Fallout 3 for the Faithful

[evil_scientist]

With relation to fallout three for the faithful, has anyone heard of anyattempts to recreate fallout 2 or at least part there of in the fallout 3 engine, now that the G.E.C.K has been release it's workable. People recreate the classics all the time, fallout 1 and 2 should be apart of that, so i repeat my question has anyone heard of any recreation attempts or is this the first talk of which?

 

Merry Christmas Fallout Fans :thumbsup:

[T4LGooose]

They dont say 'vulk' all the time..

 

 

they say 'WHERE?'

 

LOL

 

its the anto-censor bleeping a word that begins with an 'F' and ends with 'K'.

 

I'm with Dylbot - list the concrete things a mod should achieve to make it a "true sequel," otherwise this is just empty whining. A post that said, "Are there any plans to develop a mod which does the following five things, which I think would make it a truer sequel" would deserve a substantive reply. This one did not.

 

Game word that makes no sense, weak RP mechanics, hollow and pathetic dialogue, two dimensional plot choices, epiclly bad central plot, rampant inconsistency with the previous games of the series, I could go on for hours.

It's all obviously in the eye of the beholder.

 

I myself really like the game, but I haven't really followed the Fallout series. Yes, there are a few many things that could be improved, but that's what's so great about mods! Modding lets you make the world work the way YOU want it to.

 

I know that Fallout 3 was a disappointment to many of the "true" fallout fans, but is it really so horrible to get this worked up over? I mean, either way, it's just a game.

 

And I'm sure you can go on for hours about what you don't like and what was horrible, but explain why it was horrible, and tell us how it realistically could be fixed. That's when you get people to listen to your ideas and start making mods based on them, not ranting for a half hour on all the things you hate! People just get annoyed and you sound like someone who is impossible to satisfy.

 

Keeping an open mind when approaching this issue will really help you get your point across better..

[ultimatexeo]

It's all obviously in the eye of the beholder.

 

I myself really like the game, but I haven't really followed the Fallout series. Yes, there are a few many things that could be improved, but that's what's so great about mods! Modding lets you make the world work the way YOU want it to.

 

I know that Fallout 3 was a disappointment to many of the "true" fallout fans, but is it really so horrible to get this worked up over? I mean, either way, it's just a game.

 

And I'm sure you can go on for hours about what you don't like and what was horrible, but explain why it was horrible, and tell us how it realistically could be fixed. That's when you get people to listen to your ideas and start making mods based on them, not ranting for a half hour on all the things you hate! People just get annoyed and you sound like someone who is impossible to satisfy.

 

Keeping an open mind when approaching this issue will really help you get your point across better..

 

I completely agree with you about keeping an open mind, most people are so hard set in their beliefs they just hold their hands over their ears and go "LALALALALA".

 

If you haven't really followed the fallout series and haven't played since FO 1 came out, then you can't really understand where the "fanatic" fallout fans are coming from.

 

I'll use my own example, that was given to me to help me understand when I was talking with a " Fallout fanatic".

 

I am a classic DooM fanatic. I still play every new .wad I can find. I was there for the whole plutonia-tnt fiasco in Final Doom. Back when they invented the word deathmatch, and it subsequently destroyed office productivity.

 

I think Id RUINED Doom when Doom3 came out. Doom is about high octane trigger finger action, and wieghing the pros on cons on whats OBVIOUSLY a trap for "do I REALLY want that soulsphere?". Doom 3, however, was a horror survival game. And while I found playing Doom3 to be enjoyable, I think they took it in the complete wrong direction and it should be "Resident Doom", a spinoff, not a sequel. While some would argue this idea ISN'T comparable, John Romero left ID, and only Carmack is left, which, is the same to me.

 

So,while I love fallout 3 (and its prequels) myself, I understand their plight and dismay. That being said, I wish they wouldn't be so cut and dry with thier quips "post apoc oblivion" and such. It's more than just a game to them, its THEIR game, like DooM is mine. It's easier if you compare it to something you like as much, like a sport, or another game.

