I've seen countless oldtime fallout players whine about it "not being a true fallout game", arguieng with statements such as "it's in 3d" or "The V.A.T.S system is dumb". Now, I've never played the original two fallouts, so I don't know how good it really was. Really though, you honestly have more fun watching a 2d picture hitting another with pre-animated sequence, then watching a 3d physics engine take control when you watch a super mutants head bounce of a building in downtown D.C?

Can someone explain to me why?

EDIT: I forgot to talk about the second statement, "The V.A.T.S system is dumb". I honestly say that it's your fault that Bathesda put that in. You had to cry about it "not being turned base", so they gave you V.A.T.S. I'm not complaining, because I love the system, but tell me how clicking some text, and then watching an animation, is more fun then actually thinking about what you have to do to beat an enemys speed, strength, and intellegence.

Why do people do that?

Here's an idea, jerkwads. Type out everything you want to say in notepad. Then read it. Aloud. Record yourself reading it. Then play it back to yourself.

Then decide if you really want to open yourself up to ridicule.

Ditto. I say this to alot of hatters. When you make Fallout 4 (or whatever) and it's just like the others and it sells a bajillion cpies, then come talk to me!

Oh this is going to get painful....

Haha sorry about the (no text), I accidently hit the reply button.

Trist66:

Can someone explain to me why?

A'ight fine, I'll tell you. But first let me say that I did LIKE it, all of the reasons you mentioned above have little to do with my issues.

My main problems were with the somewhat poor writing of the main story, the creepy stare ahead Oblivion engine graphics, the level cap and most of all...

The lack of Roleplaying that was really apparent in the original 2. They took out the coolest aspect of the dialogue, the fact that your Stat choices REALLY effected what you could say, in Fallout 3 the "Special Stat" conversation options RARELY come up whereas in Fallouts 1 and 2 they were omnipresent.

Also Fallout 3 IS NOT REMOTELY as funny as Fallouts 1 and 2 were.

YAY! TEXT!
FOZREALZ now. Ditto. I agree with u and i also agree the stares from them are creepy!

Old games are better than new games because they are old.

I'd have to say that Fallout 3 far outweighs in the "action" department, but when it comes to actual RolePlaying...not so much. It has already been mentioned, but in both Fallouts your actual intelligent stats affected how well and articulated your character was. In this, its just how many skill points or whatever you get per level.

I have recently played through both of the older Fallouts and I have to say, the dialog is some of the funniest in gaming history. Whether its your dumb characters "Ugg." responses or the very sophisticated speaking of a high intelligence hero, they all had some great responses.

In this game I never feel "locked" out of quests due to the stats I picked and once I beat Fallout 3, I don't think I'll be playing it again anytime soon.

This isn't to say Fallout 3 is a bad game, by no means is it. I think its one of the best of 2008, but I just think that another playthrough will be far too similar for me to actually play it again.

PedroSteckecilo:

Trist66:

Can someone explain to me why?

A'ight fine, I'll tell you. But first let me say that I did LIKE it, all of the reasons you mentioned above have little to do with my issues.

My main problems were with the somewhat poor writing of the main story, the creepy stare ahead Oblivion engine graphics, the level cap and most of all...

The lack of Roleplaying that was really apparent in the original 2. They took out the coolest aspect of the dialogue, the fact that your Stat choices REALLY effected what you could say, in Fallout 3 the "Special Stat" conversation options RARELY come up whereas in Fallouts 1 and 2 they were omnipresent.

Also Fallout 3 IS NOT REMOTELY as funny as Fallouts 1 and 2 were.

Yeah. I got the the Fallout bundle of Interplay's site $15 and I've tried F1 like I have Fallout 3. I have crashed and burned miserably. I'm still trying to play as more of Skill/Diplomacy boy, and now that I've discovered how easy it is to get Ian to join your party I'm doing a bit better. I'm also discovering things like how you have to make your way to Necropolis quickly as the Super Mutants like to kill everything fairly quickly. Which raises the question of why anyone would bother going to the water Merchants. I'm somewhat un-liking this limit on getting water as I was enjoying acting as a merchant caravan guard and messing up some dudes.

