Fallout 3 is better than Fallout 1

I agree.

Mostly because I can't stand the turn-based combat system of the old Fallouts.
 
Deux Ex 3 is gonna be better than Deus Ex 1.
 
*braces self*

shitstorm-flyer.jpg
 
Turn based only ever worked with Chrono Trigger as far as I'm concerned.
 
Lucid said:
I agree.

Mostly because I can't stand the turn-based combat system of the old Fallouts.
Click to expand...

I think it works pretty well with the point/click controls, since most of the weapons are ranged. I imagine otherwise it'd be hard to specify what you wanted to do (move or shoot or whatever). It does get frustrating with lower action points, since most guns take five to shoot once and usually that's all I can do.

The v.a.t.s. system seems like a logical progression in the FPS direction bethesda took the game. I prefer it to the point and click movement, which significantly less mindless than diablo somehow makes it more tedious.
 
I liked Fallout 3 for the fact that combat was fun...

I liked Fallout 1+2 for the immersion in the world through storyline, characters, music and a wonderful sense of Black Humor. True, F3 did have some of these, but failed to give me any sense that the world of the DC Wasteland could exist and function in any real sense.

F1+2 (and Arcanum) are like reading a good book for me, gripping and entertaining as well as forcing me to keep on reading for the next step in the plot, the next moment where I learn more about the rich history of this world and its characters.

F3 was like watching a shitty B-Grade action movie, fun for the gore and a plotline that stands only as a vehicle to show things off.
 
Turn based is awesome in strategy games. NOT IN Role playing RGP'ses
 
Fallout 3 is garbage. Haven't play any other.
 
Also, VATS in Fallout 3 was ****ing stupid and pointless except for saying HEY WE PUT VATS IN FALLOUT3 CUZ IT WAS IN THE OTHER GAMES.
 
or to make it look really cool when you shoot someone in the head. ...no that couldnt be it. IT MUST BE THEY WANTED TO COPY A GAME THAT NO ONE REMEMBERS BESIDES JADED PC GAMERS
 
Sloth said:
I liked Fallout 3 for the fact that combat was fun...

I liked Fallout 1+2 for the immersion in the world through storyline, characters, music and a wonderful sense of Black Humor. True, F3 did have some of these, but failed to give me any sense that the world of the DC Wasteland could exist and function in any real sense.

F1+2 (and Arcanum) are like reading a good book for me, gripping and entertaining as well as forcing me to keep on reading for the next step in the plot, the next moment where I learn more about the rich history of this world and its characters.

F3 was like watching a shitty B-Grade action movie, fun for the gore and a plotline that stands only as a vehicle to show things off.
Click to expand...

I get more immersed in F3 than F1. Maybe it's the excessive voice acting, maybe it's the graphics, which I know sounds bad. On games that I played back in the day graphics aren't a factor (half-life, diablo, whatever). Whether its because I'm used to it, or have had time to fill in the blanks left by technological limitations with my imagination, or nostalgia. You could argue that F1 has "better" graphics than say, diablo 2 (I know I keep bringing up diablo, but that's what it reminds me of) but they just don't do it for me.

Another thing keeping me from being really immersed in F1 is the exit grids and the fast travel related to it. I don't ever explore the wasteland in between towns just because there doesn't seem to be anything out there, and the traveling X doesn't do it for me (though the clock in the corner is nice). another thing, everything being separated into sections wouldn't be nearly so bad is I could move the camera to anywhere in that area, but being limited to a certain distance from my character bugs me ssssssooooooo much.

As for humor, I haven't noticed either game having more or less than the other. I haven't gotten too far in either but so far they have the same amount of storyline as well- find the water chip, and then some other shit happens. Find your dad, and some other shit happens. I've read a little bit about quests and walkthroughs and the stories seem to get more in-depth further in, so I'll save my opinion on that. I also haven't seen things like the boneyard or whatever, and hopefully they'll be kickass awesome but I'm not holding my breath.

Both games have a variety of themes they play with (cowboys, classic post apoc gangs with chains and mohawks, roswell aliens, etc) but fallout 3 plays up the 50's vibe more which I like.

Lucid said:
Also, VATS in Fallout 3 was ****ing stupid and pointless except for saying HEY WE PUT VATS IN FALLOUT3 CUZ IT WAS IN THE OTHER GAMES.
Click to expand...

It's useful for targeting specific areas which I couldn't do for shit on a console (which is all I've played 3 on so far). Supposedly you can do the same in 1 but I haven't figured out how. There's a lot of shit I had to figure out on my own and still haven't figured out. A manual would have been helpful, but since I bought it on steam I guess I can go **** myself.
 
lefty said:
It's useful for targeting specific areas which I couldn't do for shit on a console (which is all I've played 3 on so far). Supposedly you can do the same in 1 but I haven't figured out how. There's a lot of shit I had to figure out on my own and still haven't figured out. A manual would have been helpful, but since I bought it on steam I guess I can go **** myself.
Click to expand...

