2 ms·

> All the isometric RPGs are very linear. You do act 1, then act 2, then act 3, etc.. What varies is how you complete them. You can finish Fallout 1 in less th

> All the isometric RPGs are very linear. You do act 1, then act 2, then act 3, etc.. What varies is how you complete them. You can finish Fallout 1 in less than 5 minutes, skipping essentially all of the act [1], so not necessarily that linear. But even if we discount this specific case, isometric RPGs are not that different from Bethesda style RPGs in structure, it is that the latter have very different budget and have a huge amount of side quests. That said, OP was speaking specifically of Fallout 3, and compared to the following titles, I find it was quite more constrained... lot of time spent in tunnels, areas that were off limits until you could cross a certain metro... Fallout NV and Fallout 4 feel more in line with the original games. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3Loo56_HX0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3Loo56_HX0

orwin 2y ago
Yes, Fallout4 get a bad name because it followed the New Vegas masterclass, but it is truly one of the best Fallout, and the Far Harbour DLC is in my eyes the best atmosphere of any Fallout game i've played (never played Fallout 1 though). Fallout3 is pretty bad though.
- somenameforme 2y ago
  The reason Fallout 4 gets a bad name is similar to the reason that Microsoft's take on Shadowrun did. You're taking an extremely iconic RPG title and turning it into a shooter. The reason companies do this is because shooters sell best on consoles, but it doesn't make any sense - you end up with a game that's 'too shootery' for Fallout fans, and 'too RPGy' for Call of Duty fans. Fallout 3 was already in a bit of a grey zone here, but Fallout 4 went well beyond the pale. I'm a huge fan of the series but could never bring myself to play Fallout 4 because of this reason. It just 'feels' wrong, even if it actually is a perfectly enjoyable game. Kind of like I wouldn't want to play a Call of Duty RPG. Actually that might be kind of neat lol. I guess it's just because I'm more into RPGs than shooters!
  - mattmanser 2y ago
    But you're in a tiny minority. It's actually viewed as one of the best games of it's time. You get that right? Can you acknowledge that both Fallout 3 and Fallout 4 would BOTH be chosen as some of the greatest video games of the last 2 decades? Unlike, say FO76 or Starfield? I just don't understand the tiny, yet extremely vocal, set of Bathesda haters who constantly whine on about Gamebryo or 'real' fallout. If it's so bloody good, why was Wasteland 3 fairly meh. There's your 'old' fallout. It was a mid-level hit. Entertaining, but not an all time great. If Bathesda is so bad at writing RPGs and Obsidian are so much better, why is Outer Worlds so utterly underwhelming and boring. Like the actual evidence and reality is in front of your face. Making a great game is hard. Bathesda have done it multiple times. And Fallout 3 + 4 are somevof those great games. If you don't like what they did with the fallout IP, just remember, you could have got another fallout brotherhood of steel.
- tmtvl 2y ago
  Ah, Fallout 4, the only game I ever got a Steam refund for. Bethesda writing is so bad it's hard to believe their writers are actually literate.

orwin 2y ago

Yes, Fallout4 get a bad name because it followed the New Vegas masterclass, but it is truly one of the best Fallout, and the Far Harbour DLC is in my eyes the best atmosphere of any Fallout game i've played (never played Fallout 1 though). Fallout3 is pretty bad though.

somenameforme 2y ago
The reason Fallout 4 gets a bad name is similar to the reason that Microsoft's take on Shadowrun did. You're taking an extremely iconic RPG title and turning it into a shooter. The reason companies do this is because shooters sell best on consoles, but it doesn't make any sense - you end up with a game that's 'too shootery' for Fallout fans, and 'too RPGy' for Call of Duty fans. Fallout 3 was already in a bit of a grey zone here, but Fallout 4 went well beyond the pale. I'm a huge fan of the series but could never bring myself to play Fallout 4 because of this reason. It just 'feels' wrong, even if it actually is a perfectly enjoyable game. Kind of like I wouldn't want to play a Call of Duty RPG. Actually that might be kind of neat lol. I guess it's just because I'm more into RPGs than shooters!
- mattmanser 2y ago
  But you're in a tiny minority. It's actually viewed as one of the best games of it's time. You get that right? Can you acknowledge that both Fallout 3 and Fallout 4 would BOTH be chosen as some of the greatest video games of the last 2 decades? Unlike, say FO76 or Starfield? I just don't understand the tiny, yet extremely vocal, set of Bathesda haters who constantly whine on about Gamebryo or 'real' fallout. If it's so bloody good, why was Wasteland 3 fairly meh. There's your 'old' fallout. It was a mid-level hit. Entertaining, but not an all time great. If Bathesda is so bad at writing RPGs and Obsidian are so much better, why is Outer Worlds so utterly underwhelming and boring. Like the actual evidence and reality is in front of your face. Making a great game is hard. Bathesda have done it multiple times. And Fallout 3 + 4 are somevof those great games. If you don't like what they did with the fallout IP, just remember, you could have got another fallout brotherhood of steel.
tmtvl 2y ago
Ah, Fallout 4, the only game I ever got a Steam refund for. Bethesda writing is so bad it's hard to believe their writers are actually literate.