Fallout 3: Or How I Learned To Stop Worrying & Love RPGs

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Fallout 3: Or How I Learned To Stop Worrying & Love RPGs

Fallout 3 is more than just a game, it's a gateway to further RPGs.

Read Full Article

This article explains a lot of things...

I quite enjoyed it, but it's a shame that it has not opened your horizons up much more. You should check out Deus Ex

Fallout 3 was my first real indepth look at RPGs too, one I actually fully understood and tried to push my character as an actual character at least... but

DrStrangelove:
I realized with Fallout 3 that an RPG didn't have to be full of impractically sized weapons or crazy hair but can depict a "real" world that didn't rely on fantasy or outlandish plot twists.

might be pushing it abit coinsidering the worlds setting.

DrStrangelove:
I realized with Fallout 3 that an RPG didn't have to be full of impractically sized weapons or crazy hair but can depict a "real" world that didn't rely on fantasy or outlandish plot twists.

Are you serious? Sit down and think for a minute here about what nonsense you've just written. Fallout is a parody of the unrealistic notions people had about the future in the past while remaining steeped in purposefully overdone americana.

It's got mutants. And laser guns. And a giant mechanized statue of liberty.

As for the plot, it's pretty much nothing BUT a long series of outlandish plot twists. None of the characters have a coherent motivation and the whole thing is closer to the peyote-fuelled night terror of a madman than anything reasonable.

Fallout 3 isn't a bad game, but your expressed reasons here don't make a lick of sense.

This is an interesting piece to me, coming from the other side of the fence. I grew up on 8-to-16 bit RPGs, then moved on to PC RPGs in the mid 90s. I think my first sandbox RPG was Dungeons and Dragons: Warriors of the Eternal Sun for Genesis. My first on-rails shooter was Doom (first one with modern controls: Quake). Never liked those much, like 'em less now. Arena shooters are fine though, Quake multiplayer included.

I think the closest I've come to the realization you had here was with Wii Sports. With it I realized not every sports game is worthless, same with casual party games.

If you enjoyed Fallout 3 and the choices you got to make having an impact, you should try Fallout: New Vegas, it has choices galore.

PunkRex:
Fallout 3 was my first real indepth look at RPGs too, one I actually fully understood and tried to push my character as an actual character at least... but

DrStrangelove:
I realized with Fallout 3 that an RPG didn't have to be full of impractically sized weapons or crazy hair but can depict a "real" world that didn't rely on fantasy or outlandish plot twists.

might be pushing it abit coinsidering the worlds setting.

Cool, now go play New Vegas. The good one

Interesting read. I had a similar experience. I had played Oblivion as one of my favourite RPGs. I simply couldn't get into it because I expected it to be a hack n' slash and I didn't get the whole quests, levelling and open world sandbox gameplay stuff.

Thankfully Fallout 3 was a different case. Growing up in the vault was an amazing experience and then going into the open world was an amazing feeling. The levelling up made sense in this game and V.A.T.S. was simply so fun to use and also made me think that turn based is not bad at all.

Fallout 3 and Dragon Age are the games that made me love RPGs.

viggih7:
Cool, now go play New Vegas. The good one

Wow, really? New Vagas was so set on making you follow a set path around the wastes, it got unbelievably dull for me. Not to mention the bugs and i'm not talking about rad scorpions...

PunkRex:

viggih7:
Cool, now go play New Vegas. The good one

Wow, really? New Vagas was so set on making you follow a set path around the wastes, it got unbelievably dull for me. Not to mention the bugs and i'm not talking about rad scorpions...

It never really forced you onto the path, though. My first character arrived in New Vegas at level 7, having gone north directly after clearing Primm. It only took a little patience and judicious use of binoculars to sneak past.

As for the bugs, I had (and still have) a worse time of 'em with Fallout 3... but I never played either on a console, so this is very much a "your mileage may vary" observation.