Steam usually has manuals - like so
 
Oooooohhhhhhh dear. If you were to make this statement at the No Mutants Allowed site, you'd be facing a shitstorm of epic proportions.
 
Fallout 3 is not better than Fallout 1.

For the record, they are not even the same genre, so comparison is stupid. That would be like saying Starcraft is a better game than Half Life.

That being said, Bethesda, the irresponsible company it already is, re-uses the same formula for all their games. By purchasing the license to develop Fallout games, they essentially avoid the need to make up a plausible story, saving much time and resource.

They decided to use the same "FPS" formula on fallout 3. Fallout is supposed to be a turn-based game, and now all of a sudden the game becomes some broken FPS game (if you could even call it that). You could legally max every single stat of your character. You could easily purchase hundreds of stimpacks, rendering the difficulty level of the game to a minimal. The game is full of glitches and bugs that aren't even acknowledged.

In fact, I honestly think the saving grace for this game is VATs and slow motion gore. Every other element of this game is pretty pathetic to be honest. Not really an FPS, not really an RPG, just a "hardcore" game for casual gamers. One thing I will admit is this game pretty much fulfills the "whorish" aspects of games which tends to lure customers. Excessive gore and violence being one of these aspects, slow motion being another.
 
DEATHMASTER said:
Turn based only ever worked with Chrono Trigger as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...

POKEMON.

In a way, I'm quite happy that I've finally found a question that I can answer with just the word Pokemon in capital letters.

I'm not too much of an expert, but I have to agree that if you can compare them, it's a matter of story/visuals, amongst other things.
 
Tried Fallout, hated it with every fibre of my being. I like Fallout 3.
 
So here's my take on FO3:

People who liked Fallout hate it.
People who don't like Fallout love it.

Is it a fallout game:

Fallout 1? Yes.
Fallout 2? Yes.
Brotherhood of Steel? No
Shitty Console game whose name I can't remember? No.
Fallout 3? No.

So really I don't think Fo3 is really a Fallout game. Fallout is what it is, this new game Bethesda developed is not Fallout. A Fallout themed shooter, maybe, but it's no Fallout. The plot and atmosphere is not what made the game what it was, no matter how much they want you to believe it.

Enjoy Morrowind: The Elder Scrolls of Post Apocalyptic Oblivion folks, just don't even try to compare it to the actual Fallout games folks. They have nothing in common other than a name.
 
Or, y'know, people can like both like I do.

Cause **** gaming elitism.


except in the case of hawx
hawx sucks
 
I never said I didn't like Fallout 1, because I certainly do. But imagine if F3 was isometric and you had to click instead of push a button to walk. Would it still be so different? Would you still prefer the first? (not aimed at ace) I think there's enough aspects that are similar that you could compare them. The originals are like the chubby adam west batman and F3 is like chain smoking christian bale batman.
 
I still haven't beaten Fallout 3's main quest. Yet I did beat Fallout 1 and 2 ages ago. So I think clearly for me Fallout 1 and 2 kept my interest, while Fallout 3 did not.

I'm still trying to find the will to finish Fallout 3, but its pretty non-existent since I rather do other things.
 
I only played Fallout once, about 5 years ago. It was incredibly addicting and I enjoyed it. Stayed up til 4 AM playing sometimes. Then I took an offer from the mayor of Junktown to wipe out the gang members or whatever. I succeeded, but this idiotic girl was attacking me (maybe she got incidental damage from a grenade or something, I don't know what her problem was) so I killed her too. Then all the Junktown guards started shooting at me, so I killed them too. Then the mayor started shooting at me, so I killed him too. I killed every single person in Junktown. And then I picked the lock on the mayor's safe. Being a total hoarder (in real life and in games), I was looking through all his good stuff and I couldn't decide what to drop and what to take. I'm a terrible decision maker, and this was so agonizing that I stopped playing.

Never played again since then.


Haven't played Fallout 3, but I'm sorta considering picking up Fallout 1 again.
 
i tried fallout 1+2, but they didn't really catch my attention as much as fallout 3 did.
 
lefty said:
I never said I didn't like Fallout 1, because I certainly do. But imagine if F3 was isometric and you had to click instead of push a button to walk. Would it still be so different? Would you still prefer the first? (not aimed at ace) I think there's enough aspects that are similar that you could compare them. The originals are like the chubby adam west batman and F3 is like chain smoking christian bale batman.
Click to expand...

Yes, it'd still be.

