[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;52546620]Yeah, Interplay had [i]so much[/i] respect for the Fallout name. Fallout Brotherhood of Steel and the unreleased Fallout Xtreme were quintessential Fallout.
The Fallout series was actually dead before Bethesda bought it, don't pretend there was ever any hope for a continuation of the old style. Not after they killed Van Buren.[/QUOTE]
This is why, as much as I hate Fallout 3 and 4, I kinda appreciate that the Bethesda buyout at least gave us New Vegas.
[QUOTE=Jund;52546654]fo1 and 2 were "unknown hero" stories though
just pray that bethesda doesn't make you hunt for another fucking family member again[/QUOTE]
And heavily restrict the story and your choices to be the character they wanted.
Every time one of these threads crops up I'm reminded how much I'd love to at least see what would result from Obsidian making another Fallout game but that doesn't seem to be happening any time in the near future.
There's so many other areas that could be explored and I just have no faith in Bethesda to do any of them justice.
Do you guys seriously dislike the 50s retro-futuristic aesthetic now? It's what makes the 3D Fallouts, New Vegas included.
[QUOTE=Yogkog;52546889]Do you guys seriously dislike the 50s retro-futuristic aesthetic now? [I]It's what makes the 3D Fallouts, New Vegas included.[/I][/QUOTE]
The writing is what made New Vegas.
[QUOTE=RikohZX;52546806]I don't like his whole thing about why Bethesda games are bad simply because they went for something different, even though I can agree with and see many problems. But he wants something that fits the dreary, desolate and dying world, with tension not just from some random encounter that can one-shot you but a world and/or story that actually has a palpable and dark atmosphere with a borderline horror ambiance. His problems stem more from the fact that Fallout 3 and 4 seem to have more of a bombastic, epic adventure casting you as the hero within a recovering world, one that is more of a tour that revolves around the player, compared to the cruel and uncaring world of old that you stumble through with little relation to much of anything unless you go out of your way for it.
Incidentally, the way he described certain matters involving the world tone for FO1 and 2 feel a lot like what S.T.A.L.K.E.R. happened to pull off.[/QUOTE]
there isn't anything wrong with being the hero of a recovering world in fallout. fo1 and 2 were setting it up with the entire creation of the NCR and use of GECKs (which became a glorified water filter in fo3)
the problem with fo3 and 4 is that wastes aren't bleak enough and the settlements aren't grand enough. the darkness and almost suffocating tension of the wasteland is largely absent, and the few settlements to be found are basically non-existent trash heaps with no suggestions that they'll ever be anything more. even if you save the commonwealth, who gives a shit? the biggest city there is in a fucking baseball stadium. by that point, cities like shady sands, arroyo, and the boneyard already have populations of thousands of people. saving a few idiot hut farmers from the Big Bad knowing that they'll still be idiot hut farmers for the next 200 years or until the NCR reaches the east coast and annexes them really puts a damper on things. it's the contrast from the ultra-violence of the wastes of fo1 and 2 that makes protecting the rebirth of civilization in those games that much more meaningful
bethesda's lack of good writers means that their settings lack progression, and their lack of progression means that their games lack hope
[QUOTE=Yogkog;52546889]Do you guys seriously dislike the 50s retro-futuristic aesthetic now? It's what makes the 3D Fallouts, New Vegas included.[/QUOTE]
I do like the whole 50s retro thing probably because I'm a sucker for that. But I wouldn't say they make 3D Fallout.
[QUOTE=Anderan;52546894]The writing is what made New Vegas.[/QUOTE]
I'm talking aesthetically. I'd much rather have a setting with personality for a series like modern Fallout and keep the grim, dark setting for games like the Stalker series.
I'm not defending the flaws of 3 and 4, but imagine how much worse the games would be if they were the same functionally, but with the aesthetic of a generic post-apocalypse
[QUOTE=Yogkog;52546889]Do you guys seriously dislike the 50s retro-futuristic aesthetic now? It's what makes the 3D Fallouts, New Vegas included.[/QUOTE]
they were always there in 1 and 2, but ultimately a small part mixed in with a bunch of other much darker influences. bethesda pulled it out from the rest and made the entire series about it
[editline]7th August 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Yogkog;52546907]I'm talking aesthetically. I'd much rather have a setting with personality for a series like modern Fallout and keep the grim, dark setting for games like the Stalker series.
