Fallout 3. Is it really so bad?

[ShatteredJon]

Well what I consider cannon I take from the Fallouts as well as the Bibles, although I do not know if that is generally considered part of the cannon by the community.

What they break: Reason for Enclave being there, Reason for BoS being there. FEV has changed. Vault 67 is a huge cannon breaker. Super Mutants aren't the same brand as west coast. Deathclaws somehow in the East, even though they are mutated desert lizards. Dumbing down the use of the G.E.C.K. Ghouls no longer caused by mix of FEV and radiation, just radiation now,etc.

Alot of the more damaging ones, IMO, are spoilers and crucial to the story, so I shall leave you to find them yourself.

 

[Bloody William]

I'm pretty sure I said this a few minutes ago, but it's not a valid excuse for a sequel to have glaring flaws just because the prequels did.

And I don't have any rose-tinted glasses thank you, I still play Ultima 4 on my laptop because it's fun, not because I feel that it's better than anything else in its genre despite its age.
Fallout 1 and 2 did have problems, but they are two separate games, and Fallout 3 is its own game as well, therefore their problems are independent.

Except I keep hearing about how Fallout 3 doesn't live up to Fallout and Fallout 2, how there are so many differences, how it looks different and sounds different and feels different. Like I said, I'm not making excuses for the flaws, except to point out that those flaws are the same ones that have been dogging both Fallout and Elder Scrolls for years, and I've yet to see a technological solution to them (They might hide behind cover or have "moods," but whether in the 90's or today, AI tends to be dumb). Games with less environment interaction (Mass Effect, for example) come out cleaner and with less such problems, but when you can manipulate nearly anything in a game, those issues manifest regardless of technology.

 

[Eyenixon]

I'm pretty sure I said this a few minutes ago, but it's not a valid excuse for a sequel to have glaring flaws just because the prequels did.

And I don't have any rose-tinted glasses thank you, I still play Ultima 4 on my laptop because it's fun, not because I feel that it's better than anything else in its genre despite its age.
Fallout 1 and 2 did have problems, but they are two separate games, and Fallout 3 is its own game as well, therefore their problems are independent.

Except I keep hearing about how Fallout 3 doesn't live up to Fallout and Fallout 2, how there are so many differences, how it looks different and sounds different and feels different. Like I said, I'm not making excuses for the flaws, except to point out that those flaws are the same ones that have been dogging both Fallout and Elder Scrolls for years, and I've yet to see a technological solution to them (They might hide behind cover or have "moods," but whether in the 90's or today, AI tends to be dumb). Games with less environment interaction (Mass Effect, for example) come out cleaner and with less such problems, but when you can manipulate nearly anything in a game, those issues manifest regardless of technology.

That's entirely incorrect, play Ultima 7 and tell me that there isn't a "technological solution" to the problems you have mentioned. Ultima 7 had an incredibly diverse environment where nearly everything could be manipulated and there were countless things to be done with everyday items, not only that the NPCs had their own schedules and opinions of the PC, they'd also react differently to your actions, the game had hardly any problems in this case at all, the same can be said of Gothic 1 and 2.

AI is being overdone, that's the problem and so is a manipulatable environment. Developers should focus less on creating complex AI and create simple AI with several different avenues of action rather than something which interconnects with several different variables such as "Liking the PC" mixed with "I'm hungry". It doesn't work at all, and Fallout wasn't a victim of that, nor was it a victim of bad AI in the sense that Fallout 3 was.

Opponents in Fallout had very base AI and so did your party members when it came to combat, they'd fight differently depending on which weapons they had, run or use items when they were weak and so on. Fallout 3 attempts to add in NPCs that all have daily schedules and complex AI actions, such as eating or interacting with other NPCs.

I can't understand how you would think that because Fallout 3 all of a sudden decided to use advanced AI and an interactive environment that it somehow parallels with the original games in its flaws. It's an entirely different game, it has problems that a game of its type shouldn't have.

Many problems in Fallout 1/2 were quite common for the time, you'd see them in Baldur's Gate or Jagged Alliance 2 amongst others, however, Fallout 3 has flaws in its fundamentals that cause more problems in a real time environment than a turn based one.
Is it not possible that Fallout 3 didn't live up to its predecessors because it has not displayed the same level of competence with its mechanics and environment as the originals did?

