Do you think it's perfectly okay to dismiss Fallout 3...

I still don't know how the hell someone would say FO3 was a good game. Not gonna rant about it belong to Bethesda or anything.

Its just that the engine is so bad, graphics so dead, and voice acting so weird, that I can't see how the hell someone would say that its a good game, compared to so many other games that were launched with it.

There are so many good and WAAAY better games out there that I seriously don't believe someone actually likes it.
 
AWildmann said:
I still don't know how the hell someone would say FO3 was a good game. Not gonna rant about it belong to Bethesda or anything.

Its just that the engine is so bad, graphics so dead, and voice acting so weird, that I can't see how the hell someone would say that its a good game, compared to so many other games that were launched with it.

There are so many good and WAAAY better games out there that I seriously don't believe someone actually likes it.
It's not that FO3 is a terrible game, it's that it's a terrible Fallout game. It's good for a romp around a wasteland, not much else (story, dialogue, quests, etc.)
 
I found FO3 to be an okay game with a terrible ending. But, I... acquired it for free. If I had paid for it, I'd rank it lower.

Still, I found the graphics to be okay, the gameplay okay, and the quests okay. Dialog was poor, but better than the 10 minutes I had played of Oblivion. Everything is done better in New. Vegas, IMO.
 
Faceless_Stranger said:
AWildmann said:
I still don't know how the hell someone would say FO3 was a good game. Not gonna rant about it belong to Bethesda or anything.

Its just that the engine is so bad, graphics so dead, and voice acting so weird, that I can't see how the hell someone would say that its a good game, compared to so many other games that were launched with it.

There are so many good and WAAAY better games out there that I seriously don't believe someone actually likes it.
It's not that FO3 is a terrible game, it's that it's a terrible Fallout game. It's good for a romp around a wasteland, not much else (story, dialogue, quests, etc.)
Hell, I might even risk say that I had more fun with Oblivion, and its leveling system sucked terribly.
 
Idiotfool said:
I found FO3 to be an okay game with a terrible ending. But, I pirated it. If I had paid for it, I'd rank it lower.

Still, I found the graphics to be okay, the gameplay okay, and the quests okay. Dialog was poor, but better than the 10 minutes I had played of Oblivion. Everything is done better in New. Vegas, IMO.
Just so you know for future reference. The mods and admins don't like piracy. So I'd keep it on the down-low.
 
The only thing that's better in fallout 3 is the Ron Pearlman introduction, because I was honestly disappointed when I first heard the one in FONV
 
I played Fallout 3 first and then Fallout 1/2 after. I still love Fallout 3 and didn't find the first ones that impressive. It's all perspective. If I'd played them 10 years ago it would probably be different.
 
korindabar said:
I played Fallout 3 first and then Fallout 1/2 after. I still love Fallout 3 and didn't find the first ones that impressive. It's all perspective. If I'd played them 10 years ago it would probably be different.
Well depends on your taste. Since I love old games I felt way more fun with FO1 and 2 than FO3.
 
AWildmann said:
korindabar said:
I played Fallout 3 first and then Fallout 1/2 after. I still love Fallout 3 and didn't find the first ones that impressive. It's all perspective. If I'd played them 10 years ago it would probably be different.
Well depends on your taste. Since I love good games I felt way more fun with FO1 and 2 than FO3.

That's better.
 
I first Played FO3 and liked it a lot, but then I played FO2 and realized how inferior FO3 was compared to the original games (that were made in the late 90's) I like Fallout New Vegas marginaly more than FO2.
Anyone that says that FO2 isn't an impressive game is probably someone that just wants to have things to shoot at. I play all kinds of games, except sports games.
 
Fallout and Falllout 2 are niche games designed for a fairly specific audience. Fallout 3 is a big budget mainstream game designed for broad appeal. New Vegas is balance of the two.

I can understand why some people would prefer Fallout 3, they are typically people that love to explore, kill and loot and don't really care if the story and game world surrounding their opportunities to do so don't make a lick of sense. This group of players is generally a completely different group of people than those who enjoyed the pen and paper inspired Fallout and Fallout 2 and care more about writing, design, and role playing and make up the majority of this board. Having played through New Vegas a few times now, its really impressive how well it was able to balance its appeal to these two groups of players, its not a simple trick and I can't think of many games that have managed to do it.
 