I'm not defending the flaws of 3 and 4, but imagine how much worse the games would be if they were the same functionally, but with the aesthetic of a generic post-apocalypse[/QUOTE]
well that's because fo3 was probably your first fallout game and you would never know what you never experienced
[QUOTE=Yogkog;52546889]Do you guys seriously dislike the 50s retro-futuristic aesthetic now? It's what makes the 3D Fallouts, New Vegas included.[/QUOTE]
fallout 1 & 2 always felt more 80s future than 50s retrofuture to me in a lot of aspects
[QUOTE=Yogkog;52546907]I'm talking aesthetically. I'd much rather have a setting with personality for a series like modern Fallout and keep the grim, dark setting for games like the Stalker series.
I'm not defending the flaws of 3 and 4, but imagine how much worse the games would be if they were the same functionally, but with the aesthetic of a generic post-apocalypse[/QUOTE]
If you honestly think it's either full retro-futuristic or just generic post-apocalyptic dark grit you honestly have no idea what you're taking about. People don't hate retro-futuristic, they hate Bethesda boiling the entire setting down to just retro-futurism when previously it was only a small part of the setting, and even then it was, as people have said, how the 50s saw the future, not the 50s in the future.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;52546919]fallout 1 & 2 always felt more 80s future than 50s retrofuture to me in a lot of aspects[/QUOTE]
i remember bethesda fanboys making a big stink about the assault carbine in NV because it was too tactic00l and didn't fit into the "fallout aesthetic" when fo1 and 2 had the Desert Eagle, AT4, P90, G11, Pancor Jackhammer, H&K CAWS, etc.
[editline]7th August 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Anderan;52546927]how the 50s saw the future, not the 50s in the future.[/QUOTE]
hit the nail on the head
Although I'm sure the original Fallouts had tremendous player agency and robust rpg mechanics, they looks extremely dated in current day and don't seem very fun to play considering New Vegas seems to excel at what the originals did and also at least looks a little better.
[QUOTE=ThatSwordGuy;52546961]Although I'm sure the original Fallouts had tremendous player agency and robust rpg mechanics, they looks extremely dated in current day and don't seem very fun to play considering New Vegas seems to excel at what the originals did and also at least looks a little better.[/QUOTE]
They're still pretty fun imo, even as someone that didn't play either of them until about the time FO3 was announced. As much as I love NV you can't experience the writing, story, and characters of 1 and 2 by playing NV. Anyone that likes isometric RPGs can probably get into 2 at least.
[QUOTE=Yogkog;52546907]I'm talking aesthetically. I'd much rather have a setting with personality for a series like modern Fallout and keep the grim, dark setting for games like the Stalker series.
I'm not defending the flaws of 3 and 4, but imagine how much worse the games would be if they were the same functionally, but with the aesthetic of a generic post-apocalypse[/QUOTE]
Aesthetically NV was less of a horrible mess than Fo3 was, but still very messy. It's Fo2 + very unsubtle American South-West motifs for most of the game, with New Vegas proper not having any defined theme at all (mostly thanks to Bethbryo and time constraints). The "retro" thing doesn't really add anything to NV due to it mostly being limited to radio, visual assets (most of which were taken from Fo3) and a couple of minor factions; and I'm inclined to not even include the radio in because I played it with ambient music overhaul that added tracks from Fo2 and similar music and it did wonders to the game's immersion for me.
I'm suspecting that New Vegas owes what little of "nineteen fifties' future" motifs it has to it being built on Fo3 engine with tons of shared assets, so Obsidian had no choice but to bend over backwards and play along somewhat. Other than that it's [i]very[/i] Fo2-esque.
[QUOTE=ThatSwordGuy;52546961]Although I'm sure the original Fallouts had tremendous player agency and robust rpg mechanics, they looks extremely dated in current day and don't seem very fun to play considering New Vegas seems to excel at what the originals did and also at least looks a little better.[/QUOTE]
For the time they were actually quite simple RPGs. What made them stand out is that, for the most part, if you could think of it you could do it. "I don't have the lockpicking skill to open this door. I do, however, have a hand grenade." They also rewarded you for paying attention, if you explored and investigated different areas you could uncover story details which would normally be revealed much later, or give you information which you could use later.
In Fallout 3 and 4 (and to some degree New Vegas) you just do as you're told and occasionally use a skill/speech check to get an advantage. Speaking of which, in Fallout 1 and 2 speech checks were invisible and happened all the time, which made speech a much more important skill. I'm not saying it's a better system (it could be argued speech is too much of a mandatory skill), it's just that the original games tried very hard to make your skills matter without putting them right in your face.
