Thanks god obsidian dosn't make an other fallout :)

[charwo]

See article. It was like this in Fallout 1. Society had been building for a generation before the game started. The first game was set 84 years after the apocalypse specifically to have the mad max moment burn itself out.

[MarchUntoTorment]

It's worth noting that, unlike the fall of Rome, society was completely annihilated post-war. Around 95% of the US population was wiped out, along with pretty much all infrastructure.

 

Besides, it wouldn't be Fallout if it weren't post-apocalyptic - it'd just be another sci-fi game. Potentially quite an interesting one, but put simply, it'd mean that I'd have to go elsewhere for my post-apocalyptic fix. Given how well FO3 had the post-apocalyptic feel, I'm not inclined to go elsewhere.

[nivea]

I believe FO3/FNV should get a pass when it comes to the whole its been however many years and the world should be rebuilt debate, because MOST people who came to play FO3 have NOT played any of the older games. This will have been their first introduction into the Fallout world and the first Fallout in a new era of games (and new engine), so not having it post apocalyptic would have just made it another first person shooter with miner RP elements (FO3).

 

Now if FO4 is skipped ahead in time again then YES it should have a more recovered feeling and it should be more developed as a society, because most people would have or will play FO3/FNV at least and have gotten a feel for the game from that. That is when time should march forward imo.

 

I think they should have had FO3/FNV in a different time period, but it doesnt really matter to me as its a game about the "fallout" and sometimes you just need a game to stay in the same theme/setting I try not to judge on this part.

[JimboUK]

Falconian, I like all under the Obsidian column but also keep in mind that is slightly out of context. considering that Bethesda DID the entire game from scratch while Obsidian only did (more or less) an expansion of FO3, if we take in consideration that only Fallout Wanderers Edition adds (proportionally) more content with less.

 

By the way, I would prefer a Fallout 3 expansion keeping its postnuclear atmosphere, than this sort of 'cowboy' sequel...

 

Obsidian had far less time, Bethesda also insisted on approving every little thing and took their time about it, it's impressive what they managed in just 18 months without Bethesda's cooperation.

[kkk122]

Fallout 3 gives the post-apocalyptic feel perfectly? Excuse me, ever been to Tenpenny Tower? Allow me to repreat myself:

"I was worried about those Ghouls. Now I can get back to worrying about important things, like what color to dye my hair. Thanks for everything!"

That exact line is actually uttered by a resident.

Besides, the only games in the series that had the post-apocalyptic feeling that much were FO and FO3 and FO despite being set over a century earlier is more post-post-apocalyptic than FO3. FO3 is somewhat Hollywood post-apocalyptic with scattered junk settlements, dead world, ruins and radiation everywhere.

Saying that all Fallout has to be post-apocalyptic is basically stating that FO2 (way more civilised even than NV) wasn't a Fallout game. And that one is heresy.

Edited April 12, 2014 by kkk122

[Antartic]

We could argue forever about how postnuclear each game is and everyone will have a personal feeling. The fact is that FO1&2 were canonic-isometric RPG while FO3 is a FPS-RPG, so they ARE different games.

 

If this is good or bad is another thing, personally I think is bad for any saga to change their style, ever, FO3 should never be called that, Bethesda could made a spin-off or another franchise, but for good or for bad is done and at least FO3 is a good game (different from Dungeon Siege 3 which has changed the saga style AND is an awful game too)...

 

The problem with NV is that they wanted to return to the first idea with the wrong game; personally I think that would be fine if they kept the postnuclear style, but they come with another brilliant idea of mid-west and cowboys.

 

So if I liked the devastation and loneliness of FO3, why should I like the western style crowds of NV?

 

 

Falconian, I like all under the Obsidian column but also keep in mind that is slightly out of context. considering that Bethesda DID the entire game from scratch while Obsidian only did (more or less) an expansion of FO3, if we take in consideration that only Fallout Wanderers Edition adds (proportionally) more content with less.

 

By the way, I would prefer a Fallout 3 expansion keeping its postnuclear atmosphere, than this sort of 'cowboy' sequel...

 

Obsidian had far less time, Bethesda also insisted on approving every little thing and took their time about it, it's impressive what they managed in just 18 months without Bethesda's cooperation.

 

 

NV is almost a FO3 expansion, and that is not bad, I'm only pointing that is not fair to say “Obsidian did a better plot”, because they only had to deal with a plot, the rest were already solved: game engine, art, sounds, atmosphere... (well, sadly they've done a little more than an expansion and this is the result: half of the players liked and the other half hate that change).