PunkRex:
snip

and

Danakir:
snip

From the RPGs he was describing, I'd gather that he was talking more about JRPGs, with oversized weapons like Cloud's swoard and huge hair like...well, like Cloud's hair.
Compared to Final Fantasy/Kingdom Hearts/insert stereotypical JRPG here, Fallout is much more restrained and plausible. THAT'S the point that he was going for (I think).

My first "major" experience with an RPG was Elder Scrolls: Arena.

It controlled horribly. It looked painful. It sounded painful. It's aged like a red blood cell, somehow kept alive by outside forces. I hated it back then, and I hate it today.

But it introduced me to PC RPGs, so I can't really complain.

PunkRex:

viggih7:
Cool, now go play New Vegas. The good one

Wow, really? New Vagas was so set on making you follow a set path around the wastes, it got unbelievably dull for me. Not to mention the bugs and i'm not talking about rad scorpions...

That pretty much ends once you reach the Strip and even before that there is a ton of optional sidetracking.

loc978:

PunkRex:

viggih7:
Cool, now go play New Vegas. The good one

Wow, really? New Vagas was so set on making you follow a set path around the wastes, it got unbelievably dull for me. Not to mention the bugs and i'm not talking about rad scorpions...

It never really forced you onto the path, though. My first character arrived in New Vegas at level 7, having gone north directly after clearing Primm. It only took a little patience and judicious use of binoculars to sneak past.

As for the bugs, I had (and still have) a worse time of 'em with Fallout 3... but I never played either on a console, so this is very much a "your mileage may vary" observation.

The game still wants you to go the long way to the Strip, by introducing you to the Legion on the way, as well as the NCR and that stand-off with the Khans in Boulder City.

Its not set in stone where you have to go, buts it clear how the devs wanted you to go.

I prefered New Vegas to 3 in many aspects, but the world of New Vegas was quite dull (not the lore, the game world) The strip was small and dull, the desert isn't a great place to explore first person, stuff like that, that is where Fallout 3 was better.

If Obsidian wrote the story and Bethesda did the game world...damn son.

PunkRex:
Wow, really? New Vegas was so set on making you follow a set path around the wastes, it got unbelievably dull for me. Not to mention the bugs and i'm not talking about rad scorpions...

...or maybe it's your fault you were so set on the path to begin with. You can completely skip They Went That-a-Way and then hop back on the main story at your leisure. If there's one thing that nobody can argue about in New Vegas, it's the near-absence of linearity.

TizzytheTormentor:
The strip was small and dull, the desert isn't a great place to explore first person, stuff like that, that is where Fallout 3 was better.

If Obsidian wrote the story and Bethesda did the game world...damn son.

While FO3 might have been somewhat more interesting in terms of exploration and environmental variety, I just found the whole thing to be utterly unappealing - starting with the garish blue/green-tinted color palette. Combined with the urban setting, the whole thing just didn't feel like Fallout to me.

I am also a bit puzzled why FO:NV is receiving so much criticism for gently shoving the player along a certain path for about 20% of the game, while no one seems to be bothered by all the linear subway crawling and the cordoned off city sections in FO3.

Kiste:

TizzytheTormentor:
The strip was small and dull, the desert isn't a great place to explore first person, stuff like that, that is where Fallout 3 was better.

If Obsidian wrote the story and Bethesda did the game world...damn son.

While FO3 might have been somewhat more interesting in terms of exploration and environmental variety, I just found the whole thing to be utterly unappealing - starting with the garish blue/green-tinted color palette. Combined with the urban setting, the whole thing just didn't feel like Fallout to me.

I am also a bit puzzled why FO:NV is receiving so much criticism for gently shoving the player along a certain path for about 20% of the game, while no one seems to be bothered by all the linear subway crawling and the cordoned off city sections in FO3.

