Fallout 3 Should Have Been Like This - AMIRIGHT?

[SenisterDenister]

Anyone here played a game called Cyclones? That was my first, second was Tiberian Dawn, then Doom. I've only watched a friend of mine play Wolfenstien 3D, and that was way back when.

I did spent a chunk of my childhood playing Mechwarrior 2 and 3 though.

[King of Creation]

I think the first game I ever played was Amazon Trail when I was at elementary school. Second one was Castles II: Siege and Conquest I think, but I would religiously play Wolfenstein 3D when I went to my uncle's house (my parents would never buy me video games!).

[jetbaby]

Castles II was fucking awesome.

[Stainless]

Sadly enough I remember playing Castle 1 on Amiga and getting excited when hearing about Castles II.

[jimmypneumatic]

is that the same as the Dark Castle series? i remember playing that on the mac II.

[Smiley]

is that the same as the Dark Castle series? i remember playing that on the mac II.

I doubt it. But that was incidentally one of the first games I played. Along with shufflepuck and some 3d flight simulator in black and white.

[Stainless]

is that the same as the Dark Castle series? i remember playing that on the mac II.

no

[jimmypneumatic]

My dad had falcon 2.2 and chuck yeagers flight simulator. My goodness, pushing a megabyte in harddrive space there guys. And those wireframe graphics, woooeeeee! And Deus Ex 1 on the mac; although late in release was infact groundbreaking.

[POOPERSCOOPER]

i have always wanted to play Deus Ex. I remember, when i was a kid, getting computer games magazines and gawking at the advertisements for Deus Ex, but didnt think it was worth my money (brand new). Then i got Deus Ex: the invisible war a few years later in a cheapy bin at Game stop for 3$. It was pretty fun, i think those 3 dollars were well spent, it had an intriguing plot to it. But after playing that, i dont think i could handle looking at the outdated 3d graphics, they are just. If i had a choice, i would much rather play 2d isometric than 3D. I think the 3D back then was waaay to blocky. Even at the time, when those 3D things came out, i didnt like them. Its just becasue it is grotesque.

Well now i guess i can enjoy Deus Ex, but with pleasing visuals. Maybe,(im not even hoping anymore.)

I played Deus Ex for the first time I think 1 or 2 years ago and it was hard to get into beause of the graphics but once I did I really enjoyed it, it suprised me a lot. It's not often that a game gives you a bleh first impression then turns out to be awesome the more you play it anymore.


Also about the news story you know its going to come out on consoles and be just as dumbed down as other games. Releasing it just for PC just doesn't really happen anymore especially if its a big game.

[SenisterDenister]

Its still a push in the right direction, companies need to remember that PC gamers aren't console gamers. Modern Warfare 2 is a perfect example of companies forgetting their place in the market.

[Mishmaster5000]

When I got onto this forum, I thought I noticed a fellow community of people who loved the Fallout universe. Instead, every single topic with a hint at Fallout 3 recieves an outburst of "OMG DAT GAME WAS SO STUPID". Now, let's break this down from Bethesda's point of view. Bethesda needs to make money. You want a fully immersive, good looking Fallout experience. Bethesda knows that the Fallout community won't buy enough copies for their game to make profit, so they make it resemble an FPS, HOWEVER, Fallout 3 has some truly great moments in it, that surpass anything presented in Fallout 1 or 2. In Fallout 1, I could never look onto a nuclear sunrise, and realise how dessecated the wastes truly were. In Fallout 2, I couldn't really look at all the small details around the place. There are even some great mods, (An Evening with Mr. Winchester, and A Note Easily Missed) that add lenghty, investigative, roleplaying quests. People are too quick to bad mouth Fallout 3.

[SenisterDenister]

Better luck next time, troll.

0/10.

[Retlaw83]

You want a fully immersive, good looking Fallout experience.

So then why did Bethesda get no-talent hack writers to make the dialog and story, then stick that into an aging engine that was inferior to the generation of other technology it was released in?

[Mishmaster5000]

But you can't say Fallout 3 was a bad effort, nor a bad game. Was it like Fallout 1 or 2? Of course not, it wouldn't sell. Only the hardcore fans of the first game would buy it, or even hear of it. Get your head out of your ass, and stop adamantly refusing to like a game, just because it doesn't share some things with it's predecessor. The PC version is a perfectly good game, with some great visuals to boot.

