Fallout 3 review

[Brother None]

<center>[ Page 1 ] - [ Page 2 ] - [ Page 3 ]

Fallout 3 review
Written by Vince D. Weller</center>

Introduction

<center>"We're not going to suddenly do a top-down isometric Baldur's Gate-style game, because that's not what we do well."
Pete Hines, a used car salesman</center>

<table align="right" width="310px" bgcolor="#333333" border="1"><tr><td><center></center></tr></td></table>Fallout 3 is the third instalment in the award-winning series beloved by children and young adults. The game continues mature themes of exploring a huge world, looting everything that isn't nailed down, killing anything that looks at you funny, and levelling up. While there were other games in the series, no one at Bethesda could remember Arena and Daggerfall, so they stuck with Morrowind and Oblivion for the purpose of determining what exactly they "do well".

Even though the box clearly states that it’s Fallout and adds a very convincing "3", it’s not a Fallout game. It's not even a game inspired by Fallout, as I had hoped. It's a game that contains a loose assortment of familiar Fallout concepts and names, which is why you start the game in a "Vault", get a "Pipboy" device, become buddies with the "Brotherhood of Steel", shoot some "Super Mutants", and stop the evil "Enclave" from doing bad things to good people in a post-apocalyptic "retro-future" America. The main plot revolves around water (Fallout 1 plot) and requires a G.E.C.K. (Fallout 2 plot), thus assuring you that you really are playing a 100% authentic, notary certified Fallout game. With, like, vaults and stuff. Let's take a closer look, shall we?

The Setting

<center>"My idea is explore more of the world and more of the ethics of a post-nuclear world, not to make a better plasma gun."
Tim Cain, a Fallout developer</center>

Once upon a time there was a big war that turned most of North America into a wasteland. Two hundred years later you emerge from one of the vaults that were designed to keep people safe during a nuclear holocaust. Since this is an action RPG, you discover that the wasteland is filled with many dangers and that you can’t walk very far without something trying to kill you. You explore a large chunk of land, eventually making your acquaintance with the order of knights sworn to protect humanity and rid the land of evil man-eating ogres once and for all. On this colourful canvas your epic adventure will take place.

The game is set on the East Coast, rather than on the West Coast like the first two games, providing Bethesda with a perfect opportunity to tell their own story. To show different communities that have formed on the East Coast, how they’ve adapted to the harsh new reality and managed to survive, and what problems they’ve caused and now face. Instead of this, Bethesda decided to populate the East Coast with the already familiar super mutants, Brotherhood of Steel knights, and Enclave troopers. Unfortunately, these groups left their depth over on the West Coast and have all the complexity of cardboard cut-outs.

<table align="left" width="310px" bgcolor="#333333" border="1"><tr><td><center></center></tr></td></table>Super mutants, the failed attempt to create super soldiers from normal humans, are now flesh-eating beasts keeping gore bags full of body parts as handy snack bags wherever they hang out.

The Brotherhood turned from an almost monastic order, too small to fight the super mutants on their own or to attract too much attention to themselves, into a holy order of knight-protectors keeping humanity safe and shooting at things on sight. In Fallout they didn't have enough equipment, in FO3 (100 years since Fallout and 200 years since the war) high tech weapons and armor are everywhere and fallen comrades with their Power Armor and laser rifles are left behind without a second thought.

Although the game tells you that it's been 200 years since the war, the gameworld and environments indicate that this is a lie the Matrix wants you to believe and that it's been only a few decades at most. Electricity, pre-war electronic equipment, powered and still working computers (just think about that for a second), working cola & snack machines, weapons, ammo, scrap metal (needed by many), and even unlooted first aid boxes are everywhere.

In fact, I'm not sure that the people you meet are even aware that they are living in a post-apocalyptic environment. One woman is writing a survival guide (a couple of centuries too late for that, don’t you think?), being genuinely curious about what happens when you step on a mine. Another lady is busy collecting Nuka-cola bottles and giving Nuka-Cola history tours. Makes sense, what else is there to do in a post-apocalyptic world?

<table align="right" width="310px" bgcolor="#333333" border="1"><tr><td><center></center></tr></td></table>Then there’s an android that managed to escape his evil master, get some facial surgery, wipe his memory clean, and started living as a human who doesn’t know he’s a robot. Yes, it’s, uh, complicated. The droid is helped by an organization dedicated to helping androids gain their independence. I'll repeat that. DEDICATED TO HELPING ROBOTS GAIN INDEPENDENCE. In a post-apocalyptic, almost destroyed world. Don't these people have real problems and things to do and worry about? Are their post-apocalyptic lives so empty and boring that they must invent stupid things to do and care about to kill time? Considering that your wasteland shack comes with a brand new, shiny robot-butler - an excellent source of clean water, which in turn is an excellent source of money and positive Karma, maybe these people really don't have anything better to do. That would make a very interesting setting - slowly degrading post-apocalyptic humanity living off the back of robots doing all the work for them, but once again, that's not the Fallout world.