The wastes themselves was actually done well, felt very desolete and had plenty of oddities to find (such as the Teddie Bear trap, the Roosevelt School, Evergreen Mills Raider Hideout, the town of cannibals, all of these are 100% optional too)
I didn't mind the linear start (yeah you could skip it, but why would you since it sets up the story much better than just running up to Vegas)

Also, are you implying no one was bothered by the subways in Fallout 3? Have you not seen the endless hatred for those? I didn't like them either, then again, I wasn't a big fan of the DC ruins, I preferred the wastes, so I didn't spend much time in them.

Personally, I always hated traversing through vaults, they are confusing as hell to navigate through.

Oddly enough, I didn't mind the subway tunnels that much. It felt rather interesting, sneaking through the clogged arteries inside the concrete carcass of the city. However, there were a bit of a missed opportunity. More signs of long gone survivors and failed settlements would've made the different sections stand out a bit.

One moment that stands out are my first encounter with one of those devious pram bombs. I did fall for it the first time, hearing a baby crying abandoned in a dark tunnel and activating my Wasteland Hero cirquits. Until I noticed the baby was an old doll, snuggly bedded down in explosives.
I did barely survive, but it was a damn near death experience. It was a great scene, in all. Those pram bombs really did stick out for me, because they felt so obviously constructed to target Wasteland White Knights, like myself.

viggih7:
Cool, now go play New Vegas. The good one

And don't worry. It isn't multiplayer. Thankfully.

Kiste:

TizzytheTormentor:
The strip was small and dull, the desert isn't a great place to explore first person, stuff like that, that is where Fallout 3 was better.

If Obsidian wrote the story and Bethesda did the game world...damn son.

While FO3 might have been somewhat more interesting in terms of exploration and environmental variety, I just found the whole thing to be utterly unappealing - starting with the garish blue/green-tinted color palette. Combined with the urban setting, the whole thing just didn't feel like Fallout to me.

I am also a bit puzzled why FO:NV is receiving so much criticism for gently shoving the player along a certain path for about 20% of the game, while no one seems to be bothered by all the linear subway crawling and the cordoned off city sections in FO3.

Different people, different tastes. A lot of people LIKE Bethesda's brand of RPG. I don't get it either, but accept it.

I wish it hadn't come to take a dump all over Fallout, but it is what it is...

Dude posts article about how Fallout 3 helped him get into RPGs; Escapist posters start arguing over which FO game is better like 3 posts into the topic.

*rolls eyes* Just so sad.

Fallout 3 is indeed a great game. Glad the OP liked it, glad it broadened his horizons, wish more people would try it, instead of skipping it for the 'other' game.

I'll go ahead and suggest that games like Minecraft and StarCraft 2 will also blow your mind, if all you're used to is sports and Call of Duty. (call of duty is not the only type of FPS, in fact I prefer to call it Marksman shooting, but whatever).

Just wanted to chime in to say great article. My eyes usually glaze over beyond the first paragraph on the Escapist, but it sounded like you really cared about what you were writing.

This game's been on my shelf for years. Really makes me wish I had a not-shit computer to try out this ancient game.

It's interesting to see how different perspectives can be. I primarily play RPGs (though I enjoy games in other genres as well) and for me all of the things that were groundbreaking for him were standard, run-of-the-mill for me. In fact, FO3 had even less reactivity than what I'd like in a game, but I think that may be the point here - the audience Bethesda was going for wasn't necessarily me, but a broader one of people who would be attracted to the shooter elements and could ease into the RPG ones.

I'm glad the game expanded his horizons, and I actually really think that the shooter/RPG blends like Fallout and Mass Effect are really good for those reasons. I know a lot of people who originally got into Mass Effect because they thought it was a shooter, and then fell in love and branched out to other RPGs. It's both great to see new people coming into a genre I love and incredibly frustrating at the same time because I've been trying to tell the same people for years to try out some of the games that they just shrugged off before playing Mass Effect, but now after playing through ME and a few other games are readily willing to try out. Oddly validating while making me want to pull my hair out.

To the author of the article: try out the Mass Effect trilogy, Deus Ex (Human Revolution first, and then go back and play the original to ease into it), and Borderlands as well. They all do different aspects of RPGs well - Mass Effect for its characters, Deus Ex for its varied gameplay and reactions to your choices, and Borderlands for the loot.

