Well, you guys sure have differing opinions. I for one enjoyed it and at least played about 60 hours of it. However, i own the xbox version, which is slightly better than the PS3 version, but the unexcuseable downsides mentioned above cannot be fixed like they can on PC
Fallout 3 by any other name...
- Thread starter Half Brow
- Start date
If they had labeled the game, something like: Fallout: Capital Wasteland, I really wouldn't mind so much.
I don't understand why they named it Fallout Three. It has no connection with the originals, except for the fact that the main story involves a GECK.
I think it was stupid to use that name for a game 10 years older from the originals. Besides it can confuse new players with that name.
I don't understand why they named it Fallout Three. It has no connection with the originals, except for the fact that the main story involves a GECK.
I think it was stupid to use that name for a game 10 years older from the originals. Besides it can confuse new players with that name.
I_eat_supermutants
Vault Senior Citizen
It'd be easy to accept it as a spin off even more for me if it was
A) Had a sub-title. Fallout: DC Destiny (Lame but it's something)
B) Contained some original content. No Brotherhood. No Enclave. Maybe not starring a Vault Dweller or any relation there of.
C) Didn't call it an RPG. Calling games of this type an RPG is a slap in the face to cRPGs.
It's a mediocre shooter. It's a terrible RPG. It's a horrible Fallout game. Had it been a shooter spin off it'd be a little easier to choke down considering the roots it's salting. Fallout was great and I plan to play it again. Fallout 3. I probably will never tough it again.
EDIT: I made some not non no good english.
A) Had a sub-title. Fallout: DC Destiny (Lame but it's something)
B) Contained some original content. No Brotherhood. No Enclave. Maybe not starring a Vault Dweller or any relation there of.
C) Didn't call it an RPG. Calling games of this type an RPG is a slap in the face to cRPGs.
It's a mediocre shooter. It's a terrible RPG. It's a horrible Fallout game. Had it been a shooter spin off it'd be a little easier to choke down considering the roots it's salting. Fallout was great and I plan to play it again. Fallout 3. I probably will never tough it again.
EDIT: I made some not non no good english.
Thats easy to answer at least. Cause they said they named it Fallout "3" cause they wanted to make a "true" sequel to the first game.Jorund said:
And exactly thats the point. If theywould not have made such a claim there would be much more less issues around Fallout 3 cause you could always say "its not meant to be like the first games in the experience" or anything like that. But since Fallout "3" wants to be a sequel it has not the luxus that it can not be compared to the past games. Thats why its called a "sequel". You would also expect from the next Batman movie to have the character "bruce Wayne" playing Batman in Gothic City.
Its much easier to just call it Fallout 3 because, 1. It shows ownership of the franchise, they aren't just some developer who's just doing this one time thing, and 2. It's much easier to just call it Fallout 3 than to have to think up "Fallout colon one or more words." 
superstartran
First time out of the vault
Crni Vuk said:superstartran said:Hey, I never said that it was easy, only possible
Some things are impossible. If the developers of some game or engine dont want certain parts of the game/engine or even as whole modded in some way they have ways to make that impossible.
Have you taken a computer programming course? Nothing is impossible in computer programming. No security is unbreakable, no program is uncrackable. It's a matter of who has the time and who is willing to put in the effort. Military databases are hacked all the time and have far higher security measures on them. What makes you think someone can't find a work around for a video game?
It's one thing to shit on the game, it's another to say that it is impossible to fix when it's clearly obvious that it can be fixed, it's just a matter if you are willing to put in the work to do so.
As many shortcomings as Fallout 3 has, it's not a terrible game. It's just average, bland, etc. and appeals to a certain audience. I'm not saying it's good, but it isn't a complete shit of a failure as many people on this forum like to say it is. That title (and deservedly so) belongs to Brotherhood of Shit.
I have basic knowledge in computer progaming, I did a 3 year education as IT specialist, which included working with Assambler, C, and PHP.
To say that. Of course nothing is "impossible". Of course if you have a few houndred men on your side, enough machines you can change anything you want.
But. Now thats why I said its "impossible". If developers are programming a engine they can set inside the engine parameters (for the lack of a better word) which make it not possible to mod the engine. Some things are also "hard coded" in to the engine which as well make it "impossible" to modfiy the engine WITHOUT changing the engine (similar to the reason why you can almost change anything in Linux like you want but will have a lot of trouble with Windows).
And changing things are not very easy if you dont have vast knowledge about the engine. The thing is that in such a case if you really would attempt to "work around" everything and modify a engine you could also in the same time make almost a new one. This goes much further then simple modifications.