[King of Creation]

To be honest, the graphics were outdated by the time the game came out. The NPCS were lifeless and and dialogue was boring and pointless. The voice actors were horrible and would have been better off in TV infomercials. The game has too many bugs to list, and a lot of them render the game virtually unplayable. Aside from a few quests and areas, the game was boring. As a shooter it failed, and as an RPG is failed. It tried too hard to be a hybrid and, as a result, it lost touch with both genres completely. I could go on, but I don't have the time.

Why? Probably because it was developed on the XBox 360.

[Retlaw83]

But you can't say Fallout 3 was a bad effort

I most certainly can. There were a lot of very small things they could have done to improve the quality.

nor a bad game.

Left 4 Dead had more roleplaying elements.

Was it like Fallout 1 or 2? Of course not, it wouldn't sell. Only the hardcore fans of the first game would buy it, or even hear of it. Get your head out of your ass, and stop adamantly refusing to like a game, just because it doesn't share some things with it's predecessor. The PC version is a perfectly good game, with some great visuals to boot.

The problem with Fallout 3 is not the first person perspective, it's emphasis on combat, or even it's departure stylistically and canonically with the previous games. The problem was the choices were limited, the writing terrible, and the story a nonsensical mashup of Fallout 1 and 2.

A unintriguing story, uninteresting characters, limited choices and terrible dialog is not Fallout. What really gets me is the fact that the NPC dialog in Broken Steel was leaps and bounds better than found in the original game, and it wasn't written by their head writer. So far as I know, it wasn't even written by people with English as a first language.

[SenisterDenister]

Yeah man, you're getting mad at us for not liking it, but did you actually read what all we said? They're all valid points, kid.

[Mishmaster5000]

Valid points, sure, but you really can't hit the plot too hard, and if you have a high end machine, and a few unofficial patches, the game both becomes stable, and playable. I do have to agree on the combat, though. The combat sucked donkey balls, and to actually get any fun out of it, you need to push your computer to a high setting, to eliminate lag. Then, the game's combat engine does become a bit fun. So, anyway, getting back to the plot, Fallout 1's plot wasn't entirely world creating material. The exposition was a big weak, IMO, while Fallout 3's let you make your character from the ground up, rather than just, " Our *Insert Macguffin here* is gone. Go find it." Also, Fallout 3 had a very expansive soundtrack, ,more than the previous two games offered. I do think that both games fell into RPG syndrome, namely, " We has 200 plots! We is complicated!" but the side quests made the game all the more fun.

[Frater Perdurabo]

rather than just, " Our *Insert Macguffin here* is gone. Go find it."

Have you seen my father?


On top of that, Fallout 2 soundtrack was absolutely outstanding.
I never listened to the Fallout 1 soundtrack, but the Fallout 2 soundtrack I even has as .mp3's and listened to that stuff a lot. Truly great work. Did you ever listen to it?

And when it comes to sidequests, well you can watch the speedplay of Fallout 2, I think it was around 8 or 11 minutes. Fallout 2, the entire game is a bunch of side quests, and the vast majority of them are better written than anything that Bethesda churned out with Fallout 3.

[Retlaw83]

Valid points, sure, but you really can't hit the plot too hard

In the third installment of a game series built on compelling stories, I can most certainly hit the plot hard.

and if you have a high end machine, and a few unofficial patches, the game both becomes stable, and playable.

If you need unofficial patches to make something stable, that means the original designers did a shit job..

So, anyway, getting back to the plot, Fallout 1's plot wasn't entirely world creating material. The exposition was a big weak, IMO, while Fallout 3's let you make your character from the ground up, rather than just, " Our *Insert Macguffin here* is gone. Go find it."

I agree it's a no more compelling start than "Your dad is gone, you need to find it," but the story of Fallout is discovering the world. Fallout 3's real world falls flat, the dialog is attrocious and none of the characters are memorable.

Yeah, sure the graphics are better - but this is 12 years later.

Also, Fallout 3 had a very expansive soundtrack, ,more than the previous two games offered. I do think that both games fell into RPG syndrome, namely, " We has 200 plots! We is complicated!" but the side quests made the game all the more fun.

Because soundtrack = good writing and logical story, right?