Jashin on 30/12/2009 at 17:39

---

The fallout setting is rife with possibilities and Bethesda did a reasonably good job, great job even, of translating it to 3D. Story-wise though it felt like a big tribute act to the original Fallout games, the dialogue is nothing special and sometimes downright infantisizing. But enough of it is its own creation and the familiarity certainly didn't hurt what is basically a franchise reboot.

Anyway I played FO3 a while back, played the addons (all pretty good except zeta, god I hate it), uninstalled, and now I'm itching to play it again. But I already know how I'd play it - the same basic way. Fallout 3 weighs its options in terms of "good" and "evil," and the game clearly rewards "good" much more and often over "evil." So not only would a regular gamer bloke choose "good," contrary to real life it's the easier path which makes the evil path a travesty by game logic.

I'm not surprised one bit by this, and I don't blame Bethesda for not "hitting the bullseye" dead center. I applaud them for having made a far better game than Oblivion (which itself is basically any old traditional by-the-book rpg in good-looking 3D graphics and good marketing). Given the option, they would've just remade Oblivion in a post-apocalyptic sheen, so already fan pressure got them to move beyond their comfort zone and forward, towards a certain illusive "emergent perfection" if you will (credit to Emil P of course). Anymore is unrealistic.

I think I've been wanting to get back into it not to play the game per se, but to breath the atmosphere and let my own imagination soar. The world after nuclear war can easily be the next massmarket cookiecutter setting after zombie apocalypse. Even better, cus with a little creativity it can be incredibly diverse narratively, and gameplay-wise.

I'm really looking forward to New Vagas. All the pieces are in place for Obsidian to flex their creative muscles more safely and freely than Bethesda could. At least in this one instance, it makes good economic sense now to make the best playing game possible, rather than just the best looking.

Jashin on 31/12/2009 at 09:23

---

That's what I meant by infantisizing. In a goddamned irradiated desert why would it pay to be good? Should you try to be balls out good there should more often than not be UGLY consequences waiting for you. It even has Jesus as a symbol for good, and yet where's my crucifixion? It should be a series of choices as least as tough as broken steel's all the way through the game with a few noticeable outcomes a la the Rentons of Deus Ex. That's the ideal anyway.

"To be fair" is in relation to the scope of the game - it's there, they hit their mark. Granted it's a farcry from the originals, but look at where the company was in the past. It's gone a few yards above and beyond Oblivion, and that good. In any case these days when a developer actually improves its craft instead of just pandering to the popular trends of gaming is good friggin news.

Jashin on 2/1/2010 at 02:57

---

FO3 is a farcry from the original Fallouts, but look at where Besthesda was in the past. FO3 is a gigantic leap forward for them from Oblivion.

T-Smith on 5/1/2010 at 08:22

---

I'm sure that I'm invoking untold hatred and wrath upon me saying this but -

I liked Fallout 3 better than Fallout 2.

There, I said it. Certainly 2 pulled off many things better than 3 every came close to. But in the end, I still ENJOYED 3 much more.

Aja on 7/1/2010 at 00:11

---

well grey and brown ARE the hardest colours to process simultaneously