My first crpg was Baldur's Gate. And though some people claim it was vastly iferior to it's successor, i think it fits well in "Baby's first crpg" role.

As for Fallout 3... i've never finished it. I "blame" Bethesda for that; not that i think their games are bad, but i can hardly force myself to continue after couple tens of hours. And even though this wasn't my first contact with Fallout franchise(or maybe, because of it), even though i enjoyed some of those subway segments(hell, i would like to try an rpg in which we travel only around post-apocalyptic subway system[1]) i overally find New Vegas more compelling.
And i do preffer New Vegas introduction to F3's; Looking for mooks who nearly killed me and trying to find out why some shiny chip is so important was somehow more interesting than searching for Liam Dad Neeson.
But, to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's(hehe); it's good in overall that Bethesda revived that great franchise and that someone got into crpgs thanks to it.

[1] Yes, i do mean Metro 2033 rpg. Someone make it, goddamit!

Nice story, now go play an actually good fallout game... Fallout or Fallout 2. Tactics is good too but a different kinda thing.

I'm torn.

Fallout 3 was a mess, a nail in the coffin of the Fallout universe that seemed surely doomed until New Vegas came around. So on one side I'm happy that it introduces more people to the genre, but on the other hand, we're talking about a non-rpg that has mainstream written all over it, so that it appeals to a few jocks and fifa enthusiasts here and there.

I'm sorry to say it, but I think you might be part of the latter and have fallen for a few cheap tricks of the industry.
Fallout 3 did give you a measure of freedom, but at the cost of everything that made sense, while butchering the memory of its predecessors.

You probably won't believe me, but Fallout 1 and 2 had more freedom in it and while they might not have had more choices, they had much better ones. They're extremely hard to get into; The older they get, the more unappealing they seem to new players.

michael87cn:
Dude posts article about how Fallout 3 helped him get into RPGs; Escapist posters start arguing over which FO game is better like 3 posts into the topic.

*rolls eyes* Just so sad.

Fallout 3 is indeed a great game.

That's pretty hyprocritical of you.
Fallout 3 is not by any measure a great game, it's just another step into the first person rpg, along with the TES games before it. You can like Fo3 and I can understand that, but we're talking about a game that had crippling bugs, a bad storyline and poor design.

If you want to know why I loathe it for what it is, watch this video. After that, watch the Shandification of Fallout.

As for having his horizons broadened...
It's like people who think Need For Speed are driving simulators and want to join the Forza fan club. While they do like driving a fast car, they have no idea what the finer points of the genre is or what even defines the genre.
Like I wrote earlier, welcome to the club, but I'm not sure you belong or even want to belong.

So you primarily played FPSes and sports games.

Then you played a watered down action-RPG and declared it the future of RPGs.

If Fallout 3's """"""interactivity"""""" blew your mind, i don't even want to know what would RPGs that actually have some interactivity(Fallout 1, Planescape Torment) do to your mind.

I feel I'm in a similar boat to the OP in that Fallout 3 was my first big RPG, for which I love it dearly. It may have one of my favourite explorable worlds in any game, which is why the barren deserts and cluttered maze interiors of New Vegas were a bit of a comedown, though New Vegas did plenty of things other better.

More to the point, Fallout 3 also led me to branching out into several RPGs. I tried playing the original Fallout, but hated it. I played the original Deus Ex 10 years after it had already gone out of date, but still managed to enjoy it. Human Revolution was a godsend, plus there was also Skyrim and the Mass Effect trilogy which became my favourite series of all time. Strictly speaking, those aren't much like Fallout 3, but it's all RPG goodness and that's what we like. I'm waiting for Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines to go on sale and then I'll give that a go as well. Also, at some point I need to bite the bullet and try Dragon Age.

It's always so odd reading things like this. My experience with video games began with RPGs, and that is where my interest has remained throughout the years, to the point that it's actually a little baffling for me that others might feel differently.