You can't simply look at it as Fallout 1 AI/Fallout 3 AI, you have to look at it as 1998 Fallout 1 isometric Turn Based RPG simplistic AI/ 2008 Fallout 3 first person action based first person RPG complex AI or else your criticism loses all meaning since it's not relevant to its time period or manner of development.
It makes sense to criticize Fallout 1 and 2 for their problems, but it makes no sense to say that Fallout 3 isn't a disappointment just because it managed to repeat old problems in new ways, nor does it make sense to say that it does indeed live up to its pedigree because the older games had similar problems.

That's thinking backward, if the developers thought that way I'm certain we would've had a worse game on our hands.

 

[Buxbaum666]

Except I keep hearing about how Fallout 3 doesn't live up to Fallout and Fallout 2, how there are so many differences, how it looks different and sounds different and feels different. Like I said, I'm not making excuses for the flaws, except to point out that those flaws are the same ones that have been dogging both Fallout and Elder Scrolls for years, and I've yet to see a technological solution to them (They might hide behind cover or have "moods," but whether in the 90's or today, AI tends to be dumb).

You say that as if it's a good thing. "Hey folks, Fallout 3 isn't completely different from the original games! It has the same flaws!"

 

[UniversalWolf]

Re: Shared failings: rose-colored glasses and the FO/TES gam

I'm new, but I'm very honestly not trying to troll in any way, nor am I apologizing for what are distinct, undeniable flaws in Fallout 3. However, I'm amazed by the kneejerk hatred for the game on this board.

I can understand how you would think the negativity toward "Fallout 3" was kneejerk if you'd just arrived here. In truth it's the product of years of discussion and analysis, backed increasingly by first-hand and second-hand knowledge.

This is where we need to remember what Fallout and Fallout 2 were like. The characters, in both conversation and combat, were slow at best and broken at worst. Dealing with companions in the original Fallout was nothing less than excruciating. Turn-based combat, while satisfying when it worked, was clunky and slow. Who hasn't waited minutes upon minutes to get through a random encounter because every single raider had to make their own move, even if the move made no sense or they did nothing? Who hasn't dealt with a broken save because a script triggered incorrectly or not at all, leaving you stuck or hated with no way to go on in the main game or a major side quest?

These complaints are not completely invalid, however they are complaints of a technical nature about a ten-year-old game. No one on this board - no one - wants the exact same engine from Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 for a Fallout sequel made today. Do you really think technical problems like these couldn't be improved in a brand-new turn-based isometric game? They already have been rememdied in turn-based isometric games that are only, say, five years old.

It's just plain silly to give applause to "Fallout 3" for being better than the originals in technical respects. I mean, what if it weren't?

For what it's worth, I've never had a problem with broken saves leaving me stuck.

 

[Bloody William]

Re: Shared failings: rose-colored glasses and the FO/TES gam

Fair point on the technical issues, but that's been a factor for both the FO and TES games. It was the case two years ago for Oblivion, five years ago for Morrowind, and ten years ago for Fallout. Sadly, it's the price of a complex, highly interactive engine and a reliance upon scripted events for quest advancement.

Bethsoft releases amazingly good betas that are compelling enough to keep playing. They release games that would be considered ridiculously buggy and unacceptable final products if they came from other developers, and I can't deny that. However, there's more than enough depth and breadth in those buggy games that the effort it takes to get past those issues are well rewarded. These bugs are inevitably the result of Bethsoft trying to cram so much stuff into a single engine and world, and... well, pretty much skimming on the AI.

That said, I'm having enough fun in FO3 to get past that. Vault-crawling, roaming the Wasteland, exploring the many many many things to discover is completely worth getting past the bugs. At the end of the day, I feel like the Vaultdweller/Chosen One, because of good enough visual design and humor. It's not Black Isle level, but it's much better than Bethsoft's previous works (which themselves were compelling in their own way).

I'm new, but I'm very honestly not trying to troll in any way, nor am I apologizing for what are distinct, undeniable flaws in Fallout 3. However, I'm amazed by the kneejerk hatred for the game on this board.

