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.

lolwut? So you knew it was more of a FPS, bought it and was disapointed because it was what you thought it was?

Also, I find it quite selfish of you to think they HAVE to stick to their roots. They tried something different, and it's been a huge success. I bet a lot of poeple that played and love 3 won't bother with the origonals. It goes both ways. Again, it's selfish to think they have to keep the whole turn based RPG theme just to make you happy. I love FO3.

A true FPS is waaaaaaaay more accurate with guns. you can just put the cursor over someone pull the trigger and it will hit them. this isnt the case with fallout 3. your wepons skills will effect how accurate it is. also, you can choose first or third person perspective this F3.. which kind of rules out it just being a FPS.


i myself enjoy the aspect of picking a first person perspective and marrying it rith an RPG.. normally FPS are just run and gun. storylines arent that important most of the time.. its all action. this game has much more to it than the combat..

sorry you dont like it.

1. Fallout Tactics was a spinoff, it wasn't meant to be a sequel to the first two.

2. Fallout 1&2 were never RTS games, what have you been smoking? They were RPGs, without any RTS elements whatsoever.

3. Just...just...I don't really know what your point is, so what, you didn't like Fallout 3, too bad for you!

There is an argument to be made that the game part of Fallout 1 and 2 was what made it so special. To play Devil's Advocate, isn't it a bit selfish to think that the Fallout aesthetics are so important that it needed to be made into a very different game that bears little resemblance to the original games beyond certain trappings (Power Armor, Vaults, etc?) That's why all of the XCom games past Apocalypse did so terribly (and why many people won't even know what I'm talking about.) Because they made a game that kept none of the elements that made the original XCom titles so good and only kept the aesthetic trappings of the series (which didn't have Fallout's particular originality?)

If you didn't like the original Fallout titles, then isn't it a bit selfish to need a game made to your tastes that share nothing in common with it?

Hey, I like Fallout 3. Don't get me wrong. But one thing that helps my opinion on the matter is that I still have some hope that someone might some day make a more "traditional" Fallout game that retains many of the mechanics that made me a fan of the series in the first place. (ie, I accept Fallout 3 as a spin-off that plays entirely differently from the founding principles of the original series; not as a replacement for a "broken" game.)

It's like Halo Wars, in my mind. I think a lot of Halo fans would have been upset if Bungie decided to stop making FPS Halo games and decided that from then on Halo would only be an RTS game.

I think there's room for different types of Fallout games - but I've never seen any cohesive proof that Fallout 3 is some sort of inherent improvement over the old ones, either.

They weren't strategy games either, I don't get why some people equate turn based to always having strategy. Fallout and Fallout 2's combat didn't require THAT much thought. They weren't tactical, and they certainly weren't strategic. They were just turn based isometric role playing games. Your stats actually mattered in the first two, though.

It would be, yes. But there wasn't anybody who didn't like that it was an RPG and demanding it be an FPS instead. They just didn't play it because it wasn't their cup of tea. Which is fine. But whining that it's an FPSRPG and not the traditonal RPG the first two were IS selfish. Considering that was something the devs chose to do, not something that was done because gamers wanted something different out of the FO series.

I don't get it. I really don't. I've seen so many people on here talk about how amazing the first two were. I went out and got both of them. I can't play either one for more than 10 minutes before I'm bored out of my mind. I don't care about graphics, I still play Ghost Recon: Island Thunder and love it. The overall game play of the first two games are just terrible. The combat is just plain stupid. Turn based combat with guns is the dumbest thing I've ever seen. The SPECIAL system seems to be way over powered compared to how it is now. I mean I left the vault with my small guns at 67%. That's ridiculous. You can't do that with the new one even if you raised your special to 10 and tagged that skill. It still wouldn't be that high. Plus you can just start off with taking Finesse. Which adds 10 more points to your Critical Chance. These older games are terrible. I'm going to force myself to finish them. But that's what's so bad, I have to force myself to play them. My hat goes off to Bethesda for making this series something the original designers never could. I for one, as well as many others, am very happy with the new direction. I hope to God they don't revert to any of the old ways.

And I'm sure if Bethesda made it an isometric turn based RPG than the TES style gamers would be whining about how it's not first person and real time, and about how Bethesda is the worst developer ever, etc. I've certainly seen TES fans whine about how Fallout 3's stat system isn't like TES', and how it should be. Veteran Fallout fans are no more selfish than any other fandom, including Bethesda's.



No, but you can max out nearly every skill and SPECIAL stat in the Fallout 3 while the mechanics in the older games didn't let you. Your stats in the original games actually mattered, not so much in Fallout 3.

Remember that in FO1 the maximum skill level is 200%, not 100%. So FO1's 67% is equivalent to FO3's 33%.



But it's a trait, not a perk, so it comes with a disadvantage.

And yes, we get it, you dislike turn-based games. For me, it's silly to say that a game is terrible just because it is of a genre (or subgenre) you're not fond of playing. I don't like to play racing games, but I don't see the point in saying that Need for Speed is terrible. It's just not my cup of tea.

