" I use that against the game because you could do the quests in the earlier Fallout games in any order you liked, and they all had meaningful impacts on the storyline and your character and his/her reputation!"

The reputation thing, sure, that's also in Fallout 3.

Can you give an example where the quests had a meaningful impact on the main storyline in the old Fallouts? I don't remember a lot of that beyond some basic dialog changes - which the new games do as well.

"You could visit cities in any order you liked as well, just pick a direction on the map and go ahead until your find something, do quests and see what happens. The fact that this disappeared in Fallout 3 is just another evidence of its failure to understand what made Fallout great,"

That's exactly what I do whenever I play the game.

I think the core issue is you don't like the switch to FPS or something and are justifying it by saying that the game design changed too much or something. I see little difference between the modern fallouts and the old ones. They are, essentially, the same games just from a different camera position. 

The most obvious quest that has a deep impact on the storyline is the water chip problem. If you decide to join the water merchants and reveal the location of Vault 13 to them, they'll get a stock of water to the Vault that will give you more time to get the chip, but on the other hand the Master will be aware of the location of the Vault and will send his supermutants way faster. If you're not aware of this the Vault can get destroyed.

Another one is still regarding the chip in the Necropolis, if you steal the chip without repairing the Ghouls' water pump beforehand they'll turn hostile and want to kill you even if you freed them from the supermutants above.

If you join the Khans in Fallout 1 your reputation goes to the ground and you obviously won't be able to be on friendly terms with Shady Sands. I think Killian in Junkcity doesn't even want to speak to you if you do that.

If you optimize the power plant in Gecko in Fallout 2, Gecko and NCR will be on good terms but Vault City will hate your guts more than usual, and they'll send troops to destroy Gecko.

If you destroy the Shi Emperor in San Francisco everyone will hate you and you'll have to kill them. This makes the game obviously much harder. However if you do the contrary, that is to kill AHS-9 you get lots of good rep and lots of experience. Basically if you help the Hubologists most people will hate you, which makes acquiring the boat to get to the Enclave oilrig harder.

The FPS switch is indeed an issue because the system doesn't work for me at all, as I've already explained. I'm far from being the only one complaining about this. The gameplay is way too rigid and random, which doesn't work in a first-person perspective. Even in System Shock 2, that had character skills, you could kill stuff with weapons you had almost no stats for. It was hard but it was definitely easier than in Fallout 3. Seriously, not being able to score a headshot when I'm at close range is utterly ridiculous. 

I'm out of my depth now and will bow out. Your encyclopedic knowledge of the original Fallout games has overpowered me. :) 

"Can you provide an example?"

"*provides several*"

"Whatever, aspie :)" 

I can continue to argue against someone with who has a clearly better grasp of the topic than I do, or I can bow out. I know internet tradition dictates that I start calling him names and swearing, but I'm opting for a different way. :)

I still love Fallout 3 and I think it's one of the best games ever created. Yeah, I said it. But I don't remember the quests by heart or their outcomes and effects and I can't spend the time to go dig it all up so ...

I'm out! 

Good convincing argument dude. I'd left Fallout 3 New Vegas to one side, but I'm definitely going to start playing it now :) 

I haven't played Fallout 3. 

I loved New Vegas, the writing was excelent, and it had great exploration. Fallout 3 was ok.
I agree with most of what skacky says, but the size of the world and exploration is enough to make me enjoy those games more than most FPS anyways. 

I really think the "S" needs to left off of there when discussing Fallout. It's first person, yes, but a shooter it ain't... And expecting it to play like a shooter is going to lead to frustration. 

CombinationVille at Planetphilip was recently released. why not check it out? CombinationVille download 

Although ugly, Fallout 3 and NV are great games. Admittedly, the karma system doesn't work nearly as strongly as 'hard-coded' consequences (even though there are some of them as well), and it seems to be biased towards the good side - relatively easy to become a 'good' character; some effort required to become 'bad'.

It's an FPS but that doesn't mean it necessarily has to work on player skill alone. This is where the RPG elements come into play, so you do have to spend some points into your shooting tree in order to make better hits. A sensible system in this context, imo - similar to fantasy RPGs where you need to improve your sword skills.

otp: We get it, you don't like Willem. However, interpreting every single one of his posts in the most negative way possible just to have an opportunity for a personal attack actually makes you look like the cunt here. 

