POST STUFF
In the Gold Mine added on Jul 10 2008
|
 by Sol Invictus, Level 55
Last updated at July 7, 2009, 5:19 pm
|
|
Final Boss Commits Suicide
In the first Fallout, you can talk The Master into ending his own life for the good of mankind by convincing him that his plan to convert everyone into a super mutant — a plan conceived to make the world more hospitable for all mankind is wrong.
As with The Master, you can talk Fallout 3's President Eden, a ZAX A.I. to self-destruct by convincing him that his plan to kill every irradiated or mutated human with a modified strain of FEV (in order to purify the wasteland and start mankind anew) is wrong and will lead to destruction of mankind, which he has sworn to protect.
Finding The G.E.C.K.
In the second Fallout title, the player, grandchild of the original Vault Dweller, has to seek out a device known as the Garden of Eden Kit (G.E.C.K.) in order to save his village of Arroyo from starvation by terraforming the land.
The protagonist of Fallout 3, or Lone Wanderer, discovers that in order for "Project Purity" (which is the game's main plot) to work, the G.E.C.K. must be used in order to revitalize the destroyed landscape. Therefore, the player has to go off in search for it.
The Enclave
Both Fallout 2 and Fallout 3 feature the Enclave as the main villain. Despite the fact that they were all but destroyed in Fallout 2, they are brought back as the main villains in Fallout 3, for reasons that make very little sense given the events that happen in the previous game.
Killing The World With FEV
In both Fallout 2 and Fallout 3, the Enclave's goal is to 'cleanse' mankind by ridding the world of mutants and irradiated humans with a strain of the FEV. In Fallout 2, the Enclave intends to disperse FEV into the atmosphere, while the Enclave in Fallout 3 want to do it through the purified water supply through their perversion of Project Purity.
The Villain Is An AI
Both Fallout Tactics and Fallout 3 feature an insane Artificial Intelligence as the main villain. How original.
The Brotherhood Of Steel
In both Fallout Tactics and Fallout 3, the player is forced to join a splinter faction within the Brotherhood of Steel in order to continue the storyline. In the first Fallout, joining the Brotherhood was simply optional. They barely played a role in Fallout 2, and in the design documents of the unreleased Van Buren, they declined in power due to an on-going war with the New California Republic. It should be noted that Fallout 3 takes place many years after the events of Fallout 2, so their presence in Washington D.C. is confusing.
Similarities to FOBOS
Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel, or FOBOS as it is known is an immensely unpopular action game that took apart the Fallout setting for the purpose of making Interplay a quick buck by being released as a generic console title.
That being said, the game shares similarities with Fallout 3's plot, in that both games feature a Vault full of FEV, which by all accounts in the original RPGs are a rare, classified substance, and both games feature a Brotherhood of Steel elder forming a splinter faction in a location remote from the organization's headquarters, against council orders, in order to deal with a Super Mutant threat.
Conclusion
Thus concludes my review of Fallout 3's lack of originality. There are more legitimate comparisons to be made with the game's many subquests, of course. However, these are the main points.
For such a title to win awards for originality, it hardly seems deserving.
Special thanks to Ausir of The Vault for raising most of these points to me.
2 |
Next » |
Report Post
58 comments
Bethryn Jul 7, 2009 at 6:06 pm
+1 votes
The storyline problem as I see is that, had Bethesda gone for a plot with none of these things, I think they would have been accused of straying too far from the original Fallout concept. Although it doesn't answer for all the issues raised, I think it's fair to say that Fallout 3 without these things would've led to complaints of it not being Fallout at all.
Although I think I should add that I think giving it awards for storytelling is not something I agree with at all.
Although I think I should add that I think giving it awards for storytelling is not something I agree with at all.
8 replies to Bethryn (hide)
8 replies to Bethryn (show)
Permalink
Post Reply
Reply to this comment
Sol Invictus Jul 7, 2009 at 8:54 pm
+1 votes
Those who enjoyed Fallout 1 & 2 did so because of the game's original setting and storyline. Paying an homage is one thing, but Fallout 3 purposely limits itself to stuff that was only ever in the original games and reuses them again.
