NoblesseOblige
Banned
It's important to me too. Which is why I create my own story for my own character, like we did before computer games.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Blistering Stupidity of Fallout 3
- Thread starter Ogimachi
- Start date
It's important to me too. Which is why I create my own story for my own character, like we did before computer games.
We saw the hydroponics in Fury Road. Also different mediums. A game the length and size of a Fallout can easily spend time on this, like New Vegas and Fallout 1 did as pointed out.
kamineko
Does his best thinking in the flying car
I thought Fallout 3 had pretty bad writing (for many of the reasons mentioned in the article. I'm surprised it required a couple of thousand words of elaboration.
The hackneyed, barely relevant quote from Revelations kind of sets the tone right at the start, doesn't it? I always tried to picture Liam Neeson's face when looking at the script for the first time.
Still, it had VATS, SPECIAL, skills, perks, and deathclaws. If you want a game with that stuff, FO3 was, for a time, the only game in town. I myself had a lot of fun with it.
This is absolutely the case. By comparison, F1 was Serious Business
The hackneyed, barely relevant quote from Revelations kind of sets the tone right at the start, doesn't it? I always tried to picture Liam Neeson's face when looking at the script for the first time.
Still, it had VATS, SPECIAL, skills, perks, and deathclaws. If you want a game with that stuff, FO3 was, for a time, the only game in town. I myself had a lot of fun with it.
This is absolutely the case. By comparison, F1 was Serious Business
Attempted to create? Explain.
I don't really know who approached who, but how is that relevant to this discussion? Obsidian Entertainment is more a part of Fallout than Bethesda is. Their employees have more history with the franchise than Bethesda, and were in the midst of creating Van Buren as well, which a lot of its design work was used in New Vegas.
The central plot line of a story driven game doesnt matter.
i can agree with the hate on FO3, the sense that it was all glitz and flash with no real substance. that said for all its nosensical story (because when HAS bethesda every made a really interesting plot?) i still enjoyed the wandering in that game, i enjoyed my dungeon crawls through the metro. etc.
That said i'm so glad New Vegas came out. it combined the gameplay that i liked in FO3 with a storyline and NPCs that actually made sense for the most part. NV really is one of my favorite games of all time and i've literally never been able to go back and play FO3 since NV came out.
That said i'm so glad New Vegas came out. it combined the gameplay that i liked in FO3 with a storyline and NPCs that actually made sense for the most part. NV really is one of my favorite games of all time and i've literally never been able to go back and play FO3 since NV came out.
EmCeeGramr
Member
I played through it a month or so ago and all I could think of was what Neeson thought about how half of his lines were "Son/honey, I love you a lot, because you are my son/daughter and I am your loving father. I miss your mother, son/honey, and we should turn on the water because of that, son/honey. I'm your dad."
Especially the line where, while he's working on his plan to save humanity and give it a fighting chance (the people west of the Rockies will be surprised to hear about that), he basically says, "Son... I am disappoint" at the news that you nuked a town and murdered a bunch of people
More Fun To Compute
Member
Most people don't want to explore dangerous worlds that challenge or reward them mentally. They want to skip through theme park worlds with an easily recognisable theme that doesn't go much deeper than the surface. Bethesda are being rewarded with huge sales from realising this.
It is art (loading screen? I forget) from Fallout 1, made by Justin Sweet.
I liked the 50's retro future/googie style of the game, and the silly humor ("Republic of Dave", "Ant Man", "Punga fruit" type stuff). But the bland color palette got to me after a while, along with the repetition in environments. Nearly every dungeon looked the same and had barely any puzzles or defining characteristics. And combat was repetitive as hell.
By attempted, I mean, in my opinion, the success of it is based in nostalgia. Outside of that it's an incredibly flawed and empty world.
Obsidian were the ones to approach Zenimax. I apologize for not being able to provide documentation of the sort. But how is it more relevant that Obsidian, according to you, knows more about the Fallout universe than Bethesda? Bethesda has artistic license, do they not? Whether they choose to placate or move on and create their own narrative seems hardly subjective.
None of the Fallout games exist in a vacuum.
Do you know how patronizing that sounds?
Beelzebufo
Banned
I laughed at the "everyone is starting a war over who gets to push the button and commit suicide" bit.
"Due to this overwhelming consensus"
Gets me every single time.
You're in a WRPG thread.
More Fun To Compute
Member
Yes but I'm still right.