I can understand how you would think the negativity toward "Fallout 3" was kneejerk if you'd just arrived here. In truth it's the product of years of discussion and analysis, backed increasingly by first-hand and second-hand knowledge.

Okay, instead of kneejerk would you prefer really really slow but unavoidable drop kick?

The game came out less than a week ago, with no demo before that. I know there have been first-hand demonstrations for many NMA-ers, but a short period of time in front of a dev kit does not a reviewable experience make, especially when you're spending that time lamenting every single possible flaw and ignoring every strength.

The "years of discussion and analysis" and "first-hand and second-hand knowledge" have been a pressure cooker of determined hatred for Fallout 3. The majority of complaints I've seen, ever since it was announced that Bethsoft would develop Fallout 3, have been that it won't be Van Buren and that it won't be like Fallout or Fallout 2. Nearly every complaint has been picking apart any possible flaw in Fallout 3, whether it's throwing up an early screen shot and screaming how that's not the real Wasteland, or that it won't have an overhead view.

You've been focusing on everything that could possibly go wrong with Fallout 3 in any way, preparing yourself for years at how "Oblivion with guns" will be worse than Brotherhood of Steel, how it'll be nothing like Fallout in tone, how Bethsoft will completely screw it up. Now the game's been out for less than a week and you're bringing those "years of discussion and analysis" to the table when you actually play it. So how are most of the people here playing the game? Angrily, trying to pick out every slight flaw while ignoring every potential for actually enjoying the game.

It's fine to point out everything wrong with a game. I certainly admit it. But when you're picking out everything wrong while at the same time refusing to enjoy the game for what it is, you're doing a disservice to yourself.

It started with "it won't be overhead" and "it won't be Van Buren," and it's become "Bethsoft has ignored everything about the Fallout universe" and "V.A.T.S. sucks."

In another thread, a poster noted:

-fps combat in real time is broken. plain and simple.
-v.a.t.s. == cheating

Try to understand those two objections. 1: Real-time FPS doesn't work. Fair enough, it's not meant to. THEN, 2: VATS is cheating. One part of combat's too hard, one part of combat is too easy. But together it works really well and is about as close to turn-based as you're going to find in a first-person RPG (and is leaps and bounds better than the TES combat system). VATS is "taking your turn," interspersed with acting defensively while your opponents "take their turns." Instead of taking the game like that, I'm seeing complaints about two individual factors of combat even though, when combined, they work really well. That sort of approach is what I'm talking about, a kneejerk objection to everything that might possibly be wrong in Fallout 3, while ignoring anything that might be the least bit fun and rewarding.

 

[metalboss44]

I could give you a laundry list of immersion breaking design flaws that destroyed my gameplay experience but I think the others have covered it pretty well so far. This game is a miserable disappointment.

 

[coliphorbs]

This is the closest thing to a general opinion thread, I think, so here goes.

I was pleasantly surprised by FO3. Considering all the atrocities we've heard of it during it's development, I'll have to say that some of the hearsay was blown out of proportions.

That said, the connection between this and it's "prequels" is very tentative. I didn't feel like I'm walking the same gritty, barren wastelands of Fallout and the only thing that felt somehow familiar were the PIPBoy pictures shoved in my face at every opportunity. The game is a whole lot of Go-Fetch/Walk-from-X-to-X quests with metro stations or other "dungeons" placed in-between. It gets very repetitive, and there are no real thought provoking challenges.

Still, I think Fallout 3 is a good game. It's a good FPS with RPG elements. But it does no justice to the Fallout franchise -- it's all that Oblivion should have been and wasn't.

It's good, but not great.

 

[UniversalWolf]

Re: Shared failings: rose-colored glasses and the FO/TES gam

The "years of discussion and analysis" and "first-hand and second-hand knowledge" have been a pressure cooker of determined hatred for Fallout 3.

If you really are new here I don't see how you could possibly know that.

The truth is the NMA forum has had a gamut of opinion ranging from determined optimism to determined pessimism. Over the course of the past couple of years as more and more facts came to light, the optimists became fewer and the number of pessimists swelled, but that doesn't mean everyone started out with a negative opinion. I didn't.

Just because many posters here have made up their minds about "Fallout 3" doesn't mean their minds were made up without good reason.

