Why Fallout is not Fallout - General

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52549004]I have severe doubts that Autumn would have distributed the water equally to everyone and I'm quite sure he would have slam dunked that FEV into the water supply himself if it meant no more muties.[/QUOTE] how do you distribute a fucking river unequally, are they going to post troops on every single square meter of riverbank? [QUOTE=elowin;52549234]On the other hand I'd argue Fallout 1 is one of the worst examples of it, because the time limit is so definite. Even looking for Shaun in Fallout 4 you're not like "I have 100 days until SHAUN FUCKING DIES" So from a narrative and even gameplay standpoint it is telling you to hurry like hell... but actually you should be taking your sweet time and doing quests because otherwise you won't be leveled enough to stand a chance later on. You [i]should[/i] be doing all the quests in Junktown which has so little to do with the water chip quest that you can't ask people about it there, but it makes no sense to do so at all.[/QUOTE] first time I played fallout 1 back in 2000 or something I was incredibly stressed by the time limit and still had time to do other shit, justified it to myself that I need to get better gear to survive later challenges anyway.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52549004]I have severe doubts that Autumn would have distributed the water equally to everyone and I'm quite sure he would have slam dunked that FEV into the water supply himself if it meant no more muties.[/QUOTE] Sorry are we talking about the same Autumn who can specifically be convinced to give up by showing him a vial of FEV and saying Eden planned to put it in the water, causing him to quit out of disgust? [editline]8th August 2017[/editline] Pictured: A man who would definitely use the FEV himself given the chance [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-_I3peFkC4[/media]

[QUOTE=Trekintosh;52547723]Nah, I'm gonna call out your garbage post right here. Also nice try trying to keep your argument from being picked apart by trying to get people to PM you, you coward.[/QUOTE] "I'll adress this garbage post here" -Rude. "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." -Retroactively bashing a game that he thought was good at the time because he no longer thinks it's good anymore. " Just come sit back down in your nice little pillow fort and only play the new games like a good boy." -First of all, You should play the first two games before you pretend your opinion is comprehensive in any way. You are not thinking about what you are saying here. You are judging a game and saying its garbage completely ignoring the fact that it is 10 years old, then you proceed to give me derogatory remarks and poor quality car analogies because I said a 20 year old game is a relic. It's a turn based isometric tactical shooter; the very concept is a relic. NOTE; I never said it was unplayable. Equally notable is the fact that Fallout 1&2 were arguably revolutionary in 1999; Similarly, Fallout 3 was arguably the same in 2008. I think you should read more about the first two games and how the series was 100% dead before Fallout 3 revived it. That is a big explanation of why the game didn't take many risks and is also a reason why the story was very plain. They were testing the water, Fallout 3 was never meant to be an epic tale. It was simply a test. All things considered I'd say it went well. "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." -So you played 3 and liked it but then played NV and suddenly Fallout 3 is a bad game? I said Fallout 3 is objectively good because I played it in 2008 and was apart of the huge community for it and I seen the number of mods and videos and other content that fans made for it. In addition: I don't follow games journalism anymore but I think that the huge fan-base and large sales numbers in conjunction with the wide duration of community support proves that at bare minimum the ratings had at least some merit. I agree my use of 'Objectively' was a misuse because It was my opinion and not fact and I knew that would trigger someone. I should not have used it and I apologize. "Also nice try trying to keep your argument from being picked apart by trying to get people to PM you, you coward." -Honestly I just wanted to discuss the game. I know that I shared my opinion publicly and that I opened myself up to public discussion but I simply thought that the thread would die. I understand that you have strong opinions about the game and my post was a bit poorly written but you should try to be less hostile next time, Hostility is not inductive to valuable discussion.

I don't remember any major outlets lauding Fallout 3 as some kind of savior of video gaming. Journalists were far too eager in liking the game, sure, but most of the major issues about the game (shit that went deeper than just the story being clumsy) took longer to be figured out and put into words. In fact I remember people being far more eager about disliking the game in the months and years following its release. Far more people praised New Vegas as a savior of the franchise than anyone did for Fallout 3. I mean shit, people were [I]real[/I] quick in calling out any journalist liking the game as corrupt hacks.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52551249]I mean shit, people were [I]real[/I] quick in calling out any journalist liking the game as corrupt hacks.[/QUOTE] Well, duh. Can't have people liking things you don't, that is just a straight-up war crime. Have you learned nothing in your time on the internet?

