Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Fallout Underwhelmed by Fallout :(

FeelTheRads

Arcane
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
13,716
NMA is full of Bethesda apologists now.

A fate worse than death.

NMA was fucked the moment Roshambo was gone. Then the rats came out of the woodwork.
 

Crevice tab

Savant
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
224
It's true that Bethesda doesn't care for SJW shit. However their writing is very bad. Oblivion, Fallout 3 and Skyrim are bland, uninteresting worlds filled with throwaway NPC drivel and really shitty story arc. Bethesda is the classic example of "programmer-written dialogue".
In the end, neither company produces anything even remotely interesting from storyfag point of view.

Don't get me wrong I'm not defending Bethesda's more recent works (Morrowind and Daggerfall have good writing overall but Oblivion is boring and banal and Skyrim's improvements barely get the game into mostly decent). It's just that with the exception of Fallout 3 (where their writers failed an Int check badly and couldn't for some weird reason grasp the difference in style between Fallout 1 and Fallout 2) Bethesda's objectively mediocre writing looks like a big name classic when compared to Bioware's 'works'. I still can't manage to figure out how they're doing it- several times the content is so retarded it's almost as if the devs are trolling.
Same did PS:T... :smug:
Bioware's problem isn't their formula, it's the excecution.
And do you honestly believe that DA:O,DA2,and DA:I are storyfag games? No storyfag would bother with them any more that he would be bothered with Skyrim.

This^.

Bioware has managed to stumble upon some very interesting plot points. Their problem is that the execution is beyond execrable. I don't know how their writers manage to make a 'clash of cultures' type plot look like a banal, boring, shit sidequest.

Nah, that's how it always goes. You make Fallout from a remarkable game that it is, despite all the evidence, into something unremarkable. Not shit, just unremarkable.

Focusing on a few flaws instead of the gross overwhelming total of what the game did RIGHT, and instead of respecting just how rarely a game does that, this retarded attitude, when goes on unchecked, is a sign of mental decline of the forum.

NMA is full of Bethesda apologists now. These forums are pending the same fate, it appears. New blood is stupid, and old blood is getting senile.

Decline, decline never changes!
 

Volrath

Arcane
Patron
Joined
May 21, 2007
Messages
4,297
I never even registered on that joke of a website :lol:

Real men visited DAC anyway.
 

Zombra

An iron rock in the river of blood and evil
Patron
Joined
Jan 12, 2004
Messages
11,539
Location
Black Goat Woods !@#*%&^
Make the Codex Great Again! RPG Wokedex Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut Codex+ Now Streaming! Serpent in the Staglands Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
I feel that this is a playing ground of storyfags. I personally love both Fallouts and they're on my top of ''teh bestest ar-pee-geez'', it's just that i can't stand pretentious idiot analysts is why i'm posting here.
Storyfagism is what brought bioware to us so i will never reconcile with it. You motherfuckers should die in great pain.
If setting and story don't matter, you should have said that in the first place instead of trying to defend Fallout 2's.

So, what is more important? Consistency to an arbitrary setting or being a good game gameplay wise?
Which is better, ice cream or steak? Stupid question.

The fact is that Fallout 2's setting is inconsistent and somewhat ruinous of the aesthetic established in the first game. Whether the gameplay is better or not doesn't change that fact.

Now again, if you don't care about setting, then just concede the point that Fallout 2 fucked up the setting and everyone wins.
 
Self-Ejected

IncendiaryDevice

Self-Ejected
Village Idiot
Joined
Nov 3, 2014
Messages
7,407
Alien vs Aliens
Terminator vs T2
Godfather vs Godfather 2
Batman Begins vs The Dark Knight
Superman vs Superman 2

It's the same arguments here that you will find on any franchise (used film for recognition ease) where the sequel becomes more popular while still maintaining the satisfaction of the original product's fans.

The first is always somewhat barebones by comparison, but strong on specific atmosphere and character development, where as the sequel is always louder, longer, more of everything, but loses a bit of that core atmosphere. The original is always more 'core' whereas the sequel is more 'entertaining'.
 