Empty, I agree. It is a desert. I'm interested in hearing what makes NV's world incredibly flawed, though.
e: also I feel the need to mention that I literally got into the old Fallouts less than a month ago, and I've considered NV the better game of the two since it's release. The nostalgia argument is terrible.
Last Hearth
Member
After reading the article I realized that I had forgotten everything about the plot and characters of Fallout 3.
And I liked it that way.
In the end I didn't even need to careful analysis of how nonsensical it was. The fact that I played the game for 100 hours but remember nothing of its plot or characters tell me how bad the writing was.
Bethesda is probably my least favorite RPG developer. F3 is the only game of theirs that I didn't quit after 5 hours.
And I liked it that way.
In the end I didn't even need to careful analysis of how nonsensical it was. The fact that I played the game for 100 hours but remember nothing of its plot or characters tell me how bad the writing was.
Bethesda is probably my least favorite RPG developer. F3 is the only game of theirs that I didn't quit after 5 hours.
I only stated that Obsidian is more connected to Fallout because it appeared you were trying to dismiss their results on some opportunistic reasoning, nevertheless, yes, it's irrelevant.
Nostalgia? The point of this article, and arguments for Fallout: New Vegas is that Obsidian skillfully managed to create a believable setting, a cohesive inter-connected world, implemented better writing and questing, and among other things is why it's considered the better modern Fallout.
If you have something to add to this discussion, reasons for why it's all "nostalgia" and "flawed" feel free to post, but so far you've gone off on tangents that don't make any sense.
kamineko
Does his best thinking in the flying car
How can he ever show his face at the country club again?
I always wondered how they held everything together in a bad karma playthrough. Same way they hold everything together, I suppose
Shake Appeal
Member
I enjoyed this article, but it only skims the surface of why Fallout 3 is, for me, the most disappointing and overrated game of all time!
Man Called Aerodynamics
Member
I'm no huge Fallout guy but it did bother me in 3 how many settings looked like the war had taken place last month, not 200 years ago. Like you'd walk into a room in an established settlement and there would be a broken chair in the corner and papers strewn around on the floor. People have been living here for decades and no one has thrown any of that stuff away yet?
You know, I think that yes, Bethesda dumbed down the RP aspect. The previous Fallouts were a lot better for really allowing you to play however you want and your choices really making a difference in how people treated you and what choices you had to make.
But, where people lose me is when they claim that 1 + 2 did better exploration/world building. First most of that wide map area was just that, a map that you got to watch an icon of where your character was on it. Random events happened in a set amount of premade areas that were randomized as to which one you got and what it contained. That's not really exploration at all nor is it immersive. It felt more like a representation of where your character was at/use your imagination kinda thing. Having the car in 2 was great cause that meant I wasn't spending a lot of time watching a line on a map, it sped that part up (which honestly was boring until you got a random encounter or hit a town). Towns all had the same buildings but in different set of angular shapes.
The exploration in 1+2 was more just in discovering the NPCs than the areas. The areas were just backdrop.
Bethesda brought in a lot more interesting areas to explore. IT was far more interesting to just go around just to see what was around the corner in the Bethesda/Obsidian games. Also, I quite enjoyed the first person gameplay perspective (Obsidian did it better to be honest but for me just the introduction of iron sights made it a lot more fun and I used VATs a lot less). They did bring things to the game that I do think improved it. As well as stuff that weakened it (some of it was necessary cause you only have so much resources to go around and building the world of 1 and 2 definitely takes a lot less time/resources than 3 and New Vegas. You don't have to spend near as much time in detail and just more in layouts. Giving yourself more time to put details in other stuff like character writing/story). And I'm sorry, I do enjoy the real time combat to turn based (and I have nothing against turn based. I'm excited for when Wastelands 2 gets to PS4).
New Vegas would not have been my favorite game of all time without some of the major changes Bethesda brought in. Sure, the RP wasn't as strong in 2 and you didn't get near as many choices on how to respond to characters in the dialogue. But to me they did a perfect compromise between what was good about old school Fallout and what was good about what Bethesda brought in. I really really hope Bethesda allows Obsidian to do another Fallout. Or at the very least Bethesda has taken some lessons from New Vegas (and honestly, if what some of what they are claiming is true, it sounds like they did take some lessons. Of course that remains to be seen and I'm a tad skeptical but I'm not going to close my mind that maybe they did).
If it makes those who hate what Bethesda did feel better, 2 was my 2nd favorite Fallout I've played (but *Gasp*, I actually enjoyed 3 more than 1).