[QUOTE=patq911;52545816]These longform video essays are some of the best stuff to come out of youtube recently.[/QUOTE]
While this video isn't exactly wrong in the points its made, this one is on the edge of clickbait ranting as it's very clear it has an agenda. It brings up a lot of points that have nothing to do with the topic and is just shitting on FO3 such as technical issues which is nothing to do with Fallout.
[editline]7th August 2017[/editline]
It also has some stupid things like saying how listening to the radio during combat ruins the tone of the series but that's on the player for turning it on in the first place.
[QUOTE=ashxu;52547017]While this video isn't exactly wrong in the points its made, this one is on the edge of clickbait ranting as it's very clear it has an agenda. It brings up a lot of points that have nothing to do with the topic and is just shitting on FO3 such as technical issues which is nothing to do with Fallout.
[editline]7th August 2017[/editline]
It also has some stupid things like saying how listening to the radio during combat ruins the tone of the series but that's on the player for turning it on in the first place.[/QUOTE]
Well considering that most of the technical issues stem from the fact that Fallout as a series was brought into the world of first person shooter/RPGs, in which devs had no experience in at all, I'd say it is a very much valid point. Fo3 is part of a series, and it being shit in most aspects has tons to do with Fallout.
[QUOTE=gudman;52547028]Well considering that most of the technical issues stem from the fact that Fallout as a series was brought into the world of first person shooter/RPGs, in which devs had no experience in at all, I'd say it is a very much valid point. Fo3 is part of a series, [B]and it being shit in most aspects has tons to do with Fallout.[/B][/QUOTE]
As someone who finished Fallout 1 with the latest patches (or, the GoG version anyway) last week. I can confidently say that Fallout games being buggy messes is a long standing tradition of the series.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;52547033]As someone who finished Fallout 1 with the latest patches (or, the GoG version anyway) last week. I can confidently say that Fallout games being buggy messes is a long standing tradition of the series.[/QUOTE]
Tell me about it, I could barely finish Fo2 and yet to try the first one. However, my point is that Fo3's failings have everything to do with Fallout, including its poor technical issues, not that it's the most buggy in the series or something like that.
[QUOTE=gudman;52547046]Tell me about it, I could barely finish Fo2 and yet to try the first one. However, my point is that Fo3's failings have everything to do with Fallout, including its poor technical issues, not that it's the most buggy in the series or something like that.[/QUOTE]
it doesn't though because they're game/bethesda issues not why it's a bad game compared to fallout. He even bitches about things like bad lighting i mean c'mon now
This guy seems like an elitist. Fallout would be a completely dead series if it weren't for Fallout 3: in addition a 90's turn based tactical RPG would not have took off in the same way that 3 did.
Fallout 3 was game of the year and it deservedly won many awards and I don't know where this trend of bashing it at every turn came from but I can certainly say that it did not come from logic. If I were a betting man, I'd wager that fanboys of the first two games were the cause of the "Fallout 3 is the worst" meme. Fallout New Vegas was an upgrade in every way but it would not exist if Fallout 3 was unpopular. Fallout 1&2 are great games but they are relics, only played by dedicated fans and deluded Black Isle cultists.
As a final statement, While I agree that FO4 is a somewhat vapid RPG-lite FPS and is a large step backwards in relation to New Vegas it was still a good game in it's own way and I think the series has alot of growing to do before it will be finally realized.
TLDR; This guy is an elitist; Fallout 3 is objectively good; New Vegas being better doesn't make 3 bad; Fallout 4 is vapid and watered down but still manages to be pretty good despite being a flag that the series could turn into a moneygrab.
Feel free to PM me if you disagree.
[QUOTE=Yogkog;52546907]I'm talking aesthetically. I'd much rather have a setting with personality for a series like modern Fallout and keep the grim, dark setting for games like the Stalker series.
I'm not defending the flaws of 3 and 4, but imagine how much worse the games would be if they were the same functionally, but with the aesthetic of a generic post-apocalypse[/QUOTE]
New Vegas had much more of a western frontier-ish aesthetic than a 50s retro future aesthetic.
Replying to every single person who said something along the lines of "Fallout would be dead if it wasn't for Bethesda!"
No?
Bethesda not buying the rights wouldn't magically remove the franchise from existence, it would simply have gone to someone else. No one could possibly know what would have happened from there. Maybe someone else would then have continued the franchise. Maybe they wouldn't have. Maybe at some point Obsidian would have managed to grab the rights, or someone else who might have been able to make a good successor. Maybe they would have gone to someone who didn't give a rats ass about the franchise.
