Let me preface by saying that I bought fallout3 and had a favorable experience with it, particularly for the first many hours of it.

After a while, however, the quests and locations and character implementation really reduced the quality of the experience. IMO fallout 3 couldn't' keep up with the atmosphere it was trying to recapture (though to be fair it wasn't intended to fully recapture it, but to re-imagine it).

IMO it failed in a few ways, mostly because the world was mismatched for the seriousness and well thought out back-story provided by the original game. Inside the vault, while immersed in the story, you totally buy the fallout universe. Even when you first leave the vault and enter the world you buy it. Shortly thereafter, you begin to see that the world outside the vault is of a totally different style and caliber. Once in a while the pieces would fit back together enough for it to be properly engaging, but most of the time whenever one entered one of the larger more important areas (like the tower, or basically any place where interaction happened) it just felt really out of place and the cohesiveness would just disappear. It could be due to the dialogue, characters, quests, or many other reasons. Honestly I think part of the reason was because it shared so much with oblivion. The universe should be gritty, dire, realistic (to a point of course), utilitarian, and it should allow for the back-story to fit in. Fallout 1 spectacularly kept the world together, I think mostly because of the seriousness. The music in fallout 1 contributed towards this as well, I don't want to forget that element. Fallout3's world just wasn't compelling because of the overzealous reliance on what they thought was 50s sci-fi camp.

Fallout 3 had large magic boxes, fallout 1 had tubes. I would say fallout 3 acted way too clever. Some may say this is way too picky, but really its a lot like what happens in generic sci-fi when compared to something like bladerunner. When something works spectacularly, a compromised version can't hold up.


Rant over

Now about realistic expectations of NV, and what it can hope to achieve provided its reliance on so much from fallout 3, what can learn from the reviews and previews about these sorts of issues? Have there been any indications that NV will have a different feel than fallout 3? Will the dialogue, story, and feel provide for more immersion? Anybody actually played it and can compare their thoughts?

I'm kind of on the fence on this game, if its too much like fallout 3 then it really doesn't deserve the premium of a day 1 purchase. Anyone else in the same boat?


TLDR: Afraid New Vegas will be another Oblivion as compared to a Morrowind, looking for what people think about the prospect.

Original Fallout?
Nope it won't.
Fallout 1 was really dark and was just a couple of decades before after the war.
This one is not.

Yeah, as the Fallout games in the West go on, each are looking more lively as time passes.

Examples please?

Your critique is missing examples.


Not that I don't believe you are right, but you failed to show any examples in your criticism which is a base for any debate.

Obsidian is making it so the writing should be better than FO3 in comparison to the older games.

Snip? Its not an entirely specific critique. There are many ways to compare the two that aren't compatible. Perhaps I should have separated the two issues in the original post.

1. The "Feel" of the original post apocalyptic fallout universe.

and

2. The success of the game with respect to what it is trying to be.


They are sort of related, but yeah I didn't mean to complicate the discussion by combining both. The rant was really that for part 1. the new fallout as envisioned in fallout 3 isn't as compelling for various reasons, and for part 2. the game sort of had some of the same issues in its realization that Oblivion had.


Part 1 isn't really a huge deal, this is a re-imagining of the universe. Thats alright, I don't think its better but thats fine they can do that.

Part 2 is more of a problem, because I don't want to play what feels like a 2005 game (Oblivion) in 2010.

Does that explain it a little more?

When it comes to feeling more like the Originals New Vegas should do alot better then FO3 given the info I have seen so far on New Vegas. Will New Vegas do better then the originals? I think it could at least tie with them .

Now let me make sure i have this right... You are irritated that fallout 3 felt like a game that came out in 2005 (and it came it three years after) because it didn't feel modern enough... you are also irritated that it isn't more like the original fallout which i think came out in 1997 (or 98 i can't recall which). You sir are submitting contradictions.

Unfortunately I would have to say no.

This has nothing do with Obsidian or Bethesda or it's writers or technical staff.

It has to do with the ratings board.

Hopefully New Vegas can come close...I'd settle for that.

Thing is I don't think FO3 was going for the same feel as FO1. What other than that post-apocalyptic feel, I think FO3 wanted to differentiate from the west side.

I think New Vegas will. A lot of the feedback from the community on Fallout 3 and the new implementations of old and new features into New Vegas have me somewhat convinced that, NV is a return to form so to speak.

All the new and old features implemented into the game make it already superior to Fallout 3 plus it has WAY many more quests according to the devs.