The East Coast “wasteland” is anything but dead and empty – one of many inevitable changes brought by switching the format from a “classic”, isometric RPG focused on exploring through dialogue to a first person, sandbox RPG heavy on the action side. Running into enemies at every step is a traditional sandbox feature. Sticking with Fallout's "dead wasteland" atmosphere would have made traveling in first person unbearably boring. As a result, the "wasteland" seems overcrowded: hungry monsters, trigger-happy raiders, super mutants, and stray, hostile robots of all shapes and sizes are everywhere. Evil-doer hunting Regulators and do-gooder killing Talon mercenaries complete the picture.

The setting’s casual approach to nuclear explosion is especially jarring. You get out of the vault, look at this brave, new world, and someone promptly asks you to detonate a nuclear bomb inside one of the towns. Why? Because it's cool, apparently. Later on you will unavoidably run into a super duper mutant who can only be taken down by a several direct nuclear blasts that, oddly enough, have only a few meters radius and are harmless to people outside this radius. Shooting old rusty cars results in even more nuclear explosions, which makes you wonder if there really was a big War or if a simple car accident caused a chain reaction of exploding nuclear cars across the States.

Prolonged exposure to radiation has added magical properties to clothing. Putting on a dirty, old lab coat instantly increases your scientific knowledge (+10 to Science) until you take it off again. Most hats, including a simple bandana, increase your Perception (+1). Putting on Lincoln's hat imbues you with higher Intelligence and improves your speech. In other words, clothes are your typical magically enchanted fantasy fare.

Towns and locations deserve a special mention. Megaton, the first town you see when you step out of the vault, is basically the only real town in the game. The rest of the humanity is more than happy with 3-5 shack settlements, old hotels, and museums. Nobody does anything and how the hell these people survive remains a mystery. Exploring different towns and different ways of life was one of the most interesting aspects of Fallout, but sadly it’s not present in Fallout 3.

Instead of a consistent and logical world, we get "cool shit". What's cool shit, you ask? An excellent question. Cool shit is whatever stuff random Bethesda designers thought would be cool. To be honest, Fallout 2 was also sporadically guilty of this syndrome, but Fallout 3 takes it to a thoroughly different level.

<table align="left" width="310px" bgcolor="#333333" border="1"><tr><td><center></center></tr></td></table>A town in the crater of an unexploded bomb? - Cool!
A Peter Pan-esque settlement of invincible kids who expel people when they hit 16? - Awesome!
A Lovecraftian Cthulhu-dedicated "Dunwich horror" location - Pretty awesome!
A gang of blood-drinking vampire wannabies - Beyond awesome!
A howling radio DJ keeping the bored populace of the, uh, wasteland informed of your progress - wait, let me check my awesometer... my god, it's over 9000!!!

Overall, it would be easy to write a report worthy of an EU bureaucrat listing all the silly and stupid things Bethesda has shoehorned into Fallout 3. The biggest problem is not so much that it isn’t Fallout, but rather that the setting doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. Bethesda had an opportunity to craft a cohesive “living & breathing” world, but instead chose to build an amusement park with a bit of everything ‘cool’ they could think of. To be fair, some things Bethesda did are brilliant and atmospheric, but they are isolated elements that never form a coherent and consistent world that makes even the most basic sense.

<center>[ Page 1 ] - [ Page 2 ] - [ Page 3 ]</center>

 

[Verum]

Clearly you haven't played the first two Fallouts, which is strange since your entire argument is about how terrible Fallout 3 because it isn't anything like the first two. You are a pot calling a kettle black.

Although the game tells you that it's been 200 years since the war, the gameworld and environments indicate that this is a lie the Matrix wants you to believe and that it's been only a few decades at most. Electricity, pre-war electronic equipment, powered and still working computers (just think about that for a second), working cola & snack machines, weapons, ammo, scrap metal (needed by many), and even unlooted first aid boxes are everywhere.

Yes, it's completely absurd that there are working computers and containers holding items strewn about. Thank god Fallout 1 & 2 were completely devoid of both of these, and during your entire adventure you never discovered a single computer anywhere and you never found any ammo or nuka-cola's. Computers weren't limited to vaults either, there were a few in NCR, one in the cave you find Smiley, one in the chapel, and a whole load of other areas.

In fact, I'm not sure that the people you meet are even aware that they are living in a post-apocalyptic environment. One woman is writing a survival guide (a couple of centuries too late for that, don’t you think?), being genuinely curious about what happens when you step on a mine. Another lady is busy collecting Nuka-cola bottles and giving Nuka-Cola history tours. Makes sense, what else is there to do in a post-apocalyptic world?

For example, you could be selling cars, or helping ghosts, or be a porn star, or maybe you could play chess with a computer that lies at the bottom of a radioactive crater!

Then there’s an android that managed to escape his evil master, get some facial surgery, wipe his memory clean, and started living as a human who doesn’t know he’s a robot. Yes, it’s, uh, complicated. The droid is helped by an organization dedicated to helping androids gain their independence. I'll repeat that. DEDICATED TO HELPING ROBOTS GAIN INDEPENDENCE. In a post-apocalyptic, almost destroyed world. Don't these people have real problems and things to do and worry about? Are their post-apocalyptic lives so empty and boring that they must invent stupid things to do and care about to kill time?

It'd be retarded if they made a talking dog that had a conscience and was actively trying to escape it's master too. Yup, really dumb.

