By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Fallout 3 is outstanding

shio on 27 December 2008
mrstickball said:
shio said:
Legend11 said:
The game has definitely silenced all of the haters that were bashing it before it came out.

No, it didn't. Actually, it even further enforced the "haters" arguments.

Fallout 3 is nowhere near the quality of it's predecessors.

The vast (and I mean vast) majority of Bethsada/Fallout 3 haters got silenced. No matter what, though, there will always be haters. There are people that hate Super Mario Galaxy, Resident Evil 4, and other uber-rated games out there.

Stop living in the 'glory days' of Fallout 1/2. If they were well-recieved by the public (they weren't) then Interplay/Black Isle would have made FO3. Fortunately for Fallout, Bethsada made it relevant.

 

Maybe in your mind they got silenced, because all the fears that they had about Fallout 3 came true (bad writing, uninteresting quests/npcs, dumbed-down mechanics). Fallout 3 isn't a bad game, it's actually decent (significantly better than Oblivion), but it doesn't follow the "true Fallout spirit".

Your post made you a complete ignorant. Fallout 1 & 2 had B-rated budgets, really low development costs. At the time they were coming from a new and unknown developer, and the unexpected success of Fallout 1 took everyone by surprise, which "forced" them to make the sequel. Both are regarded in the highest order when it comes to roleplaying, and both are STILL SELLING TODAY, many stores still carry both games in budget editions, and GOG.com has both in the top 5 sellers. And no doubt they're still being offered in PC mags (I got my first copy of Fallout 2 from a mag). It's impossible to quantify how many copies of FO 1&2 have been handed.

And think, if Fallout wasn't relevant then why the hell would Bethesda spend millions and millions of dollars just to get the name? They could've easily made a new post-apocaliptic game. And FYI, Interplay/Black Isle WAS DEVELOPING FALLOUT 3 !!!! But then Interplay went bankrupt and down went everything else. Then Troika (in the future to be called Obsidian) was interested in the Fallout IP and even bidded on it, but Bethesda came along and outbid Troika.

Fallout 3 is selling way, way, way more than Oblivion on PC. Please do some research before you talk crap next time.

Here's a question for you: What did Bethesda make on Fallout 3 that's better than it's predecessors? Apart from graphics.



http://i48.tinypic.com/120qaon.jpg
Around the Network
rocketpig on 27 December 2008

Here's a question for you: What did Bethesda make on Fallout 3 that's better than it's predecessors? Apart from graphics.


Other than the obvious technological leaps, really nothing.

On the other hand, some of the greatness of F 1/2 is gone forever due to 3D gaming and its budget constraints. It's a different world, one where I thought Bethesda went way above and beyond their previous efforts to capture.

It's a pretty damned good game. Is it great? Nah, too many things are missing from the originals and it lacks the heart found in those earlier games. Bethesda, with the budget they have for games, were forced to compromise some of Fallout's greatness (adult actions, adult repercussions) to appease the masses and recoup their expense. Sad, but that's just modern gaming for you.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

ZenfoldorVGI on 27 December 2008
shio said:
mrstickball said:
shio said:
Legend11 said:
The game has definitely silenced all of the haters that were bashing it before it came out.

No, it didn't. Actually, it even further enforced the "haters" arguments.

Fallout 3 is nowhere near the quality of it's predecessors.

The vast (and I mean vast) majority of Bethsada/Fallout 3 haters got silenced. No matter what, though, there will always be haters. There are people that hate Super Mario Galaxy, Resident Evil 4, and other uber-rated games out there.

Stop living in the 'glory days' of Fallout 1/2. If they were well-recieved by the public (they weren't) then Interplay/Black Isle would have made FO3. Fortunately for Fallout, Bethsada made it relevant.

 

Maybe in your mind they got silenced, because all the fears that they had about Fallout 3 came true (bad writing, uninteresting quests/npcs, dumbed-down mechanics). Fallout 3 isn't a bad game, it's actually decent (significantly better than Oblivion), but it doesn't follow the "true Fallout spirit".

 

Oh shio, that's just more elitist PC gamer trash talk. Fallout 3 turned out as good as it possibly ever could, and it's probably the best game released on PC this year.

Go ahead, make me laugh and try to pretend SotSE is better than Fallout 3. It's a joke.

If your problem is, Fallout 3 isn't as good as Fallout 2, well welcome to the world, how was the vault for the last 5 years of gaming history.

If your problem was "Fallout 3 isn't a good game" then you're just being stubborn, and clinging on to your old Console dumbing down Bathesda hate. It's a fantastic game, and with the exception of one or two console excusives, easily the GotY. Especially after the halfassed effort Rockstar put into the GTA port.



