Fallout Underwhelmed by Fallout :(

[Vault Dweller]

Another thing I'd like to say is that the comparison between Fallout 2 and Fallout 3 strikes me as odd. Fallout 3 is not a "theme park" in the same way that Fallout 2 is. Fallout 2 has weird, theme parkey locations. They're weird from the ground up. In contrast, Fallout 3 for the most part has basically normal locations that happen to have weird shit in them.

- Lovecraftian Dunwich horror location
- a vampire location
- a Peter Pan-esque settlement of invincible kids
- Megaton and the real estate dilemma
- the robot who wants to be human

Hiver, you don't really expect me to reply to that madness, do you?

 

[hiver]

Madness?
You speak of madness to me? After that pile of garbage and fallacies you made?

No of course not, i expect you to use blatant strawman argument and avoid addressing anything even resembling an actual argument. I.e anything that doesnt automatically agree with any clearly idiotic and incorrect thing you post.

As you always do.


Need i remind you of our last bigger argument over realism in games, started when Inxile said they would employ those scientist guys to flesh out the setting more? (which they didnt in the end)

Where i argued that considerations of realism are good and part of every game - while you argued the opposite - only to end describing how AoD is built on realism in the Forbes article a few weeks after that?

 

[Infinitron]

- Lovecraftian Dunwich horror location

I thought we were talking about towns. Personally, I give "dungeon" areas more leeway for weirdness since the entire concept of a dungeon is a bit preposterous, so you might as well make them entertaining. They aren't meant to be understood as part of an organic society.

- a vampire location

Yeah, on its own it's retarded, but the actual town is Arefu. The vampire cult lurking in the subway isn't really part of the world as such. But let's say you're half-right.

- a Peter Pan-esque settlement of invincible kids

Granted. See my post after that.

- Megaton and the real estate dilemma

Like I said, Megaton is actually a pretty normal place. The weirdest thing about it is the bomb worshipping cult, but thanks to Bethesda-ian design, they're easily ignored and forgotten since they aren't really involved with anything that matters. So, normal place with specific dumb content in it.

- the robot who wants to be human

Which one? Regardless, sounds like a specific quest, not a town.

 

[NotAGolfer]

Hehehe, this is great.
Seems someone in the mod team doesn't like you very much, VD, since he sicced hiver on you.

Keep it up, spergs

Both Fallouts are great fucking games with very few neglectable flaws btw. Why?
Because I say so.

 

[Sykar]

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/underwhelmed-by-fallout.96549/page-7#post-3699308
While my relationship with the setting is different from yours since i played F2 before i played F1, i thing it is wrong to say that Fallout 1 takes itself more seriously than Fallout 2. Personaly i didn't found F1 all that different in tone than 2, at least not to the extent to make F2 a totaly different experience and a betrayal to the setting.
And keep in mind that i'm a total storyfag who adores Fallout for it's atmosphere,writing,setting and way less for it's reactivity, skill use etc. And the wacky tone was part of the Fallout setting from the start.

Now, i agree that Fallout 1 had a more concise world, the wacky elements were somewhat more subdued, less in your face (but they were there, that they were less of them is a result of the game having much less content in general, it has less good content as well), and had a more tight theme, plus better atmosphere (not that Fallout 2 locations hadn't, but they were all over the place as far as tone and quality are concerned)

One the other hand Fallout 1's locations were barerbone contentwise, the quest design and reactivity left much to be desired compaired to the second game, plus the writing in F2 was better than F1.

I can fully understand why someone can prefer the first game, but the opinion that the first game is infinently superior to the second as far as quality content is conserned or that the only reason for someone to prefer the second game are the gameplay changes is wrong.

I played FO 1 and FO 2 in order and I think that FO 2 is superior to FO 1 in almost any way. The only gripe I had as mentioned already in previous posts was the overused cultural references and whackiness to a degree, albeit I started yet another playthrough, this time with Killaps Restoration mod even though I heard it is at times even silliar. Will see how it will turn out.

