Fallout Boy

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Fallout Boy

Sean Sands is a dinosaur. No wonder he doesn't like Fallout 3.

Read Full Article

I honestly don't understand. I've been a fallout fanboy for a good 10 years, been anticipating this game for about that long. My expectations were high, and I counted down every second waiting for the release. And you know what? I wasn't only happy with the game, I was impressed. Sure, it's not the same top-down turn based game that it was before. But you know what? I have a hard time believing that they could pull that off any better than what they did, given the current state of gaming. The bottom line is, what made the Fallout games in the past were the choices, the interactions, the way things took shape around you as you progressed. The humor, the gritty mature theme, and the sense of despair. At least for me. And I found all those things, in this game. Hell, I still haven't finished exploring.

And don't get me wrong, I know what you mean when you say that maybe the era you were hoping for in gaming is long gone, that our time has passed. But you know what? After the endless stream of the same ole bullshit games, the lack of depth, the false promises of games with choices and endless paths to take, a game like Fallout 3 is quite refreshing. Something you can really sink your teeth into. It isn't perfect, but all things considered, I wasn't let down in any way.

I think Fallout 3 would be good if it wasn't so badly written.Among the bigger plotholes,at times, the game seems to assume that you have a deep knowledge of Fallout universe while at the same time is very dumbed down and obviously catered to console players who most definitely never played the prequels. Case in point: It is never actually explained what the G.E.C.K. does and while fans will know all about it and the power it holds, to your average player it's just an annoying fetch quest on par with retrieving the violin. Another example - the Enclave. To people who don't know about their genocidal tendencies in Fallout 2, there's nothing inheritably bad about the organisation and there's no reason why your father refused to let them take over...maybe his Karma Sense was tingling or something? I really wish there was an Autumn ending because he was the only genuinely interesting character and he's ending would've been a somewhat grey compromise between the two.

And please don't get me started on the worst ending ever...

Fallout 3 is not a bad game.

It's just not that great.

Im not the only one?

I have to say that after sixty hours of Fallout 3, I feel much the same way. To be fair, Bethesda did pull off a pretty impressive game, but there were so many instances of Fridge Logic and cases of poor dialogue that it was impossible to enjoy it to the extent that I enjoyed Fallout and Fallout 2.

It feels more like BioShock than Fallout, owing more of its gameplay to Bethesda's previous titles than the pen-and-paper system which spawned the original games. Fallout was based on games where the unpredictable was bound to happen, and so the game didn't have much of a linear storyline. Fallout 3 tries to get you to invest interest in the Brotherhood of Steel, regardless of whether you're evil or good - indeed, having the BoS as an interested party in the Capital Wasteland goes contrary to their whole ethos of being always behind the scenes, regardless of how it was explained in the game itself.

i too, played and loved the original Fallout games - even Tactics! - and i loved Fallout 3 as well... no, it wasn't perfect, but i don't think i've ever played a perfect game... yes, the ending could have been better, but it's not about the destination, it's about the journey - and what a journey it was!

Fallout 3 is just as much a rightful heir as one could ask for... Pip-Boy? check... rad scorpions? check... quasi-turn-based combat (a la Tactics)? check.... pitch-black humor? again, check....

i think all the fanboys need to make a reality check... games have come long way since Fallout first graced our monitors... no one really wants a top-down, isometric turn-based game any more... and how has this newest iteration been dumbed down exactly? i see that term being thrown around an awful lot, but no one seems to back it up with, you know, actual evidence...

RAKtheUndead:

It feels more like BioShock than Fallout,

ooh--great call. With agoraphobia to replace the claustrophobia.

Fallout was based on games where the unpredictable was bound to happen, and so the game didn't have much of a linear storyline. Fallout 3 tries to get you to invest interest in the Brotherhood of Steel, regardless of whether you're evil or good - indeed, having the BoS as an interested party in the Capital Wasteland goes contrary to their whole ethos of being always behind the scenes, regardless of how it was explained in the game itself.

To me, Fallout was almost like two games. By accident, I didn't do any of the main quest until I got to level 20--and even then, I found the next step in the main quest by accident when I climbed up an overpass just to get a look at the landscape from somewhere really high up, and noticed a building on the horizon.

So basically the whole game I spent not doing the main quest not because I wasn't trying to avoid it, but because I was just...able to avoid it. In fact, I avoided the 'main' part of the game so much, I didn't even find out that

Hardly involved myself with the BoS until the end. Followed a caravan that I ran into by chance, as I was young and weak and they had firepower--I basically created my own NPC party, shooting raiders for experience and looting them for booty with the help of the caravan guard. And that first half of the first playthrough was AMAZING.