It's like watching experimental theatre in which every act, the actors have to build the entire storyline out of certain keywords. Quaint, I'm sure, Fallout players want a story that compliments and builds upon the originals, not one that rehashes the exact same events in a slightly different setting.
The problem with having the Enclave and the Supermutants as the villains is that it makes it all feel like a cartoon or a ****ty Marvel comic where the X-Men have to battle Magneto every single time. Fallout isn't intended to be that way.
Even Bethesda doesn't do that with their own Elder Scrolls games. One could try to argue that they use the Daedra as the villains far too often, but Morrowind wasn't even about Daedra. If they can expand upon their own setting with such a wide scope as to include cultures not seen in previous Elder Scrolls games, why not do the same with Fallout 3?
It's like watching experimental theatre in which every act, the actors have to build the entire storyline out of certain keywords. Quaint, I'm sure, Fallout players want a story that compliments and builds upon the originals, not one that rehashes the exact same events in a slightly different setting.
The problem with having the Enclave and the Supermutants as the villains is that it makes it all feel like a cartoon or a ****ty Marvel comic where the X-Men have to battle Magneto every single time. Fallout isn't intended to be that way.
Even Bethesda doesn't do that with their own Elder Scrolls games. One could try to argue that they use the Daedra as the villains far too often, but Morrowind wasn't even about Daedra. If they can expand upon their own setting with such a wide scope as to include cultures not seen in previous Elder Scrolls games, why not do the same with Fallout 3?
Bethryn Jul 8, 2009 at 5:40 pm
+1 votes
If they can expand upon their own setting with such a wide scope as to
include cultures not seen in previous Elder Scrolls games, why not do
the same with Fallout 3?
Because it's their own game. If they were to do something that people felt didn't resonate at all with previous ES, people might be annoyed, but they couldn't really say, "this isn't Eldar Scrolls," because it's Bethesda's creative property. (see also, what happened with the Forgotten Realms setting in DnD recently).
By comparison, when working with someone else's world, people will always tread carefully because of the way fans of that world react to even a perceived change in the world due to change of ownership (owning property rights isn't enough to let you do whatever, because at some level, a creator shares their world with their players). Heck, this very article is an example of this; you felt that, for a different locale, the game would've been different had it been made by the original Black Isle; instead Bethesda stuck closely to the old games, which interfered with how you see Fallout.
Honestly, I think they're damned either way, and the only way to subdue it is to make something very good. If they'd produced something post-nuclear with nothing in common with the previous Fallout games besides Vault-Tec, I think they would've been stuck to a post and burnt alive by Fallout fans, and I think you would've been among them.
include cultures not seen in previous Elder Scrolls games, why not do
the same with Fallout 3?
Because it's their own game. If they were to do something that people felt didn't resonate at all with previous ES, people might be annoyed, but they couldn't really say, "this isn't Eldar Scrolls," because it's Bethesda's creative property. (see also, what happened with the Forgotten Realms setting in DnD recently).
By comparison, when working with someone else's world, people will always tread carefully because of the way fans of that world react to even a perceived change in the world due to change of ownership (owning property rights isn't enough to let you do whatever, because at some level, a creator shares their world with their players). Heck, this very article is an example of this; you felt that, for a different locale, the game would've been different had it been made by the original Black Isle; instead Bethesda stuck closely to the old games, which interfered with how you see Fallout.
Honestly, I think they're damned either way, and the only way to subdue it is to make something very good. If they'd produced something post-nuclear with nothing in common with the previous Fallout games besides Vault-Tec, I think they would've been stuck to a post and burnt alive by Fallout fans, and I think you would've been among them.
The Extremist Jul 8, 2009 at 5:00 am
+1 votes
I have to agree that Fallout wouldn't be Fallout without the re-used plot elements. When it was announced that Far Cry 2 would have an all-original story (for Far Cry) people complained that it couldn't be a sequel. I saw one comment that read: "At best it could be Far Cry:Africa or something."
