I decided to give the old Fallouts another try. I hadn't played them in a while, so why not?

I was dissapointed.

Either all the frenetic hype that had been stormed up by the fanboys recently over Bethesda's controversial (and really stupid, in my opinion- fallout has the worst fanbase imaginable) decision to make Fallout 3 had ruined these games for me forever (and if that's the case, thanks a lot, guys), or they weren't that good in retrospect.

The bugs in both of these games were both numerous and many. Even with the official patches, it seemed like Black Isle's bug checkers had wandered off during the development.

The much-lauded combat system basically runs like retardedly slow Diablo, but with even more bugs. Oh, how I enjoyed having to wait 3 minutes for every NPC on the map to move in the enemy phase, or even having to shut down the game because it stuck itself in an infinite loop! Plus, the aiming thing was amazing, what with there being no point in aiming for anything other than the eyes.

While the storyline for 1 was decent, it felt like the majority of 2 was just hackneyed pop-culture references with a plot thrown in at the last moment. The SPECIAL system is completely exploitable, as is chem usage (permanent bonuses if you take enough due to bugs? Woohoo!) and tag skills became stupidly powerful if you had more than 12 skillpoints to spend per level.

The script for the game seemed to lack proofwriters, judging from the amount of spelling error, grammatical mishaps and general engrish.

And, of course, the funniest thing about the insane fanbase is the fact that they ahve literally despised every Fallout sequel that's come out until the next one came along, at which point it becomes acceptable. they didn't like 2, then Tactics came along, but then that was alright when BoS came out. Hell, even Van Buren got knocked, and now everyone's going all wistful and misty-eyed over it, even though it looked like all they'd done is take Fallout 2 and make it 3-D. They weren't even particularly imaginative with 2, adding in all of 5 new sprites or so and then just copying everything else from 1.

And let's not get started on the AI.

To conclude, absolutely anything Bethsoft does with F3 will be an improvement. And also, Capcom made Street fighter and Megaman, and they're both exactly the same, since they were made by the same company. they don't have more than one group of staff or anything.

Either all the frenetic hype that had been stormed up by the fanboys recently over Bethesda's controversial (and really stupid, in my opinion- fallout has the worst fanbase imaginable) decision to make Fallout 3 had ruined these games for me forever (and if that's the case, thanks a lot, guys), or they weren't that good in retrospect.Are you suggesting Oblivion was somehow a good game? Fallout is my favourite, perhaps I am one of the worst fanbase imaginable, but I am worried about what Bethesda will do to the game. I'm not even sure why they bought the license, or what they thought to gain, given the difference between Fallout and The Elder Scrolls' fanbases, it's similar to the mistake Interplay made with POS.

The much-lauded combat system basically runs like retardedly slow Diablo, but with even more bugs. Oh, how I enjoyed having to wait 3 minutes for every NPC on the map to move in the enemy phase, or even having to shut down the game because it stuck itself in an infinite loop! Plus, the aiming thing was amazing, what with there being no point in aiming for anything other than the eyes.If speed of combat is a problem, change it. There's an option in preferences. The game only sticks itself in a loop if you've been pressing the space key, since it queues up your end turn action. Aiming at non-eyes targets is in fact valid, if your skill isn't high enough, or you are aiming for a particular effect, ie knocking someone over.


While the storyline for 1 was decent, it felt like the majority of 2 was just hackneyed pop-culture references with a plot thrown in at the last moment. The SPECIAL system is completely exploitable, as is chem usage (permanent bonuses if you take enough due to bugs? Woohoo!) and tag skills became stupidly powerful if you had more than 12 skillpoints to spend per level.Fallout 2 had a lot of faults with regard to pop culture. This is a recognised failing. Why is SPECIAL exploitable? Did you look up bugs before playing it? And yes, a well made character is able to get very powerful. This is an advantage of the system, where it rewards thought out characters.

The script for the game seemed to lack proofwriters, judging from the amount of spelling error, grammatical mishaps and general engrish.There's a few errors, granted, but there is also a huge amount of text in there. Look at the size of the dialogue files for Fallout 2, for example.

