Fallout 3 is The Force Awakens

ridiculous bullshit.
The same could be said about all of Fallout 3.

But on a more serious note, sacrifice is a theme.

Your father abandons his research to raise a son in a Vault. He sacrifices his life's work of restoring clean water to the wasteland to raise you in a safe environment.

You can take it further and say that Harold can sacrifice himself for the good of the wasteland. Leaving him alive takes away his chance of a peaceful death, but this can be sacrificed in order to help others.

You can either agree that it is a theme, or you can disagree which shows that Bethesda can't write for shit because they can't even get their themes right.
 
Sacrifice plays literally no role in 99% of the game so why in the world would I be upset with its removal?
And this is what you've get to think for not playing Dark Souls.

Maybe even Dragon's Dogma while we're at it.

Hell, one of the ending you can get in Dungeon Rats is basically sacrificing yourself by surrendering yourself so your prisonmates can be free, and that game wasn't even a main project by the developer.

In retrospect, the Vault Dweller's adventure in Fallout 1 truly starts with the VD's willingness to go out there in the harsh wasteland. Based on what you chose for the ending, you basically sacrificed yourself and your wholeness for the safety and security of your fellow vault dwellers despite the Overseer's bullshit attempt in hiding the truth.

Hell, SarcasticGoodGuy did better job painting Bethesda's game in better light. But like Kohno said, they even failed to deliver that themes :lol:
My love of Fallout 3 is predicated entirely on the fixed version the same way my love of the Witcher games requires the Enhanced Edition's fixing of their script.
There you go again, condoning bullshit corporate practice of cutting content so they can sell it later as DLCs.
 
Yeah and I said 99% of the game has no sacrifice as a theme, therefore it's not a theme. It's a thing at the very end which comes out of nowhere and is ridiculous bullshit.
Of course not in the manner that every NPC is runing around screaming SACRIFICE! SACRIFICE! WE ALL NEED TO SACRIFICE, but if you really can't see how Bethesda tried to 'cram' this into their game, then I am really not sure what kind of game you played ... But I do agree the game has this habit of dulling ones mind so much ... that you kinda want to forget most of it. So many dumbfucking moments in the game. From your psycho father, to that anoying cunt Moira, the idiotic Eden, blowing up towns for lulz, and the out-of-nowhere-purifier-sacrifice shit ending.

Maybe the player really does sacrifice his intelligence in the end by playing Fallout 3 ... who knows.
 
Given they were looting Mariposa, presumably FEV was taken from there to Navarro to Poseidon. Also, we see they're conducting experiments in the base as well as on the oil rig. Hence why you can murder the doctor in the soundproof room.

On a Deathclaw, there's no mention of FEV.

EDIT: I need to verify this, as I may be incorrect about it.

Most but not all of their records. As for using the Purifier to distribute the virus, it's a virus not a poison so it'll be distributed through the ocean. But maybe not. Maybe John Henry Eden may actually just intend to wipe out the mutations in the Capital Wasteland so they can rebuild America there and go outward as the Maxson Brotherhood of Steel does to the Commonwealth.

I doubt that one vial of FEV would infect the ocean. The FEV on the rig was modified to be airborne and they likely had enough of it to do the job.

I will say, though, that the dropping FEV into the vents and killing all of the non-powered armor Enclave citizens is probably non-canonical in Fallout 2 as there's clearly a large civilian population necessary to rebuild the Enclave. Presumably, they evacuated the Oil Rig and were taken to Raven's Rock.

To you, maybe. Even without the vents method most were killed when the rig exploded. You can't just evacuate hundreds of people in a small amount of time.

We have no evidence of them, though, and it's entirely possible Gannon and the Remnant are the only non-Enclave forces. I admit, though, I hope we'll see an Enclave conspiracy ala Captain America and the Winter Soldier some day.

It's mentioned by loading screen.

Loading Screen said:
Though they were a powerful force in the west decades ago, the Enclave has not been seen or heard from in the Mojave Wasteland for years. Members who were not hunted down are believed to have traveled east - or successfully integrated into the NCR.