What was most troubling about the Fallout storyline however, is how they reused plot elements without really explaining how they came to be there. Originality isn't everything, and dare I say, hardly possible nowadays. To be unoriginal: Sub sole nihil novi est, or "There's nothing new underneath the sun."
Something to allow for the suspense of disbelief. A simple, "This is why the Enclave and the Brotherhood are operational." I'd think that they intentionally set the game far away from the events in the previous games, but then they don't make use of that decision to actually explain why things in D.C. are the way they are for the fans of the series.
Of course it seems unlikely that they could come up with a satisfactory explanation for the super mutants. All of a sudden every Tom, Dick, and Harry has FEV? Something a little more likely is required. Maybe the
D.C. Enclave found a military research lab that worked on FEV. It's pretty acceptable that the pre-war military might've had multiple labs working on the virus.
Anyway, back on topic: Is there a story out there with humanoids as the main characters that has not been told? Is there some combination of story events yet unexplored that might be the last original story concept? What is origanility even? Is it something we've never seen before, is it something we may have seen before but presented in a way it's never been presented before?
Regardless, Fallout didn't deserve awards for originality. That much is certain. Then again, what exactly does "Outstanding Achievement in Original Story" mean?
What was most troubling about the Fallout storyline however, is how they reused plot elements without really explaining how they came to be there. Originality isn't everything, and dare I say, hardly possible nowadays. To be unoriginal: Sub sole nihil novi est, or "There's nothing new underneath the sun."
Something to allow for the suspense of disbelief. A simple, "This is why the Enclave and the Brotherhood are operational." I'd think that they intentionally set the game far away from the events in the previous games, but then they don't make use of that decision to actually explain why things in D.C. are the way they are for the fans of the series.
Of course it seems unlikely that they could come up with a satisfactory explanation for the super mutants. All of a sudden every Tom, Dick, and Harry has FEV? Something a little more likely is required. Maybe the
D.C. Enclave found a military research lab that worked on FEV. It's pretty acceptable that the pre-war military might've had multiple labs working on the virus.
Anyway, back on topic: Is there a story out there with humanoids as the main characters that has not been told? Is there some combination of story events yet unexplored that might be the last original story concept? What is origanility even? Is it something we've never seen before, is it something we may have seen before but presented in a way it's never been presented before?
Regardless, Fallout didn't deserve awards for originality. That much is certain. Then again, what exactly does "Outstanding Achievement in Original Story" mean?
Sol Invictus Jul 8, 2009 at 5:02 am
+1 votes
The lot of explanations given don't make sense in context of the original games. There's very little continuity and the existence of FEV in D.C. feels like a retcon.
I believe that the award means that the game was not an adaptation.
I believe that the award means that the game was not an adaptation.
The Extremist Jul 8, 2009 at 8:31 am
+1 votes
I was replying to this comment when I accidentally clicked the close button on the tab. I guess my full reply just wasn't meant to be...
That's how I figure they defined 'original' as well. 'Adapted' I reckon is taken to mean any story that originated in another medium (books, film). Lifting the story from another game studio doesn't count as adapted it would seem :P.
Allow me to play devil's advocate for the moment. If we stick to the Fallout 'canon' we have to strip out the FEV from Fallout 3's storyline (no great loss). Then we have to get rid of the Enclave and the Brotherhood, who are apparently unlikely to be in D.C. What are the chances that there will be active vaults in 2277 if the Enclave, whose experiments they were, was dismantled in 2241? What then remains to make Fallout 3 a Fallout game? Basically the setting and mechanics, ghouls and irradiated wildlife.
I would probably have been happy with that, but if Bethesda didn't incorporate those things into the game somehow they would've been criticized for that as well. Not that I have much sympathy for them... They set themselves up for all the whining when the decided to try and make a sequel to a cult hit. Imagine Bioware announces Planescape: Torment 2... Insta-nerdrage!
