It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
razvan252: yes it is. its not a role playing game. its an fps much like far cry 2. no tradition?
Fallout 3
Fallout 3 DLCs
Fallout: New Vegas
Fallout 3: Point Lookout
Fallout 4
and who knows how many more are or will be annonced.

Fallout 3 is an action RPG. Like Oblivion and Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines.
As for tradition, the DLC is part of the same game, nothing has been said about what Fallout: New Vegas will be like (except that Obsidian are doing it, and several of the original series developers are on the team), and Fallout 4 hasn't even been announced yet. So that's still one confirmed game being "a shitty FPS". You're obviously free to speculate wildly about the future of the franchise, but it doesn't hold water as an argument.
avatar
razvan252: bad word killed. it RAPED the franchise.

This still seems a bit rabid, but fine, feel that way. There's no argument against this except "I disagree", which I do.
avatar
Undeadbeat: hello?? van buren??? interplay will always be alive and kicking no matter what financial difficulties they are in. and ive been over this recently. isometric or top down view camera games are FAR from dead. look some of them up on gamespot. and i doubt that one of the most expected games, starcraft 2 will have it any other way.

Van Buren? Van Buren got officially cancelled in 2003, along with the closing down of Black Isle studios. Interplay are indeed still around, but the Van Buren team are not with them (although some of them are, as I said, with Obsidian, and working on New Vegas).
As for isometric view, I cannot think of one single recent game using it. Starcraft 2 will most likely have a rotatable camera, like almost all modern RTS games do. If you could show me an example of an upcoming game employing isometric camera, I'd be much obliged. Keep in mind that portable console games do not count, since they are limited by what the hardware can handle (in other words, having isometric view on a DS game is rarely an artistic choice).
avatar
razvan252: that was for consoles. i dont care about consoles.

Whether you care or not doesn't really affect my argument. My point is that worse things have been done to this franchise than Fallout 3.
avatar
razvan252: if i dont play it how could i say the game sucks?

I figured it went without saying, but what I meant was that you should just stop playing if you're not enjoying the game.
avatar
razvan252: from my point of view the franchise would have been better off dead in the first place. they didnt revive it. they USED its name and content(hell even quests. search for a geck?? what the fuck???) to sell their crappy game.

In that case, why don't you just pretend that the franchise truly is dead and keep replaying Fallout 1 & 2?
1. To say there will be no other fps fallout 3 like games would be like saying there are no other life forms in the infinite space.
2. You like the game. okay. fine. i dont mind. im just saying i dont. let me not like it.
3. I can not pretend that bethesda never ruined the franchise. sorry.
however i dont really blame bethesda. they saw the opportunity and took it. just as any money hungry company like EA(and now recently valve) would do.
i do blame interplay though. they shuld have sold their souls but not the fallout license.
oh and about top camera(isometric can only be achieved in 2d) thing, im just going to quote a smart dude:

Really, this argument is pointless, turn-based isometric games still sell, it's all the marketing. Believe it or not, the bullshit PR that made Fallout 3 so popular in the first place is the same bullshit PR that could make a new isometric turn-based Fallout sell.
Or do you people really believe the market is so narrow that nearly every popular game is only defined by perspective?
Post edited June 21, 2009 by razvan252
wow...am I the only one here who really enjoyed fallout 3? it's what led me to get fallout 2, which is a better game, no doubt, but I don't think you should slam 3 because it's different. If it makes you happy, pretend it doesn't exist, I'm gonna keep playing it.
avatar
benpasko: wow...am I the only one here who really enjoyed fallout 3? it's what led me to get fallout 2, which is a better game, no doubt, but I don't think you should slam 3 because it's different. If it makes you happy, pretend it doesn't exist, I'm gonna keep playing it.

but then what would i hate? i need to hate something you know.
avatar
benpasko: wow...am I the only one here who really enjoyed fallout 3? it's what led me to get fallout 2, which is a better game, no doubt, but I don't think you should slam 3 because it's different. If it makes you happy, pretend it doesn't exist, I'm gonna keep playing it.