I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.

NO NO, NO NO NO.

vlad321 on 27 December 2008
rocketpig said:
Here's a question for you: What did Bethesda make on Fallout 3 that's better than it's predecessors? Apart from graphics.


Other than the obvious technological leaps, really nothing.

On the other hand, some of the greatness of F 1/2 is gone forever due to 3D gaming and its budget constraints. It's a different world, one where I thought Bethesda went way above and beyond their previous efforts to capture.

It's a pretty damned good game. Is it great? Nah, too many things are missing from the originals and it lacks the heart found in those earlier games. Bethesda, with the budget they have for games, were forced to compromise some of Fallout's greatness (adult actions, adult repercussions) to appease the masses and recoup their expense. Sad, but that's just modern gaming for you.

 

The witcher is the last RPG which I played which wasn't a modern watered down game. Enjoyed it thoroughly and no amount of bugs or crashes managed to break it for me at all. Enjoyed it thoroughly from start to end, minus loading times.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

rocketpig on 27 December 2008

I've heard nothing but good things about The Witcher from people whose opinion I actually give a shit about. Well, not all good things, but everyone agrees that it's a pretty good game.

Since I haven't had a gaming PC running for a few years, I haven't played it. I'll definitely check out the 360 version when it hits, though.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

Around the Network
mrstickball on 27 December 2008
shio said:

Maybe in your mind they got silenced, because all the fears that they had about Fallout 3 came true (bad writing, uninteresting quests/npcs, dumbed-down mechanics). Fallout 3 isn't a bad game, it's actually decent (significantly better than Oblivion), but it doesn't follow the "true Fallout spirit".

Did you ever bother reading the major forums (such as NeoGAF) with the (literally) hundreds, if not thousands of Fallout 1 & 2 fans that said "I was wrong" when it came to what Bethsada did with Fallout 3?

Your post made you a complete ignorant. Fallout 1 & 2 had B-rated budgets, really low development costs. At the time they were coming from a new and unknown developer, and the unexpected success of Fallout 1 took everyone by surprise, which "forced" them to make the sequel. Both are regarded in the highest order when it comes to roleplaying, and both are STILL SELLING TODAY, many stores still carry both games in budget editions, and GOG.com has both in the top 5 sellers. And no doubt they're still being offered in PC mags (I got my first copy of Fallout 2 from a mag). It's impossible to quantify how many copies of FO 1&2 have been handed.

Somehow, I doubt Fallout 1 and 2, combined, have got anywhere near the 4.7 million units that Fallout 3 shipped before it even sold a copy. Whoop-de-friggin-do that FO1 & 2 are in the Top-5 at GoG.com, selling for a whopping $5.99 a copy. I bought my FO2 copy there, mind you. Nevertheless, I've never seen any quotations that said that Fallout 1 & 2 saw some sort of insane sales, and have always been referenced to as a cult-classic....Last I checked, 'cult classics' are usually not well-recieved by the public.

And think, if Fallout wasn't relevant then why the hell would Bethesda spend millions and millions of dollars just to get the name? They could've easily made a new post-apocaliptic game. And FYI, Interplay/Black Isle WAS DEVELOPING FALLOUT 3 !!!! But then Interplay went bankrupt and down went everything else. Then Troika (in the future to be called Obsidian) was interested in the Fallout IP and even bidded on it, but Bethesda came along and outbid Troika.

Because Bethsada has the cash to buy a series that they could profit on? They didn't buy Fallout 3, they bought the mainline series.

I'm suprised you didn't do your research concerning Van Buren before posting this. Van Buren was dropped well before Bethsada got the license to Fallout 3. Van Buren was dropped in favor of Fallout: BoS...Amazing that they'd drop the grandoise Fallout 3 for a cheap console title, no?

Here's a question for you: What did Bethesda make on Fallout 3 that's better than it's predecessors? Apart from graphics.

You kind of answered your own question when you said that FO3 was outselling Oblivion. They made the Fallout series relevant, sales-wise. If the Fallout series was some sort of uber-seller...Why the heck did Black Isle close down? It doesn't make any sense if the Grand Theft Auto series went bankrupt if it sold well, no? I've never seen any articles concerning the Fallout series selling well. Use vauge budget title positioning, but I don't buy that if Fallout was some sort of huge series, that Interplay would can it so quickly in favor of Brotherhood of Steel for PS2/Xbox.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

ZenfoldorVGI on 27 December 2008
vlad321 said:
rocketpig said:
Here's a question for you: What did Bethesda make on Fallout 3 that's better than it's predecessors? Apart from graphics.