No way they'll be able to come back in force though. They were decimated on the rig, they were decimated in Navarro and the East Coast Enclave is dead as well.


It does mean some kind of contact was going on between John Henry Eden and the Enclave, though.

After the rig explosion maybe, but nothing says they were while Richardson was alive. Why would they listen to Eden anyway? The President would already have advisors, he'd have no need for some voice on the East Coast.

I honestly think Fallout 3 is the far more mature and non-humorous game. It's very moving to me and sad. Lots and lots of focus on the tragedy of nuclear war versus SCIENCE and FUN. I say that as a huge fan of SCIENCE and FUN.

In what way is it more mature? I really would like to know how for example Eden's self-destruction is more mature than the Master's suicide.

The same could be said about all of Fallout 3.

But on a more serious note, sacrifice is a theme.

Your father abandons his research to raise a son in a Vault. He sacrifices his life's work of restoring clean water to the wasteland to raise you in a safe environment.

You can take it further and say that Harold can sacrifice himself for the good of the wasteland. Leaving him alive takes away his chance of a peaceful death, but this can be sacrificed in order to help others.

You can either agree that it is a theme, or you can disagree which shows that Bethesda can't write for shit because they can't even get their themes right.

Let's not forget your father sacrificing (or rather pissing away) his and his child's safe life in Vault 101 and then actually killing himself to stop the Enclave from using the purifier, even though his death is totally pointless given it wouldn't have worked anyway without the GECK and chances are the BOS would have taken it back.
 
The same could be said about all of Fallout 3.

But on a more serious note, sacrifice is a theme.

Your father abandons his research to raise a son in a Vault. He sacrifices his life's work of restoring clean water to the wasteland to raise you in a safe environment. You can take it further and say that Harold can sacrifice himself for the good of the wasteland. Leaving him alive takes away his chance of a peaceful death, but this can be sacrificed in order to help others.

You can either agree that it is a theme, or you can disagree which shows that Bethesda can't write for shit because they can't even get their themes right.

I teach Literature so I generally state, "It doesn't matter what the author says the book is about. It's about what the book is actually about."

Maybe like 5-10 minutes total out of a game which can be played for hundreds of hours (I played over 400 hours of Fallout 3) which doesn't really make me think too much about sacrifice. The game is all about Washington D.C., the government, the destructuion of the Wasteland and nuclear war in terms of CONSTANT REMINDERS. The tragedy of the Pre-War world is all around you as well as the possibility of bringing it back.

Personally, I don't trust any marketing ploys versus what is inside the game. I also know that games are written by many people so what one is going for is not what is actually the game for. This is exemplified by the two lead writers of Far Cry 3 for example.

One claimed he was writing a serious story about a upper class kid becoming a murderous Heart of Darkness psychopath.
The other claimed he was writing a goofy parody of the majority of action games where you do stuff for colorful characters despite no reason to.

Both have elements inside.

There you go again, condoning bullshit corporate practice of cutting content so they can sell it later as DLCs.

Video game developers and their tricks to make money have shit to do with artistic merit--both with or without.

The fact Shale costs money to have in Dragon Age means jack all to her role in the story.
 
One of the things I always think is lost with many critics of Fallout 3 is that it's a remake.
It's basically a retelling of Fallout 1 and 2 in miniature. While the Water Chip story is gone, it's replaced with building a gigantic water purifier (which is what the water chip does) and covers most of the same story beats you'll have in the original game.

To anyone that played Fallout 1 & 2 and have more that one brain cell it's obvious that failout 3 just rip-off old story. Only plebs that think that failout 3 is 1st game in a serie can miss that.


Really, the game is basically The Force Awakens. It's an attempt to retell the original games in such a way that an entire new generation of fans can be introduced to all of the wonders of Fallout and its lore. It's why I have difficulty with a lot of fans who keep saying they should have introduced new factions for the East Coast.

Failed attempt.
Lore that they raped and dumb down.
 
