How can anybody possibly argue that this game is better than Fallout 3?

I keep hearing these arguments on the internet that Fallout 3 doesn't live up to Fallout 1 and 2, but as far as I can tell, it vastly exceeds them.

For starters, Fallout 1 has an ugly world. It's uninteresting. It's dull. I didn't have any desire to explore it. Of course it didn't have the technology of Fallout 3 to create a complete world, but there are plenty of games from the time that actually look good. It's just a bunch of sand coloured square buildings put together, with a couple of different coloured vault maps put in in a few places. They could have done a lot better on the art design.

Second, the writing is terrible. Sure the writing isn't great in Fallout 3, but every single line of dialogue in Fallout 1 sounds so incredibly stilted you'd think that it was written by a robot. Not only that, but the story is completely uninteresting. But to be fair, that's the case in Fallout 3 as well, only that game does everything bigger.

There's also very little to do in the game. I completed the game thinking that I'd done a minority of side quests, but upon consulting a guide, I found out I had done practically everything I could do.

I've heard people complain that in Fallout 3, nothing you do has any significant consequences (as opposed to what happens in the other Fallouts). After having played through Fallout, absolutely no decision I made had a lasting effect on my game. None at all. I have no idea what people were talking about with regards to that.

To summarise: Fallout is ugly, small, badly written, and nothing that people have hyped it up to be. I bought into the obvious rose tinted glasses that these people see their childhoods through, and came out disappointed. Absolutely everything about the game was done better in Fallout 3.

For shame, people.

For shame.

Come on now people, Fallout has aged horribly, take off the nostalgia shades...

I have it on my PC and thought i'd give it a go but i agree with you on the graphics and the combat system is terrible, i've only ever played 5-10 minutes into it since i keep getting owned by radscorpions upon exiting the vault cave

At 7/22/09 11:04 AM, Aigis wrote: Second, the writing is terrible. Sure the writing isn't great in Fallout 3, but every single line of dialogue
in Fallout 1 sounds so incredibly stilted you'd think that it was written by a robot.

what was your intel?

Nostalgia does some crazy stuff to people, man.

crazy stuff...

I also chose to purchase Fallout, Fallout 2 and Fallout Tactics because so many people were telling me that they were a lot better than Fallout 3 if you were prepared to forget about the obviously outdated graphics. Graphics don't mean all that much to me, especially if I know I am playing an older game, so I wasn't too bothered about that. The game itself though is nowhere near as good as people have made it out to be. It was quite a disappointment when I started to play it.

I got all 3 of the games for around £10, so I'm not all that bothered. It's worth having as a part of my gaming collection.

I thought all 3 games were horrible, but i didn't play the first 2 for long enough to judge them properly.

There's a 4th one coming out that's being made by the guys who made Fallout 1+2, i'm looking forward to that.
Bethesda did a terrible job of Fallout 3.

At 7/22/09 05:04 PM, GodsBitch wrote: It was quite a disappointment when I started to play it.

Same. Thought they were (although original) very "ehh". Didn't do anything for me.

Ok for one the game is 10 years old give the game a break.

But I do think that it is a great game and most if anything the best "role-playing" game ever made. Their are just so many ways to go through this game and their lots of possible characters you can build. Maybe the art design didn't grab you but I found the game to be very immersive with great and interesting characters.

And the writing in Fallout is about Oh 30x better then Fallout 3. The dialogue in Fallout is supposed to come off as silly but also somewhat realistic. The story throughout is very long and the characters you meet are shortly met but are developed enough so you can understand them.

Their isn't alot of quests in Fallout but their is alot of details you most likely missed. I tryed to explore every detail in the game and still missed out on a lot and beat the game in about 3 weeks. And maybe you missed the ending of Fallout but the desicions you made in in the towns and areas are reflected in the ending of the game. Their are also of coarse minor stuff that can help you or not help you depending on your decision in certain parts of the game.

To me Fallout 3 was unoriginal and just had a boring dull world and was presented very poorly. I felt like Fallout 1 and 2 both had greater depth and had a better appeal.

At 7/22/09 11:18 AM, iFulzo wrote: I have it on my PC and thought i'd give it a go but i agree with you on the graphics and the combat system is terrible, i've only ever played 5-10 minutes into it since i keep getting owned by radscorpions upon exiting the vault cave

The most important part about this game is building a great character. Make sure that he is at least decent in combat and intelligent to talk to others.

And when you exit the vault you need to walk to the town shandy sales(forgot name) and start their. You will never beat the rad scorpions alone and you have no weapons or armor to face them. If you face enemy's in the wasteland then its best to just run away from them.

The combat system is pretty fun at least to me.

At 7/22/09 07:04 PM, xscoot wrote: 4 required you to buy loads of tranq. weapons, and to move slowly so you can blend in with the terrain.

...and how is that not stealth?