Crevice tab

Savant
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
224
The first is always somewhat barebones by comparison, but strong on specific atmosphere and character development, where as the sequel is always louder, longer, more of everything, but loses a bit of that core atmosphere. The original is always more 'core' whereas the sequel is more 'entertaining'.

Nah. Fallout 2's story and setting was very differently thought out compared to Fallout 1. Far less serious, a lot more irony and crazy stuff- it was supposed to touch and make fun of all that crazy stuff that reared its head in 50s and 60s American culture. As a parody it wasn't all that good to be honest: they just didn't go coherent enough, crazy enough and their writing just wasn't good enough for it to work. The end result: a rather meh story and setting compared to Fallout 1.
 
Self-Ejected

Lurker King

Self-Ejected
The Real Fanboy
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
1,865,419
Fallout hit me in a lot the same way as Baldur's Gate did. At the time, there had been no other game quite like it, only a distant prequel or ancestor that never quite handled the genre like it did. Fallout burst onto the scene with a legit post-apocalyptic setting, in isometric, 3D graphics, and it wasn't just some gimmicky little vault sim or something. It was a full world. All there to explore and to get radiated in.

Baldur's Gate came in and brought before my eyes the first real simulation of playing D&D on my computer. Sure,there were the Gold Box games, and those were great (I played every one of them), but BG promised to deliver more. It had more freedom. It allowed for so many more choices.

These games just weren't that great; we have to admit that. The writing was p. bad at times. There were plenty of holes. Both of them could have sat and baked for another year at least to have fleshed them out more. But I still loved them. Fallout in particular blew my mind because it just seemed like a post-apoc RPG for grownups. I know that sounds stilly but even the manual made me want to eat the thing in huge bites. It was all-consuming in its stark atmosphere and it'll always be one of my favorite RPG's of all time.

Radiated warts and all.

Some people don’t appreciate what the word “classic” means. A game, like a movie, can be a classic for a variety of reasons that involve things that are completely outside its content. Things that are extrinsic and contingent like innovation in its time, influence on the industry, etc. Of course, BG and FO have problems, but they push the boundaries of cRPGs and put the category into another level. One of the reasons of why we can appreciate their flaws is because we are older now and more demanding, sure, but the main reason is that we are expect more from game writing after FO and more from gameplay after BG. To play FO like a causal RPG today is like trying to watch the “The Seventh Seal” as a family movie: you will not appreciate half of its value. What is disturbing is not that highly praised games such as FO and BG have their flaws, but that after almost two decades later we have so few games worth of notice in terms of writing and gameplay.
 

janjetina

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
14,231
Location
Zagreb, Croatia
Torment: Tides of Numenera
These games just weren't that great; we have to admit that. The writing was p. bad at times. There were plenty of holes. Both of them could have sat and baked for another year at least to have fleshed them out more

When a statement like this pops up, the natural question to ask is "compared to what?". Is there such thing as a "great RPG"? If the bar that Fallout set is objectively low, why haven't there been more than a few (or any at all, according to numerous opinions) RPGs in the past 17 years that have cleared it? Is it the fact that RPG as a genre is 'just not that great' by default? What about the computer games as a whole?
 

Infinitron

I post news
Staff Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
97,236
Codex Year of the Donut Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
When a statement like this pops up, the natural question to ask is "compared to what?".

A few people have brought this up, but roshan actually mentioned a couple of examples. Fallout 2, Planescape: Torment. There you go.
 
Self-Ejected

Lurker King

Self-Ejected
The Real Fanboy
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
1,865,419
That abundance of silliness sort of undermines the setting which doesn't feel as coherent, Fallout 2 could have expanded upon the original without the inclusion of fedora wearing gangsters, aliens, ghosts, San Francisco (mostly everything in it) and similar stuff. While it certainly has a number of advantages over the first one (the amount of quality content, C&C, faction play between towns, much better follower system etc.), it's quite worse in regards to atmosphere and setting consistency.

Which just shows how much Wasteland silliness influenced the setting.
 