 

[hiver]

Infinitron logic: A location is "ok" if you remove and dont think about its content. So... those locations are ok... because they look ok. If we forget what they are made for, their very purpose.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Where i argued that considerations of realism are good and part of every game - while you argued the opposite - only to end describing how AoD is built on realism in the Forbes article a few weeks after that?

I don't recall ever arguing the opposite.

Need i remind you of our last bigger argument over realism in games, started when Inxile said they would employ those scientist guys to flesh out the setting more? (which they didnt in the end)

Which was never about realism, not in a silly game like Wasteland with giant veggies and killer bunnies.

Let me quote MRY again who did nail the issue:

Right.

To go on a brief rant: suspension of disbelief is basically about trust, and the bonding that trust allows, between a creator and his/her audience. The creator says to the audience, "Look. I know you think it's embarrassing to enjoy pulp adventure stories about stoic heroes and super mutants and zombies and monsters called deathclaws. But you know what? I love those things, too. I'll show you, so you can trust me. Then you show me you love them, too." Suspending your disbelief is really about letting down your defenses -- the arsenal that is ready to blast apart every weakness in the creation before you -- so that you can enjoy what you enjoy.

But when a game makes that opening bid, and then midway through says, "LOL, this setting is such a fucking joke, isn't it funny to have a deathclaw who talks! Oh, and here's Dan Quayle making a fart joke! Oh man, hi-ya, kung fu action! ROFL!" it's not laughing at the setting, it's laughing at the player who invested himself in the setting. It's like the classic cool-kid jerk character in movies who pretends to be interested in the nerd in order to make the nerd a laughingstock. The nerd has only one option: "Oh, yeah, totally, fuck post-apocalyptic settings, the whole thing was retarded to begin with, only a loser would like them." The creator is not just ruining his own creation, he's poisoning the audience's love of what the creation promised. And he's making them scared to suspend their disbelief again because they don't want to be mocked again.

There are perhaps more egregious examples out there (the ducks in KODP, for example), but FO2 is up there among the worst. And even if you say that FO2 never asked you to take it seriously (after all, it starts with the stupid Temple of Trials), then all the same it's taking advantage of the trust that was built up in FO. And if you say FO never asked you to take it seriously, then we'll just have to disagree. FO was certainly campy, and it wasn't pretending to be Dostoevsky, but it wasn't ridiculing itself. To the contrary, the setting is clearly a labor of love born of a fondness for the genre.

That's the difference between Fallout 1 and 2. Neither game can be described as realistic, but Fallout treated its setting seriously whereas Fallout 2 didn't.

PS.

Talking deathclaws

Mutants

Well, NOW it all makes sense! Thanks for clarifying it for me.

 

[laclongquan]

PA setting is always interesting to me because of the real world example of the Fall of Roman Civilization. How in the nine hells did they come from impressive water aqueducts down to medieval europe? Why do they need nearly 1000 years (okay, about 5 cent.) to crawl back up to that level?

So yeah, the fall of Fallout world is resonated in me with that thought.

Also fallout. As in the decay of fallout materials. I think that they need that 80~ years to stabilize environment enough for agriculture to work reliably again. I hate the setting of Dark Time period after nuclear war.

 

[undecaf]

And thats exactly what W2 is doing.

To a certain extent, yes. Though also being nowhere near the uninspiredness of the garbage in Fallout 3.

 

[Surf Solar]

I hate the setting of Dark Time period after nuclear war.

What the hell. Why?

 

[Snufkin]

I too was a bit dissilussioned when i first played Fallout but game quickly picks up in Junktown and gets better. The Glow and Cathedral are creepy as fuck. With all the flaws, and fact that you can complete game in one sitting it's still great atmosphere to experience.

 

[hiver]

I don't recall ever arguing the opposite.

>

Which was never about realism, not in a silly game like Wasteland with giant veggies and killer bunnies.

Thats how you argue, claiming things and they refusing to realize you are doing it.