The East Coast “wasteland” is anything but dead and empty – one of many inevitable changes brought by switching the format from a “classic”, isometric RPG focused on exploring through dialogue to a first person, sandbox RPG heavy on the action side. Running into enemies at every step is a traditional sandbox feature. Sticking with Fallout's "dead wasteland" atmosphere would have made traveling in first person unbearably boring. As a result, the "wasteland" seems overcrowded: hungry monsters, trigger-happy raiders, super mutants, and stray, hostile robots of all shapes and sizes are everywhere. Evil-doer hunting Regulators and do-gooder killing Talon mercenaries complete the picture.

That's another thing, I hate random encounters, I'm glad there weren't any in Fallout 1 & 2 while you were traveling through the wasteland. Fighting tribals, fire breathing gecko's, enclave soldiers, and super mutants would've been stupid.

The setting’s casual approach to nuclear explosion is especially jarring. You get out of the vault, look at this brave, new world, and someone promptly asks you to detonate a nuclear bomb inside one of the towns. Why? Because it's cool, apparently. Later on you will unavoidably run into a super duper mutant who can only be taken down by a several direct nuclear blasts that, oddly enough, have only a few meters radius and are harmless to people outside this radius. Shooting old rusty cars results in even more nuclear explosions, which makes you wonder if there really was a big War or if a simple car accident caused a chain reaction of exploding nuclear cars across the States.

All of the cars in the Fallout universe are nuclear powered. Though admittedly, after 200 years the isotope would probably be used up, but who's to say what's possible in a universe where Godzilla footprints carry a wristwatch capable of bending light around you and turn you invisible.

Prolonged exposure to radiation has added magical properties to clothing. Putting on a dirty, old lab coat instantly increases your scientific knowledge (+10 to Science) until you take it off again. Most hats, including a simple bandana, increase your Perception (+1). Putting on Lincoln's hat imbues you with higher Intelligence and improves your speech. In other words, clothes are your typical magically enchanted fantasy fare.

I actually agree with this, I could've done without this feature. I'd much prefer straight damage reduction, or at least an explained stat increase like power armor offered. Maybe a mod will fix it, I am anxiously awaiting a mod tool.

Towns and locations deserve a special mention. Megaton, the first town you see when you step out of the vault, is basically the only real town in the game. The rest of the humanity is more than happy with 3-5 shack settlements, old hotels, and museums. Nobody does anything and how the hell these people survive remains a mystery. Exploring different towns and different ways of life was one of the most interesting aspects of Fallout, but sadly it’s not present in Fallout 3.

Wait what? I know I've said it a few times all ready, but you honestly have never played either of the first two Fallouts have you? Most towns in the game consist of ten shacks at most. You must have google imaged your entire Fallout 3 experience, because there's a boat full of people (kind of like Fallout 2), the pentagon is practically a town itself, tenpenny tower is a hotel converted into a town, there's a ghoul city inside of a museum, which in my opinion is much smarter than a sewer, a city inside of a cave run by children who cast out anyone who reaches the age of 16, and an entire shopping mall district turned into a slaver city.

Instead of a consistent and logical world, we get "cool shit". What's cool shit, you ask? An excellent question. Cool shit is whatever stuff random Bethesda designers thought would be cool. To be honest, Fallout 2 was also sporadically guilty of this syndrome, but Fallout 3 takes it to a thoroughly different level.

You've really answered yourself all ready. Fallout 2 is a much less realistic world than Fallout 3, there isn't any way you can dispute that. In my entire Fallout 3 journey I did not once travel into the past, meet a bridgekeeper that through exploding cows at me when I answered the wrong Monty Python question, or come across a Dr. Who reference.

A town in the crater of an unexploded bomb? - Cool!
A Peter Pan-esque settlement of invincible kids who expel people when they hit 16? - Awesome!
A Lovecraftian Cthulhu-dedicated "Dunwich horror" location - Pretty awesome!
A gang of blood-drinking vampire wannabies - Beyond awesome!
A howling radio DJ keeping the bored populace of the, uh, wasteland informed of your progress - wait, let me check my awesometer... my god, it's over 9000!!!

All of that is completely conceivable, improbable, but possible. The reasoning behind the bomb is that the town needed the children of the atoms help to build the town, and they wouldn't build if the bomb was relocated. The settlement doesn't make much sense, but it did make me want to shoot children again. I didn't even realize it was a Cthulhu inspired building until someone told me. I just thought it was a ghoul going feral's insanity breaking through.
The vampires are pretty dumb, which is why I killed them all. They're really just cannibals, and you can even say "You're still just a cannibal". The DJ is cool, it's quite immersive no matter how he gets his information. ZIGATS! DRAGON BALL Z REFERENCE!!!1

Fallout's S.P.E.C.I.A.L. (Strength, Perception, Encumbrance, Charisma, Intelligence, Agility, Luck) was tweaked to allow any character to survive and beat the game. The consequences of this choice are that stats are less important, all characters' combat worthiness is about the same, and returns on stat investments are greatly decreased.

Agreed. I should point out that any character can survive and beat the game in Fallout 1 & 2, but the stats in 3 are a lot less effective and take away the thrill of making a munchkin character.

