What happened to the Fallout series? : Fallout Series Discussion

» Mon Jan 25, 2010 1:25 am

Why would I pay for something I didn't like?

Because you don't always know that you won't like something before you actually play it? And you can complain about the parts you dislike even if you like the product as a whole.

» Mon Jan 25, 2010 5:37 pm

Why would I pay for something I didn't like?

Well you -should- try something before you can shake your head and say that its strayed too far from its roots (mind you, it not being isometric isn't an issue - but this, heh, theme stretches to the other complaints).

» Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:20 am

Because you don't always know that you won't like something before you actually play it?

A little bit of homework on the sibject could tell you that FO3 is a completely different game than it's predecessors.

If it was drastically different, like being an FPS instead of and RPG (and I didn't like RPG's), I would easily know I wouldn't like it before buying.

"Well you -should- try something before you can shake your head and say that its strayed too far from its roots (mind you, it not being isometric isn't an issue - but this, heh, theme stretches to the other complaints). "

You can't tell that from watching two minutes of video? It's called doing your homework, not just blindly buying a game you may not like.

» Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:19 am

A little bit of homework on the sibject could tell you that FO3 is a completely different game than it's predecessors.

If it was drastically different, like being an FPS instead of and RPG (and I didn't liek RPG's), I would easily know I wouldn't like it before buying.

Maybe I thought the story, dialogues and choices and consequences would at least somewhat make up for the FPS style?

Hell, not even the most hardcoe Fallout fans expected the ending to be this bad.

» Mon Jan 25, 2010 8:45 am

Maybe I thought the story, dialogues and choices and consequences would at least somewhat make up for the FPS style?

Hell, not even the most hardcoe Fallout fans expected the ending to be this bad.

You don't like it for being an FPS. The dialouge options aren't going to change a thing if 90% of the time outside of that you're blowing heads off FPS style.

» Mon Jan 25, 2010 7:03 am

You don't like it for being an FPS. The dialouge options aren't going to change a thing if 90% of the time outside of that you're blowing heads off FPS style.

You're assuming the #1 complaint is about FPS vs Isometric. The real problems don't show through a 2 minute video, thanks for the tip on how to be an informed consumer.

» Mon Jan 25, 2010 12:06 pm

A little bit of homework on the sibject could tell you that FO3 is a completely different game than it's predecessors.

If it was drastically different, like being an FPS instead of and RPG (and I didn't liek RPG's), I would easily know I wouldn't like it before buying.

"Well you -should- try something before you can shake your head and say that its strayed too far from its roots (mind you, it not being isometric isn't an issue - but this, heh, theme stretches to the other complaints). "

You can't tell that from watching two minutes of video? It's called doing your homework, not just blindly buying a game you may not like.

A lot of fans felt obligated to buy Fallout 3, it is Fallout 3 after all. How dare they buy it and complain about it not being anything like its predecessors. I think Bethesda was too lazy and "conservative" as Cheng put it to try something different (ironic that a Bethesda developer would call Blizzard conservative). I liked Fallout 3 for what it was, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with everything like some blind sheep and sit on my hands lapping up everything Bethesda shoves down my throat.

As a Fallout game, there are certain expectations. You shouldn't have to research Fallout 3 if you're a fan of the first two, it should have played like them since it's a sequel and not a new series. I expect choices and consequences at the very least, as Ausir pointed out. Fallout 3 didn't even have that.

» Mon Jan 25, 2010 6:42 am

Why would I pay for something I didn't like?

Bethesda made it clear before launch that they were keeping the series true to its roots, and that fans had nothing to worry about. I was excited and skeptical, but in the end, excitement overwhelmed me, and I set out to buy Fallout 3 shortly after it hit the shelves. I'm not going to blame myself for being hopeful that one of my most favourite franchises of all time had released it's first 'true' sequel for over a decade (Fallout 3, not Fallout: The Brotherhood is at it again), and then discovering after a month of solid playing and deliberation, that I am completely dissatisfied with the lies and misconceptions Bethesda took to pull in most of the old fanbase. I was livid. Not that I should have to justify the reasons for my criticisms or anything...*major eye rolling*

I am alot more forgiving now, however. And am cautiously anticipating a Fallout 4, to see if Bethesda are capable of making a good game over a glossy one. Moreso, I'm looking forward to Fallout: New Vegas under the command of a more honest developer.

» Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:19 pm

When Fallout was a straight RPG, those who didn't like it just didn't play it. And they didn't beg for it to be turned into more of an FPS.

Actually, Bethesda fans did beg for it to be an Elder Scrolls-style game when Bethesda bought it.

All I hear is that it's not as good because it's no longer an RPG, with no RP qualities. But an FPS.

Was that not a safe assumption on my part?

RPG is not only about combat. Turn-based combat is not the only RP quality. Dialogues, quest design, choices and consequences are important part of an RPG, and Bethesda claimed that they would be faithful to the originals in this regard.

» Mon Jan 25, 2010 4:07 am

You're assuming the #1 complaint is about FPS vs Isometric. The real problems don't show through a 2 minute video, thanks for the tip on how to be an informed consumer.

All I hear is that it's not as good because it's no longer an RPG, with no RP qualities. But an FPS.

Was that not a safe assumption on my part?

» Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:15 pm

Okay, so A Deer78 finds Fallout 3 disappointing, voices his observations and his own personal reasons for disliking it and everyone jumps his ass.

So what if he bought the game after already knowing it was going to probably be a let-down, I've done the same, to err is human folks. He's still playing it though.

I can relate: I play the Fallout Series and the Elder Scrolls. Fallout was being played in our house long before Bethesda took over and came up with Fallout 3. Granted, the major Fallout people in this house were slightly dissapointed, but all in all they love Fallout 3 for what it is. I can say the same about the Elder Scrolls, since that's my favorite series to play. After playing Morrowind for so long the anticipation for Oblivion was incredible, but I couldn't get used to it being different from Morrowind, to me it wasn't the same. I bounced back and forth for awhile and then found Oblivion to be my favorite game to play. Now I bounce back and forth, between Fallout and Oblivion. The rest of the house plays Fallout 2 and 3 ... I want to master Fallout first ... its just how I play.

» Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:53 am

I ran across the fallout series a long time ago on the Comp USA 1 dollar rack. They had all the cheep games like tetras, and many other cheap arcade games. I saw Fallout 1 and 2 there. I looked at the back and said what the hell its $1 so I bought it. Installed it and man it was a fun game. Only problem is it was turn based. Still played the crap out of them and enjoyed the hell out of it. Then I found Fallout Tactics at a bookman! Wow MUCH better! Now you can have a squad of 6 people and various vehicles and weapons. I was also either turn based or real time, you got to pick. Fallout was a strategy view RTS more than a FPS. You had to think about what you were going to do before you did it., or else the outcome wasn't going to be so great.

I was so excited when I heard that they were coming out with a Fallout 3! I kept up to date on it and saw the graphics and couldn't wait. But after a while it started looking like a FPS so I was starting to wonder. But then I saw the VATS and said nah they wouldn't do that! When it finally came out I went to the store and bought a copy. I went home and installed it. Then after a while I realized that it is more a FPS than it is a strategy. In fact there is little to no strategy involved in this game. I find it annoying that they have taken a great series like fallout and turned it into a FPS! Ya sure it has VATS but man what happened? I'm an old school gamer and my 2 favorite games are X-Com Apocalypse and Fallout Tactics. They have done to this game what EA did to Westwoods C&C series. They walked away from what made the game so great! But then again I am probably a minority so they build the game to satisfy what the masses want that's what brings in the money, just kind of svcks.

Thank you for reading my long and annoying rant! Hopefully mods won't delete this.

Maybe you should try the "No Mutants Allowed" forums. The only thing that saves this game is the immersion factor. Something that gamesas managed to pull off quite well. Otherwise it's kind of buggy and stupid.

» Mon Jan 25, 2010 4:47 am

Let me close this for review. Because a big chunk of it sounded like a ridiculous debate about whether or not people can complain about things in a game they don't like. *sigh*

For the record - and it is obvious if you look through past threads - we certainly allow criticism of the game, as long as the tone is kept civil and people don't get all defensive and start flaming each other. And we do not condone cross-forum trolling, so if you have a chip on your shoulder about some other forum, leave it out of any debate on this one.