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52551249]I don't remember any major outlets lauding Fallout 3 as some kind of savior of video gaming...people were [I]real[/I] quick in calling out any journalist liking the game as corrupt hacks.[/QUOTE] I never said that they were touted by journalists as the saviour of the videogames. I said that the game was the savior of the fallout series. Which it was.(in my opinion) No Fallout 3, No New Vegas. I do agree that New Vegas was a straight upgrade and a better fit to call savior but only retroactively. Fallout 3 came first and without it the series would have remained dead. Doesn't matter though, If Fallout 5 is as bad of a downgrade compared to 4 as 4 is to NV then the series very well may return to the grave.

To be honest, even if Obsidian did have another crack at it, they'd still have to use Bethesda's Fallout 4 toolset, which means the most we'd probably get out of it would be a better story. Skills would still more than likely be gone, SPECIAL would still be borderline meaningless, etc. Obsidian would have to make a drastic overhaul of Fallout 4's systems in order to please the people who were disappointed with it, and given Bethesda only gave them 18 months to make New Vegas, I doubt they'd give them a decent amount of time to do all of that. Yeah, New Vegas had a decent amount of additions and changes to the core formula of Fallout 3, but all of that was still made within the limitations of Fallout 3's system. I doubt something like adding skills to the game would only take a few months.

[QUOTE=Rahu X;52551399]To be honest, even if Obsidian did have another crack at it, they'd still have to use Bethesda's Fallout 4 toolset, which means the most we'd probably get out of it would be a better story. Skills would still more than likely be gone, SPECIAL would still be borderline meaningless, etc. Obsidian would have to make a drastic overhaul of Fallout 4's systems in order to please the people who were disappointed with it, and given Bethesda only gave them 18 months to make New Vegas, I doubt they'd give them a decent amount of time to do all of that. Yeah, New Vegas had a decent amount of additions and changes to the core formula of Fallout 3, but all of that was still made within the limitations of Fallout 3's system. I doubt something like adding skills to the game would only take a few months.[/QUOTE] [url=http://www.falloutcascadia.com/]Modders are already bringing back skills[/url], it's not that difficult and would be even easier with access to the source code which Obsidian would have. [editline]8th August 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Smoovedawg1;52551296]I never said that they were touted by journalists as the saviour of the videogames. I said that the game was the savior of the fallout series. Which it was.(in my opinion) No Fallout 3, No New Vegas. I do agree that New Vegas was a straight upgrade and a better fit to call savior but only retroactively. Fallout 3 came first and without it the series would have remained dead. Doesn't matter though, If Fallout 5 is as bad of a downgrade compared to 4 as 4 is to NV then the series very well may return to the grave.[/QUOTE] Fallout 3 was a strong stepping stone for Obsidian to use and release a more complete game, yes, but that doesn't make Fallout 3 a "savior" of anything, and no one called it that. It revived a series that its previous owner had abused but granting the game any more credit than it's due simply because of this is pretty dumb. The game could have been legitimately better. I absolutely love Fallout 3 because of the memories I have that are attached to it but god damn is it a flawed game in so many ways, which have become only more apparent over time as more and more people pointed them out.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52549254]They only removed the [I]second[/I] time limit in Fallout 1, when the game goes from finding a water chip to wiping out the mutants. Community mods such as Fixit allow you to mess around with both time limits. You still only have a hundred days to find the water chip in the updated game, which can be expanded to I think 300 days if you buy some extra water supplies for the vault. And New Vegas still has the same dissonance issue seeing as your character can literally leave the Mojave and go venture off into completely different regions and Benny will never, ever move on with his plans until you pop up at his casino. The idea is that you catch him by surprise too soon after he robbed you of that chip to be able to move his plans forward, but that doesn't really work if you've been away for what can amount to months of ingame time.[/QUOTE] I guess if you count the DLC. Even then though, the idea isn't that you catch him by surprise too soon after he robbed you, it's that you catch him by surprise by even being alive in the first place. It's never really implied that he's in a hurry to use the chip, he doesn't think Mr House knows about it and he thinks you're dead, so taking his time and being careful is in his best interests. [editline]8th August 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;52549949]I mean about basic shit. Like, in New Vegas, people don't know who Elvis is. People don't know what fish are. In Fallout 4, people don't know what baseball was. One pre-war ghoul could sort out things like that if people just bothered to ask or listen. You'd figure one ghoul would walk by in 200 years and hear this stuff and say "uh no."[/QUOTE] Pre war ghouls are not that common. They show up more commonly in the games because there's interesting potential in that kind of character, but even then there's very few of them in the games. Ghouls are also shunned in general, even the intelligent ones are often implied to have mental issues, and usually don't have total recall of things that only existed for the small fraction of their lives they spent before the war. And then there's the issue that it just doesn't really matter, even if they'd listen to you literally why bother trying to correct something so irrelevant.

