechanically no different from other games that don't even pretend to be RPG's (like GTA or FarCry). Nothing really "special" anymore, just another "big game" among others.

Hm, interesting.

To those saying if they started with Fallout 1 and 2 they would be bored, you're missing the point. Yes, Fallout 1 and 2 lack a ton of features and are very, very old games. You can't possibly expect modern gamers to look at these games now and say they are good.

HOWEVER, I want to make it very clear that the bethesda bailed the original Fallout team out after they had issues involving bankruptcy. So to say Bethesda ruined the franchise is ridiculous. The franchise would no longer exist if it weren't for them, a classic version of Fallout was never a possibility. The storyline was taken from the original games, but nothing more.

You can't say Fallout 1 and 2 were crap because according to ratings they were two of the best games for its time. At the same time, you can't blame bethesda for changing it, because the game is decades old and its mechanics have been uprooted so something new would have had to been made.

Finally, if you are a Fallout 1 and 2 fan, but not a Fallout 3/New Vegas fan, you really don't belong on these forums. This fallout game is completely different than the older ones and you're looking at a completely different team of developers and community. Perhaps you can find an old Fallout 1/2 forum that suits you better? This isn't really the place to complain about how Bethesda ruined your favorite franchise, point the blame at the team who bankrupt themselves and was forced to sell your favorite franchise due to poor economical decisions.

EDIT: However , there is still hope for Fallout classic fans I suppose. With the mobile app coming out, I wouldn't be surprised if a fallout spinoff was made with Xcom/Fallout1/2 mechanics from Bethesda. It would be a gold mine and the would be fools to resist.

Storywise they arent, though I like the atmosphere of FO3 & 4 from a protagonist perspective, the external lore of Bethesdas Fallout doesnt fully encourperate the history of the original story enough into the background history. Its there but only breifly summerized. Though I personally hated the storyline with Caeser and the Legion, it was much better written than the FO3 story with the Brotherhood.

What FO3 does well is just the atmosphere of the world; but the problem also lies in accessiblilty of how interactable. Using Oblivions engine for Fallout made it feel so incredibly constricted to how you could interact with the world.

Especially compared to other RPGs where you can actually form romance with other characters, cook your own food, colour your outfits, name them, mine minerals, buy properties, have minor jobs, get thrown in prison, level up weapons seperate from your own levels. etc. Besthesdas Fallout lacks a lot of that experience.

Could you imagine what people would say if they recreated Fallout 1 & 2 with updated textures? It would never happen, but man it would be great if done right (personally I have never played 1 or 2 but I have done a lot of reading up on it to get a better feel of the world).

Picking on old school fans isn't the same as 'understanding' Fallout.

While I would not say FO3 is not FallOut, I have to say FO3 left me quite disappointed at times (though overall I did like the game).

There were a few things I didn't like about FO3, but there is one thing that really made me angry.

They blatantly lied about it having multiple endings. If you have played FO, FO2, and FONV, you would know what kind of multiple endings I am talking about.

The minor variants in FO3 can not be considered as multiple endings. That was a downright betrayal. Obsidian understood this and made proper multiple endings in FONV. I hope this doesn't happen again in FO4.

I do remember them saying that, but they weren't specific. Overall, until Broken Steel, I will say technically you did have multiple endings. You either helped the Prez kill mutants, or you didn't. You either sent Lyons into the Chamber, you went in, Fawkes went in, or Charon went in (I don't know about the other companions). Not defending them, just stating what happens. Then theres the deal with blowing up the Citadel, but thats a whole nother' story.

No I'm not. Ratings do not equate to personal choice. Look at Inquisition. Gamespot gave it a 9. To me, that game was a 7 at best. The Last of Us though was, to me at least, a 10. It's about personal experience. Shoot...miss...shoot...miss RELOAD. I've heard people say there were many interesting characters in the fist two games, sadly, I never got to meet them because I was too busy fighting stpid game mechanics.