I doubt that one vial of FEV would infect the ocean. The FEV on the rig was modified to be airborne and they likely had enough of it to do the job.

According to the Fallout Bible, FEV is responsible for all of the mutations everywhere because the nukes hit the location in the Glow.

To you, maybe. Even without the vents method most were killed when the rig exploded. You can't just evacuate hundreds of people in a small amount of time.

Well, there's enough to evacuate your entire tribe and the dwellers of Deathclaw Vault despite the fact they're prisoners in the middle of it.

No way they'll be able to come back in force though. They were decimated on the rig, they were decimated in Navarro and the East Coast Enclave is dead as well.

Depends on if there were other bases. They could also start recruiting from Vaults.

After the rig explosion maybe, but nothing says they were while Richardson was alive. Why would they listen to Eden anyway? The President would already have advisors, he'd have no need for some voice on the East Coast.

Autumn says Eden was on the chain of command to begin with, not that they started worshiping a computer when they arrived. That opens a bunch of questions, I admit, but it explains why they agreed to work for him and why Colonel Autumn is more respected.

They obey a ZAX computer because it's the smartest thing alive but Autumn is their actual leader.

In what way is it more mature? I really would like to know how for example Eden's self-destruction is more mature than the Master's suicide.

I don't like the Master and consider him a cartoonish villain who just so happens to see the error of his ways but I know I'm alone in this. I felt John Henry Eden was a very well written character for the fact he was an embodiment of Pre-War America as the literal gestalt of all previous Presidents. Seeing him destroyed allowed America to at last move on.

Much like killing Dick Richardson made the President just a boogeyman word.

Let's not forget your father sacrificing (or rather pissing away) his and his child's safe life in Vault 101 and then actually killing himself to stop the Enclave from using the purifier, even though his death is totally pointless given it wouldn't have worked anyway without the GECK and chances are the BOS would have taken it back.

Part of why I think sacrifice is a bullshit theme. Tranquility Lane and THOUSANDS of bits parody the 1950s but they don't mention that as a theme.
 
To anyone that played Fallout 1 & 2 and have more that one brain cell it's obvious that failout 3 just rip-off old story. Only plebs that think that failout 3 is 1st game in a serie can miss that.

Failed attempt.
Lore that they raped and dumb down.

I accept both of these as valid arguments.
 
Video game developers and their tricks to make money have shit to do with artistic merit--both with or without.
Oh, wow. And to think you'd dare talk about how one game is maturer than the other.

This is why we can't have nice things. This is why video game development at large is going into a massive decline. The likes of you plaguing the market, willing to spend money on bullshit company with bullshit practice without second thought.

In short, fuck you.
 
btw I agree that fo3 is same as sw:fa. Both of them where made with ONLY ONE reason, to make a lot of money and nothing else. They are both over-rated mediocre products for a.d.d. masses.
 
Fallout 3 is a game which has themes about slavery, American exceptionalism, letting go of the past, the importance of the past, and blind fanaticism but sacrifice? I don't see it.
  • Slavery? It has slavery but it is hardly a theme.
  • American exceptionalism? Ehh. Maybe have a Fallout game about actually building something great before you throw that one in there.
  • Letting go of the past? Not really unless you count that in-depth moral argument for Eden to kill itself. Still, New Vegas was the one about letting go and it handled it way better.
  • The importance of the past? You really can't have both without putting it in more general theme like "How the past affects us?".
  • Blind fanaticism? The motives of the Enclave aren't fleshed out enough for it to be a theme.
Honestly, all these themes can be also applied to Fallout 2 using the same reasoning but no. Fallout 2 wasn't about either of those things. Fallout 2 was about Succession.

Fallout: New Vegas on the other hand was definitely about "letting go." It touches on Regret, Revenge, and Redemption and ties it all together under theme of letting go.

The key thing in Fallout 3 is supposed to be the father-child relationship and what is one thing lesson being imparted from that relationship? Sacrifice.
 
Oh, wow. And to think you'd dare talk about how one game is maturer than the other.