At 7/22/09 09:38 PM, Jangowuzhere wrote: And the writing in Fallout is about Oh 30x better then Fallout 3. The dialogue in Fallout is supposed to come off as silly but also somewhat realistic.

The writing isn't any good in either of the games. It's just a little better in Fallout 3. In Fallout 3 you don't walk around a post apocalyptic wasteland filled with only characters who spout remarks like "I love my boss."

And geez. SPOILER. The conversation I had with The Master was ridiculous. It basically went down to "I'm going to build a master race (because I am clearly supposed to be Hitler)." "But wait, your mutants are infertile." "What? My mutants are infertile? Oh geez, my master plan is ruined. I can't be doing the things that I have been doing anymore (almost an exact quote there)." And then the factory blows up.

The story throughout is very long and the characters you meet are shortly met but are developed enough so you can understand them.

The characters are all one-note caricatures. What do you mean they are developed long enough to understand them? Each character says about 3 paragraphs of dialogue total, and about half of that is simply fact telling.

And the story took me about 8-10 hours to complete, so I don't know what you're on about there.

Their isn't alot of quests in Fallout but their is alot of details you most likely missed. I tryed to explore every detail in the game and still missed out on a lot and beat the game in about 3 weeks. And maybe you missed the ending of Fallout but the desicions you made in in the towns and areas are reflected in the ending of the game.

No, I did that.

It was all just a "and then this town got abandoned" and "and then this town flourished" and so on and so forth. When I say lasting decisions, I don't mean a different sentence said when confronted with the short lived ending cutscene.

Their are also of coarse minor stuff that can help you or not help you depending on your decision in certain parts of the game.

The decisions all seemed to boil down to; be a saint, or be a fucking arsehole.

To me Fallout 3 was unoriginal and just had a boring dull world and was presented very poorly. I felt like Fallout 1 and 2 both had greater depth and had a better appeal.

You're just another person that has had their past distorted by nostalgia.

If you could just wake up, you'd find that Fallout 3 improves on absolutely every aspect of Fallout. The story isn't any more interesting in Fallout 3, but exploring the world actually feels like exploration.

At 7/22/09 09:45 PM, Jangowuzhere wrote: The most important part about this game is building a great character. Make sure that he is at least decent in combat and intelligent to talk to others.

I found building a great character really didn't take as much thinking as it should have. I just got small guns, speech and energy weapons, and spent the game just cruising through it. After I got the plasma rifle, there was no chance of anything being able to kill me.

NMA is full of fags

forget about them

Imo, I like Fallout 1, 2 and 3 but the difficulty of 1 and 2 is probably the reason I like 3 the best. That and Fallout 3 has much better gameplay and a better V.A.T.S system. I found Fallout to be incredibly difficult, since not only are the enemies impossible to kill but theres a time limit! *SPOILER* You have 150 days to find the water chip with barely any clues as where you are supposed to go so I yell "Fuck it" and just play Fallout 2 or 3. At least with Fallout 2 its a bit easier on the basic gamer.

At 7/23/09 07:40 AM, PeterD23 wrote: *SPOILER* You have 150 days to find the water chip with barely any clues as where you are supposed to go

But of course, there's very few places you can go.

If you just talk to one person in the first town, he'll tell you how to get to the next town.

If you talk to a person in the next town, he'll tell you how to get to the place that houses the water chip (among other places.)

If you just search these few places a tiny bit, you'll find the water chip.

It took me about a quarter of that time to find it.

I got it pretty much the same reason as you and I sucked ass at it. I lost like, every fight and I got stuck on the mission where you save that guys daughter cause I couldn't beat the big guy in a fight or kill the raiders.

You love graphics. Graphics = how good the game is.
There should be a game with better graphics than Fallout at that time. Like Fallout, Fallout 3's graphics, compared to MGS4, is mediocre.

I love the way they give characters character. Not like everyone has the same mindset. I think stopping Master from his plan is more interesting than finding your father.

Go shoot someone in Shady Sands, then watch this.

"I'm going to build a master race (because I am clearly supposed to be Hitler)." "But wait, your mutants are infertile."

I find this conversation quite humorous. But of course finding your father is more fun loooool.

I don't know. Many people love FPS so it may be natural you like FO3 more than Fallout.

At 7/23/09 09:25 AM, Jin wrote: You love graphics. Graphics = how good the game is.

Don't put words into my mouth, that's not what I said at all.

I was complaining about the actual art within the game, which is mind-numbingly boring.

The whole game looks like it was made in a children's sandbox, aside from the vaults, of which they copy and paste over and over.

However, with regards to graphics, a fully 3D dystopian world makes for a more interesting place to explore than an isometric mess where everything is impossible to see unless you're standing in the exact right place. I know that Fallout 1 wasn't able to do what Fallout 3 has done, but that doesn't mean that I can't hold that as a reason why Fallout 3 is a better game.