[davidzaccaro]

Man, dude i am From 93 and i always Loved Classics but when i played Fallout 1 and 2 ---------I THINK----------- it was Even Before Bethesda Anounced they would be making Fallout 3....(Or I Just Didn't Knew About It) When i played Fallout 1 and 2 i was really Astonished about it.. Man there Humor was really Crude and Dark but i founded Funny Always and Some Sort of the ----CRUDE REALITY OF THE WASTELAND---- that Feel of Playing THE - Black Isles Fallout - It Was Neet! But Still playing - Bethesda's Fallout - I Still Find It Neet! but i miss the Real Humor of Black Isles......Some Sort of the And -CRUDE REALITY OF THE WASTELAND- And some of Art Work of Black Isles Too... BUT I STILL LOVE FALLOUT 3 i Still Enjoy Playing like i did Fallout 1 and 2 but Within the Experience of playing THE - Black Isles Fallout - For me IT Was and it Is the Best Experience i Had by playing the Classics RPGs....Dont Get Me Wrong but i LOVE THEM BOTH!!!!!!!!!!

[davidzaccaro]

:sweat: Interplay! i mean! :biggrin:

[macmert]

I agree, fallout III is not a bad game, but it is not a true sequel either...

 

On the other way, how are you going to "fix" the game? by changing the gun parameters? so it damages 5 points instead of 2? or remake power armor so that it enhances your str by 10? I am afraid to tell you but the very soul of the game is damaged... What makes fallout a cruel unforgiving post apocaliptic rpg is tarnished, not lost entirely (at least we have a wasteland right:)) but it will require more than mere gun textures or damage changes...

 

All in all it is still a good game, still entertaining and fun, but I cant say it is a true sequel...

[RandianHero]

You know, overall I think Fallout 3 is a much better game than its predecessors. It's definitely different, maybe even to the degree that it can't even be considered a Fallout title -- but Bethesda did a lot more things right with the title than they did wrong, and I know that I've gotten a lot more enjoyment out of Fallout 3 than I have with either of the other games (and those are two titles that I consistently replay every couple of months).

 

Yes, the central storyline was a little thin in parts. But have you actually *played* Fallout 2? The entire game was one giant pop culture reference. And Fallout's storyline was great, but the game mechanics were weak at best. Fallout 3 didn't deign to solve the issues of the previous two titles -- it went for a completely new style of game. A lot of fans are mad about this, but Bethesda went their own way with the game rather than merely picking up where others had left off, and I have to give them credit for that. Personally, I think they improved upon a lot of the low points that the previous two games had.

 

For instance: the setting. It's retro-futuristic, but it's also contemporary to the point where you're totally immersed in a world that might as well be our own. The art and details are fantastic, the environment is dead on, and the overall way everything is put together is beautiful.

 

Now, the dialogue is weak in some parts, admittedly. The fact that the game is set 200 years after the bombs is a little much (I would have been personally happier if they'd made the game a prequel, as that would have fit a lot better with the atmosphere). The central storyline seemed to drop off in parts, but they're still releasing content so the jury's still out on that. Otherwise, I think there isn't a lot wrong with the game. Any of the issues it has can be fixed with mods, so I'm pretty content with it.

[macmert]

You know, overall I think Fallout 3 is a much better game than its predecessors. It's definitely different, maybe even to the degree that it can't even be considered a Fallout title -- but Bethesda did a lot more things right with the title than they did wrong, and I know that I've gotten a lot more enjoyment out of Fallout 3 than I have with either of the other games (and those are two titles that I consistently replay every couple of months).

 

Yes, the central storyline was a little thin in parts. But have you actually *played* Fallout 2? The entire game was one giant pop culture reference. And Fallout's storyline was great, but the game mechanics were weak at best. Fallout 3 didn't deign to solve the issues of the previous two titles -- it went for a completely new style of game. A lot of fans are mad about this, but Bethesda went their own way with the game rather than merely picking up where others had left off, and I have to give them credit for that. Personally, I think they improved upon a lot of the low points that the previous two games had.

 

For instance: the setting. It's retro-futuristic, but it's also contemporary to the point where you're totally immersed in a world that might as well be our own. The art and details are fantastic, the environment is dead on, and the overall way everything is put together is beautiful.