You spend some time searching for your father, asking everyone "have you seen my father, the middle-aged guy?", and that's the best part of the main quest and the game. Once you're reunited, the game hops on rails and takes you on a magical tour through one of the most idiotic game endings in the history of video games. Investing into a pair of good writers and story-tellers should be the top priority for Bethesda. The drop in quality, comparing the game to Daggerfall and Morrowind, is very noticeable and painful to experience.

I'd like to offer an alternative. The ending was completely in-line with what I'd expect out of Fallout. I should specify, the part with the giant robot that destroyed everything would've fit very well into Fallout if it was possible using that engine, the bit after that was cheese. I'm disappointed that I didn't get to walk around and listen to how awesome everyone thought I was though.

The only problem, and it’s a big problem, is the writing. At best it’s passable, at worst it’s horrible, especially when it comes to dialogue stat checks. It feels like the writer had no clue what an intelligent or charismatic or perceptive person might say, so your intelligent lines often look absolutely idiotic.

The dialogue could've been better, but it's essentially a means to an end. I don't remember much of the dialogue in the first two Fallout's, but I remember the result of the choices I made.

Exploration is an undeniable strength of all Bethesda’s sandbox games and Fallout 3 doesn’t disappoint on this front. You have a huge world filled with all kinds of different places to visit. 85 locations, to be specific. A lot of locations are incredibly atmospheric like the Dunwich building and the Museum of Technology and simply must be experienced.

A second ago the Dunwich building was used by you to illustrate how unrealistic the game was, now you're changing your mind? The game isn't growing on you is it?

Unfortunately, the previously mentioned design decisions cripple the exploration a bit. It’s relatively easy to acquire the best equipment and max your key skills before you see half of the gameworld. Considering that many places don’t have any “reward” other than killing and looting whatever inhabits them, it would have been nice to have something else to do there other than sight-seeing and looting.

There are 80 or so unique weapons in the game, and most are found at the end of these off-the-beaten-path area's.

For example, the Dunwich building has a great atmosphere and design. Very well done audio tapes lead you from one spot to another until your reach the obelisk room where Jaime attacks you, forcing you to kill him. You can’t help but think “That’s all?” Giving you an option to talk to Jaime or to find the book mentioned in the tapes or even do anything with the obelisk gaining some silly perk would have greatly improved the overall design and made exploring more interesting and rewarding.

Agreed, but if I had read the Dunwich horror I'm sure I'd have found that area much more interesting. It should be of note that there's a bobblehead that's to be found around the area.

Fallout 3 has two combat modes: real-time and slow motion. The real time mode is a mediocre shooter. You hunt things down with your cursor and shoot them until they die. Your character skills don’t affect things much or at all (apparently Bethesda’s target audience gets disappointed and confused when bullets don’t follow the cursor and are too young to remember Deus Ex ). No cover options a-la Gears of War or Mass Effect, no aimed mode. Right clicking does zoom in a bit, but it's basically useless. The real time mode eats ammo like popcorn.

I know this is unrelated, but I find it strange that Left 4 Dead has the exact same sort of combat sans the optional left trigger aim (I'm playing on the 360) and yet this games realtime is "crap" and Left 4 Dead is some sort of amazing game. That's a personal peeve of mine. The real-time combat IS pretty mediocre, I'm better at getting headshots now that I've put a hundred hours into the game, but I usually just take cover behind something and wait for my action points to come back. The only thing that IS spot on is the weapons with a scopre. They actually took a note from Deus Ex and just made your scope move around when your stat isn't high enough. You can still get a headshot with the sniper rifle, but it takes a bit of concentration.

The slow motion mode, called Vault-Tec Assisted Targeting System or VATS for short, is equally uninspiring. It's a horribly conceived attempt to capture Fallout's turn-based targeting and atmosphere. At any moment you can click V and go into the VATS mode which freezes time and allows you to target the different body parts of foes, displaying your "to hit" % chances.

It actually captures the turn-based atmosphere pretty well. There are some things I wished would change, for example I'd like to be able to aim with a melee weapon, or aim at the eyes and make someone blind, or aim at the groin and knock someone on there ass, but for what it is the VATS system is quite effective.

Anyway, you select several attacks (based on the weapon stats and your action points), click ok, and that's where this pretty good idea turns to crap. Instead of simply letting you target body parts, Bethesda went for cinematics. The slow motion mode kicks in, grabs the camera control away from you and shows you exploding heads and flying limbs. Considering the action focus of the game, you'll have to watch flying and exploding heads - in slow motion - a few hundred times. The slow motion thing would have worked for some rare critical shots, say one in twenty, making it special rather than ordinary. Having to watch it each and every time is extremely painful and annoying. When you are out of action points, the game kicks you back into the real time mode, and you can either continue shooting or run away and wait for the action points to be recharged. Rinse and repeat.

I would personally prefer that you could change the combat speed like the other Fallout games, because the cinematics do become a bit much when you're surrounded by raiders. The use of physics is the saving grace of the system. You never know how someone's going to do, and most of the time it's quite humorous, assuming you know, you find someones skull flying out of there head while there body does a perfect back flip in slow motion humorous. Even after playing for so long I'll sometimes go "Wow, that was pretty cool".

Also, while in the VATS mode, you only take 10% of damage for some reasons, which doesn't make much sense. Considering that VATS is a generally much more effective way of dealing with your enemies, it becomes almost a cheat "insta kill" mode against single enemies.

