Duck and Cover

I really enjoyed the computer simulation and a few other events in the game, and enjoyed exploring the map but, all in all, quite bland. I was expecting a lot more after seeing all of the locations (and "points of interest") in the game. Wow. I still enjoy the game immensely but feels very un-Fallout despite all of their attempts what with the vault boy bobble heads and such. But I do make some connections in the game despite all of this, which is why I still enjoy it as much as I do. But for what they had to work off of, severely disappointing and no not because of the 1st person/3rd person view, no not because of the combat system, and no not because it is very similiar to Oblivion, they could have made it much much much more immersive and still be lazy, come on. Boring, redundent, slapped together randomness fills the cracks in the game, yet I want to continue on playing it. Fin.

Edit

Not to mention the lack of unique random NPCs, people walking around high/drunk, lack of unique encounters, and at times poor gameplay dynamics. And a severe lack of sex and dark humor and large places to visit, not just burnt out ruins, come on it's 30 years after FO2, where is the human ingenuity? Oh yes and no raiders or groups of ruffians or whatever that can't be interacted with in any way but to cut their heads off with the unique gatling laser.

Your review is somewhat bland.

Provocative. Blandly so.

VasikkA wrote:Your review is somewhat bland.

I didn't want it to be a review. It's just more bullshit on this website.

Drunk_Squid wrote:

VasikkA wrote:Your review is somewhat bland.

I didn't want it to be a review. It's just more bullshit on this website.

At least it's our bullshit, not somebody else's.

Well long story short, I really enjoy Fallout 3, many things I love about it, a few things I hate about it, but it could have been a lot better, end of story.
Wow I guess it's not that hard to come across forums like this on the internet where everyone mimics one another. Think for yourself.

If by "somewhat" you mean "totally" and "bland" you mean "shit"....then I wholeheartedly agree.

No, no... I've gone over this myself in the past couple days, and Squiddy's right.

There are elements in the game that are worth appreciation, even if there are ample ones that are not. The thing is, between our love for the first two [and Tactics, if you are among that populus], the time passed since the last game, the ever-growing immortalization in our minds, and the passing of the last generation of fallout creative minds to the next, there was virtually no way our built-up expectations could ever be met.
Besides, since the previous game was a complete piece of shit, we were apt to assume whatever followed in its place would be as well. It's base human nature to recognize and think by way of patterns.

Even if Beth had made the new fallout as an isometric overhead sandbox/etc as we wanted, do you guys have any idea how little that would gain appeal? As far as records go, strategy and overhead type games have much less appeal on consoles, and these days, console titles (whether or not they also are available for computer) are the ever-hungry market that game companies profit from feeding. For a project more than half a decade in the making, nobody intends on catering to only one audience. I don't even think the original Fallout was meant to cater to a singular audience, but instead, it ended up creating one.

As things stand, we're just going to have to accept Fallout 3, for both it's good and bad attributes. Though we remember them for everything great about them, surely Fallout 1 and 2 had flaws. That's just the way it is.

Manoil wrote:the ever-growing immortalization in our minds, and the passing of the last generation of fallout creative minds to the next, there was virtually no way our built-up expectations could ever be met.

I rather like FMF (or atleast what I remember of all the story docs) and despite some things in Van Buren that I don't think I'd have enjoyed too much, the game sounded very promising and I liked that tech demo they had alot. Either one of those would have been a perfectly good Fallout 3 in my opinion. So no - your statement is not true. Now I do believe that if Van Buren came out, there would be complaints, no doubt, BUT I think if we had to weigh the two on a scale, everyone in this community would have chosen Van Buren over the actual FO3.

As far as records go, strategy and overhead type games have much less appeal on consoles

Tell that to the 50 million people who are gonna buy Halo Wars for 360. For bonus points - tell that to everyone who made Final Fantasy Tactics a Greatest Hit......twice as well as many other over the head strategy Rpgs which are a very popular genre ON CONSOLES. I hate to break this to you, but I play more turn based strategy RPGs on consoles than my computer, so I don't wanna hear this argument as it's complete bull.

nobody intends on catering to only one audience.

If you hadn't noticed the varied populous of DaC, then maybe you haven't been paying enough attention. We're not just one audience. This may be before your time, but I made a thread as to what exactly an RPG consists of. No concensus could be reached, but everyone agreed that Fallout was just about the epitome of an RPG. Different things to different people.

On the other hand - you know who all my coworkers suggest FO3 to? First person shooter fans and oblivion fans, using (quite literally) "Oblivion with Guns" as the descriptor.

As things stand, we're just going to have to accept Fallout 3, for both it's good and bad attributes

I don't HAVE to accept anything. There is no Fallout 3. What the fuck are you guys talking about? Troika will purchase the rights any day now. Thread closed, pls.

Manoil wrote:isometric overhead sandbox

That's irrelevant.

The problem is that even with the pretty enviroments(and yes, that's where Bethesda did a good job even though they overdid out the 50's factor), Fallout 3 is nothing else than a retextured Oblivion. The only reason to play the game is to explore and discover new locations. And that gets boring fast. Everything else is forgettable. The characters look the same, sound the same and say the same awkward lines. You don't feel attached to anyone or anything. Minigames are pointless. The combat loses its function once you've reached the level cap. Character stats are completely irrelevant; Every game turns out the same no matter what character you play.

Fallout 3 is a vapid turd even without a reference point in the past. But it sure does appeal to dumbfucks.

But it sure does appeal to dumbfucks.

Could this game also appeal to alcoholics?

Manoil wrote:No, no... I've gone over this myself in the past couple days, and Squiddy's right.