That's how I figure they defined 'original' as well. 'Adapted' I reckon is taken to mean any story that originated in another medium (books, film). Lifting the story from another game studio doesn't count as adapted it would seem :P.
Allow me to play devil's advocate for the moment. If we stick to the Fallout 'canon' we have to strip out the FEV from Fallout 3's storyline (no great loss). Then we have to get rid of the Enclave and the Brotherhood, who are apparently unlikely to be in D.C. What are the chances that there will be active vaults in 2277 if the Enclave, whose experiments they were, was dismantled in 2241? What then remains to make Fallout 3 a Fallout game? Basically the setting and mechanics, ghouls and irradiated wildlife.
I would probably have been happy with that, but if Bethesda didn't incorporate those things into the game somehow they would've been criticized for that as well. Not that I have much sympathy for them... They set themselves up for all the whining when the decided to try and make a sequel to a cult hit. Imagine Bioware announces Planescape: Torment 2... Insta-nerdrage!
Sol Invictus Jul 8, 2009 at 8:34 am
+1 votes
You will see fury like you have never seen before if they ever announce Torment 2.
Dan Green Jul 10, 2009 at 12:18 am
+1 votes
Why would it be bad if they announced Torment 2? What's so bad about having the potential to make an even greater game than Torment 1?
That's closed minded of you.
That's closed minded of you.
Sol Invictus Jul 10, 2009 at 1:21 am
+1 votes
Because, Dan, the story is complete. Torment 2 is a vomity prospect.
Project_Xii Jul 7, 2009 at 7:08 pm
+1 votes
How odd. And I thought those throw backs would be something the original Fallout fans would have appreciated. Usually when developers make a sequel to a game so old it still uses sprites, they'll put in a lot of stuff that 'homages' the old games. Just to bring back those feelings of reminiscence and warm, fuzzy feelings for the old fans. Let them know that the developers knew and liked the old games enough to include these little details. If they didn't do this, I'd expect most fans to go "Wtf this is NOTHING like the old games! What happened to such and such blah blah etc. etc."
From then on, every game after that is usually expected to be original, and extend upon the world, not rehash it. So for instance, I expect Fallout: Vegas to be mindblowing and original. Not Fallout 3 all over again.
I have no quarms about Fallout 3 being like the old games though, especially since I never had the patience to play through them completely anyway.
Interesting view though.
From then on, every game after that is usually expected to be original, and extend upon the world, not rehash it. So for instance, I expect Fallout: Vegas to be mindblowing and original. Not Fallout 3 all over again.
I have no quarms about Fallout 3 being like the old games though, especially since I never had the patience to play through them completely anyway.
Interesting view though.
Bethryn Jul 7, 2009 at 8:20 pm
+1 votes
I loved the bullet/slug -> laser -> plasma progression. Very nostalgic, all the sci-fi games back then used it.
jakethesnake Jul 8, 2009 at 12:29 pm
+1 votes
Of course they needed to pay homage to the original two games. If they called it Fallout 3 and it never even mentioned any of: super mutants, brotherhood of steel, enclave, death claws, vaults, etc. it wouldn't be a fallout game. However, there is a difference in using/referencing ideas and themes from the old games without any thought to the past games (other than just doing the idea grab, which is what fallout 3 did a lot of) to keep a consistent feel and using the ideas/plot/characters/etc from the previous games and building on that foundation to create something new, something beyond the originals. Fallout 3 payed homage without really trying to put the effort into having any continuity. If you are going to build on things of the past, then do that. If you are going to do something completely separate and new in the same environment, great! Then do it. But don't try and do both because they don't really work well together.
Don't get me wrong. I loved the game and played the heck out of it, and will continue to play it - but the story was far from my favourite part of the game.
Don't get me wrong. I loved the game and played the heck out of it, and will continue to play it - but the story was far from my favourite part of the game.