In the past few days I've seen a few people here change their long-held opinions, too. Not many, but a few - and not all the same way.

This in stark contrast to some of the new posters who jump in and start calling everyone irrational haters without having read the forums for more than a week or two.

 

[Per]

Re: Shared failings: rose-colored glasses and the FO/TES gam

I know there have been first-hand demonstrations for many NMA-ers

There have been what? The only people from NMA who have been allowed near the game were acting on behalf of other sites at the time.

Nearly every complaint has been picking apart any possible flaw in Fallout 3, whether it's throwing up an early screen shot and screaming how that's not the real Wasteland, or that it won't have an overhead view.

And that's all that's been going on here, right? Don't troll.

VATS is "taking your turn,"

No, VATS is "pausing and selecting your actions".

 

[pm987]

Well, it seems that so called 'Fallout 3' is better than Fallout 2, can you believe it ????? I wonder how much or what they (Game Industry News, G4 - X-Play, GameSpy, UGO, IGN, GamingExcellence, Game Revolution, 1UP, GameSpot, VideoGamer etc) got for 95%-100% reviews :

Fallout 3
Publisher: Bethesda Softworks
Number of P/Reviews: 156 PC 92.8%

Fallout 2
Publisher: Interplay
Number of P/Reviews: 34 PC 86.9%

source: http://www.gamerankings.com/



...Plastic world with cows to milk... Did you queue to get milked?

 

[frosty_theaussie]

Well, it seems that so called 'Fallout 3' is better than Fallout 2, can you believe it ????? I wonder how much or what they (Game Industry News, G4 - X-Play, GameSpy, UGO, IGN, GamingExcellence, Game Revolution, 1UP, GameSpot, VideoGamer etc) got for 95%-100% reviews :

Fallout 3
Publisher: Bethesda Softworks
Number of P/Reviews: 156 PC 92.8%

Fallout 2
Publisher: Interplay
Number of P/Reviews: 34 PC 86.9%

source: http://www.gamerankings.com/



...Plastic world with cows to milk... Did you que to get milked?

Metacritic and GameRankings aren't good sources for compiled reviews on older games. I know it's rather small and difficult to find but you best see about getting that grain of salt back...

 

[Marx]

Re: Shared failings: rose-colored glasses and the FO/TES gam

the optimists became fewer and the number of pessimists swelled

I'd say it's more like 'the optimists left so they wouldn't have to compete with the militant pessimists.'

This in stark contrast to some of the new posters who jump in and start calling everyone irrational haters without having read the forums for more than a week or two.

Alot of the hate is irrational.

 

[Bloody William]

Re: Shared failings: rose-colored glasses and the FO/TES gam

The "years of discussion and analysis" and "first-hand and second-hand knowledge" have been a pressure cooker of determined hatred for Fallout 3.

If you really are new here I don't see how you could possibly know that.

The truth is the NMA forum has had a gamut of opinion ranging from determined optimism to determined pessimism. Over the course of the past couple of years as more and more facts came to light, the optimists became fewer and the number of pessimists swelled, but that doesn't mean everyone started out with a negative opinion. I didn't.

Just because many posters here have made up their minds about "Fallout 3" doesn't mean their minds were made up without good reason.

In the past few days I've seen a few people here change their long-held opinions, too. Not many, but a few - and not all the same way.

This in stark contrast to some of the new posters who jump in and start calling everyone irrational haters without having read the forums for more than a week or two.

I'm a new poster, but I've been checking out NMA for years. I'm with you on the FO and FO2 love, but I didn't post until now because I kept getting turned off by the determined pessimism about how Fallout 3 was going to suck. Now the game's out and I can say it's pretty damn good, so the benefit of the doubt of the doubt of the doubt no longer applies. I wasn't going to be a Bethsoft apologist just because I like the TES games, without playing Fallout 3.

And I don't see how you can say you didn't go into Fallout 3 with a negative opinion after talking about the "years of discussion and analysis."

Nearly every complaint has been picking apart any possible flaw in Fallout 3, whether it's throwing up an early screen shot and screaming how that's not the real Wasteland, or that it won't have an overhead view.

