Game Skyrim Forum

That's pretty sad concepting IMO. What a waste.

If it came from Bethesda you can expect them to have it like a simplified lord of the rings. Get ring, fast travel to volcano, throw ring in volcano, go home; with a few hundred one liners on the way.

What? You're kidding right? They're horribly radiated humans with an extended life span; not freaks of magical nature who keep charging simply to eat people. Guess its better to watch a play-through instead of buying the game.

Yeah, but after Fallout 3 what did anybody really expect? On one hand you have Bethesda simply recycling Black Isle's ideas, then misinterpreting them and then dumbing it all down. Think about the mutants. In Fallout 3 they're basically orcs with no personality. How difficult would it have been to get that right? Obsidian did it by bringing Marcus back in NV and just look at him! He actually looks like a Fallout mutant! Imagine that! Think about Harold- oh wait. No. Let's not. Jesus H.

Thats not the plot at all.

Most of the specific complaints I have heard have been less then major, too many buttons to push or the dialogue tree is cumbersome.

I wish. Sane ghouls look like ghouls but for some reason feral ghouls look and act like zombies right down to playing dead with corpses and rising up to attack the PC.

The reason in FO3 ~AFAIK, was that they were made with the same methods as the regular humans, and had to be able to lip-sync and show expressions.
Ferals were whole creature models that were little different than animals and robots. They did not have to be able to converse or interact with world, other than running at their target and attacking them.

It's true that they probably could have made the ferals still look like the sane ghouls, but I like that they didn't, because they could not do Fallout style ghouls using their Face-Gen system, and the so called ferals are actually closer to what the so called sane ghouls http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/GHOULS.jpg look like.

No, not misinterpreting them ; discounting them.

Misinterpretation still allows for an epiphany during development, but if one actively perceives a thing as inferior, no such revelation can happen. Recall the [Bethesda] developer comments directed at Blizzard, about their "disappointing" choice of not making Diablo 3 to be 3D first person.

*And this plays back into the thread topic.

Actually think it's a combination of the two. It's a misinterpretation and a further refusal to admit said misinterpretation, whether from active dismissal or passive incapability. In the spirit of Bethesda, let's use a dumbed-down Streamlined! scenario:

Black Isle says: Fallout isn't about the 1950’s, it's about the future that the 1950’s anticipated. There should be obvious aesthetic influence rendered by the imaginations of those from the 50's, but peoples' behaviour should still feel modern.

Bethesda says: Hmmm, we think this should REALLY be about the 50's.

Black Isle says: Yeah but that's not-

Bethesda says: Yeah it's REALLY about the 50's lol.

Black Isle says: ...

Bethesda says: 50's! 50's!50's!

Black Isle says: (Black Isle says nothing as it shakes its head walking away into obscurity)

Well, 3 and 4 are real/proper fallout games to me. Besides what makes fallout fallout is a subjective opinion.

Also the pros and cons you listed about 3 and nv are subjective opinions as well.

I truly believe that Bethesda would think [did think] instead that this was is too abstruse for an easy hook. I think it's almost the case of them changing it to match what the majority misunderstands to be ; and then benefiting from an immediate understanding by the audience.

Very pragmatic, effective...

and ruthless.

God that's so depressing, dude.

I've played Fallout 1 and 2.

They're great games.

But the idea they're flawless is maddening and crazy.

Fallout 1, 2, New Vegas, and 3 are ALL valid Fallout games.

And you know what?

YOU CAN LIKE THEM ALL.

Fallout 3 is my most hated game of all-time so no, no I can not, sadly.

Yeah, well, everyone has their own opinion.

I, for one, think Fallout 2 had a lousy beginning and didn't pick up until Vault City.

Plus, Sentient Deathclaws are silly.

That's ignoring all of the very-very unfunny jokes.

Also, the complexity of the original Fallout is vastly overstated.

Don't forget the immersion breaking fourth wall jokes and pop culture references that severely date Fallout 2.

If we're ranking Fallout games in order of appeal, I still can't muster up the endurance to slog through Fallout 2's narrative. Doesn't help matters the game doesn't even feel Post-Apocalyptic in any way, shape, or form.

The particular brand of humor was the first thing which led me to the series. ˉ\_(ツ)_/ˉ

1. svcks for you?
2. 
3. Perhaps, perhaps not. At least they're explained in-game.
4. Matter of taste, since those very-very unfunny jokes endeared me to the series back in 1998. "Radscorpions...what's so rad about them?" by the intentionally-written bad comic always cracks me up.
5. Is that why newbies always complain of dying in the rat cave?

P.S. I know how it can seem like match point when somebody waves an opinion you don't like about something you really do like and you come back at them with insults about the thing they really like, but there's nothing anybody could ever say to make me think "Oh, gee this game I've played once a year every year since 1998 really isn't that good, is it?" the same way there's no amount of money that could be thrown at me to make me ever load up Fallout [censored] 3 again. That's all to say I'm pretty surprised number 4, while not a "true" Fallout in my mind, is certainly the least derpy thing Bethesda has made in years.

Fallout 1 is often praised for its groundbreaking work and it is groundbreaking, don't get me wrong but original intentions aside, its first major quest is shooting an evil Don or helping him kill the Evil Don.

Not exactly a paragon of moral ambiguity there and deep writing that.

I still remember meeting the Followers of the Apocalypse.

"YOU MUST DEFEAT THE MASTER OF THE CATHEDRAL! He is EVIL! EVVIILLLLLLLLLL!"

I'm not making fun of you or the games you love. I'm pointing out the fact that there's no objective truth. Fallout 3 inspired me to become a writer, introduced me to my first REAL video game experience of being immersed in another world almost completely, and I consider it one of the all time greatest video games of all time. It doesn't diminish your hatred and disappointment one bit but as a work of art, F3 affected me and my life and I will always come to its defense.

New Vegas is objectively better written but it just...isn't the same.

Ah, but the outcome of your choice there fits the bill!

Only in modded games. The canon ending is still, "good=good" and "evil=evil."

Modded to be like the original intent. So good on the original developers, bad on the publishers...as always. I've actually not played a non-patched version of this in ages.

I saw things just as silly in Fallout 3. Really, both Fallout 2 and 3 were equally bad in terms of silliness. Fallout 3 may not have broken the fourth wall, but let's not pretend it didn't have some truly ridiculous Fallout 2 moments like the character of Moira Brown, Superhero Gambit, and a bunch of other silly characters and quests.

This is something I don't care for in both games, but I'm more tolerant of Fallout 2 because it balances out its ridiculous humor with some very well written, and dark content. Fallout 3 doesn't really do this

Well... yeah, the Followers of the Apocalypse are naive idealists - that's the point. I wouldn't classify The Master as an evil mustache twirling villain just because the Followers of the Apocalypse say so.

Now for the record, I don't think Fallout 3 is as badly written as some people make it out as being, and it certainly doesn't have the worst RPG writing I've ever seen (I'll take Fallout 3 over any JRPG, pre-Fallout 1 CRPG, and post-Knights of the Old Republic BioWare RPG I've ever played), but I do think it has the weakest writing in this particular series.