But, where people lose me is when they claim that 1 + 2 did better exploration/world building. First most of that wide map area was just that, a map that you got to watch an icon of where your character was on it. Random events happened in a set amount of premade areas that were randomized as to which one you got and what it contained. That's not really exploration at all nor is it immersive. It felt more like a representation of where your character was at/use your imagination kinda thing. Having the car in 2 was great cause that meant I wasn't spending a lot of time watching a line on a map, it sped that part up (which honestly was boring until you got a random encounter or hit a town). Towns all had the same buildings but in different set of angular shapes.
The exploration in 1+2 was more just in discovering the NPCs than the areas. The areas were just backdrop.
Bethesda brought in a lot more interesting areas to explore. IT was far more interesting to just go around just to see what was around the corner in the Bethesda/Obsidian games. Also, I quite enjoyed the first person gameplay perspective (Obsidian did it better to be honest but for me just the introduction of iron sights made it a lot more fun and I used VATs a lot less). They did bring things to the game that I do think improved it. As well as stuff that weakened it (some of it was necessary cause you only have so much resources to go around and building the world of 1 and 2 definitely takes a lot less time/resources than 3 and New Vegas. You don't have to spend near as much time in detail and just more in layouts. Giving yourself more time to put details in other stuff like character writing/story). And I'm sorry, I do enjoy the real time combat to turn based (and I have nothing against turn based. I'm excited for when Wastelands 2 gets to PS4).
New Vegas would not have been my favorite game of all time without some of the major changes Bethesda brought in. Sure, the RP wasn't as strong in 2 and you didn't get near as many choices on how to respond to characters in the dialogue. But to me they did a perfect compromise between what was good about old school Fallout and what was good about what Bethesda brought in. I really really hope Bethesda allows Obsidian to do another Fallout. Or at the very least Bethesda has taken some lessons from New Vegas (and honestly, if what some of what they are claiming is true, it sounds like they did take some lessons. Of course that remains to be seen and I'm a tad skeptical but I'm not going to close my mind that maybe they did).
If it makes those who hate what Bethesda did feel better, 2 was my 2nd favorite Fallout I've played (but *Gasp*, I actually enjoyed 3 more than 1).
borborygmus
Member
Fallout 2 is charismatically silly. Fallout 3 misses the point and plays the '60s sci-fi' angle much more straightforwardly.
Judging by the Fallout 4 trailer, they're doubling down on playing it even more straight because of the increased pre-apocalyptic focus (who the hell cares about 1960s suburbia) and it seems they cannot get past the moment when the nukes hit as being a big deal, whereas Fallout's themes are much richer than "omg they didn't see those nukes coming." Bethesda has never understood the dark humor of Fallout.
Accurate post. Fallout 3 was brainlessly by-the-numbers with no regard to cohesiveness and consistency. New Vegas is just infinitely superior in every way.
Playing and enjoying a stupid game doesn't make you stupid. Playing and enjoying a smart game doesn't make you smart.
The article was surprisinly superficial consider all the fuck ups done by the game and a minute-by minute basis, Skyrim showed they learned nothing, and when I say "They" I mean 1. Bethesda bug-ridden, shitty writting ways, 2. The Journalists that will give it massive reviews that skip the unbalanced gameplay and bugs in certain versions and 3. The gamers that will rewards this mediocrity to later complain that they got tricked into buying a broken game.
Because Bethesda stopped doing turn based games a long time ago and that is not their forte (and from what I understand their turn based games were not top down ones either)? Because that is not what Bethesda wanted to do but saw potential in the game to do something more in their style? Because Bethesda probably would fail miserably if they tried to make the game in some style that they just don't focus on because they wouldn't really understand the best way to make a turn based game interesting? Because story/characterization is not their forte at all and without that their turn based Fallout would probably be far worse and do far worse than taking Fallout and doing it in a style of game they are more familiar with. Because they liked the concept and thought it would do well in their style of game? And judging from how many people liked Fallout 3, they were right.
Also, old school Fallout fans need to realize that Fallout would have died most likely if some one hadn't bought it. It wasn't going to stay with Interplay. And sure, you may say better dead than made, but a lot of us really enjoyed 3 (and Vegas which would never have existed either). You can just ignore it if you think it's better off dead than made. Personally, I think it was better than the alternative (both EA and Ubisoft apparently wanted to buy it).
Welcome to GAF. This bullshit goes on the time. There was one poster here who insisted that anyone who enjoyed Skyrim was autistic. Yep, he was an asshole, and he's not the only one.