The second half? When I started getting assigned NPCs and had to deal with the BoS and got my own place and all that? Not nearly as amazing. Still a great game, but, somehow, I lucked into playing a game that wasn't really there in the first place. Maybe though, that game *can* be there in Fallout 4.

Sean Sands:
Ultima, Zork, Wing Commander and Wizardry on a PC that would be catastrophically outclassed by the modern cell phone. This is the equivalent to being lost on modern indie bands because I'm so busy listening to Led Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones and Pink Floyd. It's not just t that tastes and desires have changed since the advent of the cassette tape, much less the CD, but is there really much benefit trying to reinvent the past?

I'd say it's closer to saying your so busy listening to Dead Kennedys, Black Flag, and Cock Sparrer. Sorry, me<--analogy whore

Do I really want a Fallout 3 that is just a coda on the already outstanding symphony of the first two games? What is left to do in that vein? When I think about it from that perspective I realize that my true desire for Fallout 3 and, frankly, the revisiting of a bygone PC gaming era is a virtual impossibility.

I'd love a new _Master of Orion_ with an RTS-style space combat phase. I'd say it's very *tricky* to revisit a bygone era--look at what they did with the new version of Colonization. I wouldn't say it's impossible, though. I think VATS was a big step in the right direction--combat was as exciting as BioShock (thanks, RAK) but it was still by and large stat based.

I'd say F3...shows a lot of promise: who thought it would be possible to bridge the gap between FPS and RPG like that?

Yog Sothoth:
yes, the ending could have been better, but it's not about the destination, it's about the journey - and what a journey it was!

The problem was that the ending *was* part of the journey in previous Fallouts, though, right?

Let me give an example--I was on a rescue mission for, let's say, Blue. On the way back, Blue got killed. A pop-up let me know that "Blue Died--Huge Problems for Hugecity." I thought this would be reflected in the ending, that I would find out that Hugecity devolved into an anarchic fleshpot or something because Blue and his skills never made it back to Hugecity. Turns out all I had to do was shoot some more badguys to keep Hugecity safe.

Don't get me wrong--I loved the journey too, it's just that I thought my journey was going to have more repercussions than it did not maybe on the ending itself, but on the...end state of the world when the ending occurred. Or that the latter parts of my journey would have a little more to do with the ways in which the earlier parts of my journey had gone. For instance:

I mean, I put like 80 hours in, and I'm doing another quick playthrough now, and I'll probably do one last playthrough after that, so obviously there's a lot of quality in the game--it's got assloads of quality, in fact.

However, my final 'do everything' playthrough won't be to see how the game connects by seeing it from every angle, but rather, just to see everything the designers put in the game. If that makes any sense--my final playthrough will be more like a tourist than an anthropologist: I'll be looking to just see the sights, not get some kind of deep understanding of the gameworld. I won't really care as much about how I solve all the dilemmas the game presents me with, as long as I get to see them all.

and how has this newest iteration been dumbed down exactly? i see that term being thrown around an awful lot, but no one seems to back it up with, you know, actual evidence...

Not that I would ever want to wind up agreeing with Fallout fanboys, but, like others on this forum have pointed out, I'd say in that (and F3 is the only Fallout game I've played, just FYI) I never really felt any danger after say, level 10. I could just stimpack my way through just about any fight.

That's what they really have to work on--making combat at level 20 as exciting as it was at level 2.

Fallout is a good game give Bethesda that as can suck you in but always with them I find get past halfway mark in main plot and then always goes tits up. Some of side quest are marvellous and attention to detail very few can match but need to hire a novelist or writer of some pedigree as ones have just cannot tell a tale.
I just hoping the more talented modders out their redo the main quest for the community how it should be done. Mainly everything after first enclave encounter with main story as just went down hill from their and saw where was going rest them way.

Cheeze_Pavilion:
I never really felt any danger after say, level 10. I could just stimpack my way through just about any fight.

That's what they really have to work on--making combat at level 20 as exciting as it was at level 2.

I agree, however I'd like to add that it was the same with Fallout 1&2, heck getting Power Armor alone made you pretty much invincible already.

At this point in time I really have only 2 issues with Fallout 3:

- Ending needs a revamp badly.
- Engine/bugfixes.

klc0100:

Fallout 3 is not a bad game.

It's just not that great.

Im not the only one?