I haven't played New Vegas (even though I own it... Steam Sales...), but I remember thinking FO3 wasn't bad when taken on it's own merits. I don't think it is the greatest game ever made, and likely won't ever replay it, but it was decent.

But it's not Fallout or Fallout2, which are games I adore and have played several times. 

 

I own it as well, and played about 30 minutes.

Didn't grab me... I should probably give it another try. 

Comooooonn dude. Seriously. You aren't half getting your panties in a bunch.

You're just not making any sense. Let me help to articulate some of your shit a bit better, so i can get my head round this more easily:

Skacky:Fallout 3 is an utter failure on every imaginable level.

This is bullshite.

The game is horrendously successful. As a game.

You're spouting RPG-nerd hubris, which seems strange. RPG-nerd hubris. If your statement had read:

As a pure RPG, Fallout 3 is an utter failure on every imaginable level.

A game being successful doesn't cause all of the people who like the game to become 'hipster idiots' - it is also possible that the game had its own merits.

You then go on to say that the game has no choice & consequence, which is NOT TRUE. It has an abundance of choice and consequence. I know, I have experienced much of this myself.

Now when you go and LIE about a game, it's kind of hard for me to 'understand or try to understand what you're trying to say', because I know that it's BULLSHIT.

You then go on to say:

'you could do the quests in the earlier Fallout games in any order you liked, and they all had meaningful impacts on the storyline and your character and his/her reputation! You could visit cities in any order you liked as well, just pick a direction on the map and go ahead until your find something, do quests and see what happens. The fact that THIS DISAPPEARED IN FALLOUT 3 is just another evidence of its' ... blah blah blah

I have capitalized the part which is a complete FUCKING LIE.

If that part had read 'there was less of this in Fallout 3' then I would find it easier to understand or try to understand what you'r trying to say. But as it stands I'm having trouble understanding it because it's BULLSHIT. You're exaggerating to the point of it being literally bullshit.

Do ya get me? 

Give me an example of a quest that has real choice & consequence in FO3 then. I don't recall any.
I'm not the only one who thinks this and NV actually puts C&C back in which is why it's the superior game out of the two (that and the writing is way better seeing as Obsidian aren't hacks at that). 

Oh! Oh! I remember one ... the Megaton decision which happens pretty early on. That doesn't change the story but it does affect a number of things and relationships within the game world. 

You mean the bomb situation? Granted, this has an impact on the game, yes. 

Well there's the whole situation with the Ghouls & Tenpenny Tower

The android mission

Blowing up Megaton

The launch codes side quest

The Vampires

The way that you get around the overseer in Vault 101

The situation with the slavers and how that relates to little big town and little lamplight

These are just off the top of my head.

TBH I know that there are about double the amount of ending possibilities in the early games than in Fallout 3. But that's with text-based dialogue, in an ancient isometric game.

Skyrim is pretty full-on too, but I'm going to guess you're not keen on T.E.S. games either, probably think that they were all shit after Morrowind, I'm guessing. Heard that POV before too... 

>TBH I know that there are about double the amount of ending possibilities in the early games than in Fallout 3. But that's with text-based dialogue, in an ancient isometric game.

Yeah that was mostly what I wanted to explain. Fallout 1 & 2 were very very rich when it came to that stuff and I really disliked how rigid Fallout 3 was in that regard. Arcanum is another game I really like for that as well, as it manages to have even more options than Fallout (but its combat system is real crap, worse than Planescape Torment's imo). New Vegas actively reintroduced that though which is a definite improvement. By the way these 'ancient isometric games' are making a comeback. You have at least three such games in development right now (two by Fargo & co and one by Avellone & co; Wasteland 2 and Torment, and Pillars of Eternity). And then you have Divinity: Original Sin which was released recently.