How about realism of making internal sense, how about realism of cheap schlock content forced onto players as vomit inducing one trick ponies where characters behave contrary to whats established previously? Where IMPORTANT FACTS that were relayed to you as big reasons and motivations dont really matter one way or another? Where huge mutated veggies dont matter fuck all in anything in the game except being superficial background?

Where one location is supposedly producing food without any water and the location with plenty water doesnt have any food and all that matters fuck all in the story, DESPITE MAJOR CHARACTERS telling you everyone will be dead in a week if you dont save those places.
Where, if you let Ag center get destroyed and you get there later you meet Kathy impaled on mutated vines dying horribly, but still more then willing to give you full exposition about any fucking detail you might want (together with where and what the cure is) and she even jokes and laughs while doing it - while she is being horribly killed by mutated vines. (and thats just one of hundreds and hundreds of examples)

- where the only difference is that dr.Larson is copy pasted from the basement into the entrance to Ag center without any change at fucking all too -

You have a very limited notion of what realism is or means in context of any setting.
Whats realistic in AoD? A post apocalyptic setting based on roman empire and supernatural beings and or Lovecraftian gods warring with each other?



What MRY said is his personal distorted view based on less then 5% of the second Fallout. He might feel a few smaller secondary sub quest or situations are bad but, does that really completely wipe out the rest of the game? And if it does that to him why should i seriously consider that kind of insane rant at all?
It means nothing when it comes to realism or taking the setting "seriously" in Fallout games.


I understand its his personal reaction and i understand why.

But i cant accept that as some kind of actual proof of the conclusions that simply do not consider 95% or more of the game.

The creator says to the audience, "Look. I know you think it's embarrassing to enjoy pulp adventure stories about stoic heroes and super mutants and zombies and monsters called deathclaws. But you know what? I love those things, too. I'll show you, so you can trust me. Then you show me you love them, too."

What the fuck is this? Who ever had this kind of embarrassing emotional engagement with Fallouts?


Gremlins are fantasy creatures, doing what they do bets in a completely realistic modern setting, btw. Not mutants - under influence of a fantastic retro virus - in a pulpy sci-fi post apocalyptic setting.



To be perfectly clear to you, although thats probably pointless, those 5% of Fallout 2 you are so fond of criticizing as if its a whole game is not the best that could have been done, but its more then tolerable or irrelevant in the context of the whole game.
And a lot of that stuff did bring a lot of pleasure and fun to players of the game and was fitting as a tool to reinforce the sense of craziness of the Fallout world.

Much more then the Hub and LA in the first game which were utterly boring, especially from the context of alternate sci-fi pulp setting as Fallout was.
Tell me how exactly something like Thieves guild is existing in Fallout setting? The fuck how? What about them gun sellers? What about master or his HULK green super mutants? (are you going to skip over that and grab another goal post again now?)

Jesus Christ but Fallout is not taking itself seriously!!!!

Because it had those few internally incoherent things!

To a certain extent, yes. Though also being nowhere near the uninspiredness of the garbage in Fallout 3.

To the full and even beyond. The only thing that is different is POV and combat mechanics.

 

[FeelTheRads]

The point is that fedora wearing gansters are largely from 20s to 40s of 20th century, so the society in Fallout would have such things as a part of its past.

Irrelevant. Anything before the 50s could have been part of that past. Doesn't mean it fits with Fallout's theme.

The point is that a few small additions to the game do not make whole of the game something else, or bad.

I'm actually not one of those who thinks that FO2 is shit or that FO1 is the only real FO. But I'm one of those who gets pissed off by retarded "hurrr durr it's sci-fi so everything goes" and similar lines of thinking.

Tell me, is there something you could not nitpick about FO?

Yeah, you're a retard. Please fuck off.

 

[Sykar]

Irrelevant. Anything before the 50s could have been part of that past. Doesn't mean it fits with Fallout's theme.



I'm actually not one of those who thinks that FO2 is shit or that FO1 is the only real FO. But I'm one of those who gets pissed off by retarded "hurrr durr it's sci-fi so everything goes" and similar lines of thinking.