Fallout 3:
Good sides:
* Art direction (the environments look great and have a coherent retrofuturistic style; same for cars and other scenery)
* Col. Autumn (although underused and not fleshed out)
* Museum of Technology (backstory)
* The Pitt
* Certain other locations

Bad sides:
* Poorly balanced: you can kill supermutants with a hunting rifle at level 5
* Poorly thought out world: locations don't make a lick of sense and neither does the gameworld. There are no significant relations between towns and the towns themselves appear to be aunable to survive on adaily basis.
* Very bad story - poorly written mish-mash of plot devices from all previous games.
* Poorly written characters - the world is inhabited by one trick ponies, flat, cardboard cutouts instead of characters
* Poor graphics - environmental shadows are a generally accepted standard nowadays
* VERY poorly thought out setting - two centuries after the war power is still functioning in DC, lightbulbs haven't worn out, computers and mainframes are happily chugging along and the Potomac is contaminated.
* Everpresent arbitrary black/white divisions.

It's a decent shooter if you turn off your brain and don't think about it. Bethesda sucks at storytelling.

Fallout 1 on the other hand, is a well thought out, well written and well executed piece of work made by some of the greatest RPG designers in the industry - people with actual PNP RPG experience. If you don't like it, good for you.
 
Beat F2 while engaging in very little combat (char with high speech), F1 I got part way through and my computer crashed, then I somehow lost the disc (don't ask why I did them out of order). I enjoyed those games though.

I've put many, many hours into F3, most of which I can't justify even remotely. Main quest was dumb, the sidequests and exploring was where I got the most entertainment out of it. Scratch that, Point Lookout gave me the most entertainment (Pitt probably had the best story out of all the DLCs though).
 
Tagaziel said:
* Poorly thought out world: locations don't make a lick of sense and neither does the gameworld. There are no significant relations between towns and the towns themselves appear to be unable to survive on a daily basis.
* Very bad story - poorly written mish-mash of plot devices from all previous games.
* VERY poorly thought out setting - two centuries after the war power is still functioning in DC, lightbulbs haven't worn out, computers and mainframes are happily chugging along and the Potomac is contaminated.
* Everpresent arbitrary black/white divisions.
Click to expand...

This is what really turned me off F3 most of the time, it didn't feel like a world that would have functioned. Even down to the point that you can filter most of the radioactivity out of water with deep soil and other almost household items.
 
I agree with pretty much everything Mikae.. I mean Tagaziel said.
 
Mirage said:
Beat F2 while engaging in very little combat (char with high speech), F1 I got part way through and my computer crashed, then I somehow lost the disc (don't ask why I did them out of order). I enjoyed those games though.

I've put many, many hours into F3, most of which I can't justify even remotely. Main quest was dumb, the sidequests and exploring was where I got the most entertainment out of it. Scratch that, Point Lookout gave me the most entertainment (Pitt probably had the best story out of all the DLCs though).
Click to expand...

Yep. The only real reason F3 was successful was due to the pure arbitrary and pure stupidity entertainment. That is, the game is very successful in whoring out gore and slow motion.

I have to admit I initially spent at least 10 hours on this game, but then after I got bored with repeatedly killing the same few people in different ways, the game really had nothing much to do. Exploration wise, it doesn't take long to realize that the environment is pretty much the same thing over and over again.
 
Like I said, I haven't played much of F3, about 20 hours (the same ten hours twice, as I had to start a new character) and I haven't noticed much of the big problems people mention most. Never noticed any bugs or things like repetitive environments, but I didn't get out of the cities much. The NPCs don't bother me, I think I was just glad they were better than oblivion's monstrosities.

A really big big point that makes me like 3 better than 1 is in the first you basically have to save every time you talk to someone or interact with them at all (stealing, etc) because the shit is so randomized. A conversation can go one way, then you load your game and suddenly the same dialogue options cause the person to attack you, or aren't even there. There was a raider in the hotel in junktown holding a whore hostage. I was trying to convince him to calm down peacefully, and was doing good. I saved during the second pause to make sure I didn't screw it up, but I did. I loaded and the whole conversation started over! I must have tried fifteen times but I never got the peaceful options again. In 3, the only times I had to load a game and try again was because of my own inability to use a console controller.

I have a quick question- after I finish 1 and 2 (or at least get one ending) I plan on playing three, and I want the DLC. The complete edition or whatever it's called seems cheaper, but I also heard it was a "cut" version. What does that mean?

EDIT: forgot to mention the subways. **** those, they are definitely C+P.
 
I think the fact you use randomization and failure in convos, failure in attempted theft etc(i.e. stuff based off dice rolls like in any true RPG) as bad points says it all.

You seem to prefer Fallout 3 over Fallout 1, you are not after a proper RPG(Fallout 1), but rather an action-game with some RPG elements(Fallout 3.)
 