No one fucking knows because it's literally unknowable, shut the fuck up about it.
[QUOTE=Smoovedawg1;52547276]Fallout 3 is objectively good[/QUOTE]
yet somehow it does almost everything objectively poorly!
if youre gonna make such a bold statement you should at least back it up with more than "it won awards" and the laughable "game of the year" tagline.
[QUOTE=Yogkog;52546889]Do you guys seriously dislike the 50s retro-futuristic aesthetic now? It's what makes the 3D Fallouts, New Vegas included.[/QUOTE]
I don't like how it's fronted as the main aesthetic - before Fallout got super big, the alternate history 50's retro-futuruistic shtick was almost like a stinger, a twist the players figured out after being immersed in the world for long enough.
Nothing wrong with the aesthetic itself and it looks amazing, especially in Fallout 4, but if I had my way the series would have a lot more of a grounded, realistic look with the occasional 50's flare thrown in here and there.
[QUOTE=Jund;52546654]fo1 and 2 were "unknown hero" stories though
just pray that bethesda doesn't make you hunt for another fucking family member again[/QUOTE]
Yes, but at the same time, they also gave you a fair bit of freedom of choice and morality in how to tackle said story. You weren't always locked down the path of fighting off the ultimate evil and being the amazing hero.
TES games, on the other hand, lock you into the hero's path. No matter what you do in the main quest, you have no real choice in how to tackle it. It's a linear story that always has the same beats and same outcome. To use one of the examples from the video, a TES story is very much like an Ultima story. Only instead of being some proud knight, you're an unknown prisoner.
My point was, to expect Bethesda to go from writing decades worth of Ultima style stories to a Fallout story without any issues cropping up would be foolish. Fallout 3's approach to "shades of grey" was pretty much one step away from being Mass Effect, while Fallout 4 somehow ended up worse than that.
[QUOTE=ashxu;52547083]it doesn't though because they're game/bethesda issues not why it's a bad game compared to fallout. He even bitches about things like bad lighting i mean c'mon now[/QUOTE]
I gave that part another watch and you're right, yeah, it's nitpicky as shit. I didn't pay enough attention, I guess, it wasn't the point I thought he was trying to make.
[editline]7th August 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Smoovedawg1;52547276]Fallout 3 is objectively good
Feel free to PM me if you disagree.[/QUOTE]
Fallout 3: non-existent gunplay, which is criminal for a first person shooter; its story is absolute garbage; almost every quest and dialogue in the game is very badly written; the pacing is bad; the world makes no sense; design direction was "throw as much shit as possible, some will stick"; the AI is terrible; art direction is inconsistent; extremely badly implemented RPG elements (a trait it admittedly shares with NV, Fo4 makes it even worse); decent open-world experience, one of the first of its kind, so its not all terrible, just mostly.
And no, I'm not PM'ing you, you made a public post, go ahead and defend your opinion publicly too.
[quote=Smoovedawg1]Feel free to PM me if you disagree.[/QUOTE]
Nah, I'm gonna call out your garbage post right here.
[QUOTE=Smoovedawg1;52547276]This guy seems like an elitist. Fallout would be a completely dead series if it weren't for Fallout 3: in addition a 90's turn based tactical RPG would not have took off in the same way that 3 did.[/quote]
Perhaps, but Fallout would also be even more alive if Fallout 3 wasn't a janky messy poorly written pile of forgettable characters and generic fetch quests.
[quote]
Fallout 3 was game of the year and it deservedly won many awards and I don't know where this trend of bashing it at every turn came from but I can certainly say that it did not come from logic. If I were a betting man, I'd wager that fanboys of the first two games were the cause of the "Fallout 3 is the worst" meme.[/quote]
Oh, well, if it won Game of the Year and got awards, I take it [I]all[/I] back! Fallout 3 is clearly the best thing since sliced bread! Wow, you've sure gotten me.
No, the trend of bashing Fallout 3 came from Fallout 3 being boring. It started after New Vegas came out. New Vegas showed everyone that a first person shooter Fallout didn't have to be boiled down to meaningless characters, flat 'moral' choices, and terrible pointless resolutions. I've never played the first two games, nor do I have any particular opinion on them. I still, currently halfway through a New Vegas replay, think Fallout 3 is dreadful from a story and RPG standpoint. As a shooter, it's only mediocre. The setting is great, and I like the exploration, but trying to finish the game ends up being a real struggle every time I try to replay it, while right now I'm pining to get back into the world of New Vegas and immerse myself.
