Forum:Van Buren would never haven been as great as Fallout3

I'd heard about VB for years, way before I heard that Beth. was taking over Fallout production. I'd seen lots of screen shots and I just now read the plot synopsis on this site. Wow, all I can say is, thank heavens it got canceled when it did.

Honestly, it seems like that game would have wound up bringing the Fallout franchise to its knees and killed the whole series forever. I'm mean, I always thought the shots looked crappy, and now the story and Special system/combat changes I just read about seemed like garbage.

I like the 3/4 isometeric style games, like B's Gate and the first 2 Fallouts, but it feels like it would have been more of the same. The level of detail achieved in F3 makes VB look bland and uninspired. I mean, open ended game play aside, it was always the atmosphere of the wasteland that drew me in from the start. And F3 nailed it!

So I just wonder, why do all these fanboys on other message boards continue to say that F3 isn't really fallout and that Van Buren would have been so much better, so much more true to the concept of Fallout 1&2? Looks like the only thing the remained same would have been the view point. Hell, just zoom out and tilt the camera up and F3 achieves a similar look.

It reminds me of Metroid in a way. Everyone said that series would be terrible as a FPS, but thanks to a unique targeting system and a dedication to really recreate the atmosphere it was perfect! Just like F3.

I don't know, I just have my fingers crossed about the MMORPG that susposed to be in the works. I heard that Beth. is currently revoking the rights from Interplay who were supposed to be making it. I don't want to see a Warcraft esque game, I think a huge FPS game would be unique and way more fun. All those MMOs seem the same. To my knowledge there are no FPS MMos.

CJ


 * I wasn't fond of some of the changes to SPECIAL in Van Buren, but even these were much better than the nerfing of the character system in Bethesda's Fallout 3. The plot synopsis also doesn't do the story justice, I recommend you read the actual design documents for the game. The story, quests and characters were much more interesting than all the blandness and rehash of FO1/FO2/FOT/FOBOS in Bethesda's Fallout 3. I'd rank Van Buren below FO1 in terms of story, and above FO2 and FO3. And what level of detail do you speak of? Just looking at the design documents I see that Van Buren developers cared about the level of detail much more than anyone at Bethesda, unless you're simply speaking about graphics.


 * Van Buren would feature tactical, turn based combat like FO1 and 2 (well, actually better, with some improvements carried over from FOT), and isometric view. You might be able to achieve a similar look in Beth's Fallout 3, but it's absolutely unplayable in that game. As for "feeling like more of the same", Bethesda's Fallout 3 feels like more of the same formula their Elder Scrolls games follow. The SPECIAL system, the combat system, the dialogue system and quality, and the choices and consequences (along with the end narration recounting your influence on various locations and people you came across during your travels) would be much more like FO1 and 2 than in Bethesda's FO3.


 * The screenshots you saw were from an early pre-alpha tech demo that was not indicative of how the finished game would look like. Ausir


 * Visuals are only part of the atmosphere, stories and characters are the other. While Bethesda did a decent job at the former, they pretty much dropped the ball with the latter. The main plot is "meh" at best and most characters are not very memorable due to them being flat cardboard-cutouts. Not even mentioning the dialogue... That's not to say it's a bad game but it's hardly a godsend.


 * To preface the inevitable: That's coming from someone 1) who didn't even play the first two parts and 2) who doesn't care about turn-based vs real time or camera angles. -- Porter21 (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll be the first to agree that the story in f3 sucks, probably the worst of the 3. When I got the Replicated Man quest at the start it seemed so mysterious that I thought it was somehow directly tied to the main quest. Actually, this is what _I_ thought was going to happen: perhaps you were some sort of artifical/human-like construct set up to survive in the wastes and your progress was being tracked in compairison to an android, possibly being tracked and having your deeds evaluated by the Enclave. At the end it would be revealed that all your deeds were for some dark research project (like all the other experiments in the other vaults). When it turned out that it was all about water, it made sense but I was let down.

I would really like another isometeric, turn-based Fallout, but I think the shift to 3d FPS style really invigorated the series! I've logged well over a 1000 hours on it (I think I must be the worst kind of Fallout junkie, and I played the first 2 no less). I think the main thing Fallout 3 did that an old stlye Fallout wouldn't have down was allow you to walk across the landscape. I'm mean, the best part to me is seeing something like a radio tower in the far of distance and then physically walking there.

