Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

It was mentioned recently that these games (specifically FO3) be talked about and with the announcement of Fallout 4 (and a release date of November 10th, 2015 as of today!), I figured what better time?

Here's a good link to FO4 news and video:

http://kotaku.com/bethesda-closed-their-e3...oday-1711315740

I'm pretty stoked about the new game coming out this year, I don't think anyone expected it before the new year so its a pretty big surprise.

But what are people's opinions of the games in the series? I've played all of the main series, meaning 1, 2, 3 and NV.

I have trouble choosing a favorite. On one hand I love the humor in Fallout 2, and actually enjoy the grid battle/isometric view system. But it did lose me toward the end, story-wise. Overall a great game that deals with a lot of race/class issues, with a great direct-continuation storyline.

On the other hand, I love me some FO3/F:NV. But these are brilliantly flawed games.

First of all, FO3 gets a lot of the lore or, Fallout canon, wrong. The origin of Super Mutants, BoS and continuity issues that conflict with Fallout 1 and 2. I love the battle system, though wish that the 3rd person view was a better option. VATS is a great carryover, or successor, to the isometric style. It is also a graphical mess, and an historically glitch filled game. The main storyline is a drag and the ending kind of comes out of nowhere, but overall its a fun game. Who wouldn't want to explore a decimated-by-nuclear bombs Washington, D.C.?

More recent defense of a lot of FO3's storyline errors was that it was simply meant to act as a reintroduction to the series, that was more a mish-mash of everything to get newer fans into the series and used to the characters, locales and factions.

F:NV. Oh, how I've spent many an hour on thee. Here is a game that gets a lot right, the setting (American Southwest IS Fallout), the weapons, the Hardcore mode, the storyline, even some of the humor is back...but there is something just "lacking" about the game. It has the local fame/faction fame mechanic back, better storyline, more interesting characters...but the game kind of lacks a soul. It looks like Fallout...but it doesn't always feel like it.

What I like best about what I have seen of Fallout 4 is that it literally looks like the first 2 entries in the series. It seems to have that caricature type of look to it, whereas FO3 and F:NV tried to be photo-realistic a little too much and lost a lot of charm because of it. FO4, so far, looks slightly "cartoonish" which is what a Fallout game should be, since they were originally full of a sick, subtle, dark humor and an almost cartoonish premise, so to say. Either way I'm sure I will enjoy it if it plays anything like the last 2 but overall I expect a slightly more camp experience in terms of story and characters.

Let's keep this thread open to discussion and experiences with the Fallout games.

This post has been edited by Dynamic Threads on 15th June 2015 20:35

--------------------

Dynamic Threads (Youtube)

I genuinely cannot wait for this; and as you say, the fact that it's arriving before Xmas is insane - I figured we'd be waiting til next spring at least. I've already got my Pip-Boy edition on pre-order...

As for the series in general, my favourite is hands-down New Vegas. I came in to the series at Fallout 3, and hit NV after that. I got hold of 1 & 2 on PC, but sadly haven't really got into them properly - partly because of the isometrics, but more because I just don't tend to game on PC.

I agree that both modern games are glitch-filled - and the deeper you play (and larger the save file gets), the more the system struggles; which is a shame, but completely understandable given the complexity. The morality choices got better as the games went on, and whilst the end of NV really only gave you four very linear options, it's a far cry from Mass Effect 3!

For F4, I've gotta be honest in that I'd prefer it if they stuck to the more 'gritty' route, graphically. I adored NV, and I'm not sure what you're getting at with the 'lacking' element; but maybe I've just not clicked to it. The concern for me is that Obsidian aren't developing F4, which implies we're going to get a game more akin to F3 than F:NV. As with your comments on the lore/canon, that worries me. I felt the story was so much stronger in NV, as well as kicking back to canon in a stronger way. I'd be a lot happier knowing Avellone was on board, and hope that F4 follows the canon of 1, 2, and NV better - but knowing that it will link to 3 more is a concern.