Fallout 3 is still a great game in my opinion and I didn't play F1&2 till afterwords. However great F3 is, I treat it as a spin-off.
The same as i treat NV a spin off. But at the same time, I consider both seqals because they don't directly follow on and contain differn't characters but same overall story.

But on topic, NV is the better of two games, more choices and better ending
 
I like New Vegas much better than FO3. There's something about FO3 I find off-putting, but I can't quite say what. There's just something about it that unsettles me.
 
poltergeist said:
I like New Vegas much better than FO3. There's something about FO3 I find off-putting, but I can't quite say what. There's just something about it that unsettles me.
I think it feels way too random.

Grow in the vault, ok.
Now go after you father, sure.
Now you see the random shit that the wasteland is, there's a town with a bomb in the middle, a gang who drinks blood, a cavern with children only, a battle ship being used as a town, and the looks of the wasteland is just wreck, there's no trace of road (I know they don't last forever, but there should be a trace of where it used to be).

These on top of my head, but I too remember seeing a lot of things that pissed me off in the game. Hell, whenever I heard a super mutant talking I had some kind of pain in my head, Jesus was that voice actor dumb. Why can't they talk like Marcus?
 
Go on Wikipedia for Fallout 3 . Too bad i didn't ...
Watching Monty Python is more sane .

I played over 100 times F1 and F2 (and again with the new Restoration) , only once did i play F3 without any DLC . Call me a hardcore geek but i am not totally like that . I like the new 3d surround , i love it because of how sneak was implemented . It feels like sneaking finally . And cinematic kills . But that's it , nothing to keep me playing except that .

I always felt like imbecile or at least playing Fallout 3 always made me think i am that . Story is just plain bad , talking is even worse . When i see faqs that tell you to lower charisma to 1 it makes me cry , but i don't blame them because that's what they saw in F3 and it applies . Tarr made that script himself . Now , why is goddamn Megaton town population 15 people at best ? They left because of Moira ... Moira...do i need to continue .
Every location except Dunwich was almost the same boring shoot kill and don't ask any questions (Dunwich is just kill it all but it is MORE INTERESTING if you read Lovercraft) . A few spots were "hey there's some people there ! how many ? 4-6 ! hurray let's hit it" , and then you realize they can talk less than a guinea pig . Citadel was kinda fun , name at least . Hell there were more mutants and destroyed buildings than anything else . Like it bombed when you got out of Vault .
When i saw on youtube unarmed killing deathclaw ! with such a low unarmed skill !!! Yeah it's possible in games before but not retardedly easy like that . And i can't kill any tunnel snake inside of a Vault , pathetic . I reloaded just to listen Butch skull cracking . VATS in F3 is dumb to use . New Vegas ? Hell no , finally i need skill point , not my mouse pointer clicking skill . Also crippled torso ? And it MOVES ?! Ok , i guess spine isn't such a big deal .
Armor with + or - ... hello ? Recon on sneak ok , big friggin powered on strength ok . But perception on cowboy hat or something like that is just plain stupid .
And finally end boss . Lol , just plain lol . Something died in me at that time . Especially because i was enraged on scoring in a magazine in my country , 93% , hardcore guy said it's the best Fallout . After half an hour play . New Vegas got 90% and Dragon Age 84% , you gotta hate that son of a b---
Of course he got a lot of swearing on forum because of that subjective scoring , lucky i wasn't the only one who was ranting . But enough of that . My play of F3 was bad and it will always be like that . It' simple why , i played much better FPS games . Only a couple of real Fallout games .

There are tons of games better than Fallout 3 which are FPS based , meaning 3d engine isn't the only thing necessary to make a game or a movie or anything worthy of paying attention too much besides graphic . And that 3d wasn't so good anyway .

My advice :
Play Mass Effect 2 (1 is more rpg based) , Crysis , STALKER , Singularity , Bioshock . Much more fun there instead of Fallout 3 .
And play New Vegas if you can't or never will want to play first 2 games . Pass on F3 , no point to play it now that Vegas is here .
Story will go on no matter what Bethesda thinks is cannon for them . Washington will always be a barren uninteresting rock .
And don't tell me how Fallout 3 isn't "only FPS" . I've been down that ugly road , if there was anything to keep me on it i would play it more because i prefer "true" RPGs more . Bethesda definitely missed that one .