I'd prefer that enemies just didn't attack personally, but yes this is kind of annoying because they get to attack you in slow-mo too, and it just makes the cinematic longer.

There is a thirsty person outside of Megaton who will accept as much clean water as you can spare, increasing your karma for every bottle. Your robot-butler can give you as much clean water as you need. See where I’m going with this? These thirsty people (there is one outside the Rivet City too) give you a convenient “do whatever you want, then pass some clean water bottles around, and you’re holier than the pope” card.

If you are a good person, who’s being discriminated against by evil people, all you need is to steal something. Items that don’t belong to you are marked in red. Fill up your bag with someone else’s stuff and you are soon the scourge of the wasteland. Pass some drinking water around and you are a saint again. Another potentially good, but butchered idea, that hopefully will be fixed by mods.

Both of these take awhile. The same could be said about the first two games. Too evil? Go kill some random enemies in the world map, because for some reason these enemies all give good karma, too good? Go kill a town or sell your friends. Assuming you aren't at -25,000 or 25,000 or so all ready because you're playing an evil or good character and therefore have no reason to talk to a good or evil character, oh wait, I seem to have stumbled upon the reason that this entire topic is inane.

It’s a good and entertaining action RPG provided you can ignore the fact that it was supposed to be a Fallout game and mentally block that aspect of it, and if you can do the same about the silly “amusement park” setting. The game looks pretty good, offers you a huge world to explore with many atmospheric locations, challenging combat, and quite a few interesting quests.

As for your "amusement park" comment, I think you should read the back of the CD case of Fallout 2, assuming you didn't pirate it like Fallout 3. I mean, one of the selling points are that you can get married.

Compared to the first two Fallout games, Fallout 3 is a pale imitation that may anger many fans of the original games.

Coming from a fan that has done literally everything these is to do in the first two games, and played through a few mods, I think that tactics is more of an imitation than Fallout 3 is. The only thing that angers me is that people who've played through a couple hours of either fallout game latch onto this fan fantasy where they approach anything new with such skepticism that they're actually looking for reasons to hate a game they've never even played. Real fans of the series are just happy that there's something new to play in the universe. Believe it or not, I was proud as hell to play Fallout Brotherhood of Steel, and that game is complete rubbish, but I loved every second of it because it was in the realm of my favorite game of all time. I read post-apocalyptic novels and watch post-apocalyptic movies because they remind me of Fallout, not vice-versa.

So coming from someone who's actually played all three of the games to there fullest, Fallout 3 is amazing and worth every penny. All 6000 of them if you happen to live in the US.

Also, I thought Morrowind and Oblivion were terrible shells of an RPG that didn't offer anything new and actually took away many elements that made RPG's fun.

Gamertag: Captain Awful

Edit: Sorry about the initial lack of quote tags.

 

[Leon]

God damn it, Verum, learn to use quote tags.

Edit: Sorry for being so crass; I was cut short by something. Anyways, I'm sure you may have some points worth discussion, but you've made it a chore to read what you have to say. So, please, edit your post and take advantage of quote tags.

 

[Verum]

No offense taken. This whole "Let's hate Fallout 3!" band wagon is crass so I'm expecting plenty of inane name calling in my direction, which is perfectly acceptable, I wouldn't expect anyone not to do what I've all ready done.

Dreadfully sorry about the lack of quotes. I wasn't initially aware that I could quote from an article, I thought the article was submitted as blog-type content instead of a topic. Long story short, I'm an idiot, it's been resolved.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

It's too much of a chore to go through your post point by point but I'll cover some that stuck out.

There aren't many working computers in the first two games and most/all are in areas where it makes sense (NCR, Vault City, BoS, Vaults, military bases, nuclear power plants, etc.), there might be an exception or two in the second game but that doesn't mean it's right or excusable in 3.

There were more than five or tend buildings in most/all settlements and some/many settlements were abstractions of larger settlements.

Special encounters are not canon, they never have been and never will be unless Bethesda is retarded and makes them such.

Fallout 2 has many canonical inconstancies and such inconsistencies do not justify inconsistencies in Fallout 3. It's like saying that because the original Ford Pinto had a gas tank which would rupture from any rear-end collision, it's perfectly fine for a new Pinto to be released with the same problem.

"Real fans" are/should be happy and grateful that any piece of shit game is released that's PA and has Fallout in the title is released? Not only that but they should love it? So what, all of the Star Wars fans who loathe the Star Wars Christmas Special aren't real fans because they think that it's a piece of shit? What is everyone else? A fake? These types of comments are the reason that my stockpile of torches and oil could use resupplying.

 

[Verum]

It's too much of a chore to go through your post point by point but I'll cover some that stuck out.

There aren't many working computers in the first two games and most/all are in areas where it makes sense (NCR, Vault City, BoS, Vaults, military bases, nuclear power plants, etc.), there might be an exception or two in the second game but that doesn't mean it's right or excusable in 3.

Wait, so you're saying that the only reason we shouldn't have computers in unreal places is because it's Fallout 3 and it should be held to different standards than 1 and 2, even though your entire argument consists of how 3 isn't like the first 2? Are you aware of how stupid that sounds?

There were more than five or tend buildings in most/all settlements and some/many settlements were abstractions of larger settlements.