And, of course, the funniest thing about the insane fanbase is the fact that they ahve literally despised every Fallout sequel that's come out until the next one came along, at which point it becomes acceptable. they didn't like 2, then Tactics came along, but then that was alright when BoS came out. Hell, even Van Buren got knocked, and now everyone's going all wistful and misty-eyed over it, even though it looked like all they'd done is take Fallout 2 and make it 3-D. They weren't even particularly imaginative with 2, adding in all of 5 new sprites or so and then just copying everything else from 1.I won't apologise for caring for the game. I won't apologise for being unhappy or disappointed about the sequels. People are getting misty eyed over Van Buren because of its potential, its similarity to its predecessors, and above all, the fact that Black Isle actually interacted with the fans. As for adding new sprites to Fallout 2, why would they need more? The desperate need some people feel to have game sequels look vastly different to the ones that have come before is beyond me. If it's not broken, don't fix it.

And let's not get started on the AI.Let's get started on the AI. It works. Opponents will run when injured, and will use (admittedly basic) tactics. There are some annoying moments, such as NPCs trapping you, or shooting you in the back, but that's something to live with.

To conclude, absolutely anything Bethsoft does with F3 will be an improvement. And also, Capcom made Street fighter and Megaman, and they're both exactly the same, since they were made by the same company. they don't have more than one group of staff or anything.Unfortunately, you represent what seems to be Bethesda's target audience. Why will destroying what has managed to be my favourite game, and that of many others, for the almost ten years? Why buy an IP if you don't intend to stay true to it? Also, if you are intending to say that Fallout won't be like Oblivion, you should perhaps try reading what Bethesda have said, namely that they are going to do "what they do best". We shall have to wait and see what comes of it.

Also, read this thread at The Codex (http://www.rpgcodex.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=101&sid=ac01857cc52a7ed13bebfb7e19c795b8), especially St Proverbius' posts.

[ May 08, 2007, 01:37: Message edited by: Warrior of the World ]

To each his own I guess. To me Fallout is one of the best games ever made.

You do seem to forget that the game is almost 9 years old though. Yes van Buren is haled as the only pure Fallout 3, which is silly because we have only seem pre-alpha screens. On the other side you seem to bash it on those same principles.

I think Bethsoft can and probably will make a good maybe even great game. To bad it probably won't be Fallout 3, but an action RPG with a fallout title.

Apeman: there's now a leaked Van Buren tech demo. I haven't played it, but people were very happy with where it was going.

As for the complaints - you're talking about very minor problems. Yes, the game has flaws, but I'm very happy to ignore flaws like that when the important part of the game is awesome. Hell - I enjoyed Arcanum, and that game is almost unplayable in parts. It's the roleplaying, characterisation, writing, and setting which make a game great for me - if the rest is brilliant as well then that's just a bonus.

And, well, I disagree with you in a lot of places there, but don't feel like getting into it. It's already been answered anyway.

What Aik said. Minus the Arcanum love--the game never did it for me. ToEE, now; Mmm. Yum.

As for tactics, it was fun. What it wasn't was Fallout 3

I enjoyed Arcanum, and I loved Fallout 1 and 2. Any flaws I could deal with quite easily.

Die! You foul blasphemer, Die!

Threats aside, I'm with Takara (and apparantly everyone else) on this. I will say that I very rarely play a game all the way through a second time -- it's never as good as the first time (sounds like a Sade song..).

There are unofficial patches that fix the problems which were left after the official patches.

I agree with everything said (not thread starter), especially by Warrior of the World and T2's first sentence. And not AMasters view on tactics.

The Fallout games, especially F2, are in my opinion perhaps the best games ever made.

When people say that Fallout fans are the worst, they seem to forget the standards set by the first two games. If you are going to make a Fallout sequel, why not follow those standards? If Bethesda wants to make some type of Oblivion-in-the-future type of game, why name it Fallout? Pretty much the only people who will understand that name are the ones who have played the first to games, and likes them.

Almost nothing was bad in the Fallout games in my opinion. Sure, there were a few bugs and glitches, but none that ruined the game or was even near to it. SPECIAL, the writing, the graphics (they were impressive to me when I first played the game, and I still don't think they are too bad), the characters, the story, everything, was great. And I love the turn based style.