Edited April 12, 2014 by Antartic

[charwo]

I don't understand this 'Do I like the theme?' line of questioning. Partially because I'm hostile to the concept of genre, partially because I don't give a damn about theme. For me, Fallout is a timeline, and as circumstances change in history the appropriate genres change as well. This is why I like Anchorage so much: beyond the subtle hints that Chase was trying to to tell more than a training sim (why would even an insane American commander show American troops summarily executing POWs?), the shooter theme makes sense because this was an American soldiers experience in World War III. But it goes further than that: set a game in the Pitt in late 2077, and you could very well have a Dishonored or Thief like experience which would totally fit the collapsing nature of post-war society. Different genre, different feel, different focus, but still part of the story. Or a pre-war cyberpunk game (and don't be fooled: the pre-war world looked like the 50s, but it was a Corporatist Cyberpunk dystopia), or a body horror game where the character is becoming a ghoul and fighting to hold onto their sanity.

 

Hell, I had a lot of fun thinking of Rebuild 2 (which is about reclaiming a city block by block from zombies) as an immediate post-war (2078) story where the strikes and black rain turned so many people into feral ghouls that it was a localized zombie apocalypse. And if the rapid Ghoulification of Searchlight is anything to go by, any city not directly hit by bombs and leveled totally would have been overwhelmed by ghouls. But all of these things FIT and would make compelling stories in the world of Fallout.

[JimboUK]

We could argue forever about how postnuclear each game is and everyone will have a personal feeling. The fact is that FO1&2 were canonic-isometric RPG while FO3 is a FPS-RPG, so they ARE different games.

 

If this is good or bad is another thing, personally I think is bad for any saga to change their style, ever, FO3 should never be called that, Bethesda could made a spin-off or another franchise, but for good or for bad is done and at least FO3 is a good game (different from Dungeon Siege 3 which has changed the saga style AND is an awful game too)...

 

The problem with NV is that they wanted to return to the first idea with the wrong game; personally I think that would be fine if they kept the postnuclear style, but they come with another brilliant idea of mid-west and cowboys.

 

So if I liked the devastation and loneliness of FO3, why should I like the western style crowds of NV?

 

 

Falconian, I like all under the Obsidian column but also keep in mind that is slightly out of context. considering that Bethesda DID the entire game from scratch while Obsidian only did (more or less) an expansion of FO3, if we take in consideration that only Fallout Wanderers Edition adds (proportionally) more content with less.

 

By the way, I would prefer a Fallout 3 expansion keeping its postnuclear atmosphere, than this sort of 'cowboy' sequel...

 

Obsidian had far less time, Bethesda also insisted on approving every little thing and took their time about it, it's impressive what they managed in just 18 months without Bethesda's cooperation.

 

 

NV is almost a FO3 expansion, and that is not bad, I'm only pointing that is not fair to say “Obsidian did a better plot”, because they only had to deal with a plot, the rest were already solved: game engine, art, sounds, atmosphere... (well, sadly they've done a little more than an expansion and this is the result: half of the players liked and the other half hate that change).

 

The plot and writing are the most important things in RPGs and they're the two things Bethesda pay little attention to. Bethesda build fantastically detailed worlds but they do that at the expense of everything else which they phone in, as a developer of RPGs they've got all their priorities wrong. It's also much harder to do a proper RPG with choices, consequences and multiple paths than it is to do the linear stuff Bethesda do.

[Antartic]

jim_uk, I agreed with that, but it is not fair to compare only plot vs plot, or quantity vs quantity, etc, because Bethesda started from scratch while Obsidian started with powerful tools and all background storyline solved to focus on this ‘sequel’.

 

And about that sentence: “Plot is the most important in RPG”, I think that is completely wrong. Plot is important for a movie, a novel, or a linear game, but for RPGs is not ‘the most important’, in RPGs rules and a solid background are much more important than a plot. In FO3 you have complete freedom and the main storyline is a simple background of your own personal story in the game, IMHO.

[kkk122]

If you think you have complete freedom, then kill your dad without mods or console. Go on. I'll wait. The personal story isn't really that personal, since you are forced into a particular scenario and no matter how much you ignore that fact, the MQ is still completely linear past V112.

 

Going back to the atmosphere thing - FO3 had the same problem Oblivion had: it was a sequel to a game that offered a rather interesting look at the setting (be that post-post-apocalypse in FO2, or alien as-far-as-possible-from-typical fantasy in Morrowind) and turned it into something extremely cliché - the typical ruined, dead world filled with raiders in FO3 and typical medieval fantasy world in Oblivion.

Edited April 18, 2014 by kkk122