Yeah, you're a retard. Please fuck off.

After you, dumbfuck.
But going by your retarded line of thinking:
How do plasma weapons fit into the 50s style? Laser weapons? Green pseudo orcs aka Super Mutants? Ghouls? Super sized mutated geckos aka Deathclaws?

 

[FeelTheRads]

But going by your retarded line of thinking:

Ah, sorry drog, I didn't recognize you.

How do plasma weapons fit into the 50s style? Laser weapons? Green pseudo orcs aka Super Mutants? Ghouls? Super sized mutated geckos aka Deathclaws?

 

[hiver]

Irrelevant. Anything before the 50s could have been part of that past. Doesn't mean it fits with Fallout's theme.

My point is not that it is fitting. If it was me doing it you would never see that specific detail. My point is that it is excusable, tolerable and in fact a very minor detail that you see applied only to two of the four families in the city.
And then only to a few goons who were parading in front of those "casinos".

I'm actually not one of those who thinks that FO2 is shit or that FO1 is the only real FO. But I'm one of those who gets pissed off by retarded "hurrr durr it's sci-fi so everything goes" and similar lines of thinking.

Nobody is really making the argument that anything goes. Thats a strawman argument.

Anything goes is what bethesda and Inxile were actually doing and thats why their games are utter shite.



Also, taking about Chinese in San Fran....

Anyone ever heard about this movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053137/ '?

What are the Chinese generally known for but for their martial arts?

 

[Vault Dweller]

How do plasma weapons fit into the 50s style? Laser weapons? Green pseudo orcs aka Super Mutants? Ghouls? Super sized mutated geckos aka Deathclaws?

It's NOT set in the 50's. It's set in the retro future, i.e. future as imagined in the 50's sci-fi and such, which is a very interesting concept since sci-fi constantly evolves and changes.

What are the Chinese generally known for but for their martial arts?

Does this thread deliver or what?

 

[hiver]

There we go, skipping over any argument that is contrary to your imagination and grabbing another goal post.

The usual Vault Dweller.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Sadly, I don't have time to address that nonsense you call arguments and tear it apart word by word.

 

[taxalot]

We have an expression for this kind of discussion in French. Enculer les mouches. It literally means "fucking flies through the anus". This is pretty much what you guys are doing discussing the relevance of plasma weapons in a post-nuclear RPG featuring ghouls, the FEV, and Super Mutants. Fallout is THAT awesome that some people here have to resort to insanely convoluted bullshit to find reasons not to like it. The true mark of a classic, if I may say.

 

[roshan]

OK so now I find myself "exploring" yet another two quest town mostly filled with feral ghouls, then diving into sewers killing rats looking for a piece of junk... This game feels so "lite" and half baked in every way that it makes BG1 look like a work of genius in comparison. The Hub was a brief respite from all the issues I've had, but dunno how much more of this I can take, at this point I am just hateplaying the game.

 

[belowmecoldhands]

The only thing I'll add is that Fallout is full of non-highlighted ways of interacting with the world. For a weak player like me, a lot of that gets missed, and I think that's going to be especially true for anyone going back and playing the game now for the first time. Rather than doing things like having a popup that says, "I see some boulders here. Maybe there's a way to cause them to collapse? 1. Use strength. 2. Use dynamite." etc., the game expects you to think of this as a viable solution, figure out mechanically how to do it, and then execute. Hell, there's an entire mechanism for talking to people (the key word system) that is both optional and even halfway hidden. Throughout the game there are lots of things like this, from fairly large systems that you can more or less opt out of all together (stealth, addiction, and radiation) to non-obvious puzzle mechanics (like wearing the robes). I'm not sure that the way the game works is better than having options be more obvious and systems more integral, but it is still pretty remarkable and kind of mind-boggling, especially when you tie it with other things like open world, time limit, and intelligence-based dialogue options.