Ausir Jul 8, 2009 at 2:39 pm
+1 votes
Actually, most Fallout fans would prefer Bethesda to come up with something fresh for the setting. Using some elements from previous games is one thing, but rehashing pretty much all of the main plots of previous titles is another. I very much hope that Fallout: New Vegas and later Fallout 4 won't feature the Enclave nor the super mutants as the main villains, nor force you to join the Brotherhood of Steel (or rather, a Brotherhood of Steel splinter faction, of which we've seen 4 already since Fallout Tactics).
Steve Jul 8, 2009 at 3:28 pm
+0 votes
'In the second Fallout title, the player, grandchild of the
original Vault Dweller, has to seek out a device known as the Garden of
Eden Kit (G.E.C.K.) in order to save his village of Klamath from
starvation by terraforming the land.'
If you're going to write a review get your facts straight. The protagonist was from Arroyo, not Klamath in Fallout 2. This article had some valid points but severely lacks cogency because you lacked doing your research. At least put more thought into your neurotic *****ing.
original Vault Dweller, has to seek out a device known as the Garden of
Eden Kit (G.E.C.K.) in order to save his village of Klamath from
starvation by terraforming the land.'
If you're going to write a review get your facts straight. The protagonist was from Arroyo, not Klamath in Fallout 2. This article had some valid points but severely lacks cogency because you lacked doing your research. At least put more thought into your neurotic *****ing.
Sol Invictus Jul 8, 2009 at 3:43 pm
+2 votes
That's very nice. You picked out a single mistake that I made and decided to dismiss the entire article based on that alone. You can't accuse me of lacking in my research because I happen to have played all three games to completion.
Steve Jul 8, 2009 at 7:27 pm
+0 votes
All three games? I seem to remember you mentioning more than three games in your article. And the reason that it lost validity is because you did make one mistake. If I wasn't as well versed in Fallout lore but still happened to catch this one mistake how could I know that everything else that you brought to light is or isn't genuine? It's a matter of putting time and effort into something you wish to share with people. I thought the article had very good points but when there is even a single mistake it destroys the credibility of the rest of it.
The Extremist Jul 9, 2009 at 8:15 pm
+2 votes
The whole review loses credibility because he got a tiny detail (a name) wrong? Applying that logic disqualifies every valid point in almost every gaming-related opinion editorial I've ever read.
Do you judge everything according to that standard? Do you judge yourself or let others judge you by that standard?
Do you judge everything according to that standard? Do you judge yourself or let others judge you by that standard?
Steve Jul 9, 2009 at 11:46 pm
-1 votes
YES. The WHOLE review does lose credibility. There's a thing called research, the writer does it to ensure that he doesn't tell lies to his audience. He had a chance to re-read and edit this before publishing it and it SHOULD be well researched and flawless.
And yes I do judge everything by that standard because if I don't know about something but know enough to see that something is completely wrong, the validity of the entire source is ruined. How could I be sure that the rest of what I was reading wasn't just as incorrect as the one mistake?
And yes I do judge everything by that standard because if I don't know about something but know enough to see that something is completely wrong, the validity of the entire source is ruined. How could I be sure that the rest of what I was reading wasn't just as incorrect as the one mistake?
The Extremist Jul 10, 2009 at 3:46 am
+4 votes
And every writer is human and bound to make mistakes a number of times throughout their career. If the mistake here had any bearing on the reasoning of the author I might've considered your conclusion logical. No error in reasoning or misrepresentation of a relevant fact has been brought to light.
A question to your question: How could you be sure a whole article isn't incorrect even if you don't find some erroneous detail in it? One must examine everything one takes in (read, watch, listen to) critically, regardless of how much you know about the topic. "Don't believe everything you see/hear/read."
I guess you're free to judge a piece of writing, whether self-published or not, by whatever standard you desire. So long as you're consistent in it. And remember that if you ever self-publish something and someone has a quibble with one of your insignificant details, everything you've written in that article then lacks credibility.
A question to your question: How could you be sure a whole article isn't incorrect even if you don't find some erroneous detail in it? One must examine everything one takes in (read, watch, listen to) critically, regardless of how much you know about the topic. "Don't believe everything you see/hear/read."
