Fallout wasn't that good

Remove all ads!

I decided to give the old Fallouts another try. I hadn't played them in a while, so why not?

I was dissapointed.

Either all the frenetic hype that had been stormed up by the fanboys recently over Bethesda's controversial (and really stupid, in my opinion- fallout has the worst fanbase imaginable) decision to make Fallout 3 had ruined these games for me forever (and if that's the case, thanks a lot, guys), or they weren't that good in retrospect.

The bugs in both of these games were both numerous and many. Even with the official patches, it seemed like Black Isle's bug checkers had wandered off during the development.

The much-lauded combat system basically runs like retardedly slow Diablo, but with even more bugs. Oh, how I enjoyed having to wait 3 minutes for every NPC on the map to move in the enemy phase, or even having to shut down the game because it stuck itself in an infinite loop! Plus, the aiming thing was amazing, what with there being no point in aiming for anything other than the eyes.

While the storyline for 1 was decent, it felt like the majority of 2 was just hackneyed pop-culture references with a plot thrown in at the last moment. The SPECIAL system is completely exploitable, as is chem usage (permanent bonuses if you take enough due to bugs? Woohoo!) and tag skills became stupidly powerful if you had more than 12 skillpoints to spend per level.

The script for the game seemed to lack proofwriters, judging from the amount of spelling error, grammatical mishaps and general engrish.

And, of course, the funniest thing about the insane fanbase is the fact that they ahve literally despised every Fallout sequel that's come out until the next one came along, at which point it becomes acceptable. they didn't like 2, then Tactics came along, but then that was alright when BoS came out. Hell, even Van Buren got knocked, and now everyone's going all wistful and misty-eyed over it, even though it looked like all they'd done is take Fallout 2 and make it 3-D. They weren't even particularly imaginative with 2, adding in all of 5 new sprites or so and then just copying everything else from 1.

And let's not get started on the AI.

To conclude, absolutely anything Bethsoft does with F3 will be an improvement. And also, Capcom made Street fighter and Megaman, and they're both exactly the same, since they were made by the same company. they don't have more than one group of staff or anything.

 

Are you suggesting Oblivion was somehow a good game? Fallout is my favourite, perhaps I am one of the worst fanbase imaginable, but I am worried about what Bethesda will do to the game. I'm not even sure why they bought the license, or what they thought to gain, given the difference between Fallout and The Elder Scrolls' fanbases, it's similar to the mistake Interplay made with POS.

If speed of combat is a problem, change it. There's an option in preferences. The game only sticks itself in a loop if you've been pressing the space key, since it queues up your end turn action. Aiming at non-eyes targets is in fact valid, if your skill isn't high enough, or you are aiming for a particular effect, ie knocking someone over.

Fallout 2 had a lot of faults with regard to pop culture. This is a recognised failing. Why is SPECIAL exploitable? Did you look up bugs before playing it? And yes, a well made character is able to get very powerful. This is an advantage of the system, where it rewards thought out characters.

There's a few errors, granted, but there is also a huge amount of text in there. Look at the size of the dialogue files for Fallout 2, for example.

I won't apologise for caring for the game. I won't apologise for being unhappy or disappointed about the sequels. People are getting misty eyed over Van Buren because of its potential, its similarity to its predecessors, and above all, the fact that Black Isle actually interacted with the fans. As for adding new sprites to Fallout 2, why would they need more? The desperate need some people feel to have game sequels look vastly different to the ones that have come before is beyond me. If it's not broken, don't fix it.

Let's get started on the AI. It works. Opponents will run when injured, and will use (admittedly basic) tactics. There are some annoying moments, such as NPCs trapping you, or shooting you in the back, but that's something to live with.

Unfortunately, you represent what seems to be Bethesda's target audience. Why will destroying what has managed to be my favourite game, and that of many others, for the almost ten years? Why buy an IP if you don't intend to stay true to it? Also, if you are intending to say that Fallout won't be like Oblivion, you should perhaps try reading what Bethesda have said, namely that they are going to do "what they do best". We shall have to wait and see what comes of it.

Also, read this thread at The Codex, especially St Proverbius' posts.

[ May 08, 2007, 01:37: Message edited by: Warrior of the World ]

 

To each his own I guess. To me Fallout is one of the best games ever made.

You do seem to forget that the game is almost 9 years old though. Yes van Buren is haled as the only pure Fallout 3, which is silly because we have only seem pre-alpha screens. On the other side you seem to bash it on those same principles.

I think Bethsoft can and probably will make a good maybe even great game. To bad it probably won't be Fallout 3, but an action RPG with a fallout title.

 

Apeman: there's now a leaked Van Buren tech demo. I haven't played it, but people were very happy with where it was going.

