5 ms·
Yes, but that's the problem, isn't it. Fallout 1 and 2 were master pieces precisely because they let you write your own story more or less. You could finish F
by BiteCode_dev 3y ago
Yes, but that's the problem, isn't it.
Fallout 1 and 2 were master pieces precisely because they let you write your own story more or less.
You could finish Fallout 1 without killing anybody, or massacre any young kids with a sadistic touch. You could go directly to the end game zone using stealth, or fast run to a ghoul infested city to save them for annihilation with the right timing. And when you succeeded in what you believed was your final mission, you were betrayed by your own family and discovered that's where the game really started! Hell, you could win the game by enrolling in the end boss team or convince him to suicide!
Bethesda's fallout is nothing like that, it's a vanilla yogurt. Fallout 3 is a disgrace of hidden linearity where children are immortal and the world is mostly static. Characters are Manichean and simplistic. The conclusion of the scenario falls so flat it's not even on the C major scale.
Writing a good Fallout is not following the game story, which is very vague, but rather embracing the twisted spirit, ludicrous humour and weird lore of the universe. If they go full "the boyz" + "z nation", amazon could pull it off. Not so much if they go "ring of power" + "the walking dead".
You cannot write a good fallout story with good vs bad characters.
- Justsignedup 3y agoThe reality is that fo 3/4 reached more people than 1/2 ever did. Hence the popularity. In any case... People need to write stories vs just rehashing all the ones we already got. I mean how many resident evil movies and shows are there? Far more than there should have been.
- Loughla 3y agoYeah but did 3/4 reach more people just because there are more gamers now? When fallout 1 came out, video game nerd was still a trope that existed.
- BiteCode_dev 3y agoAgreed, quality != success. After all, mass effect was a tremendous success because and most people playing it thought it was a fantastic RPG experience despite tunnel like gameplay, stolen storyline, blend characters and horrible UI. Halo was more emotionally engaging and it was bloody FPS! But they didn't know how incredibly deeper RPG were 10 years before it when it was a niche genre. Anything that is reaching mass adoption is at the risk of being a shadow of itself. Baldur's gate 3 is the delightful exception, not the rule.
- dingusdew 3y ago[dead]
- footlose_3815 3y agoDamn, someone didn’t like Little Lamplight, lol!
- BiteCode_dev 3y agoDamn right. Fallout 2 let you become a drug dealer, a porn star, enroll in a cult or trigger the end of the world, and they could only display 960x540 pixels. Fallout 3 lets you look at a mushroom cloud in HD from a distance with zero emotional impact, and call that being a bad boy because of all the anonymous zeros and ones you killed. Wasteland 2 was what fallout 3 should have been.
- orwin 3y agoNew Vegas was good though. And Fallout4 was lazy writing, but good ideas overall. And the best Bethseda DLC ever was Far Harbor, it isn't even close. To me it's the best DLC, or at least the content DLC that added the most interesting story to any game.
- arp242 3y agoThe first two are turn-based top-down RPGs, the rest first-person shooters. Just on account of that they're just completely different games.