I don't hate it in fact I quite enjoy it. All the people who hate Fallout 3 are stuck in nostalgiaville with no way out. I have played all of the Fallouts and I still enjoy 3. It was a great and refreshing RPG especially compared to what other crap RPGs have come out since then. My only complaint is all the DLC it seems more like Bethesda didn't release all their ideas with the game and instead decided to milk it for more money.
avatar
Delekhan: milk it for more money.

horse armor much?
avatar
Delekhan: milk it for more money.
avatar
razvan252: horse armor much?

Yeah but the Horse Armor didn't do jack. I feel bad for anyone who bought that. :P I did like all the little hideouts and bases they created for Oblivion though but that was because it was dirty cheap to buy.
avatar
Delekhan: milk it for more money.
avatar
razvan252: horse armor much?

Don't make me start the Great Oblivion vs. Fallout 3 Mega Posts!!
avatar
razvan252: horse armor much?
avatar
JudasIscariot: Don't make me start the Great Oblivion vs. Fallout 3 Mega Posts!!

well i dunno a about that but oblivion >>>> fallout 3.
1. Tag skills
Bethesda completely missed the boat on the whole notion of 'Tag Skills' from the original games. In the originals, you picked three tag skills at the beginning of the game. They were your character's specialties. You want a medic with a good throwing arm that can pick locks? Pick Medicine, Throwing, Lock Picking. For the rest of the game, every time you level, and skill point put into a tag skill will be doubled. So, like, it's easier to become proficient at your character's specialties.
This isn't how it works in Fallout 3.
In Fallout 3, you pick three tag skills at the beginning. These tag picks give you a +10 bonus to the skill and... that's it.
How dumb is that? Not sure why the crippled the Tag skills. Why not just give the player an extra 30 skill points to allocate when he makes his character? It would have the same in-game outcome.
Another criticism of the skills: In Fallout 3, like Oblivion, many characters are going to be masters of everything in the game. This wasn't really possible in Fallout 2 -- well not to the same extent. Stuff like tag skills and actually having to specialize gave your character more... character.
Oh yeah: Fallout 2: 18 skills. Fallout 3: 13 skills. Enough said.
2. Items that magically boost stats
Only a small handful of items in Fallout 2 modified your skills or attributes. Not so in Fallout 3. This time around, we have leather jackets that magically give you bonuses to melee combat. What's up with that? Having a dictionary in my pocket may prevent me from making less errors when writing something like this out -- sure. But what if I'm wearing a shirt with a dictionary on it? Should that cut down on my grammatical errors? No, I don't thinke so.
And bobbleheads. There are 20 or so bobbleheads in the game. The all magically give you stats. I don't want to feel like my character is gimped if I don't track down some damn bobblehead hiding on some ledge some place that I'm never going to find without a in-depth walkthrough. Screw the bobbleheads.
3. Dumb weapons
The Fallout games never strived for realism, sure. But at no point in Fallout 2 did I build a weapon that shoots rail road spikes.
And the Fat Man launcher? Oh man. Don't get me started. I'm just going to pass on that one.
In Fallout 2 you could make molotov cocktails with gasoline and a bottle. Fallout 3, you can make a Rock-It Launcher that'll launch tin cans and plungers at people.
I'll stick with the molotov cocktails.
4. Random encounters
There was a bunch of cool random encounters you could have in Fallout 2. Sometimes you'd come across trading caravans that you could slaughter. Some were more rare, like the Cafe of Broken Dreams. Some were non-combat encounters -- people in the Wastes that you could talk and trade with.
In Fallout 3, enemies are all over the place, according to what zone you are in. There aren't really any random encounters per se -- which is another reason why the Luck stat isn't as much as big deal in Fallout 3 either.
Bethesda, here's a free idea you should use in Fallout 4. I won't charge you for it. Bring the Outdoorsman skill back. Any time you fast travel, to a skill roll on the Outdoorsman skill. If you fail, you run into a random encounter. And 'random encounter' doesn't have to mean 'Random people that want to kill you.' It can be other stuff instead... like roleplaying game type stuff.
5. Difficulty levels
This one will be short. Fallout 2: difficulty levels make combat harder, and all skills rolls harder. The game is much harder.
Fallout 3: higher difficulty levels gives your enemies more health... and that's it. On the harder difficulty levels Fallout 3 is only harder because you run out of ammo more often.
Ho hum.
6. Open world freedom
Fallout 3 has a lot of this. But not as much as Fallout 2.
In Fallout 2 if you knew what you were doing you could go right from your starting point in the game to the final location. Sure, you wouldn't be able to beat the opponents with out some tricks, but you could do it.
In the entire south-eastern quarter of the Fallout 3 map you are in a city that has invisible walls everywhere. There basically only one way you can go. You are on a quest train track that starts at one location, has 13 (or whatever) stages, and ends.
Don't go down that street dude. There is a big pile of rubble blocking the path. Strangely, just like the other 40 streets.