There should be a game with better graphics than Fallout at that time. Like Fallout, Fallout 3's graphics, compared to MGS4, is mediocre.

Well, alright. But compared to MGS4, Fallout 1's graphics are terrible. I don't see what your point here is.

I love the way they give characters character. Not like everyone has the same mindset. I think stopping Master from his plan is more interesting than finding your father.

I find this conversation quite humorous. But of course finding your father is more fun loooool.

I think you'll find that I didn't praise the story of Fallout 3 at all.

Also, you find your father pretty early on in the story.

The story wasn't what was interesting about Fallout 3, however. What appealed to me about Fallout 3 was the overall atmosphere, which was helped entirely by everything that it was able to do, that Fallout 1 wasn't able to do.

Yes, in terms of deciding which is a better game, I'm allowed to hold the technology limitations of Fallout 1 against it.

I don't know. Many people love FPS so it may be natural you like FO3 more than Fallout.

Protip: I'm a huge RPG fan.

Fallout 3 may have pretty graphics. To bad it has awful animations, awkward combat, lazy voice acting / dialogue and full of NPCs just acting plain weird.

I should start recording the shit that has happened in Fallout 3 and make a funny youtube video.

"The writing isn't any good in either of the games. It's just a little better in Fallout 3. In Fallout 3 you don't walk around a post apocalyptic wasteland filled with only characters who spout remarks like "I love my boss.""

"And geez. SPOILER. The conversation I had with The Master was ridiculous. It basically went down to "I'm going to build a master race (because I am clearly supposed to be Hitler)." "But wait, your mutants are infertile." "What? My mutants are infertile? Oh geez, my master plan is ruined. I can't be doing the things that I have been doing anymore (almost an exact quote there)." And then the factory blows up."

I never found any of the stuff that people said in Fallout to be bad writing. It came off a bit weird to me thoe but I was mainly talking about the actual conversations and the way the story is told itself.

And really did the conversation really bother you that much? I never got that conversation with the master but I did talk him into blowing up the base by showing him the BOS data disk. I thought it was nice you could talk him into redeeming himself as it gave more options for play.

"No, I did that.

It was all just a "and then this town got abandoned" and "and then this town flourished" and so on and so forth. When I say lasting decisions, I don't mean a different sentence said when confronted with the short lived ending cutscene."

Again the game is 10 years old. I thought the decisions you made in the towns is what you ment. But even then I really don't see any flaw with not having long lasting decisions. Its not like in Fallout 3 or another game like Mass Effect the decisions you make matter all that much.

"The decisions all seemed to boil down to; be a saint, or be a fucking arsehole."

Is that bad? Theirs not much else they could have done with that. But even then its not like you have 1 or 2 decisions their are usually multiple ways for each quest or detail.

"You're just another person that has had their past distorted by nostalgia.

If you could just wake up, you'd find that Fallout 3 improves on absolutely every aspect of Fallout. The story isn't any more interesting in Fallout 3, but exploring the world actually feels like exploration."

I bought the game off GOG.com only about a year ago. I came into the game with an open mind and loved it. I personally don't see how Fallout 3 improves in much besides better graphics and combat(which wasen't a major thing in Fallout). The skills feel very limited and don't seem to matter all that much. And the game itself just lacks the depth of the first 2.

"found building a great character really didn't take as much thinking as it should have. I just got small guns, speech and energy weapons, and spent the game just cruising through it. After I got the plasma rifle, there was no chance of anything being able to kill me."

Ok? That does not mean you can't play with another character. You could go through the entire game just being a diplomatic person or a guns blazing maniac. Because the skills you choose is what sets the game up for you.

You got stuck at that part? It took me a few tries but I managed to kill all the raiders their and save her. The big guy isn't actually hard to beat in the fight if you built you character for that kinda stuff. And theirs also other ways to pass that part but I never tried them.

At 7/23/09 10:26 AM, Jangowuzhere wrote: You got stuck at that part? It took me a few tries but I managed to kill all the raiders their and save her. The big guy isn't actually hard to beat in the fight if you built you character for that kinda stuff. And theirs also other ways to pass that part but I never tried them.

I ment to quote JaY11 with that post.

At 7/23/09 09:45 AM, Aigis wrote: Don't put words into my mouth, that's not what I said at all.

That's what you implied.

I was complaining about the actual art within the game, which is mind-numbingly boring.

You are implying that the graphics are bad.

The whole game looks like it was made in a children's sandbox, aside from the vaults, of which they copy and paste over and over.

It's called an engine.
All vaults were designed to be exactly the same, with a little modification with each to test the living abilities of the inhabitants. But you didn't know that because you're just skimming through the game, getting no hint of the story/events.