--------------------

We apologise for the inconvenience

Quote (Stiltzkin @ 21st June 2015 06:58)

I genuinely cannot wait for this; and as you say, the fact that it's arriving before Xmas is insane - I figured we'd be waiting til next spring at least. I've already got my Pip-Boy edition on pre-order...

As for the series in general, my favourite is hands-down New Vegas. I came in to the series at Fallout 3, and hit NV after that. I got hold of 1 & 2 on PC, but sadly haven't really got into them properly - partly because of the isometrics, but more because I just don't tend to game on PC.

I agree that both modern games are glitch-filled - and the deeper you play (and larger the save file gets), the more the system struggles; which is a shame, but completely understandable given the complexity. The morality choices got better as the games went on, and whilst the end of NV really only gave you four very linear options, it's a far cry from Mass Effect 3!

For F4, I've gotta be honest in that I'd prefer it if they stuck to the more 'gritty' route, graphically. I adored NV, and I'm not sure what you're getting at with the 'lacking' element; but maybe I've just not clicked to it. The concern for me is that Obsidian aren't developing F4, which implies we're going to get a game more akin to F3 than F:NV. As with your comments on the lore/canon, that worries me. I felt the story was so much stronger in NV, as well as kicking back to canon in a stronger way. I'd be a lot happier knowing Avellone was on board, and hope that F4 follows the canon of 1, 2, and NV better - but knowing that it will link to 3 more is a concern.

Go and play through Fallout 2 and then you might understand what I mean about Fallout: NV "lacking" something slightly. There is just something off about the game and I can't quite put my finger on it, but the expansions, most notably Honest Hearts, the Lonesome Road and the Sierra Madre expansion (what was it called again? lol) really helped to fill that 'void' the game seemed to have.

FO:2 especially has a very sick sense of humor to it, some wonderful references to cult movies and a very 'adult' themed game. There was infanticide, prostitution, drugs and I'm well aware that those are (almost) all present in NV again, it just felt less 'dirty' to do them, though maybe it is my numbed mind from a society that depicts graphic imagery constantly in the media and arts. It also dealt with issues of class, race and prejudice better.

I love New Vegas, but I played the hell out of Fallout 2, though it was after Fallout 3, which was my introduction to the series. I honestly think Fallout 2 is the best in the series, so far. And once you get into the game a few hours, you learn to like the isometric battle grid. I just found New Reno, San Francisco and the Big Circle the be more interesting than Las Vegas, although the Capital Wasteland is by far my favorite environment.

FO:2 had the best supporting cast of characters and best companions. YOU GET AN INTELLIGENT, ABLE TO SPEAK DEATHCLAW. Beyond cool. And the 'lore' really fleshes out. The F.E.V. virus, the wonder of the G.E.C.K. was all just done better in Fallout 2.

My main problem with Fallout: New Vegas was that every time it felt like there was going to be a climax to a story arc or quest it just kind of ended flat and nothing seemed to influence the epilogue of the story aside from the factions and your reputation, you could literally just kill everyone and take over the Dam and it just felt kind of cheap to me, in the end. The Strip itself was terribly disappointing and the lack of even 1 Elvis song in a game where one of the main factions is a school of Elvis impersonators is inexcusable, as well as the rest of the very small amount of songs that played over the radio; compared to FO;3's Three Dog, New Vegas's radio was embarrassing.

I also share concerns about FO4 being more of a sequel to FO3, or a direct continuation of the story and events that took place in FO3. I also don't like the east coast setting as much as the west coast setting, I guess 'wasteland' to me seems more appropriate in a desert-type setting but again, I really loved the Capital Wasteland in the end, I felt it was the best geographic setting in the series, very closely edging out FO2.

I also loathe Boston as a setting for the game, and I don't like the almost Patriotic theme that looms over FO3 and seems to be the case for FO4. NV did a much better job at painting a picture of how corrupt and insane our governments were at the outbreak of the great war and carried the torch from the first two games. FO3 seemed like it was worshiping American culture and lore at some point, which really didn't sit well with me.

