I have yet to play any other Fallout than F3, but i'm in the proccess of inheriting my brothers computer and plan on buying F1, F2, and Tactics asap. Over the last year or so though, I've notice that the majority of people who played the originals before Fallout 3 have disdain for the game and any who have played it but not the originals. I almost any discussion about the series as a whole developes into a flamewar, and thats not what I'm looking for, but I just want to know why people can't just aknowledge that they are two different styles of games, and some people may prefer the new style more?Warriors004 01:21, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
Because it is different. And different is bad. It's not the Fallout 3 that Interplay and Black Isle were planning. Therefore, it is bad. Honestly, I don't get it either. Just a case of Oldsalititus, or Bitterclingism. I have played all of them, except for the one that shall not be named. I love them all. I even like Tactics. Big McLargeHuge 03:24, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
Totally, on one hand there's getting frustrated with inconsistent plot points, but then on the other hand there's just being a hater. I was kinda upset with how graphically similar it was to Oblivion, but I've spent COUNTLESS hours playing it, because it's a really fun game, and it really brought a lot more life to the characters than the crappy sprites of olde. Nuka Kulcha 04:48, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
- You can figure out the issues pretty easily by just reading similarly titled forum topics right here at The Vault. But, to summarize:
- FO and FO2 were more intelligently and coherently written.
- The setting and lore were more internally consistent and logical.
- Character creation and advancement demanded more strategic decisions which in turn created much more diverse character builds.
In contrast
- FO3 is inconsistently and often juvenilely written.
- The lore is woefully inconsistent and wildly and often illogical.
- Character creation and advancement have comparitively little effect on build. All characters end up pretty similar to each other.
There's more, but those seem to me be several of the main points of contention.--Gothemasticator 04:54, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
That doesn't really mean anything. Incoherently written? If you talking Moira Brown, then yeah, but do you actually have anything specific, compared to what? What qualifies it as 'juvinile'? What lore inconsistenties are there? Of course F1/2 lore is consistet, it's the Fallout Genisis! Big McLargeHuge 05:00, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not out to convince anybody. The original poster asked what the fuss was about. I summarized some key points. I'm not going to argue them with you. As I said above, you can actually find all the arguments you want just by searching our own forums. And anybody who uses google can find more. Many of the die hard fans of the older games are quite eloquent in their explanations.--Gothemasticator 05:07, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
- Older games do seem to have a lot more effort put into them. I feel like it has a lot to do with the limited graphical capabilities of older games (Not a bad thing). They really made good use of the limited size and scope of games back in the day. Xcom was a pretty tiny game (As file size goes), but it has a bigger scope than a lot of global strategy games I see today. Now it seems focus has shifted more towards graphical prowess. For instance, the 2003 XCOM remake, "UFO: Aftermath" had a smaller scope and WAY more bugs than the original UFO Defense by Microprose, but it featured 3D Poly graphics, instead of animated sprites. Basically what I'm getting at is that the more sequels and remakes of a game there are, and the more focus on aesthetics rather than structure, the higher likelihood there will be inconsistencies in the plot, and under the latter conditions, even errors in the coding of the game itself. It's kind of like how in-breeding works. Not here to argue, just my two cents. Nuka Kulcha 01:57, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
I played FallOut 1 and 2. My issues was the control system and the graphics. You don't play RPG's with a point-and-click control system, plain and simple. I thoroughly enjoy FallOut 3 and FallOut: New Vegas. As for the story for FO3 being written incoherently, I want you to point out just exactly where FO3's storyline is incoherent. If you don't like it, don't play it. Don't insinuate that being different is bad. It's not always bad. In some situations maybe, but not always. 2009's Star Trek remake for example, was that bad? No it wasn't. Neither was FallOut 3 nor FallOut New Vegas. The problem I see with die hard fans is that they refuse to accept change. They aren't even willing to give it a chance. I'll admit that when I heard there was a new Star Trek movie being made, and they were going back to the era of the original series, I was doubtful it would succeed. But I gave it a chance. Play it before you criticize it.--Ryker6104:08, April 16, 2011 (UTC)~9:06pm 4/15/2011
ive played the old ones, there all good, its just people a bunch of people trying to feel special and not conforming, not realising that they are, just ignore them let them sulk and miss out, its not your problem :) 203.206.5.230 06:58, April 16, 2011 (UTC)
Ill give some examples:
Harold, finds himself rooted forever in the capital wasteland. Somehow in the space of only 30 years the tree has managed to grow at a faster rate.
The brotherhood of steel were supposed to have been slowly dying out, not somehow having a sect winding up as the saviours of the locale.
How the east coast supermutants are made. Seriously? How are they so organised with no real chain of command like the master? And supermutant overlords? And supermutant BEHEMOTHS? Where the fuck are they supposed to be stored during the FEV mutations?
And this one is gameplay related. Power armour balance. In the first game, power armour was rare and very very powerful. Hell, in the lore and in the Fallout bible, Power Armour replaced tanks, and destroyed them during the chinies anchorage conflict. But in Fallout 3 (and carried into new Vegas sadly) Power armour is only discretely better than combat armour, and im not even talkign agility.
What a lot of people had also trouble with was its tone. Sure, I love dark and dreary wasteland themed stuff (big S.T.A.L.K.E.R fan here) but Fallout 3 took itself FAR too seriously. Sure, some of the random encounters were "Strange" but the fact it was praised for its atmosphere when the original idealology of Fallout was partially a satirical poke at 1950's communist paranoia mixed with survivalism and showing how society is building is a bit of an annoyance for many. The thing is also, when you take into account how many young kids even younger than me who think they are so awesome and deep for playing Fallout 3 compared to the oldies who have stuck by one of their favourite series of all time you may find yourself siding the latter group.
The thing is, bethesda did do a relatively good job... but they still missed the mark storyline wise. 5t3v0 14:32, April 21, 2011 (UTC)