In My Safe Space
Joined
Dec 11, 2009
Messages
21,899
Codex 2012
A few people have brought this up, but roshan actually mentioned a couple of examples. Fallout 2, Planescape: Torment. There you go.
Planescape: Torment is a completely different game type (it's a linear storyfag game) and Fallout 2 came at price of breaking the setting, adding munchkinfesting, the unskippable Temple of Trials, removing polish like descriptions of objects (so much things are "nothing out of ordinary" in Fo2) and ask about button and failed to fix the problems with the combat system. Oh an managed to make bugs even worse.
 
Last edited:
Self-Ejected

Lurker King

Self-Ejected
The Real Fanboy
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
1,865,419
But now, today, if you go back and scrutinize the game, which is not a good idea if you truly value those memories, you do come to realize that a lot of what OP is stating is true. There are a lot of blank spots. Lots more detail and filler could have been added to the game. Would that have made it "better"? It's actually irrelevant, because RPG's were just not that "complete" back then. Part of Fallout's charm was its... emptiness.

You are kidding, right? The only thing that improved over the years were the players themselves, who become more mature, knowledgeable and demanding. To make things worse, most games that came afterwards are pale and superficial in comparison to FO, which just increase the awful felling of decline of the more mature players, that pessimist impression that an entire culture is dying. I look back and my memories are filled with so much blank space in the interval of great games, games that became more and more sparse, almost dripping over the years. And I'm not even a veteran like VD. It must be awful being him.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Basically, that fits all your responses after. F2 sucks because it isn't a carbon copy of F1.
Good to have this off our collective chests.

F2 is a much better game and it's ''deviation'' from the first one doesn't influence the gameplay in any bad manner.
You argue like those Bethesda fans who were under the impression that all the Fallout fans wanted was a carbon copy of Fallout.

First, F2 doesn't suck, it's a good and well designed game. Its setting is its weakest aspect because it's neither consistent nor coherent (aka the theme park). Second, the issue isn't that it failed to copy F1, but because it significantly deviates from the tone and themes sets by the first game, unless you have no problem with ghosts, talking animals, yakuza, scientologists, gangsters from the 30s, who are just the tip of the iceberg.

As I've been saying all along this dispute is between people who give a fuck about the setting and people who don't. You admitted yourself that you don't, yet you keep arguing because you dislike the very idea of someone giving a fuck about the setting.

So, what is more important? Consistency to an arbitrary setting or being a good game gameplay wise?
Good gameplay is more important, which doesn't mean that consistency to an arbitrary setting setting established by the first game isn't. It's not like we have to choose between them.

I feel that this is a playing ground of storyfags. ... Storyfagism is what brought bioware to us so i will never reconcile with it. You motherfuckers should die in great pain.
So stories are bad because Bioware is in the business of making shitty stories? +M
 

ZagorTeNej

Arcane
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
1,980
Which just shows how much Wasteland silliness influenced the setting.

Problem is, Fallout 2 came after Fallout which had a different tone. Also, crazy stuff is just better done in some games, Wasteland still had a better (and weirder/darker) atmosphere for me on the whole.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Second game did follow the tone and the theme as best as it could for a game that happens later in time then the first. For most of its content.
Clearly, quite a few people here don't think they did a good job following it as "best as they could".

I think they moved the game 80 years into the future to distance from the tone/theme of the first game, but instead of doing logical shit, they treated it as anything goes. They really should have set the game on the other coast to show different post-war communities.

There is that list of locations that you avoid...
First, I said enough, explaining why places like NCR, Reno, Enclave don't fit the '160 years since the war' Fallout setting. So far you've dismissed all my arguments, yet keep asking for more. As been pointed out by others, you don't argue in 'good faith'. You aren't having a debate, you're fighting a holy war, eradicating heresy.
 
Self-Ejected

Lurker King

Self-Ejected
The Real Fanboy
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
1,865,419
Problem with the FO2 haters is that you tell them you want more quest density and they interpret that in the worst possible way. "You want boring filler content! You want gangsters with fedoras and scientologists! YOU DECLINER!!".

