Ah, no, no, you misunderstand. I am not one for a purely linear storyline, where you have no choices, that isn't where RPGs are headed anyways. But stories in a game, when they fail, can "railroad" a player to, like they did in Fallout 3. They can svck the life out of an enjoyable journey, I wanted to be rewarded for my choices, either funny asides or really big dynamic changes to the communities I met, for being that whole "Last, Best, Hope of Humanity" rawr, rawr, bit. You see, I am not talking about "railroading" the adventure, I think a story should be there to push you, when you make a choice you are restricted from other choices, that is the consequence of making the choice itself. But in no way contained to just following the main quest, you are rewarded instead for seeking out the side stuff and getting that big payoff at the end.

But instead other things, like a giant robot and cliche sacrifice, not that it is a good device, in FO3 it was WAY overplayed, stood in the way of that reward I sought. Here is the thing, you can have these arbitrary linear storylines that get in the way to, and FO3 did that, you were turning that water purifier on one way or another or like in TES: IV, I have seen the main storyline played I've never played it myself, has you on the very restrained storyline that you HAVE to save the land from the "jaws of Oblivion" (don't even get me started on the STILL burning ruins of Kvatch).

Not everyone wants to be the whole "Last, Best, Hope of Humanity" some like to see the world wither and die, to burn, those are the bad guys, that is their purpose. Some like to be in the middle ground, like the Enclave, some want to do what is best, the good guys who stand up for everyone, that is what the NCR was meant for, while there was those bound by tradition from helping everyone and anyone, and that was the BoS, for loner in everyone that have a common purpose.

Actually, now that I look back on FO3, I have fond memories of being this warrior preacher (I got Chaplain in the GOAT test)/sweet talking Han Solo hybrid, though I had to figure out a different way that being charismatic all the time can actually take away from your experience because they hadn't figured out how to make a game with a storyline that changed based on your initial choices. I felt like I was playing preacher, since, now that I've heard from a few people, apparently all the "charismatic dialogue" were speeches that bored people into taking your advice or being persuaded. But, the fact is, if I had play any other way, it would have been nearly the same except I wouldn't get "speech tests".

I also think they underplayed the attributes to, like the Lady Killer one, how come it was easier to kill a woman but made no sense when it was used in dialogue since you didn't get anything special out of it and at times it was confusing.

I want a game that forms out of the choices I make and RPGs until FO3 have been good at that, even FO2 and FO1 were good that, if I wanted to fight I could, if I wanted to run I could or talk sure, could I do all three at different points? Yes, but what kind of character would I become if I didn't save this person or that and instead ran because I wasn't strong enough? How would the game change? Beyond Karma, hardly in FO3, hardly. Not only should Karma be effected by choice so should the environment, things should start to look better or at least sound better because of my actions, or worse, depending on what I choose, or not at all, especially if your being considered the "Last, Best, Hope of Humanity", but instead, at the end you get to see a short clip and its over. I believe if your a nice guy in FO2, you get to see your actions play out in the Shi Empire at least.

The ending's nothing amazing, sure if you're comparing it to FPS fare, but it's run of the mill for RPGs I found. The predecessor's endings were far better and had a nice ironic touch to them that I didn't notice - nukes are our salvation. No final boss, that's one break from the norm, but not enough to cover the plot holes in the ending and somethings they could have done. Bulk of the story-telling, the predecessors did that as well. Enclave isn't a -total- copy, but it's a pretty unoriginal antagonist as we've been there and done that on the other side of the country. You weren't trying to thwart the Enclave in Fallout 2 either, you're trying to rescue your village that they kidnapped. You happen to wipe them out as well, they're evil and it's a nice side effect from powering down the forcefields, heh.

Fallout 3's story isn't innovative or audacious, unless you're comparing it to..Quake 2 or something.

A cRPG where the Player ? Sure there are some, but not a lot of 'em. And yes, in FO2 - the Enclave wasn't the first enemy - but it is, without doubt the main antagonist in the game. The FO2 storyline really is about defeating the forces of evil. In FO3, the forces of evil can't succeed without your help - that's a difference. Anyways, isn't there enough in FO3 that "90% copy/pasted or badly misinterpreted" seems like either a lie or a gross exaggeration?

