Fallout 3 Retrospective at RPGWatch

WorstUsernameEver

But best title ever!
RPGWatch has cooked up a retrospective for Fallout 3. In short, the writer thinks it's not a good Fallout game but it's fun in its own right:<blockquote>After a ten-year hiatus, the Fallout series is back. This time, though, software giants Bethesda are at the helm, and they're making significant changes to take Fallout into the mainstream. The original games still have a strong following to this day, and somewhat unsurprisingly, Bethesda's interpretation has alienated a certain chunk of the old fan base. They claim FO3 is not respectful of its lineage and thus should not bear the Fallout name. Whether or not this is true (it is, to some degree), is irrelevant. FO3 is a video game, and therefore the only metric by which it should be measured is whether or not it's fun (it is, to a large degree).

With that established, it is safe to turn to the game itself. The Fallout games take place in a desolate wasteland, an Earth long-ago ravaged by nuclear war. Humanity survived the nuclear fallout by sheltering in vast underground vaults, though most of the wasteland's populace is too many generations removed from their subterranean ancestors to recall such origins, and the existence of vaults is mostly dismissed as myth and fairytale. While this back-story may not sound startlingly original, Fallout's world stands out from other post-apocalyptic settings due to its 1940s/50s style, which pervades everything from the artwork through to the music. Even the advanced technology has a "retro-future" feel to it, reminiscent of Flash Gordon, and lending an almost steam-punk edge to proceedings. Bethesda have wisely kept these "pulp" trappings intact, though their attempts at recreating the dark humour of the originals are, at best, hit and miss. The action has been switched to the east coast of America, specifically a decimated Washington D.C., with the famous D.C. locales - from the White House to Lincoln Memorial - wonderfully utilised. As with GTA: London, there's something really satisfying about wandering round a city that you're already familiar with, but now you can go places normally off-limits. Or maybe it's just me who goes to the Air and Space museum, surrounded by some of mankind's finest achievements, but really just wants to know what's behind the locked door labelled "Janitor"?

As for the actual gameplay, there has been much debate about the degree to which FO3 has eschewed its RPG heritage in favour of more FPS-like mechanics. It's true that Fallout 1 and 2 were defined by complex storylines, detailed characters and far-reaching consequences to the player's actions. And that these elements are less prominent in FO3, while faster action and stunning visuals have been brought to the forefront. But at its core, it could be argued that FO3 is neither RPG nor FPS (or even some hybrid of the two): No, FO3 is best described as a scavenge-'em-up. While the story line is somewhat predictable, even the most interactive dialogue is a simple good/evil choice, and the combat sits in the awkward no-man's land between twitch and strategy, there's an enormous amount of fun to be had from scouring the game world for useful supplies and ammo. And the wasteland itself is packed with interesting places awaiting discovery, meaning exploration is well rewarded. If you enjoy both rummaging through other people's crap at jumble sales and head-exploding violence, then FO3 may just be your perfect game.</blockquote>
 
it isn't good game itself.
have bad point of both oblivion and skyrim.
bad main quest, boring and simple dungeon crawling quests, bad level scailing, etc.
and for FPS bullshit, it makes game more stupid since AI is bad and there are plenty of way to abuse it.
dungeons are just looking good but actually it's boring linear hack&slash dungeon with nothing interesting about loots.
and for loots, since ammo have no weight and you can earn plenty of money from selling power armor(or energy weapons) it's meaningless.

so for me, fo3 not only bad because it abuses name of Fallout but also game itself is POS.
 
Fallout 3 isn't a good game in it's own right. It's average at best.

Secondly it is relevant to judge a game from whether or not it is respectful of its lineage. And Fallout 3 is not.

Thus RPGWhatch are wrong.
 
They claim FO3 is not respectful of its lineage and thus should not bear the Fallout name. Whether or not this is true (it is, to some degree), is irrelevant. FO3 is a video game, and therefore the only metric by which it should be measured is whether or not it's fun (it is, to a large degree)

lolwut?
 
I guess you CAN see it from that point of view, if you for example never played any of the fallout games, how would you really know if its true to the previous games or not? So you could enjoy it at what it is, if that kind of game suits you.