What was the reason that FO1 was 50s inspired?
AFAIK the whole idea was that the culture kind of stagnated around the 50s, and they never developed culture, music or tech much beyond what they had on 1950, so when the bombs fell in 2077, the word still looked the same.
Don't think it is unreasonable the few survivors of the nuclear war cannot advance culture either, between the time from Fallout 1 to Fallout 3, if the whole world kept it up from 1950 to 2077.
That complaint is kind of petty and dumb.
AFAIK the whole idea was that the culture kind of stagnated around the 50s, and they never developed culture, music or tech much beyond what they had on 1950, so when the bombs fell in 2077, the word still looked the same.
Don't think it is unreasonable the few survivors of the nuclear war cannot advance culture either, between the time from Fallout 1 to Fallout 3, if the whole world kept it up from 1950 to 2077.
That complaint is kind of petty and dumb.
peanutbutterlatte
Member
Yeah, so sick of this shit. If you don't like the games its fair enough but quit with the outright arrogance.
More Fun To Compute
Member
If you want to prove me wrong and correct my arrogance then fine but I don't really care about attacks on my personality. I'm talking about the games and not even judging people who don't want more from their games.
joecanada
Member
haha I love these threads... Fallout 3 is my only platinum and one of my GOAT.... the story? was great if you just think of it as a blast from the past type movie , thats the name of that movie with brendan fraser right where he is locked in the bomb shelter?
both make pretty bad stories but its campy and dumb and kind of fun... People who take video game stories seriously concern me as there are no good video game stories except the ones blatantly copied from books or movies.... they fall into two categories, laugh at the B movie for fun or skip cutscenes "X, X, X, X" most are the latter and piss me off when I cant skip... Fallout 3 was actually kind of funny and had a great 50s style "oh no the commies are coming!" type vibe from 50s era USA.
"the glass doesn't break when it falls" so now we are going to break down the physics engine of every video game? No thanks.
both make pretty bad stories but its campy and dumb and kind of fun... People who take video game stories seriously concern me as there are no good video game stories except the ones blatantly copied from books or movies.... they fall into two categories, laugh at the B movie for fun or skip cutscenes "X, X, X, X" most are the latter and piss me off when I cant skip... Fallout 3 was actually kind of funny and had a great 50s style "oh no the commies are coming!" type vibe from 50s era USA.
"the glass doesn't break when it falls" so now we are going to break down the physics engine of every video game? No thanks.
Beelzebufo
Banned
I honestly can't tell if you're joking lol
NV funnels you in a specific direction. If you have figured out how to get to Vegas without following the same exact path as everyone else, let me know.
Outside of that, it's running on a broken engine, which Oblivion seemed to have had little interest in improving (not sure if I spent more time in load screens or actual gameplay). The writing is clever, and the narrative paths are interesting, but it all ends up being rather empty. As far as mechanics ... I feel NV is empty and stale, while I felt F3 was full of possibilities. And it's hard to argue who saw the possibilities, while we all look forward to F4.
peanutbutterlatte
Member
Throwing out the "theme park world" stock complaint that you heard someone use once and thought sounded clever without any further backing up is hardly watertight criticism.
I wish I was as optimistic as you.
I do not believe the industry is infatuated with open world design.
I believe it is done because its cheap, fast, and easy, compared to actual design. Simply fractal generate a bunch of landscapes, pick a good one, drp assets, npcs, and quests around it, crap it out, string it up with a simple finite state machine for progression, auto level scaling so you dont have to design jack concerning enemy placement and balance, and start on the next one or dlc.
This isnt going to continue until todd howard gets bored of it, he doesnt have that control anymore. Its going to continue as long as trump and sloan, and the rest of zenimax's board of directors can continue squeezing every dime out of the streamlined, factory process
Solid Samus
Banned
There's plenty of reasoning behind the theme park world criticism and to act as though there's not just tells me you haven't been in one of these threads before?
I really want to know what you mean by 'empty'. I've replayed both Fallout 3 and New Vegas recently and I've had a way more interesting time character building and roleplaying in NV than Fallout 3, particularly because the questlines and the gameplay mechanics allow for so much more for you to shape your character around than in Fallout 3. What possibilities does Fallout 3 offer mechanically that Fallout NV doesn't? Fallout NV, which boasts a proper hardcore mode, iron sights, crafting and weapon mods, a much wider variety of unique armors/weps/items to find and use, a proper faction system that was malleable to the point where you could disguise yourself and infiltrate many areas and situations, and better skill/special utilization throughout, alongside questlines that don't betray themselves and help to weave a more consistent and cohesive story while offering more options for the players to express their own particular headcanon for their character?