But no, RPGs don't have to be about spiky haired teenagers, or saving the world, or oversized swords. In fact, even among the JRPG genre, which that is stereotyping, that isn't always the case, and there can be a lot of variation. For me, RPGs are about giving meaning and context to a game. When I play CoD, or Halo, there is a storyline, but often it feels almost conflicting with the gameplay. I just want to start shooting things already, not waste time hearing about who I am shooting and why. And the character I am playing is just a nameless character, someone already fully formed and functioning, who I control for a brief moment and then leave, and they go on just fine without me. With RPGs, there is a much more intimate relationship. You grow to know and care for the characters, and rather than obstructing enjoyment, the storyline and character interactions become central. It's like sex, in a way. All sex is pretty great, but it's simply a better when you have some emotional attachment to the person, and it isn't just a one-night hookup. Same with games.

TizzytheTormentor:

loc978:

PunkRex:
Wow, really? New Vagas was so set on making you follow a set path around the wastes, it got unbelievably dull for me. Not to mention the bugs and i'm not talking about rad scorpions...

It never really forced you onto the path, though. My first character arrived in New Vegas at level 7, having gone north directly after clearing Primm. It only took a little patience and judicious use of binoculars to sneak past.

As for the bugs, I had (and still have) a worse time of 'em with Fallout 3... but I never played either on a console, so this is very much a "your mileage may vary" observation.

The game still wants you to go the long way to the Strip, by introducing you to the Legion on the way, as well as the NCR and that stand-off with the Khans in Boulder City.

Its not set in stone where you have to go, buts it clear how the devs wanted you to go.

That's bad game design. That's lazy. There shouldn't be a path where the devs 'want you to go', because then to get the real experience, you need to restrict and hand-hold the player.

Oblivion, Fallout 3 and Skyrim, on the other hand, throw you out of the prison/vault/keep and say "We made this world for you. Get amongst it!". Yeah, they all have their main quests, but you don't have as much of the necessity to follow them as New Vegas urges, especially for such a minor thing of 'a dude shot you'. I enjoyed discovering the factions of those three games myself instead of being lead around a party by my new girlfriend; "This is Eddie, and Aaron, and Papa, and Robert." As someone who never played the first two Fallouts, it made the Brotherhood sound like they were feared revered as a mysterious group of Wasteland demi-gods, and I had a great emotional reaction to find out they're just a gang of power-armored boy-scouts, somewhere between "Fuck, that's it?" and grave disappointment.

And while we're here, Skyrim has factions down-pat because it takes all that bullshit reputation system from NV and throws it out the fifth floor window, especially the silly disguises.

Oblivion wins the story department because ultimately your choices don't mean shit. Anyone else could have replaced you in taking the Amulet to Martin Septim and the whole plot would have carried out as it did without you. I adore that - not being the goddamn legendary hero for once, unlike New Vegas where there's a four-way political stalemate and YOU are the ONLY ONE who can make the difference and change the face of the entire West Coast, all over a goddamn chip. What I did in my main New Vegas playthrough was deliver the Chip, then I left the Lucky 38 and used the console to delete the proceeding quests. Package delivered; money paid.

Fallout 3 wins the exploration and open world department because it dumps you out of the Vault with nothing more than "Find Yo' Daddy", which in itself isn't touted as a terribly pressing matter, especially after listening to GNR for five minutes, unlike Skyrim's "Oh fuck dragons!", New Vegas' "Oh fuck some dude stole your shit!" and Oblivion's "Oh fuck someone needs to get this Amulet!". Fallout 3 is liberating, totally unrestricted and for that, immersive as hell.

Sansha:
That's bad game design. That's lazy. There shouldn't be a path where the devs 'want you to go', because then to get the real experience, you need to restrict and hand-hold the player.

Oblivion, Fallout 3 and Skyrim, on the other hand, throw you out of the prison/vault/keep and say "We made this world for you. Get amongst it!".