How many could you enter? Fallout 3 has more than ten buildings in most places. How many buildings are there in Shady Sands? Necropolis? Junkertown? Arroyo? there are exceptions, but the amount of buildings per town in 3 is the same as 1 and 2. As far as "abstractions of larger settlements" if it makes you feel any better there are TONS of boarded up buildings in the DC area, and all of those buildings could potentially hold hundreds of people. We just don't know because there all boarded up.

Special encounters are not canon, they never have been and never will be unless Bethesda is retarded and makes them such.

I didn't realize, I thought it was I who destroyed the waterchip in Fallout, and I could've sworn I played with Dogmeat in Fallout 2, which is impossible, unless I stumbled across him at the cafe of dreams and he tagged along and helped destroy the last boss with me. Who told you they aren't canon?

Fallout 2 has many canonical inconstancies and such inconsistencies do not justify inconsistencies in Fallout 3. It's like saying that because the original Ford Pinto had a gas tank which would rupture from any rear-end collision, it's perfectly fine for a new Pinto to be released with the same problem.

Once again, you're saying that it's okay that Fallout 2 did something but not okay that Fallout 3 did the same thing, your analogy is equally nonsensical because inconsistencies do not cause people to die.

"Real fans" are/should be happy and grateful that any piece of shit game is released that's PA and has Fallout in the title is released? Not only that but they should love it? So what, all of the Star Wars fans who loathe the Star Wars Christmas Special aren't real fans because they think that it's a piece of shit? What is everyone else? A fake? These types of comments are the reason that my stockpile of torches and oil could use resupplying.

What Star Wars fans loathe the Christmas Special? It was terrible sure, but at least it was something worth watching. I know people who get drunk and watch it for laughs. I mean, sure, Brotherhood of Steel wasn't good, but I'm glad it came out, because at least it was something to play.

All in all, what I got from your comments was that Fallout 2 must be a terrible game, because Fallout 3 does the same things it does.

Your type of comments are the reason I hope scientists develop a logic pill so you can realize how backwards everything you wrote was.

 

[Stag]

So much tl;dr in this thread, but Verum, while I appreciate your effort, and even some of the points you are making, I want to point something out.

What Garlic and Mister Weller want is for a game which is better than Fallout or Fallout 2. I wanted that out of Fallout 3, even though I never expected it, and certainly didn't experience it.

Those games came out ten years ago, and so when Bethesda, given their vast resources in comparison to many modern studios, and especially in comparison to the relatively small team of BIS back in the day, can't uphold higher standards of gameplay than in Fallout, there's a problem.

There's problems with Fallout, but I love that game to death. Those problems should've been overcome over the course of three years or so of development, yet in most cases, things got worse rather than better.

No one is saying that Fallout is perfect, but there's a lot it does right, and Bethesda's game didn't live up to a lot of that.

Fallout 2 has many canonical inconstancies and such inconsistencies do not justify inconsistencies in Fallout 3. It's like saying that because the original Ford Pinto had a gas tank which would rupture from any rear-end collision, it's perfectly fine for a new Pinto to be released with the same problem.


Once again, you're saying that it's okay that Fallout 2 did something but not okay that Fallout 3 did the same thing, your analogy is equally nonsensical because inconsistencies do not cause people to die.

Nigga, you best be trolling. That point is exactly what you're missing. Fallout 2 came out ten fucking years ago. Bethesda, arguably the largest RPG developer in the United States, maybe bigger than even Bioware, should not have made the same mistakes made ten years ago, they should have fixed them. Garlic's analogy is perfectly sound.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Wait, so you're saying that the only reason we shouldn't have computers in unreal places is because it's Fallout 3 and it should be held to different standards than 1 and 2, even though your entire argument consists of how 3 isn't like the first 2? Are you aware of how stupid that sounds?

No, I said in multiple places (that wasn't one of them but I meant to have it there) that inconsistencies in the first two games (which are problems) do not justify the same shit in Fallout 3. A problem is a problem, just because it was in a previous game doesn't excuse it being in a future one.

How many could you enter? Fallout 3 has more than ten buildings in most places. How many buildings are there in Shady Sands? Necropolis? Junkertown? Arroyo? there are exceptions, but the amount of buildings per town in 3 is the same as 1 and 2. As far as "abstractions of larger settlements" if it makes you feel any better there are TONS of boarded up buildings in the DC area, and all of those buildings could potentially hold hundreds of people. We just don't know because there all boarded up.

Fallout 3 doesn't use abstractions and Bethesda doesn't like abstractions. They are firm believers in needing to see, hear, and virtually touch everything that is. Also, the Hub had 30 enterable buildings with stuff/people in them. Shady Sands has probably around half that but I didn't check.

I didn't realize, I thought it was I who destroyed the waterchip in Fallout, and I could've sworn I played with Dogmeat in Fallout 2, which is impossible, unless I stumbled across him at the cafe of dreams and he tagged along and helped destroy the last boss with me. Who told you they aren't canon?

The original developers. I don't feel like looking for a quote from them but here's The Vault's page on them. Special encounters were all easter eggs and easter eggs of such type are rarely considered canon.

What Star Wars fans loathe the Christmas Special? It was terrible sure, but at least it was something worth watching. I know people who get drunk and watch it for laughs.