I will ask in a different way (and eventualy explain why its impossible), who is willing to invest said "time" to do it?
To say that. Of course nothing is "impossible". Of course if you have a few houndred men on your side, enough machines you can change anything you want.
But. Now thats why I said its "impossible". If developers are programming a engine they can set inside the engine parameters (for the lack of a better word) which make it not possible to mod the engine. Some things are also "hard coded" in to the engine which as well make it "impossible" to modfiy the engine WITHOUT changing the engine (similar to the reason why you can almost change anything in Linux like you want but will have a lot of trouble with Windows).
And changing things are not very easy if you dont have vast knowledge about the engine. The thing is that in such a case if you really would attempt to "work around" everything and modify a engine you could also in the same time make almost a new one. This goes much further then simple modifications.
It seems that you do indeed agree, just with other words.superstartran said:
I will ask in a different way (and eventualy explain why its impossible), who is willing to invest said "time" to do it?
Random Turnip
First time out of the vault
Well, i don't dislike the game now, it has it's good moments and is enjoyable.
I don't think i would have noticed it though if it wasn't called Fallout 3.
This isn't to say it could have been done better though.
All in all, i don't think the name makes much of a difference when you are actually playing the game, but outside of playing it, i would say that i would prefer it not to be called Fallout 3, even if it was just a side series.
I don't think i would have noticed it though if it wasn't called Fallout 3.
This isn't to say it could have been done better though.
All in all, i don't think the name makes much of a difference when you are actually playing the game, but outside of playing it, i would say that i would prefer it not to be called Fallout 3, even if it was just a side series.
MasterOfPuppetsOrMutants
First time out of the vault
They should have called, Fallout: We have Liam Neeson!!!1
superstartran
First time out of the vault
Crni Vuk said:
It wouldn't take a hundred men or a few hundred computers to change the engine at all. You can reverse engineer the game and change it from there. However, you do start running into legal issues there.
There are limitations to the engine. And there are limitations to the game. But not all of it is unfixable. I don't know who is willing to invest the amount of time to do something of that scale, but there are modifications out there that are very large indeed, such as OOO (which modifies the whole game of Oblivion), Project Reality for BF2, etc.
It's not unrealistic to think a group of people would invest the time in order to do such a project to at least make "Fallout 3" pretty good.
I think alot of the unwarranted name calling comes from the fact that it indeed is made by Bethesda, and it has the "Fallout 3" name attatched to it. You can have your opinion of the game, but I think Fallout 3 at worst is an average game. It's not a piece of shit as alot of people like here say it is.
DexterMorgan
A Smooth-Skin
Too bad they barely affect gameplay.
superstartran said:Crni Vuk said:superstartran said:Hey, I never said that it was easy, only possible
Some things are impossible. If the developers of some game or engine dont want certain parts of the game/engine or even as whole modded in some way they have ways to make that impossible.
Have you taken a computer programming course? Nothing is impossible in computer programming. No security is unbreakable, no program is uncrackable. It's a matter of who has the time and who is willing to put in the effort. Military databases are hacked all the time and have far higher security measures on them. What makes you think someone can't find a work around for a video game?
It's one thing to shit on the game, it's another to say that it is impossible to fix when it's clearly obvious that it can be fixed, it's just a matter if you are willing to put in the work to do so.
As many shortcomings as Fallout 3 has, it's not a terrible game. It's just average, bland, etc. and appeals to a certain audience. I'm not saying it's good, but it isn't a complete shit of a failure as many people on this forum like to say it is. That title (and deservedly so) belongs to Brotherhood of Shit.
Have you suffered brain damage???
If a bunch of GameDesigners, Programmers and whatchamacallits work for 2 to 3 years on the game as it is, it certainly can't be fixed by one man alone.
Apart from that the key point of criticism is usually not concerned with the look and feel of the game but with the story which was probably written by drunken hobos or lobotomized monkeys. Therefore you'll need a crack team of intelligent writers.
I played the stupid game and it was okay i could live with the controls i could suffer trough the skill system but i couldn't stand talking to anyone of these braindead "Wastelanders".
Add Quests like "Research a minefield"(by goind trough it) and you get the impression that whoever designed this quest must have been sniffing terpentine since Fallout2.
actualy Moon Sugarrandom234 said:
They should have just named the game Elder Scrolls 40K and been done with it.