And that's all that's been going on here, right? Don't troll.

It's been a very large part of it, in regards to Fallout 3. Like I said, totally behind the FO and FO2 love and the desire to see the games keep going through mods and community. But when talking about Fallout 3? The last two years have been cries of "It's going to suck!"

VATS is "taking your turn,"

No, VATS is "pausing and selecting your actions".

I was trying to describe the process in terms of what it would have been in the context of Fallout and Fallout 2. VATS' "pausing and selecting your actions" can be seen as "taking your turn" and the occasional frantic scramble to not die when you don't have action points is easily enemies taking their turn.

In the context of a first person RPG, do you have a way that makes turn-based combat work at all? Making the combat turn-based would have made it clunky and slow, and making the combat all-real-time would have made it "Oblivion with guns" or worse yet a post-apocalyptic FPS This is a middle ground with targeted shots based on your stats and not your twitch skill.

Even in third-person perspective, even in an over-the-head perspective, turn-based combat in this day and age would feel antiquated and slow. Even Bioware realizes that (KOTOR was pause-and-select-your-actions and Mass Effect was all real-time). Heck, even Obsidian realizes this (NWN2 is D&D 3.5 modified for real-time combat), and they are what's LEFT of Black Isle Studios (and incidentally, I'm quite looking forward to Alpha Protocol).

Strip away the humor and the ultraviolence and Fallout/Fallout 2's turn-based combat was one of its weaker aspects. It was slow and clunky, and it took minutes for a full turn to pass. I love both games, but you can't tell me you pine for the days of reading a magazine in-between moves during a random encounter with a band of raiders.

 

[bhlaab]

Let's be honest, there are lots of people here (not all) who have managed to find a major, deal-breaking flaw in EVERY MINOR DETAIL related to this game because they hold the originals to an unrealistic regard.

I think that, had Van Buren made it all the way through development, there would be nearly as many people who thought of it as sacrilige

 

[causticbeat]

sacra

попапа седеди
дикомо тенике
кетела помопе

 

[Roflcore]

*Roflcore shoots down the 1995 riot cop standing next to the vault overseer, shoots his head several time till it blasts of, blood everywhere*

vault overseer: "So Roflcore, I hope you came here to surrender..."

Roflcore: *escape -> quit*

 

[ShatteredJon]

*Roflcore shoots down the 1995 riot cop standing next to the vault overseer, shoots his head several time till it blasts of, blood everywhere*

vault overseer: "So Roflcore, I hope you came here to surrender..."

Roflcore: *escape -> quit*

Don't you just love broken scripting? Similar things happened to me in the Oasis. (finally found it last night) I murdered the treekeepers, and Harold's dialouge didn't change at all.
The I found a broken quest, in the form of the Republic of Dave. No matter what I tried, I couldn't finish it. Ended up just wasting the "country."

 

[Tycn]

*Roflcore shoots down the 1995 riot cop standing next to the vault overseer, shoots his head several time till it blasts of, blood everywhere*

vault overseer: "So Roflcore, I hope you came here to surrender..."

Roflcore: *escape -> quit*

Don't you just love broken scripting? Similar things happened to me in the Oasis. (finally found it last night) I murdered the treekeepers, and Harold's dialouge didn't change at all.
The I found a broken quest, in the form of the Republic of Dave. No matter what I tried, I couldn't finish it. Ended up just wasting the "country."

From broken Radiant AI to broken scripting. Bethesda sure knows how to advance.

 

[frosty_theaussie]

*Roflcore shoots down the 1995 riot cop standing next to the vault overseer, shoots his head several time till it blasts of, blood everywhere*

vault overseer: "So Roflcore, I hope you came here to surrender..."

Roflcore: *escape -> quit*

Don't you just love broken scripting? Similar things happened to me in the Oasis. (finally found it last night) I murdered the treekeepers, and Harold's dialouge didn't change at all.
The I found a broken quest, in the form of the Republic of Dave. No matter what I tried, I couldn't finish it. Ended up just wasting the "country."

You're talking about broken dialogue? That should be Fallout 3's subtitle or something. I murded Dukov and then came back; his whores still spoke as if he were alive. That kind of unpolished bullshit... well, it's all very amatuerish, right?