It's considered a piece of shit and if Lucas said that it was canon, only a few morons in the fan community would accept that. Fortunately, George Lucas is embarrassed by it and all but denies it's existence.

All in all, what I got from your comments was that Fallout 2 must be a terrible game, because Fallout 3 does the same things it does.

No it's not but it's not as good of a game as Fallout is because of the inconsistencies and the Fallout Bible attempts to remedy many of the mistakes created by the game. That said, Fallout 2 is heavily criticized for the breaches in canon and for it's inconsistencies, New Reno is probably the prime example of this. New Reno doesn't fit the setting and is heavily criticized for such but it's quest design is praised.

Your type of comments are the reason I hope scientists develop a logic pill so you can realize how backwards everything you wrote was.

Where are my arguments logically unsound?

 

[Sytxferryman]

Your type of comments are the reason I hope scientists develop a logic pill so you can realize how backwards everything you wrote was.

Where are my arguments logically unsound?

Quite a mean comment there

 

[Wooz]

Backseat moderating is a no-no, Styxferryman.

 

[LynkS]

Who gives a fuck about number of houses/computers etc... when obviously this game is mediocre at best? And when you see all that hype and hundreds of reviews around all giving high scores, and when you know it will generate more income than fo 1&2 combined, i say fuck em, it deserves to be bashed on for anything you can find.

 

[Sytxferryman]

Backseat moderating is a no-no, Styxferryman.

Sorry. I was just asking if it was who I thought it was... since I was wrong for doing so and the opposite is accepted (quite obviously) I apologize.

Offensive comment removed.

 

[Dork Mage]

The reviewer doesn't have high regards for Fo2:

http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=47347

Fallout 1 is a well focused game. It's perfect. Everything is well designed, well thought-through, makes sense, and fits the theme and the setting. The Master, the "villain" of the game, isn't really a villain (he thought that he was doing the right thing), which is why it's possible to defeat him without a fight.

Fallout 2 is a "mix of everything" game. It's a game designed by a bunch of 13-year olds following the unbeatable "won't it be cool if the game had...." principle. It has huge gangsters with tommy guns running casinos, it has yakuza with samurai swords, it has so many weapons that you can switch to a new gun every 5 min, it has more lulz than the Codex, it has a king-fu fighting town, it has scientologists with celebrities, it has tribals, aliens, drug dealers, talking deathclaws, and even real GHOSTS. The game's a joke.

The main villain is a stereotypical "I kill everyone for the lulz" villain who looks like a giant robot. (the 13 year olds strike again!) You can't reason with him. The only way to beat the game is to fight him.

Overall, I feel that FO2 locations, NPCs, and quests are clearly inferior to FO1. While FO2 is better than most games (mostly due to being a sequel to a great game), it failed to deliver the quality of the original.

 

[thefalloutfan]

You raise some good points Verum, and I agree with you on most of them. Though I liked Vince's review regarding the fun aspects of the game, I'm really having a blast playing it, and I'm sure once the CS is released, which will be released, mods will make this game much better.

As for it being a true fallout game, well, there are some parts which make it fallout-y and others which doesn't, for now I haven't really decided yet, it's a bit hard. All I can say is that I had low expectations for this game and I was proven wrong, I'm quite happy actually now. I think being skeptical made this game better for me now.

 

[pihwht]

Forget about the computers. The water lines still work. I think it is must more plausible to find a working computer than to find working faucets.

Where are all of the people coming from. I don't mind not killing children, but where are all the raiders coming from? Why do they turn mortal when they grow up?

 

[VDweller]

Clearly you haven't played the first two Fallouts, which is strange since your entire argument is about how terrible Fallout 3 because it isn't anything like the first two.

My entire argument? How's your reading comprehension?

I know I've said it a few times all ready, but you honestly have never played either of the first two Fallouts have you?

What makes you think that?

As for your "amusement park" comment, I think you should read the back of the CD case of Fallout 2, assuming you didn't pirate it like Fallout 3. I mean, one of the selling points are that you can get married.

And that's wrong because...? Btw, why are you claiming everywhere that I pirated the game?

Yes, it's completely absurd that there are working computers and containers holding items strewn about. Thank god Fallout 1 & 2 were completely devoid of both of these...

It's one thing to find a working computer - one out of dozens dead ones - in a well protected vault with an autonomous power system. It's quote another to find a working computer in a semi-destroyed building or in a shack or in that raiders-infested super mart. They literally are everywhere. The reason is simple - to make science really useful, but it doesn't fit the setting and doesn't make much sense.

NCR was an actual, well developed town, not a bunch of shacks or ruined buildings. Overall, I did say that FO2 was also guilty of that silliness, but FO3 took it to an entirely different level.

That's another thing, I hate random encounters, I'm glad there weren't any in Fallout 1 & 2 while you were traveling through the wasteland. Fighting tribals, fire breathing gecko's, enclave soldiers, and super mutants would've been stupid.

The problem isn't random encounters. The problem is their frequency.

Most towns in the game consist of ten shacks at most.

Really? So, you've never been to Junktown, the Hub, LA Boneyard, Klamath, Den, Redding, Vault City, NCR, SF?