You didn't like FO3's storyline - fine. You think the storyline is derivative - also fine, personally I disagree - but definitely a valid position. Calling FO3 "90% cribbed - and badly cribbed at that" is just plain wrong.

Errr, no actually since it is true in basically the exact way I meant it.



Yes, I thought the story was pretty standard fare and your idea about what is possible as the ending is nowhere NEAR the innovation of Fallout 1's ending which no cRPG had ever done before (especially if you consider that the Bethesda developers were probably attempting to emulate that sort of non-traditional downer of an ending). Sorry if I don't feel like it warrants enough of my time to sit and pick it apart in the exact way you feel inclined to defend it.



Agreed.



Now, I don't mind that we disagree and I'm always one who loves to have a good clean debate because it's always interesting to find out how people who don't see things the way I do are seeing things. But you need to stop responding so emotionally because it's making you upset enough to start throwing in some patronizing insults, which I'm not going to continue responding to.

What? I'm confused. The only "areas" of the NCR were Shady Shands and Junktown from Fallout 1, and I think the Hub, which all became part of the NCR.

In Fallout 2 you can only visit the capital city of the NCR, also usually dubbed NCR - this town used to be Shady Sands. All those other areas aren't necessarily part of the NCR.

Also, Van Buren's SPECIAL system hurts my brain. Probably even less loyal to Fallout 1 and 2 than Fallout 3 is.

That's okay, 90% of your comments are cribbed from some old anti-FO3 rant, and cribbed badly at that.

I've made every effort to address any little thing you've brought up, but when I directly answered a question you asked and then requesyed that you comment on it - you're like "well that's not worth the effort to respond to". I guess I should be carful with my posts though, because you clearly know what patronizing means. Then again, I'm probably "too busy decorating my Megaton house" to be worried about such things.

Heh, and they say the "anti-FO3" people are all crazy and hostile, you're breaking a lot of glass there. The 90% comment was hyperbole - I'd hope you'd notice that - so no need to take it literally, and I already showed how there was a great deal that was lifted or just fitted in from the previous games.

I'll admit to being hostile. I can recognize my own faults. By the way - here's the context for the "hyperbole" you're citing:

Sure looks like hyperbole to me (insert eye-rolling smiley). Anyways, I'm glad that you're just ret-conning what's being said by your side of the argument - although I won't be surprised when you start quoting my words out of context.

Edit: eye-rolling smiley added for context

My side ? What the bloody hell are you on about ? Oh, I see this is the "NMA Legion" BS that Kjarista always mentions, again. That 90% is hyperbole, I'm assuming given the tone of Aqualamb's post. So exaggeration for emphasis, no big deal and it's not a point worthy of contention. You have to admit that Fallout 3 borrowed the Enclave plot from Fallout 2 entirely as well as chucking in elements from the previous games just because they were in there and then fit them in, somehow (still not buying Vault-Tec is involved in FEV development) - which was the point of contention for all this.

How can a fan of a game be anti-that game? Explain that to me. Also, I implore you to stop the condescension. You're getting personal and that's uncalled for. That said, I'll play your game: I did address what you brought up, just not in the type of detail in which you defended it. Why didn't you bring up any of those points if you're so intent on discussing it?

EDIT: and you never even considered that yes, I was exaggerating with my criticism you later quoted in exactly the same way you exaggerate in your praise? I see no difference.

You read Aqualamb's post and saw that final line as hyperbole? Sure. Whatever, buddy.