I thought the game was really mediocre.One of the big things that bothered me was that every character you started ended up playing the same way as you became good at pretty much everything.Boring.Just like in Oblivion.It really blew my mind though when they thought the biggest problem was that you couldn't max out all skills and made that possible in the DLC.
I haven't played much of FO but i can contrast that philosphy to FO2,where how you set your character up at creation had a big impact on the game.I guess that,technically,you could become good at everything in 2,but that would have required an ungodly amount of playing time and i still doubti f it was possible given the game has a time limit.
You were good at maybe a few things,of average skill at a few things,and not very good with most skills.I liked that approach as it made each new game a bit different.
I thought the game was really mediocre.One of the big things that bothered me was that every character you started ended up playing the same way as you became good at pretty much everything.Boring.Just like in Oblivion.It really blew my mind though when they thought the biggest problem was that you couldn't max out all skills and made that possible in the DLC.
I haven't played much of FO but i can contrast that philosphy to FO2,where how you set your character up at creation had a big impact on the game.I guess that,technically,you could become good at everything in 2,but that would have required an ungodly amount of playing time and i still doubti f it was possible given the game has a time limit.
You were good at maybe a few things,of average skill at a few things,and not very good with most skills.I liked that approach as it made each new game a bit different.
It wasnt so much of an issue to create a god-like character in Fallout 2 and as well get a character that is really able to do a lot of different quests.
The thing is just that you probably will not achieve this with success with your first 1 or 2 play troughs and without at least reading some walktrough once. It took me some times before I realised that you could get the best armor in the game very early (and a few other gimicks). I mean one actualy has to know this "quircks" that Fallout 2 has (its less of an issue with F1 but every RPG can be exploited if you want).
Its some issue with any game that is somewhat based on Oblivion or shares the same "principle" and they can say as many times as they want even the fans that "Fallout3" has "nothing" to do with Oblivion. It does share a lot of the design and basic gameplay behind it more then it does with Fallout 1 or 2 you can see that with the way how quests are started and how they end. No quest in Fallout 3 will block you eventualy from starting another quest, towns have no conection what so ever wich each other or would ever demand from the player to be cautious in his actions regrading its inhabitants (What? Blowing up a town with a nuke! No worries champ, you will not get ANY penality from that, people will still see you as the hero of the wasteland if you want it ...). Oblivion is eevn worse around it, which I agree Fallout 3 makes a better job, not all of the NPCs seem to be that repetitive and uninteresting. But to make a game that actualy has more interesting characters then Oblivion is really not that hard. Actualy any RPG I have played so far (Diablo included) had more interesting NPCs compared to Oblivion. And we all know how much one has to bend the "term" RPG to call Diablo one ...
The thing is just that you probably will not achieve this with success with your first 1 or 2 play troughs and without at least reading some walktrough once. It took me some times before I realised that you could get the best armor in the game very early (and a few other gimicks). I mean one actualy has to know this "quircks" that Fallout 2 has (its less of an issue with F1 but every RPG can be exploited if you want).
Its some issue with any game that is somewhat based on Oblivion or shares the same "principle" and they can say as many times as they want even the fans that "Fallout3" has "nothing" to do with Oblivion. It does share a lot of the design and basic gameplay behind it more then it does with Fallout 1 or 2 you can see that with the way how quests are started and how they end. No quest in Fallout 3 will block you eventualy from starting another quest, towns have no conection what so ever wich each other or would ever demand from the player to be cautious in his actions regrading its inhabitants (What? Blowing up a town with a nuke! No worries champ, you will not get ANY penality from that, people will still see you as the hero of the wasteland if you want it ...). Oblivion is eevn worse around it, which I agree Fallout 3 makes a better job, not all of the NPCs seem to be that repetitive and uninteresting. But to make a game that actualy has more interesting characters then Oblivion is really not that hard. Actualy any RPG I have played so far (Diablo included) had more interesting NPCs compared to Oblivion. And we all know how much one has to bend the "term" RPG to call Diablo one ...
Makatak
First time out of the vault
why so much dislike for FA3? It has its flaws and so forth, but Fallout 1 and 2 are downright boring, give the player no sense of direction, and the combat has too much of a random element to it. That is to say: You can be armed to the teeth, but still die in one unlucky critical hit. That just aggravates me.
Overall, I had alot more fun with FA3 than I did with any of the previous titles.
Overall, I had alot more fun with FA3 than I did with any of the previous titles.
TheMutantMe
First time out of the vault
I think that's why Fallout 3 gets so much dislike, because it's targeted at people who thought the first two were too boring and not FPSy enough.
Why bump this thread in particular just to say that you like Fo3?