As for myself, I'm planning on replaying Fallout 2 soon, as a diplomat, something I've never tried before.

:lol: Wow you guys are suckers. I think it's rather obvious that this thread was made specifically to incite this kind of reaction. Clixby admits to knowing about Fallout fanboys, so he's got to know that there's probably going to be one or two on the board, as well as people who liked it but haven't taken it as far as devotion, who will come to its defense. You don't just post a "this popular game is crap!" thread without expecting some kind of response.

Myself, I haven't tried the Fallout series yet. I've heard good things and I've heard bad things, but in the end it comes down to two things for me: I'm not fond of guns in RPGs (yes, I know you don't *have* to use them, but that doesn't mean NPCs and enemies won't), and in case I would like it, I don't really need yet another game to distract me from the ones I'm already playing. ;)
If Bethesda wants to make some type of Oblivion-in-the-future type of game, why name it Fallout? Now you know how I feel about WotC and 3e. :p

I'm not fond of guns in RPGs Trust me, after playing Fallout, you will be. I also do not like guns in RPG's, but Fallout is definetly an exception. Also, guns fit well into the world of Fallout (i.e. it's not like the D&D world).

Agreed with everyone defending Fallout.

The Fallout series has more personality and freedom crammed into it than I can even begin to describe, which is why it'll always hold a special place in my heart as the all-time favorite.

I must ask: Why is it that FO combat is so often compared to Diablo as a negative? One of the Bethesda devs (an artist) made this comparison as well, in the following quote:

To me, it feels like an excruciatingly slow Diablo. I don’t see it as being particularly more involving, just much, much slower.

Never played it so can't comment. Tried my best but it didn't like me PC. Too old, I guess. Shame.

I've heard good things about the Fallout games. I remember playing Wasteland years ago and enjoying it. I understand that Fallout took its inspiration from that game. As a matter of fact I'm thinking of buying Fallout 1 and 2 soon.

I've been playing these games ever since they came out. IMHO Fallout 1 and 2 are the best RPG games you can play on a PC. :p

I must ask: Why is it that FO combat is so often compared to Diablo as a negative? Why is they being compared at all? The only similarities are the isometric view and the graphics. Having played Diablo II very seriously before, I know that the combat revolves more on fast clicking with the mouse than anything else (and preparations before the battle). It's about the same for Diablo (I), although not as fast paced.


One of the Bethesda devs (an artist) made this comparison as well I noted that as well. Btw, I'm really pissed off that the artist hadn't really played the game. The art of the first two games was great, and it feels like if someone who has never seen it is supposed to make some of the art for a sequel, he would ruin it.

maybe its compared to diablo so often because the games are from the same periode and a lot of people found diablos combat system way better

its just like when people on this board compare nwn to bg and so on, even though its two different games under two different rulesets.

its just like when people on this board compare nwn to bg and so on, even though its two different games under two different rulesets.Not really. Two different games, yes. Two different rulesets, yes. Same developer, yes. The developer (and hype/expectations) is why people compare the two. Coming off BG/BG2, people had certain expectations for RPGs made by Bioware. NWN did not fulfill those expectations.

Now, if people want to compare Fallout and IWD2 or Torment, that'd make sense. Same dev. However, comparing games from different genres and different devs to one another is...strange. Though not necessarily pointless, granted.

I've played Fallout Tactics... enjoyed that one but not particularly replayable.

Well Fallout Tactics was *nothing* like the first two Fallout games. It was crap. Sucky story, no dialogue, vehicles, not turn based combat (although I think you could change that)... the list goes on. If you haven't played Fallout or Fallout 2, you haven't got a real Fallout experience.

Fallout 1&2 kick ass. I don't even know how many times I've played through them. If some day I start playing PC games again, those are definitely on the list.

Tactics was playable, but it's not a RPG so it obviously doesn't have as much juice in it.

Wow you guys are suckers. I think it's rather obvious that this thread was made specifically to incite this kind of reaction. Yeah, works just as well as bashing mods (like saying: the incest mod's premise sucks, it should be banned on moral grounds). :)

I gave him what he wanted and tried to use a bit of humor in doing so.