Gargantou said:
I think the fact you use randomization and failure in convos, failure in attempted theft etc(i.e. stuff based off dice rolls like in any true RPG) as bad points says it all.

You seem to prefer Fallout 3 over Fallout 1, you are not after a proper RPG(Fallout 1), but rather an action-game with some RPG elements(Fallout 3.)
Click to expand...

You know, that may be true (the second part). But I don't think using dice rolls to define RPG games is correct. Any game can use "chance" to some degree, and I think most do. Even if it's minimal, as in determining what chance your gun has to fail (I'm thinking far cry 2 here) or something like where in the cone of fire your bullet will fly.

Let me bring up Morrowind, not only the best RPG I've played (which isn't a whole lot) but also one of the best games I've played period. I don't have an intimate knowledge of the game mechanics but "dice rolls" are limited to things such as your chance to hit with a weapon, or your spell will successfully cast, or you'll make a good potion. Things like dialogue options that depend on a certain skill level or having a certain item in your inventory are guaranteed to be there once you meet the criteria. In F1 it seems more like, if your charisma and perception and etc. are high enough, there's a chance you'll be able to do what you want, which can be frustrating. Sort of like how you can be sure you're about to cap someone in TF2 when they suddenly get a random crit and kill you first.
 
Tagaziel said:
Yes, it'd still be.

Fallout 3:
Good sides:
* Art direction (the environments look great and have a coherent retrofuturistic style; same for cars and other scenery)
* Col. Autumn (although underused and not fleshed out)
* Museum of Technology (backstory)
* The Pitt
* Certain other locations

Bad sides:
* Poorly balanced: you can kill supermutants with a hunting rifle at level 5
* Poorly thought out world: locations don't make a lick of sense and neither does the gameworld. There are no significant relations between towns and the towns themselves appear to be aunable to survive on adaily basis.
* Very bad story - poorly written mish-mash of plot devices from all previous games.
* Poorly written characters - the world is inhabited by one trick ponies, flat, cardboard cutouts instead of characters
* Poor graphics - environmental shadows are a generally accepted standard nowadays
* VERY poorly thought out setting - two centuries after the war power is still functioning in DC, lightbulbs haven't worn out, computers and mainframes are happily chugging along and the Potomac is contaminated.
* Everpresent arbitrary black/white divisions.

It's a decent shooter if you turn off your brain and don't think about it. Bethesda sucks at storytelling.

Fallout 1 on the other hand, is a well thought out, well written and well executed piece of work made by some of the greatest RPG designers in the industry - people with actual PNP RPG experience. If you don't like it, good for you.
Click to expand...
A very good summary of how I felt about Fallout3. Somehow though, I was still compelled to play this game for a very long time, even through all of the expansions.
* VERY poorly thought out setting - two centuries after the war power is still functioning in DC, lightbulbs haven't worn out, computers and mainframes are happily chugging along
Click to expand...
This never made much sense to me either. I was always guessing the reason was because everything was nuclear powered, and nuclear energy lasts for hundreds of years. However, as other mechanical parts would still breakdown, there would still need to be special facilities and tools to manufacture sensitive electronic replacement parts and from what I could gather, the most advanced production facility circa post-war D.C. was the steel mills in the Pitt.

Also, how the hell is the Enclave manufacturing/maintaining all that hi-tech shit? lol
 
Because they're wizards.

Also ****, the Pitt... that reminds me... I never went there.
 
flamingdts said:
Yep. The only real reason F3 was successful was due to the pure arbitrary and pure stupidity entertainment. That is, the game is very successful in whoring out gore and slow motion.

I have to admit I initially spent at least 10 hours on this game, but then after I got bored with repeatedly killing the same few people in different ways, the game really had nothing much to do. Exploration wise, it doesn't take long to realize that the environment is pretty much the same thing over and over again.
Click to expand...

Oh, I've put much more than 10 hours into F3, and I kinda hate myself for it, heh. Exploration...my main motivation for that was to find all the different settlements. Some were interesting, others were just a waste (like Big Town).
 
Funny fact: I discovered Megaton after 50 hours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MuToiD_MaN
Seems we'll have new Half-Life game. What's some life events you've had since Orange Box in 2007?
Replies
24
Views
3K
Shem
Shem
DER KRAKEN
UPDATE: FALLOUT 4 has been announced. (TRAILER)
Replies
23
Views
6K
Stylo
Stylo
-smash-
ARG or Easter Egg found inside Danger Zone update
Replies
2
Views
20K
BabyHeadCrab
BabyHeadCrab
ríomhaire
History
Replies
5
Views
5K
Shem
Shem
Hectic Glenn
Kerbal Developers Depart Valve
Replies
4
Views
27K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Back
Top