My first post and im already ranting heh .

EDIT: Forgot to mention , Borderlands > Fallout 3
 
ramessesjones said:
Fallout and Falllout 2 are niche games designed for a fairly specific audience. Fallout 3 is a big budget mainstream game designed for broad appeal. New Vegas is balance of the two.
I am not sure if they have been strictly niche games as I think at that time they have been simply role playing games and in that time the definition of RPGs was a bit more thight compared to today. For the company F1 and F2 have been quite succesfull titles and thats all what matters I think.
 
Borderlands > Fallout 3? That is so wrong on so many levels. Borderlands is bad, boring and repetitive on and F3 is a lot more fun.

And Fallout 3 is worth playing. Sure, it's the worst of the 4 main games and story wise it's unconnected. But the way I see it, it's more of a spin off, set in a different place with some iconic things from the franchise. Bethesda's take on it, rather than a real sequel. And while the writing is average at best and the main story line is uninteresting after Tranquility Lane, it has a lot of strong points that save it.

Gameplay wise, it's simplistic and really lacks any depth, but that's the problem of the entire industry so I can't complain too much on it. It's what sells these days and it's too late to complain. Besides, combat is still challenging for the most part and is enjoyable in some ways. As an example, Bioshock was very good despite being an incredibly dumbed down version of System Shock 2 and having some very simple and unsatisfying shooting.

Writing is somewhere between average and weak, but again, thanks to the low standard set by other current gen games, it doesn't annoy as much as it would 10 years ago. Not even remotely comparable to F1,2,NV, but still decent enough and not really corny or anything. Occasionally it's even amusing or funny, definitely has a few good moments. The side quests can be pretty enjoyable too, enough motivation to explore the wasteland, the only problem is that there's not an awful lot of them for some reason.
Point Lookout has some good and creative writing, which means that Bethesda might eventually get better at writing.

The real star is the giant game world, full of locations that have good loot, interesting information on the terminals, at times unique enemies, armor or weapons. It's rewarding to explore the world and combat is generally fun enough to keep battles fresh, with a nice amount of weapons to chose from. The simple rpg system allows you to be good with most weapon categories, which is bad from the balance side of things, but good as it keeps combat more or less fresh. On the downside, the game world lacks towns (there's only a few of them) and general consistency.

The art is also a highlight of the game - the design is pure 1950's of the future and the DC area has some really good architecture. All the posters, neon signs and art are all top notch. All models are very detailed and the game manages to feel like the fallout universe in 3D, despite the lack in gameplay depth and the writing. Also, despite being full of enemies, the game world feels like a real post-nuclear area, a depressing and ruined world that nobody tries to rebuild. Sad that the DC area is full of enemies, I would prefer more of a ghost town with the occasional enemy and ton of skeletons on the ground.

The radio is a very nice addition, creating a unique and interesting mood to the game, even if it slightly damages the grim atmosphere.

Another nice addition is creating weapons from junk. Those weapons are pretty well designed and fun to use. Repairing weapons with parts from the same weapon model but in worse condition is pretty nice too.

Ideas and details like these make the game interesting and compensate for the flaws. And that is the thing, it's a game that has a lot of flaws but also a lot of good things that compensate for the bad parts. A game that neither can be called good nor bad. It's somewhere between decent and good, if you ask me.

Try not to think of it as direct sequel to F1/2 and ignore the main quest after Tranquility Lane and you can have a nice time with it. It's certainly an enjoyable action rpg with emphasis on action and a very big one. Very few games on the market can give you 80+ hours of gameplay. And sadly for the industry, F3 is still better than most mainstream games out there. Sure, the fact that other current gen games aren't very good is NOT an excuse fo F3 being flawed. But the fact that it's more stylish, better and more interesting than most current gen games is enough of an excuse to play it and enjoy it for what it is - a decent modern action oriented Fallout spin off.