As Arcanum later proved, the consequence of this approach is bugs, emptiness, etc., but I actually thinking FO feels better crafted than Arcanum -- more unique graphics, unique characters, tighter plot, etc.

Good thoughts.

Spoiler

Although I never noticed that bit about he collapsing rocks at the radscorpian caves

There were many times in FO1 where I'd try something, but it didn't work. That's not what bothers me. I used the keyword system to learn things I wouldn't have learned otherwise. I had to think of what to enter, similar to how you'd have to think of using dynamite or brute strength to collapse the boulders. So anyway, what's it that bothers me? I'll make a list:

1. Preparation - An example is The Glow, principally: how radiation works. I never figured it out and died while at the Glow. Some players here tell me I should have known. Thing is, I never had any preparation BEFORE I hit the Glow to introdice m to how radiation works and how to resolve it. This same probelm can apply to everything else: dynamite, brute strength, lockpicks, etc. The game needs to introduce you to these mechanics so when you're confronted by a problem you're more prepared. The game can make these introductions much easier than the rest of the game. The point is to introduce.
   
2. Allowances - Because the game doesn't explicitly list the mechanics you can use to solve a problem (1. Use Strength. 2. Use dynamite...), there neds to be ample amounts of dynamite and fatigue for the player to experiment. Player's are going to inevitably going to use the wrong mechanics for whatever reason, or might not be readily prepared (previous point). Giving them a higher allowance of dynamite or other resources gives them room to leanr fully how it al works and to make mistakes.
3. Presentation - This applies to the probelm. It neds to be visible enoguh so it's not as easily missed. Like one of the players lready commented in this thread, the collapsing boulders is easy to miss on the first few playthroughs. The designers of the game need to wrk with he playtesters to achieve a sufficient presentation so players don't as easily miss these oportunities. I'm not saying atall that it should be thrown in the players face. The object is to reward players who're alert.

That's not to say I'm saying hand holding should be high. I'm a fan of games without handholding. I like there to be choices and consequences. I don't like everything to be explicit. Neither do I like invisible walls everywhere protecting me from stupid mistakes. BUT I do expect the above list of concerns to be addressed and lots of playtesting to clean the muddy waters.

As for the rest of FO1, I mae a thread here where I talked about it and another game and about some other issues. The things I didn't like about FO1 were several. The inventory systme was horrid. The hirelings were inaccessible and/or too few. The mass bug swarms when doing some of the caravan missions weren't difficult, they wree virtually impossible! The random criticals with the mutants occurred even as you were decked out in Power Armor. The random critical were probably the WORST thing I experienced. The frustration caused me to try to get more levels and more hitpoints to survive them, but I was never able to. It was during the course of getting more levels to alleviate this situation when I discovered the content was lacking. I just could not find enough quests and new places to keep the game fun, so I ended up doing caravan missions and random wilderness encounters to gain levels.

Before anyone replies ardently to counter my points, I won't bother responding to you. I made another thread and am all too aware some posters don't register my complaints. Maybe I'm the only player who has these complaints?

 

[hiver]

Sadly, I don't have time to address that nonsense you call arguments and tear it apart word by word.

If you could we would have seen a single example of that long ago.
And if my arguments could be torn so easily i wouldnt be making them.
At this point i think you dont even understand what i am saying, and judging by your previous replies you will respond based on those misunderstandings and create more strawman arguments.


My very basic point is that 5% of game content, designed as sub-quests or auxiliary quick and easy content do not an cannot make an original Fallout game less of a Fallout game.
My point is that its all tolerable or excusable and doesnt ruin the whole at all. My point is that Fallout 1 had those same kinds of inconsistent smaller parts - although in lesser volume, which may not be so surprising when we think about how much smaller the first game was.
/and some of us still remember why the game was barely made and barely finished. Who had to beg to get it made and who had to beg to not have it canned while the genius producer was aiming for console market and embrace of Herve.