I never exactly liked the TES games to be honest. Arena is a chore to play, Daggerfall has cool dungeons but is too big and empty for its own good, Morrowind is excellent though, great great game, Oblivion is rather bad and Skyrim manages to be worse. The biggest issue I have with these last two is level scaling that makes all encounters incredibly boring. And the dungeons in Skyrim are a joke. When it comes to RPGs I'm much more focused on mechanics than anything else. If mechanics are bad the game will be bad, simple as that. Mechanics in FO3 are bad, game is bad, end of story.

On the subject of level scaling: take a game like Gothic for example, or even Fallout, where you can go everywhere you want. You'll get absolutely destroyed most of the time by enemies that are far tougher than you if you're not prepared or not skilled enough, and even if you know these monsters are here you'll still get killed. That doesn't really happen in Oblivion and Skyrim since enemies have more or less the same experience level as you. That makes fights so boring since there's no satisfaction when you're victorious, whereas killing some Deathclaw in FO1 when you have some shit equipment makes you feel like a god. 

IDK, as my introduction to the Fallout universe, Fallout 3 felt like a pretty immersive experience and I enjoyed it a lot. I enjoyed using V.A.T.S and I also enjoyed shooting in real-time. You can only really shoot well in real time once you've leveled your shooting skills up though. I enjoyed New Vegas too, though to me Fallout 3 felt like it had more scope, just more 'randomness'. Not much in it though, TBH. I loved them both.

I have Fallout 2 but I couldn't get into it. One of my palls visited me though, and he played through a large chunk of it in front of me. It seemed more interesting once he had accessed a few locations (don't ask me where). I probably wouldn't have played Fallout 3 much if it had been a 2D/isometric game. I'm just a slut for 3D and eyecandy I guess.

I fancy playing through Fallout 3 and becoming an evil overlord type. I know that you can do a load of different stuff if you choose to be evil.

I've never been a massive RPG fan really, but I did enjoy the newer Fallout games, and Skyrim. T.E.S never really appealed to me either. I guess I appreciate the whole experience of being immersed into a world with high production value and believable voice acting combined with acceptable facial animation etc etc. 

I guess I appreciate the whole experience of being immersed into a world with high production value and believable voice acting combined with acceptable facial animation etc etc.

This is certainly a trait of modern gaming, giving the player so much visual detail that it is overwhelming. Often this leads to little chance for the player to create their own experience or story which is an important fact of RPG, your own experience is what you remember.

This is why older games are still so popular because they have gaps for the player to use their imagination and create back story. Eye candy rich environment may be sweet and exciting at first but there is often little for the players imagination to add afterwards.

I showed a screenshot of a map I am working on to a friend this morning and there was three monsters infront of an altar. Without me having to explain anything he had his own story of what was going on. He drew from the rough strokes in the scene and filled in the blanks. 

 

but your argument against skacky's is basically, because it's popular/sold well, it must be good? 

"What do I want to get from life?"

My argument against Skackys (seeing as you're keen on being a troll and bringing this up again with such an rediculous quip as the one above) is basically that the game might not have such a complex RPG story tree as FO1 & 2, but it isn't "an utter failure on every imaginable level". To say such a thing is to insult the taste of all of the people who enjoyed the game. I mean I'm kind of speachless really.

I don't want to get into this again.

Some people don't like Fallout 3. Boo fucking hoo. I haven't got a problem with people not liking the game. I just think that personally I don't see the game as a failure, I enjoyed it. It has a lot of merit. It was greatly succesful.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

I just thought that his arguments were on the right lines, but grossly exaggerated to the point of not being true. Like saying an utter failure on every imaginable level, and [several features] completely dissappeared from the game when they didn't.

But in truth

FUCK YOU Nitin. Go and troll someone else. I'm not in the mood for this bullshit.


And ALSO:

All this stuff about games having an 'overwhelming' level of detail. Well I wasn't overwhelmed by it. By this bizarre logic, the best game out there would be..........



.......nothing! No game. Then we can just sit infront of our computers and imagine the perfect game. No-one will be able to surpass the brilliance of the imaginary perfect game. What a load of gibberish.

I like games that exist.

I suppose that this type of stuff is to be expected from a developer. The one who actually does imagine the game, and then goes on the create their idea.

It's a bit like when a drummer says 'I've got an idea for a song'. NO. NO YOU HAVEN'T GOT AN IDEA FOR A SONG YOU MUPPET!!!