I do seem to suffer the unlucky dice roll problems I had on KotOR, where I always manage to do just enough damage as to actually hurt something.

But I love it. It's incredible fun, and I'm going to enjoy F2 when I get around to playing it. I've only been able to play it on a friends computer as I couldn't get Darwine to work, though I'm hunting down a copy of XP to bootcamp my machine with.

Sorry, kinda went off on a tangent.

Also, I did love F3.

VATS was an interesting take on trying to blend real time with the turn based feel of the old ones... While I feel it was too powerful, it wasn't horrible, or even bad. It was a noble attempt.

Also, OP, your edit makes little to no sense. The old Fallouts were more tactical than the new ones, and if you really think a half shooter is more tactical than a full-on RPG... you need to think again.

I don't believe the old Fallouts can really be compared directly to the new ones as the genre has changed. It all comes down to genre preference now.

*Eye twitch.* Your saying a sequel is better because it has better graphics/oh-so-pretty-death-animation-but-no-point-for-gameplay over a game that didn't have access to that technology at the time it was released, but instead focused on other things to bring in a fan base(i.e. good story-telling, original setting for RPG, finding the tardus in the wilderness)?

PedroSteckecilo nailed it pretty well in that it did have some solid writing in the game, along with any of the other PC RPGs during the 90's (Planescape: Torment, Baldur's Gate, etc.).

harhol:
Old games are better than new games because they are old.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. I think that statement goes for far more than just games, though. Nostalgia is a cruel illusion.

I dunno, I'm an old-time Fallout fan and I thought Fallout 3 was a worthy successor. Everyone else is a victim of what I like to call Emo-itis. It's where you stop liking something because it became popular.

Voltano:
*Eye twitch.* Your saying a sequel is better because it has better graphics/oh-so-pretty-death-animation-but-no-point-for-gameplay over a game that didn't have access to that technology at the time it was released, but instead focused on other things to bring in a fan base(i.e. good story-telling, original setting for RPG, finding the tardus in the wilderness)?

No, I'm basically saying that turned based games suck, and should be forgotten. I'm not complaining about the story thing, as I can definately see that being better, I'm just talking about people that whine about it not being fallout 1 or 2.

I got Fallout 1, 2 and Tactics for Christmas, so I can judge without the shadow of nostalgia hanging over me.

Personally I think the two can't really be compared. Fallout 3 is an atmospheric shooter-rpg hybrid, Fallout 1 (and probably 2, still only playing 1) is a full-on rpg with what I'm sure is incredible atmosphere for its day, and indeed a lot more freedom than Fallout 3 has.

Also

Having said that, I like both games for entirely different reasons, neither one of them deserves any hate. (or at least, don't deserve hate based on being compared to the other, if that makes any sense)

Trist66:

No, I'm basically saying that turned based games suck, and should be forgotten.

You should have made the thread asking how people can enjoy turn based games then. Fallout 1 and 2 were amazing RPGs, which do very well as turn based games. People still play Fallout 1 & 2 now not because of its graphics, or its combat, but mainly because of how good of a job it did at being an RPG, your ability to play a certain type of character with certain attributes. I was saddened when I saw having the lowest possible INT score in Fallout 3 did nothing. If you did that in 1 & 2, it actually changed all the dialogue in the entire game, just to suit your character's bad intelligence. I still thought Fallout 3 was a great game, the makers just had a different goal in mind than Fallout 1&2 had.

Basically, you're praising Fallout 3 for its non-RPG elements. I could say the same about Crysis and make a thread saying "How can you like Fallout 1&2 it isn't super pretty like Crysis". You would not like Fallout 1&2 because you don't care about what makes it quality.

I think I may be coming off a little wrong, but the purpose of this thread was to point out people who dislike fallout 3 because it was not fallout 1/2. I'm sure there is reason to preffer both, and reasons to dislike either, but people that say fallout 3 is a terrible game because of V.A.T.S are insanely narrow-minded.