Thing is, that even if you completely ignore Fallout and the previous games, what you can't ignore, is that Fallout 3 was sold and see as "Role Playing Game". I guess I don't have really to explain anyone what that means and why Fallout 3 falls short in that part. Those kind of stuff has been discussed to death around here. I mean to make it short, the game lacks any kind of depth, be it with the story, the gameplay for it self or how you actually can interact with the world.
 
RPGWatch said:
If you enjoy both rummaging through other people's crap at jumble sales and head-exploding violence, then FO3 may just be your perfect game.
In other words, it's goddamned popamole shooter with randomly generated level-scaled loot.
 
I was kind of following along until he said "stunning visuals". I think he just wanted to use the word "stunning". I can't say the opinions are wrong (they are after all opinions) but the whole article is basically a fluff piece, so you can't take any of it *too* seriously can you?
 
Nah, he is trying to please everyone. Fallout 3 fans and non-Fallout 3 fans. It's a pretty safe piece of text, which doesn't really try to touch anything that might spawn "I keel you" tweets.
 
I always wonder way people criticise writing only?
I rarely see people who critise fo3 about it's quest design, map design and loot design which are more critically bad point of fo3 than writing.

watching reply someone sid only better thing of NV is writing is better? and bad map design? what a bullshit. only thing fo3 is better is just number of dungeon for meaningless crawling.
 
What is this fun they are talking about? I find the game tedious, so it begs the question, what is this fun that i always see thrown around. A masochist finds painful experiences fun, is this also the same fun experience one gets in Fallout3?

I wonder if there is a more abstract word that is emphasized and used as often as "fun".
 
Censor said:
They claim FO3 is not respectful of its lineage and thus should not bear the Fallout name. Whether or not this is true (it is, to some degree), is irrelevant. FO3 is a video game, and therefore the only metric by which it should be measured is whether or not it's fun (it is, to a large degree)

lolwut?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOYBWwmcXeg[/youtube]
 
woo1108 said:
I always wonder way people criticise writing only?
I rarely see people who critise fo3 about it's quest design, map design and loot design which are more critically bad point of fo3 than writing.
The quest design isn't bad; it's overly combat-focused but skills see a decent amount of use in quest resolutions and some quests get pretty elaborate(Tenpenny Tower, the Survival Guide, the simulation, etc). The quest arrow telling you where to go can be obnoxious, but really the worst part of the game genuinely is the writing.
 
Writing doesn't play big role since important part is what you do not about what they said. for some quest, it's good maybe.
but there aren't many quests and other problem is location design is awful. you should go far away from Megaton to get to minefield to beat moira that bitxx's quest.
 
woo1108 said:
you should go far away from Megaton to get to minefield to beat moira that bitxx's quest.

That's kind of the point. One of the goals of many quests in Fallout 3 is to make you move around and explore.
 
Yeah walking through ruins that are not interesting at all was fun enough to don't want to play anymore.
but you are right. it makes player wander more around wasteland.
but it's better to give more rumor or information to player to let him explore him self would be better.
or make finding place more interesting.
fo3's way is too boring since you should do your job which makes you too busy to explore other place and actually most places are meaningless dungeons. if you don't know where the goal exactly, then exploring makes it more interesting but since you know where the goal is, it is just boring process.
 
woo1108 said:
but you are right. it makes player wander more around wasteland.
but it's better to give more rumor or information to player to let him explore him self would be better.
or make finding place more interesting.

That's exactly what happens in other situations, like with the Oasis.


fo3's way is too boring since you should do your job which makes you too busy to explore other place and actually most places are meaningless dungeons. if you don't know where the goal exactly, then exploring makes it more interesting but since you know where the goal is, it is just boring process.

That's a weird complaint to me. I'd understand if the quests were on a timer, but given I don't remember any Fallout 3 quest that's timed, what's the problem with putting it on a backburner and exploring an interesting place you've spotted?

I'm not saying that the quest design in Fallout 3 is perfect, the quest to get Agatha's violin for example is terrible, but I think it's good in its own right and certainly the best Bethesda has produced so far. Also, it's easy to cite Moira's quest, which is pretty much an overlong tutorial to make sure you're aware of all the gaming systems, or the bomb in Megaton, which is a simple objective as you'd find in Fallout 1 and 2 coupled with absolutely inane writing which makes it stand out, but quests like Blood Ties, The Replicated Man, Tenpenny Tower, and even, to a lesser degree, dungeon romps like Stealing Independence are genuinely fun and interestingly designed.