 

Now, the dialogue is weak in some parts, admittedly. The fact that the game is set 200 years after the bombs is a little much (I would have been personally happier if they'd made the game a prequel, as that would have fit a lot better with the atmosphere). The central storyline seemed to drop off in parts, but they're still releasing content so the jury's still out on that. Otherwise, I think there isn't a lot wrong with the game. Any of the issues it has can be fixed with mods, so I'm pretty content with it.

 

 

If it looks like a better game, because it is published after 10 years... If many PC users upgrade yearly, that can tell us where we are in terms of technology... so if the game looks better, feels better or game mechanics are better, this is partly because of the tech level we have now... Nowadays you cant find a game that supports only 800x600 resolution that is published recently... Of course the game mechanics or the lvl of visuals can not be compared, can you compare E.H Soccer (C64) with Fifa or Winning Eleven? but what can be and should be compared is the content, the depth of the game... Why many RPG players including me play Baldur's Gate II? because it is a masterpiece with great content, deep story, nice plot turns and many many little tiny details that will make you smile, shock and awe... BGII had in-party talk, the NPC's would interact with eachother... they would agree or disagree with choices you make... they would like you, dislike you, fall in love with you, hell they would even duel with you :D and it has been 10 years since BG II was released...

 

And now we have Fallout III, 10 years passed, and whoa, incredible NPC's you can tag them along and... they dont talk? react? they are not companions then, they are henchmen, hired goons who will be cannon fodder... and your cha stat does not count when you hire them? I mean you cant just forget about these things, after all you are using the name Fallout, buying the franchise and publishing a good looking game is not enough...

 

another silly issue, the NPC's in game can not hear you when you shoot or when you kill an enemy in sight of another enemy... They dont react... It is the same as in Oblivion... they didnt even bother to enhance it... they only hear your footsteps... so silencer ingame is useless... get in VATS mode, shoot a guy, then shoot the other, the third wont even flinch... now even games published 10 years ago doesnt have this issue, try playing Jagged Alliance without silencer and try to shoot someone then miss... you would be swarmed by enemy in mere seconds, or if they were not aware of your presence, they would be by then and take cover and would wait for you... they would even call for reinforcements by using radio!

 

the list would go on and on and on... Now dont get me wrong, I played fallout III, I really liked it, but I dont think it has that much replay value as BGII or other fallout games. I just want to point out that the game has downsides,like I stated above, and of course it can be enhanced, will be enhanced, but I have serious doubts that fallout III is a well done sequel...

[PsyckoSama]

So,while I love fallout 3 (and its prequels) myself, I understand their plight and dismay. That being said, I wish they wouldn't be so cut and dry with thier quips "post apoc oblivion" and such. It's more than just a game to them, its THEIR game, like DooM is mine. It's easier if you compare it to something you like as much, like a sport, or another game.

 

Thank you. Then I think you more than most understand where we're coming from. It is our game. We're not "true-fallout fans". We're simply not 'just' fans, we're the obsessed. We're the Vault Dwellers. We're the Trekkies of Fallout. We're the angry, die hard fans who have been obsessing on Fallout since some of you have been in short pants. We have had our on on the series for over a decade and have been waiting for this game for almost as long, and when it failed to live up to its predecessor we were pissed to put it lightly. Fallout 3 is pretty but in general it is rather soulless, as are most of Bethesda's productions, and to be honest, most games made in the past 6 years, since the beginning of the whole "next-generation" craze. Game companies have been getting more and more obsessed with making pretty games than good ones, Bethesda included.

 

Would I have rather Herve Caen have not canceled Van Buren and rapidly driven Interplay into the ground with crap like Fallout: PoS (Seriously, WTF, Chuck?), yes, but its not a perfect world. Can we deal with some of the changes, yes. We might not LIKE them and might consider Beth extremely LAZY (They've basically been remaking the same game over and over again since 1994) but we can deal. Its the fact that its a wooden take universe that doesn't make sense with a half-baked plot and no personality but lots of glam (like 95% of next gen titles) that pisses us off. Don't get me wrong, if it was named something, anything, besides Fallout 3 I'd like it, but you call if Fallout 3 and there's a whole new set of standards to meet.

[evilbeefjerky]

If you're going to criticise Fallout 2's story, do consider that - aside from the whole Tribal nonsense - Fallout 3 rips it off wholesale.