Some players are fans of FO precisely because they enjoy a more down to earth and mature setting. These fans would see all the crazy stuff of FO2 not just as a wasted opportunity to improve the previous game, but also as stupid (almost sacrilegious) decision. These FO fans enjoy a little humor, but want a more serious approach overall, the rest of the players are more flexible. Hell, I can even bet that if you take a quick look at posts criticizing DO writing, you will find many FO serious-type of dudes. I know because I’m one of them.
 

valcik

Arcane
Joined
Jan 18, 2013
Messages
1,864,690
Location
SVK
NMA is full of Bethesda apologists now. These forums are pending the same fate, it appears.
FLAME ON:
Which is not a bad thing IMO, as long as there are some old-timers willing to step in and correct those newfags in a civilized manner. I'm all for such healthy plurality in opinions, otherwise it would be nothing else than boring circlejerk. NMA is still the best place for people interested in BIS Fallout modding - great source of tools, documentation and such.
FLAME OFF
 

hiver

Guest
yes of course i am the one radiating chernobyl levels of butthurt itt
You certainly are. Look at all that faggot cowardly screaming you did in that thread in site feedback - after i was prevented to post and answer. And you are continuing with it now. Look, i admit my reaction to your silly statements about Neuromancer of all books was overblown, but your statements were ridiculous and overblown too. Feel better now?


Some people don’t appreciate what the word “classic” means.
+
Fallout have mongoloid stuff right at the beginning of the game, but it is a classic.

= Appreciation of classics.



Clearly, quite a few people here don't think they did a good job following it as "best as they could".
Opinions and assholes. Calling for popularity vote now?

A Bandwagon fallacy. And appeal to popularity.


I think they moved the game 80 years into the future to distance from the tone/theme of the first game, but instead of doing logical shit, they treated it as anything goes.
This is nothing but another blatantly idiotic strawman. And obvious reducto ad absurdium fallacy. And a non sequitur.

If anything goes was the rule then it really would not be a Fallout game. Thats what bethesda did with their spinoff.


They really should have set the game on the other coast to show different post-war communities.
You are mixing things up gramps, maybe you should go back writing how awesome w2 is. Im sure Fargo will mention you in a tweet someday. (arguing in good faith you say?)

Thats also a False analogy fallacy btw.



First, I said enough, explaining why places like NCR, Reno, Enclave don't fit the '160 years since the war' Fallout setting.
So what? Just because you say something it automatically becomes true?

thats Tautology fallacy.

besides... are you saying that you accept the fact postulated by Fallout 2 that 160 years have passed... but you dont accept that game as a Fallout game?




Anyway, we have been over each of those details.

NCR: after so much time passed, in circumstances where a great threat of Master was removed, it would be natural for several communities in that area to try and band together. The problem with NCR was in that was shown as a force of good, and that the text descriptions of it were mentioning too large numbers of people... which is inconsequential detail only a cretin would get hanged up upon. Especially considering that any real Fallout 3 could have easily removed all that.

Reno: is an obvious expansion of Maltese Falcon organized crime place. The gangsters with fedoras are just a few inconsequential thugs character models that are in no way actual 20s something gangsters. There was about 5...or 6 of them in whole city... right? Or was it even less? And they played no important role whatsoever. Furthermore you could find those few irrelevant character models only with two of the FOUR families in the city. And if you can take that to mean the whole location is thematically inconsistent with fallout then you are a bloody imbecile.

- additionally, in F1 we have a fucking Thieves GUILD, and that doenst bother you. It doesnt bother me personally at all because as ridiculous as the idea of a fucking thieves GUILD in Fallout universe is i consider it a minor bad but inconsequential detail in the whole of the game. Which means i have one set of standards and you have fake double standards.

San Fran: It may be not too entertaining or the BEST POSSIBLE of a location, but Chinese are a part of Fallout lore and Chinese do in fact have different martial arts generally called "kung fu" in the western and US culture. It isnt far fetched to imagine that a crew of Chinese submarine ("On the shore" PA staple) were trained in martial arts, which was later maintained in order to facilitate survival in PA wasteland. Additionally of course, the game has Hand to Hand combat as one of its major skills and in Hand to Hand combat martial arts are the peak of such capabilities.