I do not accept that the Enclave plot is cribbed from FO2 "entirely". I've explained why before, but here I go again - in FO2, the Enclave had a plot to disrupt/destroy the wasteland with FEV. The Enclave was strong and could basically do whatever they wanted - so it was up to The Chosen One to prevent the plan from being carried to fruition. In FO3, the Enclave is a broken faction - there's one guy using a figurehead puppet to run the show - and that puppet "goes rogue" and comes up with the FEV plan. The actual force behind the Enclave wants nothing to do with the FEV plot - but even if he wanted to - the FO3 Enclave is not capable of executing the plot without the assistance of The Lone Wanderer. i.e. it's not up to the Player to stop the plot, it's up to the player to implement it (a HUGE differnce). Regardless, stopping the Enclave in FO2 was the point of the game - in FO3 it's an adjunct, that sits beside the real story, the important question of whether or not the Wasteland can leave the stagnated struggle for survival it has been locked in for two centuries.

That "NMA legion" argument Is a reference to folks who will forum PVP like their lives depend on it, by engaging in selective quoting, illogical deconstruction, and wordplay. If you don't know waht I'm talking about, pop over to NMA forums for a lesson.

Yes, but the core element of the Enclave plot is that they want to deploy the FEV and kill all the contaminated people, not exactly stunningly original to re-hash the same threat from a previous game.



That argument is total BS though, for one simple and - I'd hope - obvious fact. The people registered for the NMA Forums don't exactly get together and generate talking points, a posting strategy and generally act like a hive mind.

Oh man. Did you really just say this? Why can't a debate not degenerate into this type of thing? Did you NOT just holler at ME for making a sweeping generalization?

Okay, please pay attention: The threat is totally different. In FO2, the Enclave were the threat, in FO3 the PLAYER is the threat. Do you not get that? And more importantly - in FO2, the Enclave storyline was the main storyline of the game, in FO3 all of this is tangential to whether or not the Purifier is started.

Bethesda used the same name - because it was part of the series they are continuing, because it has a lot of history and backstory that is relevant to the game. But it's a different Enclave - two decades, the destruction of your central base and a flight to the other side of the country will do that to an organization. And Beth made their new Enclave a believeable development from the old group based on that series of events. BUT THE STORY IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT.

It's like arguing that FO1 is totally unoriginal because they "stole" California, and they stole it badly because California isn't a nuclear wasteland.

No it's not. Now you listen: California was not created by a company. Interplay was not saying "In order to make this sequel we have to include California."

Bethesda was doing this. Most everything in this game is aped directly from the first two games. Everything from the Vault Boy (which, doesn't Todd call him the pip boy on the dvd? hehe) the factions and even old characters.

THIS is the only point we're discussing. Not whether or not Bethesda took things from Fallouts 1 & 2 and made them different but that most of what is included in their game is copied directly from the earlier games and reinterpreted in ways that either break canon or establish and innovate nothing new.

Let's discuss it then. Do you believe that 90% of FO3 was copy/pasted and/or misinterpreted things from the previous games? Or was that hyperbole? I've extracted your entire comment a little upthread - so it should still be on this page.

Is it your opinion that the CENTRAL STORY of FO3 is basically a COMPLETE REHASH of FO2? Because it looks like that's what Malcador's arguing.

Whether or not its tangential isn't really relevant to the fact that it's rehashed content - the MQ isn't rehashed, sure it might be sort of weak but at least it's original, sort of. And the Enclave plot is a rehash, then again you're apparently awestruck by the storyline, so I'm not exactly sure of if you could see that. The player isn't the threat, really. He's just the errand boy. The Enclave is still the threat but at least one nice addition to the "Enclave wants to create third holocaust" is the ability for the player to be "evil" and make it happen. They used the same name for sure, again why we have all the rehashed stuff - BoS in their Holy Knights variant, SMs, Harold, etc, the Enclave (regardless of any changes to it, it's still pretty much the Enclave of old).



Heh.

A little of both, I'd suspect. I was exaggerating to be sure but again I will state that the majority of content regarding factions, items, characters, etc. was merely aped from the originals without much expansion. It's fine because it seemed an obvious way of appeasing the older crowd while giving the crowd who'd never played the originals a taste of some truly great ideas which the originals invented.




Eh? No, not at all. I hardly think that's what he's saying either.

Alright, here we go.