However, with regards to graphics, a fully 3D dystopian world makes for a more interesting place to explore

The point of Fallout isn't to explore the wasteland. That's what Fallout 3 has and since you played it first you have taken it as a standard.

than an isometric mess where everything is impossible to see unless you're standing in the exact right place.

I think you can see more top-down than first person. Doubt you can see into a locked room in FO3.

Well, alright. But compared to MGS4, Fallout 1's graphics are terrible. I don't see what your point here is.

Point is: Compare the graphics of the Fallout games to the games made in that era, and they fare the same.

The story wasn't what was interesting about Fallout 3, however. What appealed to me about Fallout 3 was the overall atmosphere, which was helped entirely by everything that it was able to do, that Fallout 1 wasn't able to do.

Bet in FO3 you can't take your time to make your next move. They're both of different gameplay so by saying Fallout can't do the things FO3 can, you're either being biased, or implying that TBT should be wiped off the earth since it's inferior.

Protip: I'm a huge RPG fan.

Wow.

Hm i thought you had to go straight to the other vault, i might read a walkthrough or something and give the game another go

At 7/22/09 11:04 AM, Aigis wrote: For starters, Fallout 1 has an ugly world. It's uninteresting. It's dull. I didn't have any desire to explore it.

Oh my God, the irony here is hilarious.

That's exactly what I think about Fallout 3. It's just depressing finding myself fighting for my life in the sewers, subway and whatnot with rats and weird shit in a world already turned into a mess. As if that wasn't enough, you find depressing 70's music everywhere as you drag your pathethic ass trying to find something new and mildly interesting.

At 7/23/09 12:24 PM, CashClock wrote: That's the idea of the game, dumbass. Do you think a world that has been nuked for 200 years will be Colourful and pretty with nice little flowers and plants everywhere? No, it's going to be a Wasteland with dirt everywhere ugly mutated creatures and people fighting for scraps of food or for just plain pleasure. (Raiders.)

You just proved my point, kid. Didn't you think it was too obvious to point out? or do you just like getting trolled?

At 7/23/09 10:22 AM, Jangowuzhere wrote: Again the game is 10 years old. I thought the decisions you made in the towns is what you ment. But even then I really don't see any flaw with not having long lasting decisions. Its not like in Fallout 3 or another game like Mass Effect the decisions you make matter all that much.

Is that bad? Theirs not much else they could have done with that. But even then its not like you have 1 or 2 decisions their are usually multiple ways for each quest or detail.

It's not that I'm holding it against the game specifically, it's just that I was led to believe that that was what was better about Fallout 1 and 2.

At 7/23/09 11:08 AM, Jin wrote: That's what you implied.

You are implying that the graphics are bad.

Sure, the graphics are bad, but I'm talking about the art.

You know.

Art.

Design.

The way in which the graphics are used.

All vaults were designed to be exactly the same, with a little modification with each to test the living abilities of the inhabitants. But you didn't know that because you're just skimming through the game, getting no hint of the story/events.

That's just an excuse by the developers to be lazy.

And I didn't skim through the game. I really tried to like it. I did everything I could, but the game still disappointed me.

The point of Fallout isn't to explore the wasteland. That's what Fallout 3 has and since you played it first you have taken it as a standard.

It's not just the point of Fallout.

Exploration is a huge part of RPGs in general.

Point is: Compare the graphics of the Fallout games to the games made in that era, and they fare the same.

I can compare the art design of Fallout to the games made in that era as well, you know.

In 1997 in Video Games, you've got games like Final Fantasy VII, Abe's Oddysee and Diablo out, and they all use their graphics engines to create a better looking game than Fallout.

Bet in FO3 you can't take your time to make your next move.

Sure you can. You can use the VATS system. You can open the menu in the middle of battle.

I didn't need to take any time to plan my next move in either of the games, though.

In Fallout 3, it was just "aim for the head with the combat shotgun."

In Fallout 1, it was just "aim for the eyes with the sniper rifle, and later the plasma rifle."

"That's just an excuse by the developers to be lazy."

How are they lazy? Even playing the game from the start I can see that the devs put alot of time into the details for the game.

"It's not just the point of Fallout.

Exploration is a huge part of RPGs in general."

Thats not true at all. Its not required for an RPG to have exploration. In Fallout their is exploration thoe because your going into towns and areas searching for hints and items to help you find the water chip.

"I can compare the art design of Fallout to the games made in that era as well, you know.

In 1997 in Video Games, you've got games like Final Fantasy VII, Abe's Oddysee and Diablo out, and they all use their graphics engines to create a better looking game than Fallout."

I don't think anyone ever said that the graphics in Fallout were good. The art is fine and shows off the wasteland with enough detail to like it.

At 7/22/09 11:16 AM, MrPercie wrote: Yeah its the same with the MGS series. 1 is better than 4? well your a complete idiot to think that.

But it is... like seriously.