I will say that I think Oblivion was much better. You could just sit there with the V.A.T.S. and get head shots and never take a lick of damage.

Given that they're revamping the ending and eliminating the level cap for their March DLC (Broken Steel), and adding to the game with the rest of their DLC, I don't see the ending being a big problem soon. Yes I know, "they should've put it in there to begin with" but to be honest I kind of like them forcing the decision they did on us at the end, but can understand why people would hate it

In any event the fact that people look back on Fallout Tactics now and think it's a pretty good game, in contrast with when it came out and them complaining about how it wrecked canon, I think people will eventually mellow on Fallout 3, and if not, well it's not going to dampen my enjoyment of the game.

First let me say that i have only played the previous fallouts a while as to get the story from them before i got my hands on Fallout 3. I only experienced 2 endings of the first game and 1 of the second and then watched the other endings on youtube.

My problem was not as much with Fallout 3 being bad as it is with everything i have played for the last few years only being sequels. I didn't like fallout 3 that much, i am sure that the level cap was grate for those who have grown up with the original fallouts but for me it was joust annoying. The game to me felt broken and the story was boring, that along with some bad design choices made this at best an average game for me.
But my main problem was that it was a squeal, like Yahtzee having a problem with remakes i have the same with sequels and every game i have played for the last few years have been either remakes or sequels and it is getting annoying.

When/If i play a sequel i want it to be a game that either picks up a story i want continued or a game that says "hey we had some issues with the last game but here is a slightly new version where all that is fixed". Fallout 3 was so different from the original fallouts that i couldn't compare them and the story is not continued from the other games or at least not so that i could clearly see it. Gears of War 1 and GoW 2 might have a story connecting them frankly who cares but i still didn't despise the sequel since it improved the game mechanics a lot. Fallout 3 is at best carrying on the sprite of the other games and that could as well be done with a title like BioShock.

So in summary i think fallout 3 could have used some more work and original ideas and would have been better of under a different title .

Isnt Fallout Boy some crappy emo band? :S

I never finished F3. The art direction is absolutely sublime (interiors as well as landscapes look amazing!), and treking through the wasteland, getting into firefights with raiders was great fun for a while. However, the acting and writing is piss-poor compared to F1 and 2. Actually, playing F3 made me want to revisit F2 rather than play on, and that's what I did.

I'd say Bethesda needs to restructure a bit. Replace people at a few positions. As it stands they seem to have some of the best and some of the worst working for them, so there's a lot of room for improvement. I wish reviewers weren't so bloody lenient. What incentive is there for a company to improve their product if reviewers hand them perfect scores for imperfect products :(

I havent finished the game yet as I find thr forums feelings on it troubling. The only thing I have issue with thus far is the Tenpenny Tower Ghoul quest, there are three possible solutions and as far as I can see only one positive one, as two have the same outcome. Finding this out after spending hours seeking to find a happy medium it smacks of lazy programming.

Hope thats no spoiler, I did enjoy the nods to Lovecraft, the republic of dave etc. It to me is a great Fallout game perfectly in keeping with the setting, even if some of the buildings full of ghouls were a little reminiscent of caves in Oblivion.

Some parts were genuinely scary, in an unsettling way. Dunwhich Tower for example, is shall say no more.

If you find it too easy, use beam weapons and nothing but from the first time you get them, walking into a firefight with about 200 energy cells and a feeling of self confidence rapidly turns into a rock laser light show and a deep rooted feeling that you need a hunting rifle.

Im hoping the DLC is for the 360 as well though as I would hate to feel like the poor relation!

Yog Sothoth:
Fallout 3 is just as much a rightful heir as one could ask for... Pip-Boy? check... rad scorpions? check... quasi-turn-based combat (a la Tactics)? check.... pitch-black humor? again, check....

i think all the fanboys need to make a reality check... games have come long way since Fallout first graced our monitors... no one really wants a top-down, isometric turn-based game any more... and how has this newest iteration been dumbed down exactly? i see that term being thrown around an awful lot, but no one seems to back it up with, you know, actual evidence...

Ah, the good ole "omg why do you want a carbon copy of a game from 1998" statement. Banded about as often as the good ole "Bethsoft dumbed down the game for consoles". One of these statements is true, and the other one is pure retardation. Guess which one is which.

But to give you a basic overview of what dumbing down in Fallout generally is; REGRESSION.