As for the complaints - you're talking about very minor problems. Yes, the game has flaws, but I'm very happy to ignore flaws like that when the important part of the game is awesome. Hell - I enjoyed Arcanum, and that game is almost unplayable in parts. It's the roleplaying, characterisation, writing, and setting which make a game great for me - if the rest is brilliant as well then that's just a bonus.

And, well, I disagree with you in a lot of places there, but don't feel like getting into it. It's already been answered anyway.

 

What Aik said. Minus the Arcanum love--the game never did it for me. ToEE, now; Mmm. Yum.

As for tactics, it was fun. What it wasn't was Fallout 3

 

I enjoyed Arcanum, and I loved Fallout 1 and 2. Any flaws I could deal with quite easily.

 

Die! You foul blasphemer, Die!

Threats aside, I'm with Takara (and apparantly everyone else) on this. I will say that I very rarely play a game all the way through a second time -- it's never as good as the first time (sounds like a Sade song..).

 

There are unofficial patches that fix the problems which were left after the official patches.

 

I agree with everything said (not thread starter), especially by Warrior of the World and T2's first sentence. And not AMasters view on tactics.

The Fallout games, especially F2, are in my opinion perhaps the best games ever made.

When people say that Fallout fans are the worst, they seem to forget the standards set by the first two games. If you are going to make a Fallout sequel, why not follow those standards? If Bethesda wants to make some type of Oblivion-in-the-future type of game, why name it Fallout? Pretty much the only people who will understand that name are the ones who have played the first to games, and likes them.

Almost nothing was bad in the Fallout games in my opinion. Sure, there were a few bugs and glitches, but none that ruined the game or was even near to it. SPECIAL, the writing, the graphics (they were impressive to me when I first played the game, and I still don't think they are too bad), the characters, the story, everything, was great. And I love the turn based style.


As for myself, I'm planning on replaying Fallout 2 soon, as a diplomat, something I've never tried before.

 

Wow you guys are suckers. I think it's rather obvious that this thread was made specifically to incite this kind of reaction. Clixby admits to knowing about Fallout fanboys, so he's got to know that there's probably going to be one or two on the board, as well as people who liked it but haven't taken it as far as devotion, who will come to its defense. You don't just post a "this popular game is crap!" thread without expecting some kind of response.

Myself, I haven't tried the Fallout series yet. I've heard good things and I've heard bad things, but in the end it comes down to two things for me: I'm not fond of guns in RPGs (yes, I know you don't *have* to use them, but that doesn't mean NPCs and enemies won't), and in case I would like it, I don't really need yet another game to distract me from the ones I'm already playing.

Now you know how I feel about WotC and 3e.

 

Trust me, after playing Fallout, you will be. I also do not like guns in RPG's, but Fallout is definetly an exception. Also, guns fit well into the world of Fallout (i.e. it's not like the D&D world).

 

Agreed with everyone defending Fallout.

The Fallout series has more personality and freedom crammed into it than I can even begin to describe, which is why it'll always hold a special place in my heart as the all-time favorite.

I must ask: Why is it that FO combat is so often compared to Diablo as a negative? One of the Bethesda devs (an artist) made this comparison as well, in the following quote:

 

Never played it so can't comment. Tried my best but it didn't like me PC. Too old, I guess. Shame.

 

I've heard good things about the Fallout games. I remember playing Wasteland years ago and enjoying it. I understand that Fallout took its inspiration from that game. As a matter of fact I'm thinking of buying Fallout 1 and 2 soon.

 

I've been playing these games ever since they came out. IMHO Fallout 1 and 2 are the best RPG games you can play on a PC.

 

Why is they being compared at all? The only similarities are the isometric view and the graphics. Having played Diablo II very seriously before, I know that the combat revolves more on fast clicking with the mouse than anything else (and preparations before the battle). It's about the same for Diablo (I), although not as fast paced.

I noted that as well. Btw, I'm really pissed off that the artist hadn't really played the game. The art of the first two games was great, and it feels like if someone who has never seen it is supposed to make some of the art for a sequel, he would ruin it.

 

maybe its compared to diablo so often because the games are from the same periode and a lot of people found diablos combat system way better

its just like when people on this board compare nwn to bg and so on, even though its two different games under two different rulesets.

 

Not really. Two different games, yes. Two different rulesets, yes. Same developer, yes. The developer (and hype/expectations) is why people compare the two. Coming off BG/BG2, people had certain expectations for RPGs made by Bioware. NWN did not fulfill those expectations.

Now, if people want to compare Fallout and IWD2 or Torment, that'd make sense. Same dev. However, comparing games from different genres and different devs to one another is...strange. Though not necessarily pointless, granted.

 

I've played Fallout Tactics... enjoyed that one but not particularly replayable.

 

Well Fallout Tactics was *nothing* like the first two Fallout games. It was crap. Sucky story, no dialogue, vehicles, not turn based combat (although I think you could change that)... the list goes on. If you haven't played Fallout or Fallout 2, you haven't got a real Fallout experience.