I guess you're free to judge a piece of writing, whether self-published or not, by whatever standard you desire. So long as you're consistent in it. And remember that if you ever self-publish something and someone has a quibble with one of your insignificant details, everything you've written in that article then lacks credibility.
Steve Jul 10, 2009 at 4:35 am
-3 votes
Yes. But I'm not a ****ty writer so that wouldn't happen. I'd put time and effort into something I would want other people to read instead of throwing it up with mistakes in it. If he wants to be taken seriously at all he would have too.
The Extremist Jul 10, 2009 at 5:07 am
+4 votes
Alright! Since we're going ad hominem with this I'm challenging to put your money your mouth is. Post a link to an example of where you put yourself out there. An article, blog post, Youtube video, or something similar where you weigh in on a subject. I don't think you comprehend the amount of time and will it takes to self-publish.
Also, should I assume that you since you didn't respond to my attacks on your argument that you have no rebuttal?
Also, should I assume that you since you didn't respond to my attacks on your argument that you have no rebuttal?
Agamemnon Jul 10, 2009 at 1:16 pm
+3 votes
What exactly does the correct name of the village have to do AT ALL with the original point of the article, which is that both heroes have to leave their homes in order to save them? What an absolutely terrible presentation to then dismiss the rest of the article because of the tiniest of details.
And you're not a ****ty writer? Given the way you've carried yourself in this comment section I have to disagree. In fact you're an abhorrant writer. Break your hands and save us all the trouble of having to stomach through your bile in any future date of time.
And you're not a ****ty writer? Given the way you've carried yourself in this comment section I have to disagree. In fact you're an abhorrant writer. Break your hands and save us all the trouble of having to stomach through your bile in any future date of time.
BadBob Jul 8, 2009 at 4:24 pm
+3 votes
As a primer: I have played every available game in the Fallout series.
The criticism of this article is on-point and overdue. But I think it
fails to give credit where credit is truly due. The entire Fallout
series is based on the game "Wasteland" (circa 1987), which still,
somehow, holds up, and avoids mention by most people. As proof:
Wasteland featured a world after nuclear holocaust, that contained
mutants, an evil computer trying to take over the world, "Power Armor",
energy weapons (e.g. Laser Pistols) and yes, a Water Pump. In fact,
last weekend, I replayed Wasteland for the "umpteenth" time, just for
nostalgia. All of the Fallout games derive their basic story, mode of
storytelling, RPG gameplay, stats system, skills system, collection of
weapons and armor, and HUMOR from Wasteland.
That being said, there are four things that I think all critics of Fallout 3 have failed to recognize:
1.) Even if Fallout 1 is a rehash of Wasteland, and Fallout 2 is a
rehash of Fallout 2, and Fallout 3 rehashes all of the previous Fallout
games and Wasteland .... all of the games are still pretty freakin'
good - and the story drives each one of those games.
2.) Many people started playing the first Fallout games (or purchased
Fallout 3 for $60) because they were either intrigued by the story, or
yearned for the Wasteland experience (the latter is my situation).
3.) Most importantly, the Fallout series is the ONLY true "alternative"
RPG. From the beginning of modern RPG's, most storylines involve
either absolute fantasy (Bard's Tale/Ultima Online/World of
Warcraft/Oblivion) or are sci-fi based (Star Trek/Star Wars/Mass
Effect).
So, I think the criticism that Fallout 3 is a rehash of previous
Fallouts has value, but I would ask: "What other RPG is not a rehash"?
(I am tired of games that I can play as a Mage, and shoot fireballs
while invisible). At least Fallout is rehashing itself (or Wasteland,
but considering Brian Fargo was one of the original creators of
Wasteland and helped create Fallout, I would consider Wasteland as part
of the family). I think that the most important and SPECIFIC test of
all video games, Fallout 3 included, is whether it added something new
(story or gameplay wise) to the gaming world. For story: think the
Ultima series. For gameplay: think Doom or Wolfenstein. Wasteland
added something new when it came up with the story. Fallout 1 did that
when it converted the Wasteland story to a top-down, 3-D environment.