Secondly, who the hell are you to tell anyone where they belong or what they should/shouldn't like? I and many others found New Vegas boring. Again, the time for isometric shooters has passed. X-COM was awful. The amount of people I watched who literally turned that game into a grenade throwing sim or a sniper game was ridiculous. So no, I don't think I am missing the point.

Well, that's a 10-year-old's definition of RPG, but seeing your name and the inability to see the difference between "your" and "you're" among other things, that's understandable. By that definition, every single game where you control a single character is an RPG.

Out of these things, TES games (including Fallout 3) have only inventory. Thanks for proving my point.

Look mate, either you're trolling or you don't understand. It doesn't matter which, both are bad.

I'm not going to touch gameplay or graphics or art, but as far as tone and storytelling goes, Fallout 3 is kind of the odd man out in the series as a whole. The spiritual successor of previous games is New Vegas and that really shows when turning from review ratings on Metacritic to take a gander at the modding community, or even on the boards here. (Compare and contrast the number of posts for FO3 and FNV. I'll wait.)

For me, I don't give a fig about isometric vs first person or what have you -- it's all about the engaging story, that sense of "play your own way," the attention to world-building, and the quirkiness that makes a Fallout game, well, Fallout.

And I'm saying this as someone who started on FO3.

Todd said there would be over 200 endings(this was long before the release of FO3 so Broken Steel is irrelevant), and later on corrected that statement by saying they are permutations of ending.

The minor variants of FO3 just can not be considered multiple endings or permutations of ending if you compare them to the endings in FO and FO2, and there certainly were not over 200 of them.

Look, this is a perfect example of someone thinking they know what it should be. Your the one who doesn't understand. And harassing my grammar is ridiculous and proves your on a childs level. You won't even discuss with me, instead you go straight to slander. A debate team would chew you and spit you out! Now if you want to have a discussion, fine, otherwise, don't act superior to me. I'll also have you know I am a writer. I write. Thats what I do, and I do it fast. Mistakes will be made.

Looking at your image, I must ask, do you play a lot of JRPG's? I dislike most of them. Final Fantasy excluded, FF: Tactics was amazing.

Skyrim also has dragon shouts. Which I count as clever features. Either my standards are lower or yours are way to high. Either way, slander is not okay in any writing or debate circles. Politics aside, apparently.

Based on your statements quoted above, I will say that you do not understand what defines "RPG". I have been playing RPGs since D&D first came out so I speak with some level of experience. I've also been playing CRPGs since Wizardry (the first one) and know that there is actually no such thing as a "Japanese RPG" (i.e., the Japanese never developed the genre of RPG but adopted it from its development in America... with Wizardry, actually, since that was the first RPG Japanese devs experienced).

No, every game where the player controls one character is not an RPG, and many RPGs have the player controlling a party of characters not just a single one. Roleplaying is defined as "playing a role" where the role can be either one that the player creates or one that is given to the player. The concept comes from acting, and the original RPGs were inspired by war games, but Gygax, Arneson and others wanted to allow players to actually play as alternate identities (i.e., roles) rather than simply order the identities around (e.g., becoming a participant in a battle rather than acting as a tabletop general who orders units around). That is the definition of RPG.

The first FO games hardly have much depth compared to newer games, so we can see people looking through rose-colored "i.e., nostalgia) glasses. I mean, I can claim that FO3 doesn't have anywhere near the depth of great action RPGs like Ys 1&2, but I won't do that because it isn't true and I know that my personal preference for Ys is just that. I like Ys more, but that has nothing to do with how good BGS games are, including various characters (well, modded, anyway... the character visual aesthetics are a big problem in vanilla BGS games, but the writing and acting are okay for various characters once I change the visuals to match).

Part of older games' limitations is technology-based, of course. Not just graphics, either, but also writing, sound, etc (e.g., having full orchestral soundtracks and other audio support helps convey and establish emotional connection compared to simple text with no audio).

When Fallout 3 released, that was the new 'this is what Fallout is about'.

When Fallout 4 is released, that will be the new 'this is what Fallout is about'.

Need to get with the program .