CJ


 * Obviously, you haven't done any kind of in depth research into Van Buren, nor the expansiveness of its plot, choices and consquences, featured factions etc. Van Buren was a creative development of the Fallout universe, taking it in new, bold directions in terms of plot, lore and atmosphere. The NCR/Brotherhood war is one of the most interesting elements it features and that's just background information. On every level (except for graphics) Van Buren would be a superior game.
 * I'd write more, but it's obvious you're just a clueless poster. Educate yourself, maybe then we'll talk. That Furry Bastard 17:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, you can say that, but useless we play a finished version it's all mute, isn't it? Is there any sort of beta or something I can play to make a some sort of true judgement? If it's all just on paper or screen shots I think it's pretty hard to say. Could you post a link to two so that I won't be so "clueless"? I read most of what was on this site and it didn't really wow me, sorry.

But I'd like to say, I'd rather celebrate what I have than wish for what could have been.

CJ


 * http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/dload.php?action=category&cat_id=61
 * Design docs are enough to get the idea. Especially since the tech demo showed that what they designed was viable and easy to implement. That Furry Bastard 18:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Just thought I'd say that my girlfriend (who's been playing F3 all morning) saw me watching a VB tech demo video on you tube, asked what I was watching and I said it was F3 was going to be like before they made the one she was playing. She's seen me play the first 2 lots but she said "That's looks like crap, I'd have never played it if it was like that!" :D Maybe we should be glad Beth. opened it up to a whole new audience! I mean, the more people that play it, the longer the universe will be alive. I'd certianly never be allowed to play it as much as I do if she couldn't enjoy it to! CJ


 * Incidentally I'm sort of curious that women players seem to like Fallout 3 better than FO1 and 2. Don't know what it is; I personally like the retro-cultural references, the atmospheric changes to the day/night cycle, and the ability to walk on and over landscape elements in a Wasteland chock-full of random surprises. Yes, that particular part is very attractive: I find the random encounter generation to be absolutely fascinating.  Not to mention the fact that the game plays well on my 360.  Of course, after all that build up, the end of the original story is unacceptably and stupidly abrupt, IMHO.  So then you have to ask yourself, Why am I still playing it?  Because maybe, just maybe despite its narrative flaws, it might actually be a pretty successful game implementation, gaming-wise?  Well duh, then I may have to play Fallout 1 to get a proper idea of what people originally 'expected' from the canon and turn-based systems. --Theicla 20:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I know women who are fans of FO1 and 2 and would disagree. Ausir 21:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Bethesda developed a new kind of RPG, that one in which you can look at some far away structure in the horizon and physically reach to it walking. That is what I liked about Morrowind and Oblivion. That, and the incredible level of detail. But that has nothing to do with Fallout. Fallout is noir jokes, creative dialogues, ethical and moral issues, a rich background history, the possibility of changing the world with your actions... How many times have you laughed with any of Fallout 3's dialogues? How many times have you seen a player response of more than 1 line? Me, i got bored of walking across metro tunnels at level 16 and started a new game of Fallout 2. And I'm sure Van Buren was going to have all that. Just read some of the design documents. Go straight to the "emotional porn" section. That's what I'm talking about. And that's what never passed across bethesda designers' minds. Heavyfroggie 1:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