My favorite part of Fallout 3's plot is when you bring Fawkes to the water purifier in the Broken Steel DLC and the game basically goes "And so the Lone Wanderer arranged for the water purifier to be turned on like everyone wanted, except he didn't die, which no one wanted anyway, which means he's a massive fucking coward. Anyone who questions why the Lone Wanderer should die for no reason is clearly some kind of sub-human troglodyte idiot fucker, and no video game writers are ever in any way petty, but instead deserving of everyone's adulation for their cleverness and stunning good looks."
For your first question, easy. Find the stealth boy hidding in the school I believe and stealth your way past the deathclaws/cazadores. Many people have done it. It's become a challenge to see if you can go the short way.
And I don't even get how you can say mechanics wise New Vegas felt empty and stale compared to 3. Are you kidding me? New Vegas had far better crafting, modding for the weapons, you had more complexity in how you wanted your character perceived (not just evil or good but which factions liked him/her and which didn't and even being able to get factions to get along if you did the right quests right). I don't even see how 3 is better in mechanics. Oh yeah, iron sights too (which was a good enough change it made actually playing real time fun vs. using VATs. I think I forgot VATs was even a thing in New Vegas with how little I use it). Oh, and hardcore mode too!
Where in the world do you get that New Vegas had shallower gameplay mechanics? Did you even play it?! Sure they built on there but they improved it vastly. Even if you want to point out they are not big changes, they did a lot to really enhance the game. I mean I have defended 3 in this thread but New Vegas was vastly better than 3 (But I admit it would never be my favorite game of all time without the changes Bethesda brought in to Fallout).
As for story feeling shallow? I guess that's opinion but I'll point out the fact you have people still arguing over if Caesar was ultimately the best choice (Which I vehemently disagree with by the way but you do have people arguing it) says otherwise. Not to mention the arguments about whether NCR was actually pretty evil themselves, if House was a good guy. And the most agreed upon, if you really wanted to play good guy you taking over was probably the best (and there's still qualms about that). Also, every follower having a pretty detailed story that you had to do the right things to unlock (That fit with their personality). Each had a pretty involving story in themselves. So, yeah, I disagree with that opinion too. 3's story was pretty forgetable and more of an excuse to play the game. I'm far more affected by Vegas's characters and story than 3's and they have lasted a lot longer in my imagination than 3's whose characters and story were a lot more forgetable.
joecanada
Member
I'm not joking in the slightest.
More Fun To Compute
Member
Theme park is a common technical description for open world games. It describes the structure of how the player can interact with the world doing things like picking up quests and clearing dungeons. Really my complaint is not just that these quests take you "on a ride" but that they lack a certain type of depth or believability.
I know this is cliche, but DLC is shit 99% of the time. When that shit is being made, everyone is on vacation.
kamineko
Does his best thinking in the flying car
I believe this is true. I think it's also true that, if TES is the model, the systems will grow less and less complex, which simplifies the production proceess, and additionally has broad appeal for the audience that claims to like RPGs, but hates all the boring numbers and statistics that traditionally distinguish RPGs. Eventually, Doom and Fallout will be able to run in the same engine, because the only mechanical differences will be art style and dialog choices that have merely an illusion of consequence.
I'm guessing a decade or so?
joecanada
Member
now that I do agree with lol, most of them are terrible. also the ps3 version couldn't even sputter past the third dlc or so your saves would eventually just crumble.
Turn-based combat is superior to generic FPS shooting.
But to be fair without the DLC it's shit that you can't get your followers (the ones that are immune to radiation or even get healed by it) to go in there to fix the thing. With some lame excuse that it is your destiny. I mean would it have taken them that much more work to find an excuse to force you to go in there that wasn't so obviously, "the game developers want you to do it for story reasons because they want their dramatic ending"? The DLC actually improved it some by maybe being a little bitchy about you still not doing it the way the developers want you to do but at least not forcing you in a really contrived way.
I mean maybe make it so your follower ends up having to go do something else and isn't there to help in time. It wouldn't be that hard to make them follower be indisposed.
I mean the writing isn't just bad in 3 at times, it's downright lazy! I could have come up with something better and it wouldn't have taken me too much time at all.