From removal of traits, skills and overall reduction of importance of stats, you have a game that requires less thought input to play the game. Thus, it has been dumbed down. Whilst there was indeed several things that should've been addressed in both traits (ie: balance) and skills (making some skills more applicable), it was unfortunately decided that doing it properly was far too hard and they may as well just remove them totally. Stats are... non-essential in Fallout 3, with very little over-bearing affects to alot of your abilities, with the ability to garner so many skill points throughout the game and maxing *alot* of them just shows how shallow the character system alone has been made.

Have I mentioned MINI-GAMES? YAY LOLLZAR! Thank christ they're better then that dialogue wheel shit from Oblivion.

Of course, then you also come down to simple interface dumbing down, things like Oblivions retarded quest compass make a wonderful return, along with Oblivions woeful menu navigation and who could forget the dialogue font. Good god. Basically, Oblivion was a dumbed down system of TES, and since they thought those things were good design decisions because modern media tend to be too spineless to tell them they're not good design decisions, you get them ported over to the next victim. You know why so many games have those shitty quick time events? Because people were too busy pandering to tell them that it sucks.

"Hope thats no spoiler, I did enjoy the nods to Lovecraft, the republic of dave etc. It to me is a great Fallout game perfectly in keeping with the setting, even if some of the buildings full of ghouls were a little reminiscent of caves in Oblivion."

Since Dark Corners of the Earth it seems like every nod to Lovecraft more resembles spittle :P

"If you find it too easy, use beam weapons and nothing but from the first time you get them, walking into a firefight with about 200 energy cells and a feeling of self confidence rapidly turns into a rock laser light show and a deep rooted feeling that you need a hunting rifle."

You can also play with the controls set to reverse, or play with your eyes closed. That would also make the game harder. :P

Personally I didn't think the game was too easy, but that was because I made a useless build based around unarmed combat. Had I known it was useless I never would've. It was great in earlier games :(

Meh, I loved Fallout 2, but Fallout 3 had everything I liked about that game in it. An Isometric view, and hex tiles do not a game make.

The true hallmark of a Fallout game is a feeling that I'm never confined to doing things one way. I can talk, fight, sneak, steal, shoot, sex or ignore my way out of any problem. Fallout 3 was pretty good about letting me do all that. I can only think of a handful of times when I HAD to do it their way.

And believe me, when it came to those moments, I was usually wanted to break my controller in frustration. But when I'm just walking along and some Talon Mercs are tossing down laser fire at some Super Mutant Masters, and it's completely up to me how I tackle it, I can't help but grin

Sure, the easy route might be to just talk to the Family. But if proper tactics and caution can let you take them out one by one, why not try that too?

I can't help but feel like people actually read this, and pretty much just came in here with their copy pasted "is Fallout 3 a good fallout game or not?" argument.

I can't help but think what the public reaction to Fallout 3 would have been if it was renamed "Fallout: DC" or something.

"An Isometric view, and hex tiles do not a game make."

Only complete nuts would actually think that :/

There is a reason that sequels usually have a property of diminishing returns, and it has little to do with the illusion of creative bankruptcy or the fallacy of lazy development. The problem is that the traditional sequel is trying to recapture a moment that is only valuable because it had never been captured before. It's not just that developers and gamers are trying to recapture lighting in a bottle, they are trying to capture the lightning that has already struck.

This needs to be in a quote book somewhere, because it is absolutely true of everything in media entertainment.

Either the whole gaming world is populated by morons and the gaming press are catering to that audience, or they are giving F3 good marks, because they need the advertising dollars. So I applaud the Escapist in being one of the few magazines to have the courage and integrity to review F3 accurately.

As for my experience with F3, I found the writing and voice acting woeful in many places. I encountered huge areas with only one thing to do and those quests were rail roaded. Most of the quests I completed ended in extremely tedious dungeon delving and combat. So if you enjoy the freedom and professional writing of pen and paper RPGs, avoid F3 like the plague. On the Fallout scale, where Fallout is a 10/10, I give F3 a solid 3/10.

P.S.
I should add I was only able to stand playing it for about 15-20 hours due to extreme boredom.

So I applaud the Escapist in being one of the few magazines to have the courage and integrity to review F3 accurately.

You mean this review?

I feel almost the same.

It's not a bad game. It's just not Fallout

From the point of someone never bothered by a game's plot, (seriously) Fallout 3 rules!
On that note, I whole heartily recommend Great Expectations for this upcoming holiday seaons, a story filled with anguish, hope, and betrayal. Also if you read the book while playing Fallout 3 you'll have all your bases covered.

xitel:

klc0100:

Fallout 3 is not a bad game.

It's just not that great.

Im not the only one?