And Fallout 3 will have never been better than Fallout 1 and 2. I mean the storyline is crap. WHO CARES ABOUT THE FREAKING GRAPHICS. Unique weapons are..... the same thing. UNIQUE, where is the uniqueness in it?, Beth is a good company, but it has poorly done Fallout 3, and they should seriously reformat the way they made the game. If Fallout 4 sucks, I'm not even gonna be playing Fallout 3, and the games Beth has made (Fallout ones). Fallout 3 is seriously poorly done. They have had 4 years to work on Fallout 3, and what happened? crap happened. A game that had nothing but explore, explore, explore. Even the DLC is pretty gay. Van Buren would have seriously been way better than the Fallout 3 today. And plus, where the hell is your freedom in Fallout 3? By John henry eden "I will probably even make you my most trusted officer"..... But guess what! YOU CAN'T. In fallout 1, they had their own non-canon endings, like becoming a mutant, and all that! And who the fuck are you calling a fanboy?, you're the real fanboy, cuz fallout 3 is poorly done, and will always be shittier than Fallout 1, and 2. I used to like Fallout 3, but it has become boring with shitty gameplay, and about what? 20 normal quests, and then some small retarted shit quests. Onipix 02:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It'd be nice if people stopped presenting their opinions as fact. Personally, I like Fallout 3 how it is (apart from glitchiness, especially after add-ons). I think quests have variety and are interesting, the game straddles the FPS/adventure genres nicely, that systems like equpiment degradation strike a good balance in terms of realism, that VATS was a useful (if a touch overpowered) feature and that karma was an interesting touch that enhanced replayability. I mean, it pretty much guarantees tat a player who favours the game will want to go through it 3 times, for good, bad and neutral karma, just to see how things would fold out differently. I'll fess up to not having played FO1/2, but some of these things Van Buren just couldn't have fulfilled in a game of it's format. It doubtless would have had various unique and interesting features of its' own. We can't changed what happened either way. It's all so speculative. All we can say for certain is whether we personally do or do not like the implementation of FO3. 90.201.91.94 01:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything you mentioned Van Buren would've achieved. Weapon crafting was taken to an extreme (vide finishing pre-War Enclave projects, such as HERMES or ATHENA), quests were infinitely more varied than Fo3's, more locations, more memorable NPCs, companions that are more than just mobile turrets... http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/thumb/5/5c/Scribe.jpg/15px-Scribe.jpg Tagaziel (call!) 10:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Fallout 3 is unquestionably better in one very important aspect. The game was FINISHED, and I can actually PLAY IT. There are literally hundreds of computer games that had excellent concepts and/or vision, but that never came to fruition. Discussing what could have been is simply speculation. We might as well waste time arguing about how Duke Nukem 3D is a better game. DreadPirateMurphy 17:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

IMO, Fallout 3 is a fun game, in the same way that playing Halo 3 is fun. While FO3 was fun it lacked the aspects that I was promised, i.e: a good story. Sure FO3 gave the wasteland detail, graphics wise, but I would have given that up for a more developed story/dialogue.  [Composite 4] (My Talk)

I like the other Fallout games, I love the story. But Fallout 3 is what got me into it. Its a shame that black isle went down the drain but thats the way the world works. Out with the old in with new ect ect. Isn't it possible that some of you don't like F3 because you don't like change? Like when you get a new house, yeah its a nice house, but it doesn't have the walk in closet my old one did, and because of that you overlook the fact your new house is a lot bigger. F3 has flaws, I can't think of a game without flaws, but its very fun to play. Bethesda took Fallout and put their own spin on it. I would be disappointed if they didn't try to change it a bit. Besides, the majority of game players these days probably have not played the original, and the idea of playing a isometric, turn based game is a turn off to a lot of people in the gaming community. And Im going to stop now, because that was one of the most unorganized ramblings I have ever typed.

Fallout 3 may not be perfect, but it's got a particular advantage over the older Fallouts, and that is that it outsold both games by far. That may not mean much to you folks, but to me, that means that it is a much more popular series now. That means that it has more money to be creatively free. Now, you may be thinking "Well, it doesn't matter how much money they make, cause it's made by Bethesda, and they don't have the true Fallout spirit." Well, that doesn't really matter, cause Fallout: New Vegas is being made by some of the people who were working on Van Buren. Bethesda will only be publishing it, so you can be sure it'll be made in the true fallout spirit. "But it'll use the Fallout 3 game engine!" you say. But, as you say, graphics aren't important. As long as it has the classic humor and style, who cares if it's isometric or first person? Anyway, sorry for any misunderstandings I may have caused. --24.72.49.251 17:08, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
 * Graphics aren't that improtant, but the gameplay style is. I am looking forward to New Vegas, though, but I also don't expect to like the gameplay style. Ausir(talk) 17:10, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

Im betting that the gameplay style was changed because the turn based style does not have as large a demographic as a FPS does. Jack &quot;the drifter&quot; Vance 20:31, November 5, 2009 (UTC)


 * So? I don't really care about whether a game appeals to a wider demographic, I care whether it appeals to me. Dragon Age: Origins includes an isometric viewpoint (which is great in combat and allows for more use of tactics) as well as a third person viewpoint (which is great for exploration). Ausir(talk) 21:13, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

Its not about what you want. If they had made Fallout 3 just for you, then I can see how this might be a problem. But it was made in a way that was supposed to make it sell as best as it could. Just like most games. Its not about the individual, its about the community, and the money. Jack &quot;the drifter&quot; Vance 22:27, November 5, 2009 (UTC)