Fallout 3 has done that by converting the story into a first-person,
3-D environment.
Now, I think Fallout is going to have to add to the story, in some new,
original, and creative way. If they don't, the Fallout series could
become another Sonic the Hedgehog.
The criticism of this article is on-point and overdue. But I think it
fails to give credit where credit is truly due. The entire Fallout
series is based on the game "Wasteland" (circa 1987), which still,
somehow, holds up, and avoids mention by most people. As proof:
Wasteland featured a world after nuclear holocaust, that contained
mutants, an evil computer trying to take over the world, "Power Armor",
energy weapons (e.g. Laser Pistols) and yes, a Water Pump. In fact,
last weekend, I replayed Wasteland for the "umpteenth" time, just for
nostalgia. All of the Fallout games derive their basic story, mode of
storytelling, RPG gameplay, stats system, skills system, collection of
weapons and armor, and HUMOR from Wasteland.
That being said, there are four things that I think all critics of Fallout 3 have failed to recognize:
1.) Even if Fallout 1 is a rehash of Wasteland, and Fallout 2 is a
rehash of Fallout 2, and Fallout 3 rehashes all of the previous Fallout
games and Wasteland .... all of the games are still pretty freakin'
good - and the story drives each one of those games.
2.) Many people started playing the first Fallout games (or purchased
Fallout 3 for $60) because they were either intrigued by the story, or
yearned for the Wasteland experience (the latter is my situation).
3.) Most importantly, the Fallout series is the ONLY true "alternative"
RPG. From the beginning of modern RPG's, most storylines involve
either absolute fantasy (Bard's Tale/Ultima Online/World of
Warcraft/Oblivion) or are sci-fi based (Star Trek/Star Wars/Mass
Effect).
So, I think the criticism that Fallout 3 is a rehash of previous
Fallouts has value, but I would ask: "What other RPG is not a rehash"?
(I am tired of games that I can play as a Mage, and shoot fireballs
while invisible). At least Fallout is rehashing itself (or Wasteland,
but considering Brian Fargo was one of the original creators of
Wasteland and helped create Fallout, I would consider Wasteland as part
of the family). I think that the most important and SPECIFIC test of
all video games, Fallout 3 included, is whether it added something new
(story or gameplay wise) to the gaming world. For story: think the
Ultima series. For gameplay: think Doom or Wolfenstein. Wasteland
added something new when it came up with the story. Fallout 1 did that
when it converted the Wasteland story to a top-down, 3-D environment.
Fallout 3 has done that by converting the story into a first-person,
3-D environment.
Now, I think Fallout is going to have to add to the story, in some new,
original, and creative way. If they don't, the Fallout series could
become another Sonic the Hedgehog.
Axl09 Jul 8, 2009 at 9:21 pm
+1 votes
Bethesda put themselves in a bad situation. I like Fallout 3 I thought it was a really fun game. But all the original Fallout fans hate the game because of its differences form the originals. And other people hate it cause its to much of the same. It was impossible for bethesda to make a game older fallout fans would like cause it wasn't turn based and not made by Black Isle. For taking a game series and making it there own i think they did a pretty good job. If they tried to do somthyingf drastically different with the plot people woulda been like "WTF!! This isn't even Fallout!!!" By making sure they didin't have any big plot errors thats conflicted with Fallout 1 and 2. They pretty much buried themselves in a place to be ctiicized.
Cptmaxon Jul 9, 2009 at 2:47 am
+1 votes
the game sucked plot wise, it was fun to play but it does seem like a cobbled up pieces of past fallout games, only this time they are done badly.
not to mention they just had to add you getting kicked out of your vault after saving it.
not to mention they just had to add you getting kicked out of your vault after saving it.
Ice Jul 9, 2009 at 4:41 am
+1 votes
Even with rehashed content you could still create something superior to
bethesdas clumsy attempt. Fallout 3 is like a sinking boat full of
holes, it's just too inconsistent. There are barely any explanations
for most of the parts in the game and the ones that are explained,
aren't very convincing.