No, sorry, but that's not "bad game design", it's "slightly different game design". When designing Open World RPGs, the game designers have to make certain compromises and trade-offs between non-linearity and having a measure of linearity/guidance in order to effectively deliver story and to set up the game world.

The game world the player is thrown into in FNV is signifcantly more complex (i.e. various factions with their history and agendas interacting with each other) than FO3's and because of this you need a way to convey this effectively. Obsidian actually did that quite well without outright forcing you along a path. They shove you, true, but you still can do things differently.

That's not "lazy", FNV does something that FO3 simply didn't NEED to do because FO3 is incredibly lazy in terms of being more than just a bunch of Open World real eastate with underwhelming shovelware content plastered all over the place, like all Bethesda games are.

Now, since Bethesda games usually feature really crappy story and their worlds also tend to be bland and generic, they really don't have to waste much effort on delivering these things - they can go with all-out sandbox non-linearity. In fact, that's the only thing that makes their games even remotely interesting.

New Vegas, on the other hand, had to do some heavier lifting in order to set up the story and the game world and because of that, the experience feels a bit more guided for the first 20% or so of the game.

That is not "bad design", it's the result of creating a somewhat different kind of game compared to FO3. There is no rule or law that says that non-linearity is "better design" by definition, it all depends on what you want your game to be and what you want the player to experience.

Sansha:

And while we're here, Skyrim has factions down-pat because it takes all that bullshit reputation system from NV and throws it out the fifth floor window, especially the silly disguises.

Wow, this is about the most backwards thing I have read in a long time. The reputation system was one of several mechanics in FO:NV that gave your actions consequences. That's how the world works. You do something and it might affect other people; piss them off or make them see you in a favorable light.

The factions in the TES games, on the other hand, are just meaningless content delivery systems. You join them, you do their quest lines, and that's it. It's completely arbitrary. You could just as well replace them with a bunch of non-affiliated characters. It's just flavor, nothing more. The factions serve no real purpose.

It's one of the reasons why the TES games are so incredibly bland. Nothing matters, nothing has real consequence, you can do everything without ever having to make a decision.

Sansha:

Oblivion wins the story department because ultimately your choices don't mean shit. Anyone else could have replaced you in taking the Amulet to Martin Septim and the whole plot would have carried out as it did without you. I adore that - not being the goddamn legendary hero for once, unlike New Vegas where there's a four-way political stalemate and YOU are the ONLY ONE who can make the difference and change the face of the entire West Coast, all over a goddamn chip.

Wait, what? Now you're getting ridiculous. You're just making things up.

In FNV, you're just a random dude who happened to stumble into a very volatile situation and, through a string of incidents, is put into a position that allows you to tip the scales between very powerful factions that do things for their own purposes. You're not "changing the face of the entire West Coast". The face of the entire West Coast is about to change anyway, you're just put into the position of being able to influence on which side the chips fall.

In Oblivion, EMPEROR SEPTIM tells you: "You... I've seen you... you are the one from my dreams.". He then goes on speculating that the Gods placed you in that cell so that you may meet him and that being a prisoner is not what you, the player, will be remembered for. That's cheesy "Chosen One" nonsense right here.

I started with RPGs with Ultima III and Bard's Tale III back in the late '80s. While the game put a lot of stress on your imagination when compared to Skyrim and Fallout III, I still thoroughly enjoy playing through the old clunky RPG games, mostly because I can appreciate the mechanics and story direction in it (sometimes chessy) glory without having to shell out over $1000 to enjoy it. I'm still a bit miffed about the fact every slider in the graphics menu has to be to the left to play NWN2 without getting depressed when the screen gets "busy."

Kiste:

Bethesda games usually feature really crappy story and their worlds also tend to be bland and generic,

Seriously? How is Fallout 3 bland and generic? I know the whole retro-futuristic thing was already in the original 2 games, but Fallout 3 is far from generic. The wasteland did tend to be a little featureless, I grant you that, but it was in no way generic. Bethesda's environments are always extremely varied, and Fallout 3 was no exception.