Other than the obvious technological leaps, really nothing.

On the other hand, some of the greatness of F 1/2 is gone forever due to 3D gaming and its budget constraints. It's a different world, one where I thought Bethesda went way above and beyond their previous efforts to capture.

It's a pretty damned good game. Is it great? Nah, too many things are missing from the originals and it lacks the heart found in those earlier games. Bethesda, with the budget they have for games, were forced to compromise some of Fallout's greatness (adult actions, adult repercussions) to appease the masses and recoup their expense. Sad, but that's just modern gaming for you.

 

The witcher is the last RPG which I played which wasn't a modern watered down game. Enjoyed it thoroughly and no amount of bugs or crashes managed to break it for me at all. Enjoyed it thoroughly from start to end, minus loading times.

 

Yep, I have it for PC, but I'll probably just wait for the console version, so I don't have to bother with the non-userfriendly interface. Games are games, afterall. I know that I'm one of the smartest people....and I don't need a complex game interface and a plethora of unnecessary options to remind me of that.

Diablo II had it right. User-friendly above all else.

...that's not to say that The Witcher(great game) is necessarily complex, but it certainly isn't user-friendly, which means that yes, you have to spend a significant amount of time learning the shortcuts. Unnecessarily...

Another game that will be "dumbed down" for consoles, at the "cost" of needless PC control scheme and clunky menu navigation complexity is "Dragon Age: Origins." The FFXIII of the PC...before it was announced as a console multiplat.



I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.

NO NO, NO NO NO.

shio on 27 December 2008
ZenfoldorVGI said:
shio said:
mrstickball said:
shio said:
Legend11 said:
The game has definitely silenced all of the haters that were bashing it before it came out.

No, it didn't. Actually, it even further enforced the "haters" arguments.

Fallout 3 is nowhere near the quality of it's predecessors.

The vast (and I mean vast) majority of Bethsada/Fallout 3 haters got silenced. No matter what, though, there will always be haters. There are people that hate Super Mario Galaxy, Resident Evil 4, and other uber-rated games out there.

Stop living in the 'glory days' of Fallout 1/2. If they were well-recieved by the public (they weren't) then Interplay/Black Isle would have made FO3. Fortunately for Fallout, Bethsada made it relevant.

 

Maybe in your mind they got silenced, because all the fears that they had about Fallout 3 came true (bad writing, uninteresting quests/npcs, dumbed-down mechanics). Fallout 3 isn't a bad game, it's actually decent (significantly better than Oblivion), but it doesn't follow the "true Fallout spirit".

 

Oh shio, that's just more elitist PC gamer trash talk. Fallout 3 turned out as good as it possibly ever could, and it's probably the best game released on PC this year.

Go ahead, make me laugh and try to pretend SotSE is better than Fallout 3. It's a joke.

If your problem is, Fallout 3 isn't as good as Fallout 2, well welcome to the world, how was the vault for the last 5 years of gaming history.

If your problem was "Fallout 3 isn't a good game" then you're just being stubborn, and clinging on to your old Console dumbing down Bathesda hate. It's a fantastic game, and with the exception of one or two console excusives, easily the GotY. Especially after the halfassed effort Rockstar put into the GTA port.

Funny how you totally ignored the question I made in my post. So I'll ask you now: "What did Bethesda make on Fallout 3 that's better than it's predecessors? Apart from graphics."

And GTA IV might be an unoptimized port, but consider this: the console version is only as good as the Low Settings of the PC version (came directly from Rockstar).

 



http://i48.tinypic.com/120qaon.jpg
ZenfoldorVGI on 27 December 2008
rocketpig said:
I've heard nothing but good things about The Witcher from people whose opinion I actually give a shit about. Well, not all good things, but everyone agrees that it's a pretty good game.

Since I haven't had a gaming PC running for a few years, I haven't played it. I'll definitely check out the 360 version when it hits, though.

 

It's good. The opening cinematic alone is worth a rent. Definitely check it out.



I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.

NO NO, NO NO NO.

rocketpig on 27 December 2008

Stickball, we all know that no matter how well a game sells, incompetent management can bury the company. Interplay was a damned fine company in the late 90s with several high profile franchises under their wing. Still, the company tanked.

Comparing late 90s PC sales to modern multiplatform sales is ludicrous. Shit, even Half-Life can't measure up to that comparison. In the late 90s, PC gaming was niche, at best. Hardware was insanely expensive, had to be updated constantly, and the internet gaming craze hadn't taken hold yet.

That's like bitching about the Model T being a failure when compared to the Volkwagen Beetle. Time and market size have to be taken into consideration.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/