Bethesdas strong point is that they create big worlds where you can run
around and do alot of things (quantity over quality), the story seems
more like an afterthought. Moreso, they skip the concept stage and
create most of the things on the fly, so even with their best
intentions you couldn't expect much from such a skewed way of
development.
Think about it, if Fallout 3 was a more linear rpg without the sandbox
aspect, revolving around the current story (something similar to
troikas vtmb), would you stilll play it? I very much doubt it.....
bethesdas clumsy attempt. Fallout 3 is like a sinking boat full of
holes, it's just too inconsistent. There are barely any explanations
for most of the parts in the game and the ones that are explained,
aren't very convincing.
Bethesdas strong point is that they create big worlds where you can run
around and do alot of things (quantity over quality), the story seems
more like an afterthought. Moreso, they skip the concept stage and
create most of the things on the fly, so even with their best
intentions you couldn't expect much from such a skewed way of
development.
Think about it, if Fallout 3 was a more linear rpg without the sandbox
aspect, revolving around the current story (something similar to
troikas vtmb), would you stilll play it? I very much doubt it.....
radalin Jul 9, 2009 at 7:56 am
+1 votes
I really enjoyed the game. All the quests, walking from one point to another, seeing cute things, but the disturbing point was that, I nearly killed everything I saw. Yes I know I tricked the evil AI to auto destruct itself and convinced the vampires to let the child go but yet, I killed everything I saw.
It was more of an action game with a linear plot then a great RPG. I guess what disturbs the people is this. In original Fallout, everything had a "life", they had a past and a present and according to your choice a brighter or a darker future. Yes there were points in the game where you were changing the life of people you interact but this was generally the main quests. And also people generally had a present and sometimes a future (most died anyway
.
But I really can't ignore the moments which Three Dog was telling of my exploits on the radio or being thanked by the Megaton' citizens when I didn't blow up the place. I think that you were affected by these moments too. Fallout 3 was a good game, a really good game but something was a miss.
The real success of the Fallout series, imho, is the great storytelling ability (who can forget the words, "war, war never changes") and the moments where your actions were catching up with you. They affect the things you do or you can do or you will be able to do. Fallout 3 had not many moments which were affecting your game play.
I really have hopes on Fallout: Vegas, because I guess Obsidian is making really great games. Games that touches your heart
It was more of an action game with a linear plot then a great RPG. I guess what disturbs the people is this. In original Fallout, everything had a "life", they had a past and a present and according to your choice a brighter or a darker future. Yes there were points in the game where you were changing the life of people you interact but this was generally the main quests. And also people generally had a present and sometimes a future (most died anyway
.But I really can't ignore the moments which Three Dog was telling of my exploits on the radio or being thanked by the Megaton' citizens when I didn't blow up the place. I think that you were affected by these moments too. Fallout 3 was a good game, a really good game but something was a miss.
The real success of the Fallout series, imho, is the great storytelling ability (who can forget the words, "war, war never changes") and the moments where your actions were catching up with you. They affect the things you do or you can do or you will be able to do. Fallout 3 had not many moments which were affecting your game play.
I really have hopes on Fallout: Vegas, because I guess Obsidian is making really great games. Games that touches your heart
Forging a Passion for Video Games
23 Subscribers
4 Likes: 5 March 18, 2010, 5:42 pm4 Likes: 3 March 18, 2010, 4:01 pm2 Likes: 2 March 13, 2010, 12:17 am11 Likes: 4 March 12, 2010, 10:23 am7 Likes: 5 March 8, 2010, 12:00 pm4 Likes: 8 March 4, 2010, 6:09 pm6 Likes: 5 March 1, 2010, 9:19 am6 Likes: 5 February 26, 2010, 1:20 pm1 Likes: 4 February 25, 2010, 12:41 pm2 Likes: 4 February 23, 2010, 9:58 amStarted August 15, 2008
696 Total Entries
696 Total Entries
Your Comment is being posted. Please wait...