I don't understand. What's morally objectionable about incest?

:lol: Perhaps we do need a thread on it after all.

I don't understand. What's morally objectionable about incest? Sex in general is going to get somebodies panties in a twist whether morally, religiously, or just plain for the sake of taking what is seen as a semi-taboo subject and talking about it for as much and as long as possible. Find the right groups and it doesn't even matter what kind. Somebodies going to object to some particular coupling even if they don't care about others.


As for the main topic. I think i kind of demo-played fallout once a long time ago but I just never really got into it so I didn't pay attention to it. I've heard it said it's good. I've heard it said it's bad. I never really paid attention to why. Seemed to be lots of varied reasons.

I thought Fallout 2 was pretty good. Haven`t played any of the other games in the series though.
It had its flaws yes. But Fallout is actually one of the few roleplaying games that actually IS a roleplaying game. And that counts for alot in my book.

BUT Fallout isn`t better than Betrayal at Krondor .)

Hello and good days,

Now lets take a look at Bethesda accomplishments and judge them right.

They have released these popular games.

1. Elder Scrolls Arena
2. Elder Scrolls Daggerfall
3. Elder Scrolls Morrowind
4. Elder Scrolls Oblivion

weird isn't it they are actually the same game with different graphics.

Bethesda claims that they make open ended, non-linear games, they may be trying to do that but let me explain some disturbing things.

1.

They have in their games thousands of spells (actually there are about a 100 but with every power increase these 100 get different names)

2.

They have very original guilds and factions with very original names like Fighters Guild, Mages Guild, Thieves Guild and they have fun storylike quests (fetch this, find this, kill this and what nothing happens)

3.

And there is this weird thing the more powerful you get the more powerful everybody gets. Hmm this is very original indeed why bother with creating clever plots, events, creatures... lets fill everywhere with dungeons and creatures and let everybody fight.

You make a powerful spell which does not come with a level requirement but comes with increasing mana cost that you are never able to cast this spell

You find a powerful sword you get some levels up then you say to yourself "Now I will handle those bastards who humiliated me before" and what you see is they have also become more powerful.

4.

And yes Bethesda developers now very well about story writing and dialogue writing. There is always this Uriel Septim who sets you free, you are always a prisoner.

About dialogues you talk like this "Uriel Septim?", "Money?", "Work?", "Mage Guild?", "Rothrak?" come on what is this.

5.

And about bugs "Bethesda Rules :D "

Now let us compare with fallout;

1.

In fallout 1&2 there is no limit to where you can travel, and there is nobody you are forbidden to kill "except the overseer in fallout 2", this is as open ended as elder scrolls right?

2.

Fallout dialogues are massive

3.

All fallout quests (where there are many ways to do and includes clever plots like conspiracies and so) cannot be discovered and done in a single play (at least I never could) and they are quite original.

4.

Most importantly Fallouts are very old. They could not include thousands of quests and maps and everything, also if you are going to make something open-ended and so intermingled it takes much devotion because every action you take and every dialogue you go over changes things


Anyway I am writing in vain and I am not writing accurately but anyone who has played elder scolls and fallout both would understand what I mean.

Black Isle with Bioware is the best Game Development combination I have ever seen. Fallouts + BG's + IWD's they are not so open ended like elder scrolls but I prefer atmposphere + clever dialogues + fun gameplay to useless open endedness. And I do not think that Bethesda which has no experience on the afore mentioned qualities but has the best experience in the latter will ruin fallout.

I want Black Isle back so badly that I can beat every member up to join again.

Yes, the possibility of Bethesda ruining this game is overwhelming, given their record.

Level scaling only occured in Oblivion and the guy in charge of fallout 3 said he thought it was stupid.

So, it's a good thing that Fallout is open-ended, but it sucks that TES games are open-ended?

Speaking from the perspective of someone who's played (and enjoyed) both TES and Fallout, I can say that both series have the same ratio of original quests to banal fetch/killquests.