The FO3 Enclave doesn't want to create the third holocaust, John Henry Eden does. He's a rogue agent - and their President. That's not cribbed from FO2. The Lone Wanderer isn't an "Errrand Boy" - he is the key to whether this thing is possible or not. In FO2, the Enclave was capable of FEV genocide, in FO3 they are not - not without the assisstance of the Player. That's different.

And now, children, on to the MEAT of the thing. FO3 is the third RPG in the Fallout series. Of course the main factions of the Fallout Universe are going to appear in Fallout 3 - at least where they make sense. Does it make sense for The Enclave to flee to Washington, DC after the destruction of the Oil Platform? Well, if they still had the capability of reaching that far - yes it does. Does it make sense for the BoS to investigate whether or not there is salvageable tech in the ruins of the Pentagon? Oh my, this sounds extremely likely.

I hope you folk don't complain about "respecting the Lore" because that is exactly what Beth did by bringing the Enclave and the BoS to DC. And in a way consistent with the natures of those organiztions, and consistent with what they had done, and had happened to them. They took the existing Canon and projected it into the time frame that FO3 occurs in. That's not "copying", that's exerxising your IP. If you want to argue that they did it badly, go ahead - but complaining that they did it at all is silly.

"But FO3 has no new factions". Other than The Family, Rivet City, Talon Company, the travelling merchants and Canterbury Commons, the Republic of Dave, the ghoulified Chinese Remnants, The Marigold Station Fire Ants, the Regulators, Underworld, the Children of the Atom... Look, this is almost as weak as when iamgomez claimed that FO2 had more depth in locations and stores than FO3.

Yes, that's like saying Richardson really did it, not the Enclave. He is the errand boy, you deploy it after Eden tells you to, through his charisma or something. You honestly tell me you saw Enclave, FEV and didn't see a very striking similarity to FO2 ? As for the Enclave surviving - eh, maybe, Navarro was untouched, but they lost their primary base of operations, I'd figured the BoS in the West could have mopped them up easily after that, but oh well, they're on the East coast as well. And the BoS in DC isn't consistent with the lore, I don't really have a beef with their being in DC, even though they act like idiots and against the original BoS, but Outcasts handle that - undeveloped as they are. I never said their appearance in the East was unreasonable or unfathomable. They were fit in, in order to show it's a Fallout game. Same with Harold and the SM, although those two beggar my belief a bit, and induce eye-rolling at the worst.

In any event, this isn't going anywhere.
As for your last bit, I'd say iamgomez was correct. Not sure what quote you're responding to though, I didn't say FO3 has no new factions. Not exactly sure you can call them a faction if they're just mooks for you to slaughter.

What?? How could you even contest that? Even if you only consider New Reno and the insane amount of quests and stores there you've got one city that tops nearly all of the Fallout 3 areas combined when it comes to quest value, originality, substance, personality and uniqueness.

I've been reading through this thread with interest as there has been some salient points raised about the nature of cRPG's and whether or not FO3 fits into that catagory.

Now I believe I fit in with AquaLamb generation in that I grew up playing text based cRPG's which moved onto those blockey graphic games like Ultima and Wizards Crown etc. Now thise games had great depth and thought because they had to draw a player in due to the fact that the graphics where pretty basic. Now today we are spoiled with the visual feast that is FO3. Is it a case of substance over style or visa versa? Well IMO, no.

For my part, and I really love the FO series, I have greatly enjoyed FO3, warts and all. I am a fan of RPG turn based combat, and as someone pointed out earlier, the greatest exponent of that is Jaggad Alliance II. That game has got it in spades and even today, has fans modding for it and it's been effectively remade into an even better turn based game. Yet with FO3, we have a hybrid of turn based combat [VATS] and FPS, which for me, is fun and unique. Most of the time I use VATS as I like to make those special shots count or target particular areas like legs or grenades etc but at the same time, I love being about to run around in 1st person mode blazing away with my Chinese assault rifle as I find it more immersive, especially when played on my 68' LCD TV.

I suppose that like many older gamers who remcall the sheer joy we had at playing those games like FO, is that we hope the next game will be like the last, that the developers will recapture that lightning in a bottle. FO3 doesn't do that but it does show a way forward for cRPG's.