Just follow the path through the open world.
7.Immersion free NPC's
Most of the dialogue in the game is not memorable, consequently, most characters are forgettable. Many times half way through conversations I just clicked right through to the end bit, where they dispense the quest or what-not.
People like the wasteland super-hero Antangonizer just would not exist, even after a nuclear war. Give me a break.
So many characters are just so unbelievable -- even by RPG standards. The NPC's don't exist as non-playing characters. Most exist solely as pieces of game mechanic furniture -- like the Nuka Cola machines everywhere that somehow, amazingly, all still have Nuka in them. They are function. Not personalities.
I don't want to battle through a legion of Super Mutants, climb through a tunnel, then run into this strangely dressed guy deep in the wreckage of the Wasteland that greets me by saying, "What would you like to purchase?"
In the real world, I've never met anyone anywhere who introduced himself, and then thirty seconds later offered me some money to nuke a city. I wish there were more NPC's in the game that didn't give quests or heal you or trade with you -- they are just like, you know, NPC's that are doing there own thing.
8. Ghouls
In Fallout 2, most ghouls were like radiated, semi-mutated ex-human being people. You could talk with them. Have them join you as team members. Ghouls were people too, in Fallout 2.
In Fallout 3, ghouls are zombies. Besides that one dude Gob, in Megatown, ghouls are stupid zombies that immediately attack you on sight.
I realize RPG's need random enemies to kill. Sure. But why did Bethesda have to make them ghouls? Why not anything else? They had the whole wasteland of creativity at their disposal. They could have made you fight anything. Like L. Ron Hubologist cultists. Or mutated raccoons.
Every time I shoot a ghoul I want to cry. I think to myself: "Damn! That ghoul could have been innocent!"
Maybe it was all a misunderstanding.
9. Open ended quests
Not much tops Fallout 2 when it came to open ended quests. Let's take one of the better examples in F2 -- dealing with the Slavers in the city called the Den. The Slavers have a buddy of yours, Vic, that you want to rescue. There were many ways of getting this done.
You could go into the slaver headquarters and shoot them all up. If you were a explosive traps guy, (like my guy was), you could go in the building and plant dynamite, then leave, and blow everyone up. If you had high intelligence and high speech, you could convince the slavers to stop trading slaves, and get them to free Vic. If you were a jerk, you could join the Slavers, get a slaver tattoo on your forehead that would have consequences for the rest of the game, and sell your tribal companion into a life of servitude. If you were a chick with a decent charisma, you can have sex with the head slaver guy for Vic's freedom.
The vast majority of quests in Fallout 3 are like this: go talk to this guy. Kill everybody in your way. The end.
Some of the quests, if you have a high speech skill, you can lie and not have to kill the dudes.
Yay. Woot. Let's RPG it up. Let's go kill all the enemy dudes and get the magical hamster or super Frisbee or W-ever-TF they want me to get. Yay this is fun.
10. Not-so-funny humor
There were parts of Fallout 2 that made me laugh out loud, even before the acroynm LOL was even around.
Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has them and they all stink.
That last paragraph was a pair of lines that I remember from a game that came out more than 10 years ago. Do you remember any lines from any games that you played 10 years ago? Do you remember any lines from a game -- say, Fallout 3 -- that you played last night? All hail Fallout 2.
Some of the characters are often so un-funny in Fallout 3 that I wish the game had a strangle button.
Like when that ditzy chick in the supply store came up to me, asking me to go hunt molerats for her. Her voice is so grating. Her character is annoying.
Where is that strangle button?
"Oh you are such a sweet heart for getting severly wounded for me so I can study wounds for my book. I hope it didn't hurt! Tee-hee-hee-haw-haw."
Strangle. Strangle.
11. Complete abandoning of any sort of realism
Bethesda, listen up.
Years after a global nuclear holocaust you will not find unopened boxes of macaroni all over the place. You will not be going through a sewer and trip over a box full of 5.56 mm ammunition.
People will not be launching mini-nukes at super-mutants. Not even every once in a while.
Drinking water mixed with radioactive waste will not fix you up after being shot five times in the face with a shotgun.
People will not be all friendly and nice to me in the barren wasteland. Some people will be jerks. Many won't even have quests for me. Some won't even care about me at all.
Forlorn offices in abandoned dilapidated factories will not have working computer terminals that control robotic guards.
Every-day dudes will not have robotic butlers, after a global thermonuclear war.
In the end...
In the end, Fallout 3 is a lot of fun, is one of the better games I played this year. But it isn't three-quarters of the RPG that Fallout 2 was. I'm sorry -- it's just not. Maybe with mods. But not at the moment.
isent fallout newvegas being made by the same people responseable for fallout 1,2 and tactics?
avatar
soundwave145: isent fallout newvegas being made by the same people responseable for fallout 1,2 and tactics?