[quote]Fallout New Vegas was an upgrade in every way but it would not exist if Fallout 3 was unpopular. [B]Fallout 1&2 are great games but they are relics, only played by dedicated fans and deluded Black Isle cultists.[/B][/quote]
While I think "fallout 3 is objectively good" is the quote from you most people will take away, this quote is far more important. This is an absolutely ridiculous attitude. Is DOOM a relic only played by John Romero cultists? Is Half-Life only played by Gabe Newell worshiping mongoloids? How about Age of Empires II? Super Mario World 3? Those are all obviously relics and only a complete fucking idiot would want to play such an [I]old[/I] game these days. Just come sit back down in your nice little pillow fort and only play the new games like a good boy.
Old games are no less held up by their own merits than new games. You can play an old game today, and as long as it runs, you can judge it by all the standards of modern games, except graphics. Even then, if the art style holds up and is timeless, there's no reason to begrudge them for technical deficiency. Yes, a 1990s Honda Civic doesn't have bluetooth and remote keyless entry and cruise control. Does that mean it's a bad car compared to a 2018 Civic? Of course not. Are people who drive 1990s civics deluded Honda cocksuckers? Fucking no. Goddamn.
[quote]As a final statement, While I agree that FO4 is a somewhat vapid RPG-lite FPS and is a large step backwards in relation to New Vegas it was still a good game in it's own way and I think the series has alot of growing to do before it will be finally realized.[/quote]
I only managed to choke down the first 20 minutes or so getting out of the Vault, up to when some random guys in a museum decided to give me a suit of power armor for no reason immediately after I met them just because I was the Protagonist and the script said I needed power armor. Beyond that I cannot comment on Fallout 4, so I won't.
[quote]TLDR; This guy is an elitist; [B]Fallout 3 is objectively good; New Vegas being better doesn't make 3 bad;[/B] Fallout 4 is vapid and watered down but still manages to be pretty good despite being a flag that the series could turn into a moneygrab.[/quote]
Okay now "Fallout 3 is objectively good"... What's your justification for that? The numerous awards it was given by the corrupt and banal games media? The laughable "Game of the Year" edition's existence? The reason Fallout 3 was so heralded was because it was the first accessible FPS/RPG set in a big open explorable world. It's really hard to get into S.T.A.L.K.E.R, so it didn't nearly capture the same amount of public interest Fallout 3 did. And with Fallout 3, we all simply thought that was the best that AAA games could ever do. That there was no way you could squeeze all the dialogue and story and expansive choices and morality that Fallouts 1 and 2 had into something as bloated and heavy as a AAA game's budget. There's just not enough man-hours or space on a DVD, right? And so we lapped it up like eager dogs, ignored the plot holes, railroaded story, and one-dimension characters, and lauded the game as the savior of the RPG.
That's where New Vegas comes in. It showed everybody who thought that Fallout 3 was the best we'd ever get that there could in fact be enough space on a disk and man-hours in development to make a good game. The writing is the single biggest most important component, and that's something Fallout 3 lacked so much that it makes the game offensively mediocre to slog through after playing New Vegas. When you make the world feel as alive as New Vegas, with characters who have hopes and dreams and goals and schemes, you transform the game from something you trudge through from objective marker to objective marker into something you revel in the exploration of. I almost never look at my objective marker in New Vegas because I'm too busy taking in the world.
In New Vegas the ending revolves around me because I took it in my own hands to make all the factors leading up to the ending go the way I wanted them to. I fucked up Caesar and spared Lanius so that the Legion would fall into disarray because talking to all the characters let me intuit that would happen. I threw General Oliver off the Hoover Dam because I decided the NCR didn't have the Mojave's best interests at heart. I got to choose these things and the ending showed the consequences of my actions.
In Fallout 3 I follow a giant fuck you robot for ten minutes doing nothing, then I have a fight with a man who I know nothing about and some faceless goons, then I can't even send my radiation immune super mutant or ghoul companions in because "it's my destiny" to do the ending because the writers couldn't be fucked to think of anything else. Fuck Fallout 3.
Also nice try trying to keep your argument from being picked apart by trying to get people to PM you, you coward.
Wasteland is basically the spiritual successor to the originals. I'm glad they went the way they did but I agree many aspects could have been done much better
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