All my arguments have been based on that consistent logic core. Feel free to try and tear that apart.
(not that you will do that, you will come in and claim i was saying something entirely different)


If tomorrow someone makes a mod that removes those few character models, yakuzas random encounters around New Reno, replaced talking deathclaws with ordinary ones, the single ghost and few of the other things that you worked so hard to dig out but judged incorrectly, the 95% (or more) of the game would be completely the same and improvement on good stuff from the original.

And if i could make the true sequel i would consider Fallout 2 has taken that aspect and that angle of the game to the maximum, that it had its time in the sun. I would base the sequel on NCR and Brotherhood destroying each other and most of the west coast - all over again. Because war never changes.

And If there would be any group similar to NCR in my game they would be the villains the player would fight against and destroy or otherwise change. Which would not be the point of the story, but rather its support.

but it is still pretty remarkable and kind of mind-boggling

mind-boggling is the last thing anyone should call those options. Just shows you how far things have devolved when such stuff is - mind-boggling.

 

[belowmecoldhands]

Spoiler

Nevill said: Fallout 1 is a curious little game.

It was very interesting to discover that being taken prisoner in Necropolis and escorted to Lou wasn't the end of the game the walkthroughs made it sound to be, but a legitimate path you can explore. I was captured as a level 5 melee character with 53 HPs, and I found at least 3 (marginally) different ways to leave that place without relying on (hopeless) combat or reloads, some of them quite tricky as they relied on guards changing shifts. You don't find that level of reactivity even in most of today's games.

Excellent post, but this was the one thing that completely sold me on the game on my first playthrough. Awesome design.

The only problem is on what grounds would a player think that's a good choice? Taken prisoner? That's like being offered to be handcuffed and executed when the sun goes down? I know I wouldn't take it unless I wanted to work with the mutants. If that's the intent, fine, but if not then it's not really an option unless you have a means to escape at anytime beforehand.

I think a lot of times in FO1 I felt vulnerable and was very cautious about my choices regarding potential conversation paths. This is why I comment now. One important note is I don't "save scum" to learn about the game or gain benefits. I only reload a savegame if I died, and I never go into a situation with the intent of dying or gaining any benefits from it whatsoever.

I'll agree with his main point about the reactivity being nice.

I too was a bit dissilussioned when i first played Fallout but game quickly picks up in Junktown and gets better. The Glow and Cathedral are creepy as fuck. With all the flaws, and fact that you can complete game in one sitting it's still great atmosphere to experience.

Outside the negative replies I made, I agree it had a nice atmosphere. I WAS scared, somewhat. I never knew what was next. I don't think it's just hte msic or the colors. Game had already established things could be tough, so I expected something brutal. And yet the "atmospheriec" argument exists. The place had a definite feel which danger can't produce alone.

Spoiler

Seeing the corpses of some BOS members reinforced the whole "Leave while you still can! feeling.

My very basic point is that 5% of game content, designed as sub-quests or auxiliary quick and easy content do not an cannot make an original Fallout game less of a Fallout game.
........
All my arguments have been based on that consistent logic core. Feel free to try and tear that apart.
(not that you will do that, you will come in and claim i was saying something entirely different)
.......

I agree with you that some leeway in consistency is admissable. I mean, evne in our own world there're things which might defy explanation: ufos, ghosts, bermuda triangle, bigfoot, science results being misinterpreted, inertia, etc. Certainly, science has a good hold on local things in our universe, but if a game was modelled almost 100% on this world, it'd have to have some room for leniency just because not everyone can be on the same page. In fact, I'd argue some freedom would be MORE realistic!

 

[hiver]

I dont agree with that, nor did i say that some leeway in consistency is admissible. Those are not my exact words, or meaning. Because that's too generalistic of a rule. Anything could go under that umbrella of "leeway in consistency".

And as i said Fallout 2 pushed that to the maximum, which luckily didnt ruin the game by making it into wasteland 2 schlock or that shitstain bethesda made.
One: because most of that stuff could be excused or tolerated under the umbrella of fallout specific pop sci fi 50s setting. Two: it was all small sub quests, small inconsequential instances and easter eggs.