Fallout 1+2 and Fallout 3 are entirely different animals.
The first person was fine, the graphics were fine, but the heart and sole of the world were suspiciously absent.

Regardless, Fallout 3 is still a damn fun game, and it had it's excellent Fallouty moments, it was just missing that overall witty spark that F1 and 2 had.

I suspect it's because Fallout 3 wasn't a good Fallout game. Which of course, doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad game, it's just that the original stuff that made the first Fallouts so appealing are either absent or neglected in Fallout 3.

Onyxblackwolf:

The first person was fine, the graphics were fine, but the heart and sole of the world were suspiciously absent.

That basically sums it up. If the only things Fallout 3 did was change the graphics and perspective, this game would be amazing.

Aside from Fallout 3 the only other one i have played is Fallout:Brotherhood Of Steel. But i have seen videos and screenshots from the begining of the Fallout franchise. Now im not saying older games are a bad thing, i mean a few of my favourite games have been classics ie Dungeon Keeper, Diablo 1 & 2, Doom etc. However, when it comes down to Rpg's like Fallout i'd have to say id rather play them more streamlined rather than turn-based. Either way i'll probably have to invest in the original Fallout's to know abit better.

I had the initial reluctance after reading a few reviews on buying it because "its just not Fallout-y enough." But I had popped in Fallout 1 and beat it, then played through the second one, and just thought to hell with it and got the third. Yeah, they are totally different games, but that doesn't make it terrible. Total War and Left 4 Dead are totally different games too, but I enjoy both of them perfectly fine.

The 3D thing is a natural progression. RTS games can't even get away with a pure 2D graphic setup anymore, much less any sort of RPG or FPS game. They practically HAD to go 3D to be taken any more serious than a really good Flash game

As for the VATS system, I did rely on it heavily when I first played through. In reality though its no different than the F1 & F2 targetting system, which I also used heavily in those games as well. Once I realized that my manual targetting did locational damage as well (a feature that the first two games didn't have, by the way), I relied on it far less, and it became more of a "I'm bored and can't be bothered to aim" rather than a "Pop, pop, pop, run around until AP refills then hit wih another volly".

Trist66:

No, I'm basically saying that turned based games suck, and should be forgotten.

Why do turn based games suck? And make your argument a DAMN good one, I've heard them all.

Fallout 3 is unquestionably the best game in the fallout series thus far but you have to remember what you're dealing with. When you fondly remember the games from yesteryear, you remember them in an idealized fashion (i.e. you forget that there was even 20 minutes of fun to be had in State of Emergency but seem to recall Super Mario Brothers being nothing but shining moments of divine revelation).

The previous fallout games were so ahead of their time, from the complexity and scope of the world to the subtle black humor throughout. In an age where most RPGs were about saving princesses using swords and magic, fallout presented a grim future apocalypse. No matter how valiantly you fought against the denizens of the wastes, no matter how powerful your character there was no restoring the balance or saving the day. At the end of it all, you save your ungrateful people and are cast out into the wastes to fend for yourself, accomplishing little more than ensuring the rest of humanity can scrape out it's meager and pitiful existence in a ruined hellscape.

I have no love for the mechanics of the game - turn based gameplay has it's place and it worked well in an age where fallout's interface was almost cutting edge. Fallout 3 is an improvement because today's hardware let's designers actually bring the wasteland to life; in the previous games they could only hint at the detestation and left it to the player to interpret the crude graphics. Letting the player proceed in first person inherently allows for greater immersiveness than any third person game can hope for. And a true turn based first person system has never been attempted to my knowledge, but I can only assume the results would be cumbersome at best. VATS is an excellent compromise, and though far from perfect at least keeps the spirit of the previous system in place.

Fallout 3 is decried because it is often closer to a shooter than a Role Playing Game in it's mechanics. There can be no denying that Fallout 3 plays differently and looks different than it's predecissors but the themes that drive the game are there. Bethesda did no disservice to Interplay with their implementation of the game: instead they honored them. They took the grand ideas that Interplay created in their magic boxes into a new setting and gave us a whole new way to play the game. In all fairness to Bethesda - they did the best they could - besides, it's better than any Fallout 3 Interplay is going to make.