There are elements in the game that are worth appreciation, even if there are ample ones that are not. The thing is, between our love for the first two [and Tactics, if you are among that populus], the time passed since the last game, the ever-growing immortalization in our minds, and the passing of the last generation of fallout creative minds to the next, there was virtually no way our built-up expectations could ever be met.
Besides, since the previous game was a complete piece of shit, we were apt to assume whatever followed in its place would be as well. It's base human nature to recognize and think by way of patterns.

Even if Beth had made the new fallout as an isometric overhead sandbox/etc as we wanted, do you guys have any idea how little that would gain appeal? As far as records go, strategy and overhead type games have much less appeal on consoles, and these days, console titles (whether or not they also are available for computer) are the ever-hungry market that game companies profit from feeding. For a project more than half a decade in the making, nobody intends on catering to only one audience. I don't even think the original Fallout was meant to cater to a singular audience, but instead, it ended up creating one.

As things stand, we're just going to have to accept Fallout 3, for both it's good and bad attributes. Though we remember them for everything great about them, surely Fallout 1 and 2 had flaws. That's just the way it is.

Manoil wrote: I don't even think the original Fallout was meant to cater to a singular audience, but instead, it ended up creating one.

no, no - you see, people who love *good* video games already were around before Fallout - so it didn't really "create" the audience.

The thing I liked about Fallout as far as audiences went was, even though my best mate could never get into Fallout 1/2 he could still appreciate how awesome it was (to the point he constantly tried to get into it, but it just never held his interest). That being said, he loved Morrowind, enjoyed Oblivion and thought that Fallout 3 was a boring piece of shit.

I did enjoy fallout 1 and 2 more than this, but I still think this game is great. Every game series needs to advance with the times. Final Fantasy, Metroid, Half Life, Donkey Kong, and Resident Evil all did, and look how popular they are. Why not Fallout? One of the greatest games of all time! I did feel a little sad about the removle of traits, but i can live with that. Plus, I think it is great how you can use a teddy bear to blow a super mutants head off! I mean, COME ON! THAT'S FUNNY!

And Manoil, you talk shit about FO3 yet your avatar is a Deathclaw from FO3. i know, i got a close up screen shot of one, before i died.

MedicPowerArmor wrote:and look how popular they are.

Popularity is now a rubric for quality huh? Fallout 3 was fucking terrible insofar as being a sequel to the previous two, failing to carry on the core principles that made the games worth playing.

MedicPowerArmor wrote:Plus, I think it is great how you can use a teddy bear to blow a super mutants head off! I mean, COME ON! THAT'S FUNNY!

True Fallout spirit.

Wolfman Walt wrote:Thread closed, pls.

I'm considering it.

Manoil wrote:Even if Beth had made the new fallout as an isometric overhead sandbox/etc as we wanted, do you guys have any idea how little that would gain appeal?

We can't know that for sure; maybe it'd get a free ride on the Post-Apoc Diablo 3 train to success.

Nevertheless, it would have been a shitty fucking game. In case you haven't noticed, the devs over at Bethesda can't keep a fucking puzzle game consistent. Their writers make children's television look like Shakespeare. Their engine struggles along like an age-old mule, constantly stopping to puke its guts out. They can't keep their voice actors interested in what they're doing; they might as well use text-to-speech applications to get more emotionally involving dialogue. They still haven't learned how to use enviromental sounds and musics to set the setting, falling back on imitating well tried cliches.

In fact, the only thing they have managed to impress me with, is their pr tactics -- they're keeping everyone who's anything on a string, and continue making money on releasing these epic turds. If they can manage to make money out of a buggy piece of fanfic Oblivion modding like this, I'm sure a jewed bastard isometric Fallout spin-off would draw an equal ammount of wealth in their filthy hands, if not more.

MedicPowerArmor wrote:And Manoil, you talk shit about FO3 yet your avatar is a Deathclaw from FO3. i know, i got a close up screen shot of one, before i died.

Wow. Somehow, I'm giving defense to Fallout 3, and yet... not?

Caz and Walt, the statement was merely that Fallout in itself, created a following that drew people away from other gatherings. The Wasteland became the place for the cool kids.

However, Walt, I still emphasize the comparison of strategy vs. shooters. The difference in sales is staggering-- Halo Wars is getting the extra attention because of the mindless masses following the game. Course, I'm not disregarding the value of a good strategy game; I'm a Red Alert 2 and Warcraft III fan all the way through.

And not accepting that Fallout 3 has happened is just a state of denial; hold your eyes closed as long as you want, the raindrops have already hit the ground whether or not you watched it happen.

Granted, you're right-- Van Buren could have been somethin' fierce. But they failed to finish the job, and failed us all. We're gonna have to live with that and move on.

VasikkA, you're right, no doubt, but limitations are limitations, I spose. There's only so much you can put into a game, and as far as the people were concerned, it's annoying that there wasn't more dedication towards creating a larger amount of diversity in the NPCs, but you figure they were probably spending that time elsewhere. It's not an excuse, I know, especially when all the women have mustaches.


However, I'm still convinced that the true potential for a good Fallout game comes from Fallout fans, not Fallout "workers". I propose mass collaboration and communication, for Fallout fans to first brainstorm every enjoyable element of Fallout, along with every possible idea for story and plot. After enough has been clumped together, we examine it all and refine it. When we've got enough good and refined ideas, along with any possible plot combinations, we present them together to be voted upon. The entire system builds and refines work selected by the Fallout fans, for the Fallout fans. Not for Oblivion or Morrowind players, not for Call of Duty players. That doesn't mean it doesn't come out as another FPS; but also, we reexamine a 3rd person isometric setup.

Is it worth the effort? Or are we all just critics who only judge finished creations, and not creators who eagerly await criticism?