I freely admit that FO3 isn't perfect and I would dearly love to see a lot of changes in the game however I would not wish to see a "back to the future" FO turn based game being put out. Also, and here is the point which many of the hard core NMA fans have over look, is that it is indeed a new generation of players out there who will be BUYING the game. That's right, it's all about money. If Bethesda churned out a repeat performance turnbased isometric game, I'd say their sales wouldn't have been as good as they have been. They want to make a healthy profit from their investment in the IP of Fallout plus the R&D that they've plowed into the game. To sell to the widest audience means having to make the game playable to the consul jockeys.

Despite that though, FO4 will have to be better than FO3. The generic nature of the inventory system, the fact that my level of immersion gets broken when I realise that I can carry 1/2 a dozen weapons plus 1000's of rounds of ammo sort of spoils the party for me at least. I suppose I've played JA II for too long and know that you should only be alllowed to carry one two hand weapon in your hands and have another slung on your back and NO MORE than that. But I digress...

Back on topic, VB being the basis for FO4 isn't such a bad idea IMO. It will be like FO3 because that's what Bethesda have created as their engine and I think it's a good storyline to rebuild a sequel to FO3.

Now to address some other points which have been debated:

Having the Enclave, BoS etc in FO3 is totally logical and in no way is a rehash or crib of the past 2 games. It's a sequel and has followed on from previous events in the FO universe so I had no problem in accepting the Enclave lurking on the outskirts of the DC ruins aince the their main base was destroyed 30 years ago. I would argue that if these factions etc hadn't been included in the game, there'd have been a howl of protest from the die hard fans who in a way, mirror the Fallout universe in that they are frozen in time and do not develop their tastes much like the USA in FO which is stuck in a 1950's era. Change is seen as anethema yet it's the one thing that is always constant and clinging onto the past is a sign of obsession and it's a bit sad to see how upest some people get over a game.

Anyway, imperfect FO3 is, it is still a lot of fun and I have enjoyed playing it. I would like to see more RP elements in the game and would like to see more emphasis placed on the character creation/development plus a tweaking of the Karma system as well [far too easy to gain good Karma IMO] as well as an improved inventory system.

In regards to plot/storyline, well I found FO3's side quests more intriguing than the main one to be honest but even more so, where the small touches that the developers put into the game. One of the more memorable moments for me was in Minefield, where I found a house that had the remains of a couple in bed together and on the bed side table, where some Med-X's. Talk about a flash back to "On the Beach"! For those who are not familiar with the story, wiki it and rent the movie or even better read the book, you will not be disapointed. There were other elements in the game which I loved like the small shelter that was filled with toilet plungers! Or the very suggestive arrangement of teddy bears in what appears to be sixual positions near Gallo's lair. It's things like that which made me want to keep exploring the wastelands and ruins. And if I got bored, I'd go and pick a fight with some raiders or muties.

I also had some fun with the items you could wear. Buttons wig and Tenpenny's suit made for a striking ensemble Also, going through and slaughtering the slavers while wearing Honest Abe's Stovepipe hats and using his gun lent a delicious irony plus I waited until I had the battle hymn of the republic playing on Enclave Radio before making my assault sweeping through with righteous fury. It's moments like that which made the game great for me and they can't be replicated in a turn based combat system. Even just wandering the wastes listening to the Jazzy sounds of GNR was a real joy for me.

What I'm trying to say is that the technolgy has drastically changed over the last 10 years which has enabled Bethesda to create FO3 into the game that it is. As much as many decry the change, it is inevitable and as much as I enjoy turn based games, the real future of cRPG's llies in this format, a FPS sandbox game with some elements of turn based combat. I just hope that for FO4, whether it be VB or not, that they really overhaul the SPECIAL system and skills and perks as well as the inventory system plus have a far deeper and engaging storyline like FO was.