Snip: just means I'm using your quote without having to rehash all those words you used in your post to take over a whole page.


Yes, I see what you mean, but I think the true feel your going for can only come back through an over the head isometric view.

It can never genuinely be a fallout 1&2 feel, in this atmosphere things seem to be picking up very fast and life seems to be taking a stir to a more civilized society and showing how governments are now established pretty well(well better than the first 2) and how their trying toexpand on their ideas.
Also the First person perspective will make you examine things closely than you would from character sprites from above. I think it will be different but a good kind of difference.

The civilizations in Fallout universe are developing more and going forward into a strange future.

You missed the point, I was irritated that fallout 3 had some of the same problems as Oblivion (which happened to come out in 2005). All I was trying to say is that I don't want to buy another gamesas game that has the same shortcomings, not to mention the same engine (Which imparts a good deal of the *feel*), as one that came out 2 games prior.

Hope that clears it up.

The engine and the age don't matter as long as in total it all works

A very good point. I feel that the dark atmosphere may have been a bit unique to Fallout 1 because it was rather recently (if a few decases are "recently indeed). The more time that passes, the better thigns get - well, theorically, at least, because radiation is slowly becoming less serve, mankind is starting to band together and streive for some sort of order in the wasteland and so forth... So all in all, things are slowly getitng better int he wasteland, hence why the atmosphere may become brighter the further away from the disaster the story moves. It'll still be a crapsack world where life is hard and it may be hard to get by and yet, things get better.

Thanks for your thoughts- I agree that part of the equation was the isometric view (though I think the art and the low resolution kind of forced us to use our imaginations quite a bit). Another element was the text dialogue, without the same annoying voice actors you can sort of imagine greater variety and it didn't become as grating in the same ways. Morrowind made it work too, a generic but nice greeting and then the text.

Yeah it is a bit of a strange future- I think ogreb is right in some ways, but I think they could imply certain things and get by with the ratings and all. It is true that the new fallout is a pg-13 "comic mischief" world with R rated violence as the draw to make it seem more "mature", but I dont think they had to keep it that way.


And thanks to others in the thread so far, it is encouraging that there is some evidence that things will be better. Any other sightings or insight would still be appreciated, especially as the reviews start to come out.

I think a lot of what players of the originals were expecting Bethesda, and now are expecting Obsidian to capture, is what essentially amounts to a huge chunk of the player's own investment in a world only partially realised due to restricted technology. Which, of course, is just impossible to do. I can empathise with the players to a degree because I loved the original Icewind Dale so much. To date I haven't had as grand an experience as I had playing that game. Despite playing through countless RPGs since, and even today having great experiences on Warhammer Online through to the DA:Os and MEs.

The lore of Forgotten Realms - which I loved anyway - leant weight to the world - which was partially realised in its isometric form - backed up by the musical score and the semi-decent voice acting - was all great, but beyond that, my own donation made it better by a factor of ten. Because I allowed myself to be immersed, and that took a lot of imagination. Did it with the NwNs too more recently but less successfully, and at the time of IWD with Planescape Torment, Temple of Elemental Evil, Baldur's Gate. But none so well as Icewind Dale. Something just clicked for me with that game.

It's more of a bookish experience than an actual video game experience, and I know nobody likes Icewind Dale for the same reasons that I do, because they have their own point of view, and for those other fans of it, they probably invested a lot in the character/party they created, the background for those characters, and the trimmings around the edges that simply didn't exist anywhere but in their own heads as they played the game.

I'd submit that, to a certain extent, what you're asking for is for someone to venture inside your skull and render a fully realised version of the things you experienced personally, when you played the first game. Most of those things you probably couldn't describe yourself, because even you can't grasp what was there, and what you've applied yourself. I know I can still pick up and play Icewind Dale and not be jarred by the step back in visuals and interface, because there's something there, like with my favourite book. Fortunately I was able to do what I did with IWD with Fallout 3, with ease, which is probably why I'm caning the game to death even now, after how many years? And probably still will be when New Vegas is old. Clicked at the right time. I just hope Vegas is going to be something I want to immediately play when I'm done caning FO3 for the guh-zillionth time.

:blink:

Edit: I should probably read more before I post. lol Ha ha. I see the imagination aspect has already been covered. :sadvaultboy:

I disagree, I thought FO3 was better than the original, and I played the original first. I don't know if I fully understood the OP's meaning when he was referring to going into speacial areas but the way I took it was that he would have rather had the map travel style used in the first game and I personally like first person styles so I don't really need to explain why I disagree about that.