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;52549949]I mean about basic shit. Like, in New Vegas, people don't know who Elvis is. People don't know what fish are. In Fallout 4, people don't know what baseball was. One pre-war ghoul could sort out things like that if people just bothered to ask or listen. You'd figure one ghoul would walk by in 200 years and hear this stuff and say "uh no."[/QUOTE] Ghouls tend to have a lot of problems with memory with how long they live. I can buy not knowing who Elvis is but the baseball thing never made sense to me.

[QUOTE=Mud;52551637]Ghouls tend to have a lot of problems with memory with how long they live. I can buy not knowing who Elvis is but the baseball thing never made sense to me.[/QUOTE] Especially with the G.O.A.T. test thing being used in Covenant with questions about baseball.

The baseball thing is only one guy who's not a ghoul and lives in a city without ghouls. Otherwise everyone else in the city seems aware of baseball terminology and the use of baseball equipment: the guards tell you to run the bases, the upper stands are still called that, same with the dugout, etc.

[QUOTE=Not64;52548284]Man this thread is full of video game hipsters. The way you guys talk, you make it sound like Fallout 1 and 2 were perfect games and Bethesda fucked it all up with Fallout 3. I'd be willing to bet that 90%+ of the people in this thread played Fallout 3 years before even being aware of Fallout 1 or 2. When we were 12 year old kids we ate that shit up. Killing random people and monsters in a 1950's-esque post apocalyptic open world FPS was fucking awesome. None of you would give a single shit about Fallout 1 or 2 if the nostalgia for Fallout 3 wasn't there to begin with. From watching the OP, the only thing that's better about Fallout 1 and 2 is the story and dialogue options. There are more elements to a game than just that. [b]Isometric RPGs are super dated, and for good reason.[/b][/QUOTE] I disagree, but regardless, the change of perspective isn't that important. What is more important is that classic RPG mechanics now get replaced by perk systems, further casualizing the franchise. Choice and Consequence is also close to non-existant outside a few side quests. Bethesda games aren't really RPGs anymore, for whatever this watered term now means, but open world shooters that barely differ from all the other stuff that is out there, it has all turned into the same blob of unengaging open world games with tons of content, but a servere lack of depth all around.

[QUOTE=Mud;52551637]Ghouls tend to have a lot of problems with memory with how long they live. I can buy not knowing who Elvis is but the baseball thing never made sense to me.[/QUOTE] It's not like they had well preserved pre War rule books on how to play baseball laying around. The Kings found their Elvis school of impersonation and thought it was some religious temple, they found old Hilo tapes of aegis singing on stage, hair gel, clothes, but no trace of his name. Of course they won't know any better going by what we know. the Covenant test brings up a plot hole, but in Diamond City the only things they could've found were torn baseball uniforms, umpire and catcher equipment, bats and helmets in a large stadium that would've looked like a gladiator arena to them. To them for all they knew it could've been armor.

Also they couldn't afford to license Elvis shit directly so that [I]might[/I] have played a part King's are great tho

[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;52549907]I've heard it said that Obsidian and Bethesda are on very amiable terms still, and that Obsidian would enjoy the opportunity to work on another Fallout game. However, I suspect that it is simply that Obsidian don't feel like taking on another big project right now. They're doing pretty well for themselves, in terms of keeping busy, with Pillars of Eternity. As you brought up.[/QUOTE] Considering Bethsoft (the studio behind tes and the new Fallouts) is now working on a 3rd new IP, its likely Fallout will be handed off to a new studio to keep Bethesda's yearly release portfolio strong.

The video and the general argument surrounding the series and the story from game to game reminded me of a post from a writer I recently read. [URL="https://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=40009"]Funnily enough it was about trying to rewrite the story of 3 to be better.[/URL] The relevant part I found was this [QUOTE]If someone hasn’t already heard that Fallout 3‘s story stinks, they probably don’t care—and they don’t really have to, It doesn’t matter if you can line up all the ways the game’s characters were thin, the plot didn’t make much sense, and the choices were odd and insubstantial. A fan of the game might listen, might even end up agreeing. They’ll nod, shrug, and admit that yeah, it sure wasn’t Shakespeare. Congratulations! You’ve successfully argued that the story of Fallout 3 is bad. But thought it might seem self-evident, you haven’t actually made an argument that the bad story made the game much worse to play, and that a good story would have made them like it even more. The fan is a fan for a reason. They didn’t hallucinate a better storyline than existed, they were just satisfied with the moral choices and combat and exploration and worldbuilding that they got. If they didn’t really notice or care that the economy didn’t make sense, how can you effectively argue that the game would have been more worthy if it did?[/QUOTE] It may apply to FO4 somewhat, but I havent played that game so I cant really say.