I don't really see VATS as much of a turn-based element, to be honest. It feels more like a version of bullet-time to me, than bringing anything meaningful from a turn-bassed mechanic. (Not to say that's actually a bad thing.) I mean, being able to make aimed shots is a very small part of a turn-based game, and not even something many high-quality turn-based games had. Neither any of the X-Com games, or Jagged Alliance had the ability to aim at specific body parts, and those two franchises are generally seen as the high points of turn-based gaming. I personally see VATS as an inclusion of something that made Fallout a unique game, turn-based or not. Being able to cripple limbs was a really neat feature in the original Fallout games, but that aspect had little to do with it being turn-based (as we can see - it works perfectly well and essentially the same with a real-time mechanic in Fallout 3 with VATS.)

Now, I agree that there's very little market value for a quality turn-based game. I don't see this as inherently inevitable, though. Or a natural progression of better technology, either. Devs weren't making turn-based games simply because there was no other option, or because they were somehow technically limited at the time - really the only progression we've seen content-wise in videogames over the past 10 years is better graphics quality and physics. Neither of those are necessarily solely the realm of real-time games - any progression we've seen could apply just as well to turn-based games. We haven't simply because most consumers don't like those types of games. But Fallout 1, Jagged Alliance, and X-Com were all turn-based games because that was the game they wanted to make. The fun is in the system, in how it works, exploiting the mechanics of the game to your own advantage - like Chess, or Battletech, or Blood Bowl, or what have you.

Myself, as another fan of turn-based, get defensive on this issue because of the trend we're seeing in videogames today. I remember getting my first 480K IBM and thinking of all the possibilities of translating my favorite table-top games to a PC format, letting the computer do all the math so it doesn't take me all day to play an encounter in Car Wars. That this hasn't happened (and shows no signs of improving anytime soon) is somewhat depressing to me. A large part of this problem, is that turn-based sort of relies heavily on fans of tabletop gaming, which is not nearly a large enough market for the videogame industry to cater to.

A current-gen turn-based game with top-notch graphics, physics, and a deep complex (yet intuitive) system would absolutely blow my mind. I feel the potential there is incredible. That Fallout 3 doesn't do that is something I see as a missed opportunity - I'll never play a fully 3D turn-based Fallout game, no matter how much I enjoy Bethesda's game (which I actually like very much.)

If Fallout 4 were to follow in Fallout 3's footsteps (which, of course, is what I'd expect - and don't think this is a bad thing) but drew on Van Buren's storyline, I'd buy that game. But not because it's the "improved" version of Van Buren, but because it'd be a sequel to Fallout 3, which I thought despite it's short-comings was rather good. I also think they'd be selling themselves short in not coming up with their own story to tell. If someone came out with a real-time game named Fallout: Van Buren (separate from a sequel to Fallout 4) I wouldn't buy that, however. It would contain nothing of what I was looking for in Van Buren, originally.

It wouldn't be Van Buren without the gameplay, you'd be lopping off half of what makes up the game and stapling something else entirely onto it. It might actually be a very good game. But it would be no more "Van Buren" than if you had kept the game exactly the same, but set the story in Middle Earth, World War II, or Candyland.

Just to clarify here: J.A II does allow you to make specific body area shots like head shots, legs etc. That was half the fun in getting the mercs to comment on when an enemy's head went pop.

Back on topic again...


I think I'm in agreement with you nu clear day with your assesment. It would be great to see fabulous turn based games with great intuitive AI plus shiney flashy graphics yet the sad fact is that it's a limited market they'd be catering to. I liked VATS as it does give you a moment to pause the game mid battle, consider who you want to shoot etc and then let the pause button go and watch the carnage ensue. There were times when I felt like I was in my own personal John Woo movie with the way VATS cinematics tracked the bullets and graphic hits on the targets! Love it!

I too would buy FO4 and especially if it contained the Van Buren storyline.Of course it wouldn't be the game we hoped to get back in 2004 but I'd rather see the story come to fruition than nothing at all.

And now that I've finally finished FO3 [just 10 minutes ago actually] I have to say that I will be replaying it to find all those places I missed on my first time around. I really enjoyed it as a gaming experience despite it's shortcomings.