... tenpenny tower is a hotel converted into a town, there's a ghoul city inside of a museum, which in my opinion is much smarter than a sewer, a city inside of a cave run by children who cast out anyone who reaches the age of 16, and an entire shopping mall district turned into a slaver city.

Do you not understand the concept of town? A hotel is not and can not be a town. A shopping mall and a museum aren't good town examples either. If you don't understand it, I'm afraid I can't explain it to you.

Fallout 2 is a much less realistic world than Fallout 3...

That's where we disagree then. If you want to believe that, be my guest.

All of that is completely conceivable, improbable, but possible.

Possible? Cthulhu stuff is possible? Kids kicking out adults in a PA world is possible? The little fuckers wouldn't have lasted more than a week.

Agreed. I should point out that any character can survive and beat the game in Fallout 1 & 2...

Really? Based on what?

I'd like to offer an alternative. The ending was completely in-line with what I'd expect out of Fallout.

It sounds like you like Fallout 3 a lot. You are willing to overlook everything because you liked the game so much. We are all very happy for you. I, however, share no such sentiments. I reviewed the game in a very unemotional way, simply sharing my thoughts on various aspects. My thoughts aren't fact and I'm not forcing you to accept them. You think the ending was in-line? Fantastic. Enjoy your game.

You entire arguments could be summarized as "but... but... Fallout 2 (you never actually used Fallout 1 examples) had some stupid shit too!" It had. Nobody's denying it. And?

A second ago the Dunwich building was used by you to illustrate how unrealistic the game was, now you're changing your mind? The game isn't growing on you is it?

Just because a location is unrealistic doesn't mean it's poorly designed, does it? Or would have you preferred if I focused exclusively on it not being a Fallout game and ignored things Bethesda did well?

Agreed, but if I had read the Dunwich horror I'm sure I'd have found that area much more interesting. It should be of note that there's a bobblehead that's to be found around the area.

A bobble head? Really? Wow.

It actually captures the turn-based atmosphere pretty well.

In what ways? Come on, don't be shy now.

The only thing that angers me is that people who've played through a couple hours of either fallout game latch onto this fan fantasy...

Fascinating. Thanks for sharing that with us.

Real fans of the series are just happy that there's something new to play in the universe.

And you speak for all of them? Wow. It's an honor to meet you, sir.

Believe it or not, I was proud as hell to play Fallout Brotherhood of Steel...

Don't worry, I believe it.

So coming from someone who's actually played all three of the games to there fullest, Fallout 3 is amazing and worth every penny. All 6000 of them if you happen to live in the US.

Thanks for registering to share your joy with us.

 

[zalifer]

I agree with many of the points verum made.

To be totally honest I love FO3.
Don't get me wrong, the game has more holes than a block of swiss, but lets stop bitching and get modding. I think that the game has a lot of great moments, and sure, some things are a bit off, but these can be fixed, modded, and changed, and new things added.

And lets all be honest here, fallout 3 is better than if there was no official release of a third game, because the people who do like it can enjoy it, and if you are so anal to reject it, do just that and only play the first two. Not that I wont be playing the first two anymore, why would I stop now?

Oh, and most of all, you can still put live grenades in peoples inventories, just that its "fucking hilarious" when they go pop

 

[Verum]

Sorry VDweller.

I had been reading off and on some of the reviews on this site and they made me irate. After seeing yours I decided it was time I established some of my points, though I tended to attack you as a reviewer more often than not. I don't mean any ill will towards you as I don't know you as a person.

I'm not trying to change your mind so much as offer an alternative to the readers who read your review. It seems that with Bethesda it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation in regards to Fallout. Some people are asking for the game to evolve the Fallout franchise, and others are threatening that if it doesn't stay the same they'll hold a personal vendetta against Bethesda.

The reason most of my arguments are based on Fallout 2 is because I preferred Fallout 2 over 1. According to one commenter you feel the opposite, and based on that I can understand where you're disappointed in Fallout 3. I'm personally glad that they took after 2, as it's my favorite game of the series, but if someone liked Fallout Tactics more than any of the others and somehow hoped that Fallout 3 was going to be like Tactics, it's understandable they'd be upset.

As far as towns are considered, this is where I feel Bethesda tried to "Evolve" the series. I suppose they could've copy and pasted Arefu ten times and called it Junktown, but I'm glad they went with Tenpenny Tower instead.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

It seems that with Bethesda it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation in regards to Fallout. Some people are asking for the game to evolve the Fallout franchise, and others are threatening that if it doesn't stay the same they'll hold a personal vendetta against Bethesda.

Everyone wanted the franchise to evolve but what Bethesda did wasn't evolution, it was gutting and replacement. They bought the franchise for it's established world and lore, which solves the problem of creating a new, non-medieval fantasy setting (which they haven't done in more than a decade), and for it's iconic style (Vault Boy in particular has been cited as hugely important to them). Most fans were satisfied with Van Buren, they were critical of it but most people think that it was generally moving in the right direction, especially after it's design documents and tech demo were released.

 

[Sytxferryman]

I would say one thing most, I say MOST as there are some that will love or hate things just to dig in on one side or the other like its WW3 and fire off some rounds... but most people can agree on is that it is NOTHING at all like the crime that was Fallout:BOS/POS.

That is one BIG thing I am very thankful for.