FO3 was just as dark, maybe except for the part of not being able to kill children. before what war? you mean the war in the games story line, then you must have meant after the war because Fallout 1 takes place a hundred years after the bombs drop.

imo I did not think Fallout 1 was dark, just gritty, to me FO3 was dark because you could dismember people and places like the vault where you find the geck were really gruesome. doesn't mean I didn't like the original, i did, but FO3 was an improvement. was it in the same exact spirit, of course not, unless your a die hard fan that doesn't really matter. And if you are a die hard fan, maybe you'll eventually get what you want since interest in the series has been revived for developers, but I doubt you'll get the essence of the original fallout in any new versions of the game because to much is lost from the translation from 2d to first person game play.

Ah, type-o. I meant after the war. >_<

And I found fallout 3 to be very very very very very very very very dull.
None of the places felt real.
Megaton could've had so much more going on for it but the most "bad karma" people there was Moriarty who doesn't even come off as a bad person really and Burke who doesn't live there.
The rest were just too damn happy about everything.
We had Leo who was a junkie but he didn't feel real, he didn't feel alive.
His dialogue didn't convince me that he really was a drug addict neither did his behavior.

Same with everything else.
Even the guy that wants to take suicide at Rivet City doesn't really make an impact on me because it was so poorly written. (IIRC)
Fallout 1 on the other hand felt real.
The people, their dialogue, their actions, behavior and general tone all felt real.

I just couldn't take Fallout 3 serious.
/opinion

(sign) For some people FO3 will always be the red-haired stepchild of the franchise. Two years after the release and people are still finding new things to complain about.

ahh, they didn't feel real. well, thats been a problem for most any game. that doesn't really matter for me, at least the npcs don't need to convince me that their realistic, just basic interaction is good enough for me. after only so much of the game is about them, imo.

New?
I foresee that the complaining won't stop until Fallout 5.
Fallout New Vegas will be compared to Fallout 3 because it's the next game in the series using the same engine.
Fallout 4 will be compared to Fallout 3 because it follows the numerical order of the franchise.
But Fallout 5 or Fallout: New [town name] will most likely be compared to Fallout 4.
But yeah, Fallout: New Vegas and Fallout 4 will be compared to Fallout 3 a lot and the complaining about Fallout 3 will continue for a long time.
It might decrease in it's amount but it will still be there.
/prediction


Well I don't mean immersion or anything.
It's hard to explain.
Fallout 1's atmosphere just had a great impact on me.
Fallout 3 just felt confusing, tedious and annoying after a while.

What I felt was missing from FO3, was that dark humor that I felt was much more apparent in FO1 and FO2, also all the little easter eggs were great too.

well, in the long term it won't matter any ways. FO3 was the most successful installment of the series so far, so eventually the hard core fans of the original will be outnumbered by the hard core fans of FO3. but PLEASE don't take this as me saying one is better than the other because that was not what I was saying at all.

That's not dark, its violent... Fallout was more violent than FO3. :shrug:

Dark humor is not just gruesomeness, its humor mixed with dark (and sometimes ironic) subjects, with a lack of the usual seriousness in those situations... Catch-22 comes to mind as an example.
(Since it's Hitchhikker day ) The scene in the Space Port with the androids serving biscuits and tea to the strapped in passengers while awaiting their compliment of lemon soaked paper napkins is perfect.

Personally, I don't think it's fair to compare FO3 to the old school games because of the gulf in technology. I'm a bit surprised that people find the atmosphere in Fallout superior to FO3 because atmosphere is generally a function of technology and Fallout, released in 1997, can't compete with game created in 2008. Due to the limits of 1997 technology, the setting in Fallout felt disjointed, with various locations being islands in a sea. FO3 created a more immersive atmosphere by filling in the spaces between settlements far better than any other game in the series. Say what you will about the settlements, but as a whole, the Capital Wasteland is better realized than the "core area" surrounding Vault 13. Apart from an obvious ringer like Oasis, you drop someone anywhere in the Capital Wasteland and it becomes immediately evident that you're in a post-apocalyptic setting. Even in the desert, there's always something off in the distance, a shattered overpass, a ruined building, even the remains of the Washington Monument, that immediately reminds you where you are and what kind of game you're playing.

But again, it's unfair to say that Fallout is inferior in this regard because of the decade's difference in technology between the two games.