I might be a little biased here (I'm from Western New York State), but I think the best setting for the game would have been the Niagara Falls region, if they were going to set it on the east coast. I heard rumors of San Fransisco, Chicago, Houston, England, Russia and China as possible settings and would have cautiously welcomed the move into other countries, but am ultimately glad they chose to stay in the U.S.A.

But here me out. Boston might be an historic city with a lot of government and politics present, so it does make for a more interesting setting politically, and as a follow-up to FO3 if that's what they are doing (which seems like the case) but the Niagara Falls region, specifically the Falls itself, but also Grand Island, the American and Canadian cities of Niagara Falls, Southern Toronto, and Nothern Buffalo would have made for a fantastic setting. Afterall, the US annexing Canada is a huge part of the Fallout story and these are perfect border towns to flesh out an untouched part of the lore. I'm not sure the size and scale of this region would be attainable, but the current Gen of consoles seems to have amazing world size potential, even Bethesda says FO4 is massive and the most immersive world in a game yet but also games like No Man's Sky are showing just how massive the worlds of next gen games have become.

I just think that going from a game that focused on the importance of the Hoover Dam to its region to a game set in Boston is an incredible miss on the developer's part. Had you gone from the Hoover Dam, and the struggle for the control of it, to Niagara Falls and the power generator and the struggle for control of it, as well as having Old Fort Niagara, a rich military history and a very large Air Force presence from both Canada and the United States in the region would have been a far more logical and an ultimately better setting for story and logic. It just makes sense that Niagara Falls would be highly coveted in a post-apocalyptic world. It is also both architecturally (wonderful Art Deco and Victorian style architecture, dozens of large bridges, highway systems, albeit nuked, hah) and geographically interesting; the Niagara escarpment, numerous rivers and lakes, forests and mountains and predominant seasons. Snow, rain, summer, fall, etc... The region was also a huge part of the underground railroad system, and with slavery being a central theme to the Fallout lore, and there being numerous passageways and canals...A huge miss...IMO.

Here's hoping the very very skeptical rumor I heard (I'm not even sure from who or where) of them having considered it (Niagara Falls) for the setting of the game, or a possible expansion pack (and I'm not holding my breath for a NV type follow up called something like Fallout: The Niagara Frontier) hold true.

This post has been edited by Dynamic Threads on 22nd June 2015 02:05

--------------------

Dynamic Threads (Youtube)

I own Fallout NV on both the PC and the PS3. They Skyrim glitch you all might be aware of is also present on the Fallout NV save file.

After awhile it becomes almost impossible to play. I've owned two major PC gaming rigs since these two games came out my newest one has trouble playing Fallout New Vegas thus I've never been able to complete it.

--------------------

His Divine Shadow

Got Lexx?

Click to vist FFF.

Quote (His Shadow @ 13th October 2015 20:28)

I own Fallout NV on both the PC and the PS3. They Skyrim glitch you all might be aware of is also present on the Fallout NV save file.

After awhile it becomes almost impossible to play. I've owned two major PC gaming rigs since these two games came out my newest one has trouble playing Fallout New Vegas thus I've never been able to complete it.

Dude, I had about 100 hours into New Vegas on my PS3, and didn't notice the epic slowdown because I had been running through all of the add-ons. So when I completed the Lonesome Road and got back to the wasteland finally, it became unplayable. So I also have not finished NV. In fact, I was forced to watch the ending I might have gotten on youtube.

Inexcusable. So is it Bethesda's (or Obsidian?) fault or Sony's for only dedicating so much system RAM to the game's graphics? Everything I've read says the XBox360 users didn't encounter this problem, so I lean toward Sony but the glitches and bugs present in ALL of Bethesda's games are unacceptable.

I fully expect FO4 to be a hot mess when it launches.

--------------------

Dynamic Threads (Youtube)