Also, here's a funny thought - it does provide an interesting experience - looking for the good parts of the game among the bad ones is kind of like exploring a dead city full of dirt, corpses and crap and occasionally finding truly good things as a reward for patience. Could this be a real post-nuclear experience? :lol:
 
But if you ignore all of the story what gives ?

I mean Borderlands can completely be offquest as in you dont have to pay attention to anything except killing and linear progressing of story, its just like Diablo but more awesome in a FPS way. Skills are better and more fun and when you get to the second playthrough its even better .

Also 80+ hours on Fallout 3 ? Seriously ? With all DLC ? I didn't play DAO:Ultimate that much and i saw everything there is in it . I think if you like the setting especially you will give it a couple of more hours but honestly more than 2 full days is never going to happen . It will be fun but for how long till you ask yourself what the hell am i doing here . And where is replayability ? Looking at a barren rock can be boring after some time . Your facts are true but only IF Fallout 3 was the only thing which exists (like there was never Fallout 1 or 2 or New Vegas now).
But in our world Fallout 3 isn't the only thing like that . When will Fallout 3 ever be for someone to invest so much time in its pointlessness even a hardcore player ? Never , because a real intriguing story doesn't exist . Nothing to keep you on in it .
For someone playing New Vegas ? We will see but maybe not even for that game .
But New Vegas cant be finished in one playthrough , not all quests . If you load you must continue for it to have an impact , where in F3 its just some funny S--- "i popped Citadel!" and lets load again and see it .
Also id like to point that it is thanks to Fallout 3 we saw the birth of New Vegas , but because of necessity which is maybe for us and maybe not but i think not all on Beth team are the same hive joking mind .

But look at Fallout 1 or 2 . Still played even today .

OK maybe im wrong , dont pass it . But dont expect its the Holy Grail or something . Just a Behemot with the same balls it had on baby mutant level .
 
Personally, I think WE CAN'T dismiss FO 3. You don't like it? Fair enough, you are not forced to. The main story is unimaginitive? I give you that. The characters and factions could be better developted? Certainly.

Take the BoS in FO3, for example. The idea for them was very good if you ask me.
They picked this isolationist group that shaunned the outside world and turned them into a splinted group that fighted between them for what they believed, resulting in two different factions: the Capital Wasteland BoS and the Outcasts.
The Capital Wasteland BoS contradicts the Codex heavelly, by sharing thecnology, accepting new recruits and even helping them when necessary.
The Outcasts continued their mission like other chapters of the organization, on the other hand.

Unfortunately the game's implementation was very poorly, since the Outcasts "are bad" and the DC BoS "are good".
And that's ist.
No conflicts between them, no choices regarding the player's views, not even a side-quest that involve the two groups (for good or bad).

But dismiss them? I don't think so.

It's the same with Star Wars, people can choose not like the recent episodes, but you can't dismiss them.
I think we should dismiss Fallout Tatics and FO:BOS, they contradict the cannon much more than FO3.

[ ]'s
 
Take the BoS in FO3, for example. The idea for them was very good if you ask me.

Your reasoning of the BOS basically seems to boil down to " They needed to change, they needed to become heroes."
The BOS could have changed without becoming heroes, like becoming that research and trading house mentioned in Fallout 1.

They were mostly chosen as heroes as they have neat toys but not because it makes sense.

If the NCR or the Followers of the Apocalypse all wore Power Armor they probably would have gone to Washington DC.
(I mean with that, Bethesda would have put them in Washington DC instead of the BOS)

I think we should dismiss Fallout Tactics and FO:BOS, they contradict the cannon much more than FO3.

In some ways those games are closer to FO1 and FO2 than Fallout 3.
At least they both sticked to the fact that FEV2 could only be found at Mariposa base and that there is no other source of FEV in the wasteland.

And in what way?
If a splinter faction of BOS is allowed in Washington DC that recruits outsiders, and helps people, why not a faction in the midwest that demands recruits and supplies in return for protection, and eliminates raiders, hostile mutants and robots because they are a threat to the BOS?

Or a faction that goes to Texas to find out what a bunch of well organized Super Mutants are up to (possibly becoming a threat to the BOS again), and recruit some outsiders to look for missing paladins with the intention that this mission will probably kill them before they can become full BOS members?

Edit: weared? how did that one slip past?
 
Back
Top