Well whatever, more people played fallout 3 than the others, even so if there is a fallout 4, im gonna buy it, unless it has something to do with purifying water again

Voltano:
*Eye twitch.* Your saying a sequel is better because it has better graphics/oh-so-pretty-death-animation-but-no-point-for-gameplay over a game that didn't have access to that technology at the time it was released, but instead focused on other things to bring in a fan base(i.e. good story-telling, original setting for RPG, finding the tardus in the wilderness)?

I just think this post is hilarious because here we have someone complaining about a feature in Fallout 3 which was present in the original games (ridiculous, over-the-top death animations). I remember reading one of the original Fallout design docs and "Extreme Violence" was near the top of the feature list. The grumpy grognards who complained just want to bitch and moan about everything. They don't care about facts or the truth, they just want to gloss over the past with a pretty, nostalgic varnish while they sandblast and scour the future until nothing remains. Thankfully, the rest of us can move on without them.

As a longtime fallout fan (avatar pic, dur) I loved Fallout 3 and didn't have the complaints the topic starter claims I should. The VATS system was terrific; did anybody notice how it dynamically calculates hit percentages based off range, line of sight, facing, cover, etc? How cool is that? The original games featured a "Targeted Shot" ability which is essentially VATS, so it's awesome. My hope is that they will find a way to better integrate companions into the system, letting you command allies to attack while in VATS mode. We'll see I guess.

Go onto gamefaqs, and two of the guys gave it less then a five. Seriously, check it out.

Trist66:
Go onto gamefaqs, and two of the guys gave it less then a five. Seriously, check it out.

Damn! Two dudes said I shouldn't like a game?!?! No way. I must be mistaken. I couldn't possibly like a game that two dudes said I shouldn't like. What did they say about the original Contra? I mean, I remember liking it as a kid, but if they said I shouldn't, it'd mean that whole portion of my childhood was a sham.

Its still a good game, even if two guys from gamefaqs gave it less than a 5. If you like game, then don't worry about other people's complaints and just play the game. If you don't like it, then don't buy it. If you don't like it but already bought it, then try to regift it to you're sister's kid and hope he likes it.

Grampy_bone:

Voltano:
*Eye twitch.* Your saying a sequel is better because it has better graphics/oh-so-pretty-death-animation-but-no-point-for-gameplay over a game that didn't have access to that technology at the time it was released, but instead focused on other things to bring in a fan base(i.e. good story-telling, original setting for RPG, finding the tardus in the wilderness)?

I just think this post is hilarious because here we have someone complaining about a feature in Fallout 3 which was present in the original games (ridiculous, over-the-top death animations). I remember reading one of the original Fallout design docs and "Extreme Violence" was near the top of the feature list. The grumpy grognards who complained just want to bitch and moan about everything. They don't care about facts or the truth, they just want to gloss over the past with a pretty, nostalgic varnish while they sandblast and scour the future until nothing remains. Thankfully, the rest of us can move on without them.

As a longtime fallout fan (avatar pic, dur) I loved Fallout 3 and didn't have the complaints the topic starter claims I should. The VATS system was terrific; did anybody notice how it dynamically calculates hit percentages based off range, line of sight, facing, cover, etc? How cool is that? The original games featured a "Targeted Shot" ability which is essentially VATS, so it's awesome. My hope is that they will find a way to better integrate companions into the system, letting you command allies to attack while in VATS mode. We'll see I guess.

Pretty much this though to this day I still haven't beaten Fallout 2 which I don't know why. Yet I couldn't put down Fallout but I felt the same way with Fallout 3 I couldn't put it down until I beat it. I felt a little cheated only because I thought it was an open ended game but I still liked it though I thought the ending was possibly Fallout Killing because it removes the danger of the Wasteland...yeah pure water you fucked up fallout. :P

meatloaf231:

harhol:
Old games are better than new games because they are old.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. I think that statement goes for far more than just games, though. Nostalgia is a cruel illusion.