[QUOTE=kilerabv;52552316]The video and the general argument surrounding the series and the story from game to game reminded me of a post from a writer I recently read. [URL="https://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=40009"]Funnily enough it was about trying to rewrite the story of 3 to be better.[/URL] The relevant part I found was this It may apply to FO4 somewhat, but I havent played that game so I cant really say.[/QUOTE] That pretty much sums up my opinions of Fallout 4. I'll be the first person to tell you the story was atrocious and I literally did not give a single fuck about the narrative. That doesn't change the fact I love the game to death and put entirely too many hours into it. I don't play Fallout 4 to play a Fallout game, because Fallout 4 isn't a Fallout game. I play Fallout 4 to play a post-apocalyptic shooter with minor RPG elements and an emphasis on exploring.

[QUOTE=kilerabv;52552316]The video and the general argument surrounding the series and the story from game to game reminded me of a post from a writer I recently read. [URL="https://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=40009"]Funnily enough it was about trying to rewrite the story of 3 to be better.[/URL] The relevant part I found was this It may apply to FO4 somewhat, but I havent played that game so I cant really say.[/QUOTE] Arguing that the story being bad makes the game worse is still a completely valid argument though because different people have different tastes. Some people don't care, that doesn't change that some people do care.

[QUOTE=Smoovedawg1;52551232]"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." -Retroactively bashing a game that he thought was good at the time because he no longer thinks it's good anymore.[/quote] Opinions change, this is not a novel concept. You aren't even making an argument here. [quote]" Just come sit back down in your nice little pillow fort and only play the new games like a good boy." -First of all, You should play the first two games before you pretend your opinion is comprehensive in any way. You are not thinking about what you are saying here. You are judging a game and saying its garbage completely ignoring the fact that it is 10 years old, then you proceed to give me derogatory remarks and poor quality car analogies because I said a 20 year old game is a relic. It's a turn based isometric tactical shooter; the very concept is a relic. NOTE; I never said it was unplayable. Equally notable is the fact that Fallout 1&2 were arguably revolutionary in 1999; Similarly, Fallout 3 was arguably the same in 2008. I think you should read more about the first two games and how the series was 100% dead before Fallout 3 revived it. That is a big explanation of why the game didn't take many risks and is also a reason why the story was very plain. They were testing the water, Fallout 3 was never meant to be an epic tale. It was simply a test. All things considered I'd say it went well.[/quote] Fallout 3 was not revolutionary, it was literally the formula from TES series ported into a Sci-fi post-apocalyptic setting. Testing the waters doesn't justify just ripping random plot points from previous games and spinning them into one story. [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." -So you played 3 and liked it but then played NV and suddenly Fallout 3 is a bad game? I said Fallout 3 is objectively good because I played it in 2008 and was apart of the huge community for it and I seen the number of mods and videos and other content that fans made for it. In addition: I don't follow games journalism anymore but I think that the huge fan-base and large sales numbers in conjunction with the wide duration of community support proves that at bare minimum the ratings had at least some merit. I agree my use of 'Objectively' was a misuse because It was my opinion and not fact and I knew that would trigger someone. I should not have used it and I apologize.[/quote] Why did you quote him talking about Fallout 4 and then go on about the Fallout 3 community? Anyways having a large mod community just means a game provides a good platform for modding, it's not enough to call a game good on it's own. "It's good with mods" generally isn't seen as a compliment.

[QUOTE=Saxon;52552170]Considering Bethsoft (the studio behind tes and the new Fallouts) is now working on a 3rd new IP, its likely Fallout will be handed off to a new studio to keep Bethesda's yearly release portfolio strong.[/QUOTE] Nothing about this post is right. Bethesda Game Studios does Fallout and Elder Scrolls, have never done yearly releases, are now working on [I]two[/I] new IPs according to Todd/Pete around last E3, and Bethesda Softworks is Zenimax's in house publisher. There's also virtually no indication that BGS would "hand off" Fallout, considering they opened a sister studio in Montreal earlier this year.