Just like I'm not saying that the gameplay style of FO3 is terrible, simply that I don't like the fact that a sequel to a game series made in the gameplay style I like is in the style I don't like that much, while I would prefer it to be faithful to the style I did like.

I'm sure I would like an Elder Scrolls game done in the style of Fallout 1 and 2, as many Fallout fans would. But I'm also sure many Elder Scrolls fans would be quite disappointed.

My initial reaction would probably end up with me getting warned, but I guess they're not the games for you. SPECIAL isn't overpowered, you wouldn't end up as a death machine, with maxed out skills for everything. 67% guns still doesn't making you super with a 10mm, also the skill system is different than it is in FO3. With Finesse you also sacrifice damage for that critical chance - so it's still balanced over all. As for the game play being terrible, it seems you have a problem with TB and that's all. No matter, just not the games for you I guess.

I never said they were.

But when Fallout wasn't the FPSRPG 3 is, you didn't hear anybody complain that it wasn't an FPS. They just didn't play it. The "hardcoe" Fallout (1&2) fans just need to shut up, svck it up, and find something else to play. It's was Beths choice to go that route.

I don't follow - it's selfish to not be happy that it's now a real-time game instead of a turn-based RPG. But the converse isn't automatically true as well?

To each their own. I can't stand Eggs Benedict, but I understand others enjoy it very much. Out of curiosity - is it that the game is turn-based that you find dumb, or that it's with guns?

Skill values between Fallout 1 and Fallout 3 aren't interchangeable. Small Guns 67 in Fallout 1 meant you were still going to miss a lot of shots unless you got right in your enemies' faces. Not to mention that skills in Fallout 1 went up to 200 (300 in Fallout 2.) So Small Guns 67 is still less than half of the maximum in Fallout 1 - not so very high. Small Guns 67 is almost 3/4 of the way to the maximum. Two very different meanings with the same numbers.

All Traits (with the exception of Bloody Mess - which is just there for fun,) have trade-offs that counter the advantages you gain. Finesse does add to your Critical Chance, but also gives you 30% less damage for each attack. You need those extra critical hits you're going to get in order to do the same amount of damage as without it. It all kind of evens out.

By the way, coincidentally Bethesda's own Ashley Cheng has been complaining that Diablo 3 and StarCraft 2 are too "conservative" instead of being FPS.

You seem to be forgetting one very important factor, Fallout isn't a sequel, Fallout 3 is. Of course people wouldn't complain about the original not being a FPS/RPG when it came out (though I've certainly seen such complaints from newer fans), it was the first in the series and there weren't any expectations on what it should be, or definition of how a Fallout game should be. If you didn't like TB Iso RPGs, you wouldn't play the original, that's common sense. Fallout 3 is more sketchy in this regard, while it wasn't advertised as a TB iso RPG fans do have the right to complain that it wasn't. As a primary entry in the series there are certain expectations and standards that are expected to be met, Bethesda didn't even try to meet any of them.

And increasing your skills gets progressively harder in FO1 and 2, as after certain thresholds, you need to spend more skill points to increase the skill by 1%.

One more time...

It's selfish for the veteran FO (1 and 2) fanbase to whine because it's more of and FPS. After all, that was the devs choice. 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. Again, that was Beth's choice. Play it if you want, don't if you don't want to.

And crakkie, what's your point? Where in that quote does it imply that Fallout fans are the most selfish?

It wasn't an FPS for two games, then they made it into one. That's hardly selfish of them to be disappointed with the change from the game's legacy. Sort of like a Rainbow Six fan sad that the game's left its roots entirely.

This alone says to me that your review of the originals in comparison to FO3 is less than informed. Ok you don't like them, that much is clear. But your crtitcisms are less than objective and flamebait at best. I also don't suggest you force yourself to complete a game you aren't enjoying. Each to their own.

I'd add something of my own to this discussion, but I don't think I can say anything that hasn't been summed in some of the more discerning posts above.

I think it is. Gamers play the game devs make. They have nothing to do with them, they just play them. What gives you the right to complain about something just because it doesn't appeal to your taste? If you don't like it, don't play it. And definitely don't complain.

It is my human right, as I understand it, and as you clearly don't.

Take your favourite series and flip it on it's ass. Then pay for the privilege to be disappointed in the finished product. Or better yet, stop complaining about complainers.

What gives you the right ? Your power of thought. You can always complain and anyone who tells you otherwise, heh, is a sheep. Fans care about the thing they're fans of, be it a sports team, game, movie series, etc - so they can voice their disappointment with the direction the series has taken - especially in this case of a third party taking over. It's not a binary choice of liking the game entirely or despising it utterly - so making your complaints known can lead to the game changing the next iteration. Howard isn't Jesus, remember.

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

If you don't like a game you certainly have the right to complain, a developer can't fix their mistakes if you just lap up everything they throw at you even if it's complete crap. hardcoe Fallout fans have a right to play a game and complain about it, just as you have the right to complain about their complaints... which is counter-productive I might add.