I will say that I think Oblivion was much better. You could just sit there with the V.A.T.S. and get head shots and never take a lick of damage.

Oblivion's combat was at times flat and if not for guns Fallout 3 would be the same. Well it is still the same if you fight super mutants.

As a full game I like Oblivion more, but moment-to-moment I like Fallout 3. Because they are pretty much the same game with diffrent settings.

Dectilon:
Personally I didn't think the game was too easy, but that was because I made a useless build based around unarmed combat. Had I known it was useless I never would've. It was great in earlier games :(

Combine stealth, iron fist, a deathclaw gauntlet and maximum unarmed combat; you will be able to kill everyone in Evergreen Mills without a shot fired.

Saltiness:

So I applaud the Escapist in being one of the few magazines to have the courage and integrity to review F3 accurately.

You mean this review?

Obviously they allow a difference of opinion. Russ Pitts is clearly catering to the new breed of moron gamer.

Perhaps, but officially, their view point is that Fallout 3 couldn't be any better unless Bethsoft came to their house and blew a load on their face. Whilst it's quite refreshing that one of their staffers (a freelance writer) thinks differently about the game, this article seems to be far more focused on the general climate of sequalisation, as opposed to Fallout 3 in particular. It's simply that Fallout 3 is an extremely prime example of the topic of choice.

Magnetic2:
From the point of someone never bothered by a game's plot, (seriously) Fallout 3 rules!
On that note, I whole heartily recommend Great Expectations for this upcoming holiday seaons, a story filled with anguish, hope, and betrayal. Also if you read the book while playing Fallout 3 you'll have all your bases covered.

>a story filled with anguish, hope, and betrayal.

No, we couldn't have any of that in a *Role* Playing Game could we?

Saltiness:
>this article seems to be far more focused on the general climate of sequalisation

Yes I see what you mean.

My only complaint with this article is Sean Sands and other reviewers (including the NMA and RPGCodex people) that have had negative things to say about F3, have been far too lenient.

For me Fallout was the first computer game that had the level of writing, plot design and freedom that was comparable to the experience of playing a pen and paper RPG with an extremely talented Game Master.

As far as I'm concerned the standard of F3 falls far short of the Fallout standard and it represents a games industry that has been devolving intellectually for a long time. Handing out scores greater than 9/10 for games like F3, will do nothing to improve computer role playing game standards.

No complaint from me on that one. Intelligent (let alone creative) game design for mainstream is very few and far between. To be fair though, Fallout 3 does hold some positive things. But it's like most big titles that come out. It's basically akin to consumer electronics, designed more to tide people over to the next thing, as opposed to being a deep experience, storytelling or otherwise. There are those people who are happy to have a mobile phone that still works from 7 years ago. Then you have the other 80% of people that instantly upgrade whenever a phone comes out that rings slightly different, or has some other rarely used accessory.

Unfortuently, if you really speak pure bile about Fallout 3, you get accused of not being objective and simply a person living in the past and wanting 2d isometric graphics running in windows 98. Heaven forbid you actually enjoy turn based. OH GOD HEX GRID!!!!11

Great Expectations

Made me laugh, as it reminds me of that south park episode where the guy doing the narration was the same bloke who did the President Eden voice work. He was probably the thing I enjoyed most about Fallout 3.

>Unfortuently, if you really speak pure bile about Fallout 3, you get accused of not being objective and simply a person living in the past

Interesting isn't it? If books or movies were released with the standard of dialogue I have seen in Fallout 3, they would be universally panned. But for some reason, because it is a computer game, it rates a 9 or 10/10 in 90%+ of reviews.

The games magazines need to take a good hard look at themselves, because they are doing the games industry and gamers no favors by playing the sycophant.

>He was probably the thing I enjoyed most about Fallout 3.

Yes that was Malcolm McDowell, an actor who has had a long and distinguished career. Its a pity all of the voice work in F3 wasn't as good as his.

i was greatly disappointed in this game. i was so excited for another game like oblivion or fallout. i loved them both. I also love first person shooters so i thought the game would be perfect. It crushed all my hopes and dreams with a 4 hour storyline that i finished in one night. i wasn't excited about doing side quests either. the boring wasteland all looked the same to me so i really didn't do many of those either. they also tried to do a bunch of really stupid things do make it easier to run on a slandered computer leaving us pc games that have good graphics cards with a short boring game with crappy graphics.

Russ Pitts is clearly catering to the new breed of moron gamer.

Having worked with Russ for about a half decade, I can't tell you how profoundly wrong this is.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here