This is why we can't have nice things. This is why video game development at large is going into a massive decline. The likes of you plaguing the market, willing to spend money on bullshit company with bullshit practice without second thought.

In short, fuck you.

I'm fairly certain you're insane. You're basically saying the Mona Lisa can't be art if it's sold versus displayed in a gallery. Of course, you actually think I approve of any of those practices, which is another sign you're insane.

:)
 
The key thing in Fallout 3 is supposed to be the father-child relationship and what is one thing lesson being imparted from that relationship? Sacrifice.

I took the theme of tragedy from that because you try desperately to save your father but fail. Which means you must go on with your own life and build a better tomorrow. You can't return to the Past (Vault 101) or renew your relationship with your father. You've changed and it's time to build a whole new life of infinite possibilities.

You know, growing up.

I admit, that's part of why Fallout 3's original ending is such bullshit.

It's the same reason I hate Rogue One's ending.
 
Last edited:
The OP would make sense if Bethesda actually made a good Fallout game afterwards. As in: "here's a rehash of the originals, now we will give you a truly great sequel".

They didn't. They didn't rehash the plot to introduce it to new audiences. They just failed to make a proper Fallout game, twice in a row already, and relied on old things to make it "good".
 
The OP would make sense if Bethesda actually made a good Fallout game afterwards. As in: "here's a rehash of the originals, now we will give you a truly great sequel".

They didn't. They didn't rehash the plot to introduce it to new audiences. They just failed to make a proper Fallout game, twice in a row already, and relied on old things to make it "good".

Honestly, Fallout 4 feels like about as an incomplete a game as Knights of the Old Republic 2.

Except KOTOR2 felt like it would have been awesome (and was) if it had been completed.

The only decent things in Fallout 4 are the graphics, the Glowing Sea, the return of the Capital Wasteland Brotherhood, and the Institute's Raygun Gothic look.
 
I'm fairly certain you're insane. You're basically saying the Mona Lisa can't be art if it's sold versus displayed in a gallery. Of course, you actually think I approve of any of those practices, which is another sign you're insane.

:)
No, what we say is, what Bethesda did is comparable to buying the Mona Lisa and turning it in to this:
large.jpg


Of course, all in the name of bringing 'art' to a wider audience.
 
Okay let's make one thing clear. You're confusing the term remake with the term Rip-off. Okay? Its not remaking one and two Its just stealing from them. Badly. And in terms of quality it's more in line with revenge of the sith. In that sure it's still horrible but it's not quite as bad as BOS or fallout 4.
 
I think Fallout 3 is better than Fallout 1 and 2 but that's different than it should be judged as a remake.

:)

Also, I think whoever thought the original ending was good is an idiot for MULTIPLE reasons and the Broken Steel one is an Author's Saving Throw of epic proportions. My opinion of Bethesda and DLC is also that I got cheated with my Season Pass for Fallout 4 and should have gotten 4 Expansions--especially since I consider Automatron to be shit and hate the Settlement System.

Okay let's make one thing clear. You're confusing the term remake with the term Rip-off. Okay? Its not remaking one and two Its just stealing from them. Badly. And in terms of quality it's more in line with revenge of the sith. In that sure it's still horrible but it's not quite as bad as BOS or fallout 4.

I don't think it's a rip-off when you make no pretension of having invented them.

Todd Howard: "I created Fallout"

....

Stop working against me here, Bethesda.
 
Even you say that the ending is shit, and yet you like Fallout 3 more compared to F1 and F2. I don't know if you're actually liking Bethesda and Fallout 3 or not. It's quite schizophrenic. You can see it as a 'remake', fine, but it is at the end of the day just pure speculation from your part. On the other side we have direct quotes from Todd where he said countless times that their aim was to make a SEQUEL to the previous games. And this is how Fallout 3 and 4 are judged here. And even IF(!) it would have been made as a remake, it would be still a failure, as it does literaly everything worse, from the skills, to the writing, the quest design you name it. There is also a word for that, dumbing down.
 
Back
Top