Enclave completely fits with themes of Fallout and PA setting, as was previously explained. Since the game is not completely realistic the meager number of years that have passed doesnt mean much of anything in this case and can be easily explained or excused precisely because of the nature of the setting - which is not completely realistic. I already told you a few times that having a "president" doesnt really mean he is an actual president, nor that it was an actual government of US, since the lore clearly states that the Enclave was a rogue organization inside former US.

160 years from whatever - doesnt have the same realistic connotations in Fallout as it does in our reality.
Mindblowing yeah?


Why am i writing this again? Cant you click back button?

Or you just cant admit any of that simply because then your position will fall down like a house of cards?

So you go for Circular logic fallacy.



So far you've dismissed all my arguments, yet keep asking for more.
No, im asking you to prove any of your stupid assertions with anything but just saying "it is so because i say it is so" while so conspicuously avoiding to address any simple logical argument that you cannot refute.
I gave enough real counter arguments to dismantle those overblown assertions you made. And i argued very specifically that what amounts to 5% of the game content - at best - cannot make the whole game something else then what it is.

I can agree that for example (and i already said this several times over but you are just too selfabsorbed to admit even that) - several of those minor elements were not the best choices to make - but it doesnt really make those whole locations inconsistent with Fallout lore or themes.

You are just someone who got too emotionally engaged with a few additional minor details which can all be understandable, excusable or tolerable - that make up for 5% of the game content at best - and you proclaimed the game "not fallout and same as bethesda shit" because you are a cheap asshole. And thats a fact.


The only thing you keep doing is stupidly trying to avoid even addressing that by flinging more stupid strawmans and apparently trying to use every known logical fallacy there is.



As been pointed out by others, you don't argue in 'good faith'.
If me and you were talking in rl and you told me i was the same as a fan of bethesda vomit, you would wake up in a hospital. What fucking good faith would you expect in return for such "good faith"?
This is just another blatant false strawman argument you make to avoid addressing anything that doesnt fit with your fallacious proclamations, while it is you who is literally and blatantly not arguing in any good faith.


You aren't having a debate, you're fighting a holy war, eradicating heresy.
No shit? And thats true because you just said it? :lol:

Having a debate is only when you get to proclaim whatever stupid shit you want and everyone agrees with you?

:nocountryforshitposters:


Oh and that laughable shit of:
As I've been saying all along this dispute is between people who give a fuck about the setting and people who don't.

thats nothing but a No True Scotsman fallacy.


:excellent: :hero: :killit:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
A Bandwagon fallacy. And appeal to popularity. ... This is nothing but another blatantly idiotic strawman. And obvious reducto ad absurdium fallacy. And a non sequitur. ... Thats also a False analogy fallacy btw... thats Tautology fallacy. ... So you go for Circular logic fallacy. .. The only thing you keep doing is stupidly trying to avoid even addressing that by flinging more stupid strawmans and apparently trying to use every known logical fallacy there is. ...This is just another blatant false strawman argument you make to avoid addressing anything that doesnt fit with your idiotic proclamations, while it is literally you who is literally and blatantly not arguing in any good faith... thats nothing but a No True Scotsman fallacy.
:kingcomrade:
 

Gnidrologist

CONDUCTOR
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
20,856
Location
is cold
Second, the issue isn't that it failed to copy F1, but because it significantly deviates from the tone and themes sets by the first game, unless you have no problem with ghosts, talking animals, yakuza, scientologists, gangsters from the 30s, who are just the tip of the iceberg.
I have also a problem with super orcs, living undead that feed on radiation, Robin Hood guy in a desperate post-apo setting, ''followers of apocalypse'' which is plain weird stupid shit in my eye and some other things, but i didn't complain. Untill.. Until i saw threads like this on interderps. People complaining about F2 silliness, while ignoring huge derpness of the first game.
As a parody it wasn't all that good to be honest: they just didn't go coherent enough, crazy enough and their writing just wasn't good enough for it to work. The end result: a rather meh story and setting compared to Fallout 1.
The writing in F2 is miles better than F1 and what is that ''story'' of F1? Indulge us and tell about it. All i remember was '''there's some mutants running around ------> find random military facility and kill crazy half flesh/half machine dude ---> end of story.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom