Interplay: Bethesda Knew Fallout MMO Was More Than A Name

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]jmvanderleeuw[/nom]Fallout Tactics??? THAT is part of your "bar" of excellence???Dude, that game was a ripe p.o.s. Fallout1 and 2 were God's own gifts to gaming... but Tactics was a giant turd laid by the beasts of Satan. Fallout3 and NV were different, but all this crap that the"fallout purists" spew about them is just such pretentious claptrap. The games were good fun in the spirit of Fallout. Were they perfect? NO. Certainly not, but they were a blast to play and reminded me of the old days just enough to deserve the Fallout tag.[/citation]


I agree with everything you said, except Tactics I thought that was a decent game... But I am so sick of the "Purist" crapping on Fallout 3, and people who claim that game is a slap to the face of The Fallout Universe obviously never played Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel.
 
It's not about being a purist, I found Fallout 3 to be a sub par game. Much like Oblivion. It seems Bethesda has made a habit of making gorgeous but flat and boring games (all imho ofc).

And yes, Tactics was way better than FO3!

I really tried to like FO3 but again and again it disappointed me. 🙁 Might pick it up again and see if I can find what others like about it. But on the other hand, people liked Oblivion too... 😛
 

Anything spicific that you didnt like about Fallout 3? I found that game had more replay value than anything I had played for a long time.
 


I was colored because it felt like Oblivion with guns but there were other things with random spawns etc that were solved in the earlier games by you coming close to enemies but had the option of running away or engaging and that the scouting skill could give you a choice to not do an encounter etc.

I also enjoyed the particular bloody brutality of crits that I have yet to see in Fallout 3. Melting enemies with a plasma rifle was ever satisfying! 😉
 
[citation][nom]Enkal[/nom]It's not about being a purist, I found Fallout 3 to be a sub par game. Much like Oblivion. It seems Bethesda has made a habit of making gorgeous but flat and boring games (all imho ofc).And yes, Tactics was way better than FO3!I really tried to like FO3 but again and again it disappointed me. Might pick it up again and see if I can find what others like about it. But on the other hand, people liked Oblivion too...[/citation]

The more you speak, the more it is apparent that your opinion is based on Brand Loyalty, nothing more, nothing less. You talk about how Bethesda butchered the series, yet speak nothing of Interplays last offering to the series, and the true stinking pile of poo, Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel. Truthfully the only thing that Bethesda did to the series that changed it for the worse, was taking out the Survival/Scavenger aspect of a Post Apocalyptic Game. Instead of scrounging up things you found in your travels for Stimpak and Ammo you basically stumble over Med kits and Ammo Boxes every 15 feet in FO3, of course that happens in Tactics as well...

 
I get what Enkal is saying, I too prefer FO 1, 2 and Tatics was way better than FO3 if you really played it you will know. I mean, FO3 has superb music, awesome graphics, but theres so many things wrong with it like the 1.000.000 bugs in it, bad controls (for example even jumping can be a pain at some times for no reason) and one of the worst endings of all times, not mentioning the totally and uterly crap add ons (I hate FO3 and NV add ons so much). Now Oblivion is a total poo wrapped in gold, I tried to play but it is soooooooooooo bad that I really couldnt other than to test my rig at the time, its one of the worst boring pieces of crap that I ever played RPG wise, but good graphics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.