EDIT: Removed unwarranted assholish comment.
 
rumor and information isn't enough to explore.
there should be reason to explore.
one of TES'(oblivion, skyrim, fo3) problem is that the quests are disconnected each other. if quests are connected each other there might be plenty of reason to find something. but for fo3 as oblivion and skyrim did, disconnected each other.
this might be personal problem since motivation to explore would be various.

for quest moira's quest is good..but I don't have any good memories about moira.

That's a weird complaint to me.
thinking about you can't get information of father. then you should search various place to find him. or you shuold find some tools or mechanical parts to success project purity and that item's location is ambigous, someone said "I heard someone knows about it's location but he is one of leader of raider don't know where the hideout of him but he usually raids ~~~ often" then you go to ~~~ and track him.
then you should defeat the raider and get information from him. and he said " I saw it where clean water exist and grass and trees are over grown but I can't remember where it is but I remember the place was called Oasis."
then you start to find Oasis. maybe it would be wrong information but it makes you explore much more then just give meaningless inforamtion.
 
woo1108 said:
but it's better to give more rumor or information to player to let him explore him self would be better.

woo1108 said:
rumor and information isn't enough to explore.
there should be reason to explore.

I'm having a difficult time following your line of reasoning. In fact, I have a feeling that we're not communicating at all.
 
Sorry if I wrong about reasoning.

I mean fo3's motivation to explore is too weak.
think about Fallout.
since you don't know about exact location of water chip, you should explore wasteland to find it. you will explore Vault 15 in hope of find waterchip but you can't find waterchip at Vault 15.
but motivation makes you explore Vault 15 despite of game itself didn't infom you can find water chip there and you get some loots which will help you survive. if you know water chip isn't there then you won't explore vault 15. just go to junktown and get better gear.

so learn the answer weaken the motivation to explore.
no reason to search the place where won't help you to beat the game. if game itself is design to be harsh, you should explore alot to survive but fo3 isn't harsh at all. you can get what ever you need by following mainstream. at oblivion, you shuold find better dungeon to get better gear but at fo3 you don't have to.


for quest maybe I'm wrong about fo3's quest.
but I feel quests are disconnected each other and meaningless. but it would be problem of my liking.
but for main quest, I can say it's broken.
for most games, main quest let you experience most features of game. but fo3, oblivion and skyrim don't. playing only mainquest will prevent you from enjoying many features.
but for oblivion and skyrim, there are faction quests which has huge amount of feature of game. but for fo3 playing only main quest will really prevent you from most features especially you don't have broken steel.

IMO quest design of TES(include fo3) was broken since oblivion thanks for quest marker. actually quest is not about small pieces of missions but adventure itself. to fullfill the quest you should ask, you should explore , you should fight, etc. but after oblivion, quests are cut into small pieces of missions, disconnected each other and what actually you do is execute a command of auto journal. there's no actual adventure but reading auto journal. lots of people criticise writing because the quests are actually reading given script not the game to beat yourself.

NV also have same problem except quests are connected thanks for faction system, writing and outputs. fo3 also have outputs which looks better job then NV for some aspects but since every features are disconnected each other, it feels meaningless.

sorry if I'm wrong about reasoning or grammer or vocabulary
 
I've been trying to make this not sound abrasive, but brevity has this unfortunate side-effect. And I cannot go on about this for pages anymore.

...

If you find the writing in Fallout 3 even remotely interesting, then you desperately need to read a science fiction book.

If you think the world in Fallout 3 makes any sense, then you need to get out more often.

If you find combat in Fallout 3 to be fun, then you're a masochist.

If you think Fallout 3 inventory is easy to use, then you're Rain Man.

If you think Fallout 3 visuals are nice, then you are a colorblind person living in 2003.

If you think Fallout 3 quests and world design are generally on par with the prequels, then you're either a revisionist historian, a child, or a disingenious cynic.
 
Back
Top