Not exactly.
It's being made by Obsidian, although they do have a few people who worked for Black Isle Studios.
Their game is unlikely to be a return to turn-based, isometric though.
avatar
soundwave145: isent fallout newvegas being made by the same people responseable for fallout 1,2 and tactics?
avatar
Andy_Panthro: Not exactly.
It's being made by Obsidian, although they do have a few people who worked for Black Isle Studios.
Their game is unlikely to be a return to turn-based, isometric though.

It's not unlikely, it won't happen. If they have an isometric major game, the only people who will even buy the game are the ones right here on GOG
avatar
Andy_Panthro: Their game is unlikely to be a return to turn-based, isometric though.
avatar
sk8ing667: It's not unlikely, it won't happen. If they have an isometric major game, the only people who will even buy the game are the ones right here on GOG

Well, and the Codex, NMA and the like.
The market is there, its just reduced numbers. However, if you reduce graphical complexity you could save lots of cash and produce a cheaper (but still high quality) product, and make a good amount of profit from those willing to buy.
Lets put it this way, you wouldn't have 5 Geneforge and 5 Avernum games available if Spiderweb wasn't making a profit. It's one of the advantages of a broad market.
However, you won't make the millions that companies like Zenimax want (similar processes are involved with Hollywood, and it only took games companies 30 years!)
Anyway, I was saying "unlikely" because no details have been released, not because I'm hoping for a isometric fallout (I gave up on that when Bethesda took over), I do believe Obsidian have stated that their game will be in the same style as Fallout 3, so I would imagine they mean FPS-style.
I think they were refering actually to the engine, however because of the new fanbase that fallout 3 has gotten, they will be forced to make a more action-oriented game.