As a player, it was always clear to me what kind of place each area had been before the war. There were upscale neighborhoods, inner city ghettos, redneck wildernesses, forests, mountains, basins, cities, towns, little family owned stores and huge chains. It was, to me at least, the opposite of generic.

And you want generic? the first two Fallouts were generic. Obviously it was a different time, so the variance of the later titles was'nt going to be easy, but the entire wasteland just felt completely homogenous to me in the first two. It was always some big empty desert with maybe a ruined house or two, or some featureless town that had nothing to make it distinctive. Look at the settlements in Fallout 3 and compare them to those in the first two.

Fallout 3 made each one of its towns engrossing to explore, and you really got the impression that they were all struggling to get by, and that existence for these people was forever balanced on the edge of a knife. An unrealistic setup, I admit, but to be honest, I always felt that most of the communities in the capital wasteland were just transient trading and scavenging hubs, where people would come from safer regions to make their fortune.

Fallout 1 and 2, however, only had settlements distinguished by their chief industry or form of government. Again, I have to admonish that eye candy was hard to come by 15 years ago, but the towns were just so boring to consider.

And the rest of Bethesda's rpg's are the same. Skyrim had probably over a dozen different environments to explore, each distinctive in their terrain, flora, and fauna. Each city had something interesting about it, something that set it apart from the others. Bethesda's games are pretty much the opposite of bland and generic.

Mack Case:

Kiste:

Bethesda games usually feature really crappy story and their worlds also tend to be bland and generic,

Seriously? How is Fallout 3 bland and generic? I know the whole retro-futuristic thing was already in the original 2 games, but Fallout 3 is far from generic. The wasteland did tend to be a little featureless, I grant you that, but it was in no way generic. Bethesda's environments are always extremely varied, and Fallout 3 was no exception.

Having a measure of variety doesn't mean it's not generic. Now, of course, Fallout 3 was not generic because it was a Fallout game and Fallout is one of the most unique settings in video gaming. Bethesda didn't create it, though. They made a bad copy of it.

And you want generic? the first two Fallouts were generic. Obviously it was a different time, so the variance of the later titles was'nt going to be easy, but the entire wasteland just felt completely homogenous to me in the first two.

You're again talking variety when I'm talking about having a setting that wasn't done to death and just a retreading of ancient tropes. Fallout 1 and 2 created a very unique world and style. That's hardly generic.

Fallout 3 made each one of its towns engrossing to explore

Fallout 3 made towns that were utterly idiotic and implausible, like Megaton and Rivet City, which were all just totally gimicky (the A-Bomb Town, the Aircraft Carrier Town and so on). I still wonder where they got their food and water from, and what they were doing for a living. In FNV, on the other hand, the world made sense. Same with FO1 and 2. You had farming communities, trade hubs, tribal areas etc - things you would expect. FO3, on the other hand, is just one implausible location next to another. You can call that "engrossing", I call it really, really bad world design. They made a landmass and then just shoved random shit into it. Skyrim is an improvement in that regard, though.

Fallout 1 and 2, however, only had settlements distinguished by their chief industry or form of government. Again, I have to admonish that eye candy was hard to come by 15 years ago, but the towns were just so boring to consider.

FO1 and 2 and NV were about exploring post-apocalypic society in all it's weirdness. FO3 was about traipsing through the dead ruins of a city and dank sewers while shooting super-mutants. Bethesda never understood what made Fallout interesting in the first place - and they never will.

Schuyler, what have you done?!?

You know that even reminiscing about Fallout will cause untold amounts of chaos and discord throughout the forums! No one in these forums is secure enough in their opinion of which Fallout game they like best to allow an article positively backing a different entry in the series!

Oh dear lord, the amount of nitpicking to come will surely send this thread off a cliff and straight to hell after derailing so hard it would cause a break in the sound barrier from the collective whining! God help us all once the links to Shamus Young articles start coming in droves!

image

 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