From where I'm standing, Guguma, it doesn't actually sound like you've really played any of the TES games, and you're just regurgitating what you've read on message boards (TES is buggier than Fallout? You're joking). Fallout suffers from all of the problems that most RPGs do storywise, and it's main saving grace was the amazing style it presented itself with. But under the 1950's kitsch and Mad Max parody you've got the contrived tale of the Lone Hero/Villain fighting against the Bad Guys. Even more in Fallout 2, which even had a "Chosen One" and an Evil Government Conspiracy.

All of that aside, I do actually like Fallout for it's strylistic innovations, and the OP was mostly a reaction against the people who attach their egos to a VIDEO GAME and take any criticism of that game as an affront to themselves. I'm just prepared to admit the flaws it suffers from, and I'm not going to condemn Bethesda for trying to breathe life into a dead franchise, since it isn't going to harm me personally if F3 isn't any good; I just won't buy it.

Oh, and Bioware had nothing to do with Fallout, you rube. You're thinking of Black Isle.

Hello and good days,

Oh, and Bioware had nothing to do with Fallout, you rube. You're thinking of Black Isle.
First of all thanks for the insult but I am not going to be called a rube(you have written me a great answer and then suddenly call me rube and ruin it all), I know bioware had nothing to do with fallout series,

Second of all I explained myself that I did not write what I wrote cleverly :) , I do not know about sorcerers' server time but it was very late when I wrote

So why am I so rudely attacking Bethesda then, I am doing it because I think Bethesda games are overrated (beyond reason).

About the bugs I still think Bethesda games are terribly buggy, I have never come upon to a bug in fallout which destroyed my joy, In morrowind I am attacked by invisible birds (it was not a spell), In oblivion I have played the fish hunting in the lake mini quest ten times because either they were dissapearing or get stuck in a rock.

All of that aside, I do actually like Fallout for it's strylistic innovations, and the OP was mostly a reaction against the people who attach their egos to a VIDEO GAME and take any criticism of that game as an affront to themselves. I'm just prepared to admit the flaws it suffers from, and I'm not going to condemn Bethesda for trying to breathe life into a dead franchise, since it isn't going to harm me personally if F3 isn't any good; I just won't buy it.
It is good that you will not be personally harmed if F3 is not any good. No one will be harmed. The reaction is just like a reaction to the horrible sequel of a nice movie :) (though we do not know it is horrible or not)

By the way people do not attach their egos to VIDEO GAMES they play. (except a minor set of people who just play video games) But people may like their video games, they make you kill your time and sometimes give you a good laugh and sometimes satisfies your power hunger :D right?

Shortly speaking, fallout has potential for improvement and from what I have seen from Bethesda I do not think that they have the potential to accomplish this.

My "rube" comment wasn't really meant to be taken seriously, I was being flippant.

It's interesting, the reason I attacked Fallout in the first place was due to the same reason you attacked TES. I've heard people complain that they don't want "their" game franchise "raped" in these debates, and I just find the amount of nerdrage surrounding Fallout both bizarre and stupid.

And, believe me, people do attach their egos to videogames. it's why you get what are called "console wars".

My main problem is that so many people are stepping into the logical sandtrap of "Bethesda made TES therefore every game they make will be TES", because that's ridiculous. Bethesda also made Call Of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of The Earth, which was completely different from anything resembling TES. they've also released a number of Terminator games, as well as sports games. Seriously, it's like saying that Capcom made Street Fighter, and therefore every game they make will be like Street Fighter.

So, it's a good thing that Fallout is open-ended, but it sucks that TES games are open-ended? No, it sucks that TES are empty and lifeless while Fallout is filled with well written dialogue, good humour and an excellent feeling all around. Both have a horrible main plot but the other qualities of Fallout more than replace it, the same can't be said about TES.

In the end it's all about what you value in your game. TES offers a massive amount of openness sure, but the dialogue is awful, the world is just bad. It's uninspiring, sterile and generic, Like a bad fan-made d&d world without the things that make d&d fun.

EDIT: As a sidenote I should point out that I did enjoy Morrowind for a while and wandering in the wilderness had its charm, but that charm did not last too long. Still it was worth the money I put to the purchase so it was not all bad, however my appreciation went gradually down the longer I played. With Fallout, Planescape Torment or Baldur's Gate the phenomenon has been the opposite.