By your logic Haze is better than Half Life 2? Wash out your mouth, you criminal.

A remake of the original Fallout would be amazing, but with VATS and the gameplay of Fallout 3. Seeing the Master in 3D... eeeeggh.

There are many clever Fallout 3 mods out there that change the game to give you a more Fallout 1/2 feel.

Check them out!

Quick question to the OP.

Would you like the game less if it didn't have the name Fallout 3?

I would imagine not. The name is fairly meaningless to you. But to those of us who played the originals it is hallowed ground.

Imagine if ten years after Kurt Cobain's death three completely unrelated dudes who'd had nothing to do with Nirvana's music bought the rights to the band name Nirvana. Then they declared to the whole wide world that they would make the 'true' follow up to 1994's In Utero. Except instead of being grunge rock it would be hip hop and the only connection it would have to the original band would be similar thematic elements and some bizarre out of context samples.

Now this hypothetical new 'Nirvana' album could be the greatest collection of music ever written but it's fairly obvious that old school Nirvana fans would be pissed. And no amount of know it all kids telling them that hip hop beats are just objectively 'better' then distorted guitars would ever change their mind.

Tattaglia:

meatloaf231:

harhol:
Old games are better than new games because they are old.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. I think that statement goes for far more than just games, though. Nostalgia is a cruel illusion.

By your logic Haze is better than Half Life 2? Wash out your mouth, you criminal.

I think you misinterpreted me. Oldness does not make a game good. However, if something is re-made or something incredibly similar comes along, the new game will be treated as an infringement upon the memories of the old game.

"It was better back then, when X was Y."

Trist66:
No, I'm basically saying that turned based games suck, and should be forgotten. I'm not complaining about the story thing, as I can definately see that being better, I'm just talking about people that whine about it not being fallout 1 or 2.

Trist66:
I'm sure there is reason to preffer both, and reasons to dislike either, but people that say fallout 3 is a terrible game because of V.A.T.S are insanely narrow-minded.

Why does the saying "The pot calling the kettle black" come to mind?

This is very similar to comparing the opinions of someone who watched the movie and never read the book and someone who read the book before watching the movie. The people who read the book have a different preference than the pure movie goers. The same ilk of situation is played in the Fallout 1+2 vs. Fallout 3 debate.

I think it's also somewhat a generational issue, too. Early PC's were too weak to pull anything too complicated in the graphics department. So most developers would pull one or two tricks in that department just for a little flare, but would spend the time elsewhere in the game. It was gameplay and story that had to be worked in order to captivate the audience back then. With this generation, graphics are seen as the primary tool to captivate the masses. The graphically desensitized older generation will acknowledge the improvement, but will be looking deeper for something else. As of late they have found very little to satisfy their tastes. It's like presenting someone used to drinking a finely aged Scotch with a mixed drink loaded with Everclear. Sure the mixed drink has a ridiculously high alcohol content and will get you drunk faster, but there's a bit of fidelity and appreciation that's lost.

Back to Fallout 1+2 vs 3:
Turn-based offers very unique situations... There's nothing like carefully evening out a local town patrol vs. a batch of raiders, hoping that they kill each other off in order to get the most loot of them. This is of course ruined in a blink of an eye as you watch the info text box read: "Oops! You critically missed and hit the patroller instead of the raider." This making a neutral group none too friendly with you anymore and curious if you can run to cover before they fill you full of holes.

Then again, it's like explaining the joy and delight one can have from a game of chess or Risk with an avid player of Hungry Hungry Hippos. Each person has a different desire to extract from their game.

I've played Fallout 3 and experimented with the different options. I think Bethesda would have done better, had more freedom to do what they really wanted, and had a better reception if they had just done their own intellectual property. There would have been no implied comparison and people would appreciate the game more for what it is rather than what it wasn't. Dodge the issue entirely by simply not creating it.