Fallout 3 is a good RPG because it allows multiple play styles of choice which are encouraged and recognized along with quests with multiple solutions to problems and narrative choice, these elements make fallout 3 a game in which any player can become anything he want and solve all the settlements problems to how he sees fit with the only downsides being the storyline
Norzan
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
The quests that have different outcomes at best have two outcomes for each quest (probably some outliers with more) and most of the time you are either Jesus or Hitler. No in-between, morally grey choices. There are two ways to play the game: goody two shoes or the worst piece of shit in the wasteland. Not to mention you are forced to help BoS and your dad if you are a piece of shit, effectively narrowing it down to one playstyle, really.
So your claim that there are "multiple ways to deal with quests" is factually, objectively wrong. There are two ways to deal with quests and that's when you have more than outcome.
And last, you can only become two things and not "anything you want".
https://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/How_Little_We_Know
Look at the branching paths and different ways to tackle this quest. Actual multiple characters can be used to tackle this quest in different ways. This quest alone has more branching paths and decisions than all of Fallout 3 quests combined.
Last edited:
CerberusGate
I should save my game in a whole new slot
For someone who holds value in subjectivity, you seem to be overly hung up on what people think of your opinions.
Not exactly. The game does allow multiple play styles (though they all play out the same way especially when the optimal way to play is to be a stealth-based shooter) but it only has a few differing results that are recognized if there are any. You either solve a quest as a Good or Evil character with little grey or sub-optimal solutions (or alternatively "Not Quite the Right Thing" endings) to a quest.
One quest, Someone to Watch Over Me, can end with the Hostetler daughter running away from home after being talked down from robbing her family or have her die which ends the quest without morals.
Not exactly. The story plays out the same way regardless of what you do (though in NV, there is the freedom of choice based on the faction you side with and your Karma) plus without any proper epilogue like 1,2 and NV, you do not actually witness the consequences of your narrative's choice (i.e a sub-optimal hero who fails to achieve a golden ending for each locale vs a somewhat evil character who just happens to do some good even when they resort to doing bad things etc.)
No morally grey quests? Wrong
Blood ties tenpenny tower trouble on the homefront oasis the replicated man and rescue from paradise are morally grey.
Nope. Quests do have multiple ways of completion: such as trouble on the homefront, you gotta shoot em in the head, oasis, tenpenny tower, the replicated man, the superhuman gambit and head of state are examples
No you can become so much more in fallout 3 than just 2 things
CerberusGate
I should save my game in a whole new slot
Again though, they are always ending them with a Good conclusion and a Evil conclusion. Plus the ways to complete them (I'd argue that You Gotta Shoot Em and perhaps Oasis are the only ones on your list with multiple ways seeing as the latter allows for a flamethrower amidst the inevitable cavern crawl) boil down to the same conclusions on that moral spectrum.
The main quest in Fallout 3 is really an example of how quests work in Fallout 3 in general. Most quests deviate very little form this formula:
This is Fallout 2 main quest as an example:
I love recycle old posts and images I already used/made before. 
Also those quests you mentioned are actually Black and White. Or you kill or you don't kill. There is no in-between. It is being "good" or being "bad" and not "being the best solution that the character I am playing could come up with" (unless the character is, bloodthirsty or goody two shoes) .
Also those quests you mentioned are actually Black and White. Or you kill or you don't kill. There is no in-between. It is being "good" or being "bad" and not "being the best solution that the character I am playing could come up with" (unless the character is, bloodthirsty or goody two shoes) .
CerberusGate
I should save my game in a whole new slot
In addition to the above, here is a frequently shared video on one of NV's quests:
Norzan
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Those still have only two conclusions and that's an handful of quests. Not to mention most of those just end in good or evil way. Tenpenny Tower has a blantatly good ending and bad ending, that's not morally grey.
And again, no, you can only become two things. Quit thinking you can be more than because it's just factually wrong. You are either good or evil, nothing more, nothing less. You saying you can become more is just lying at this point.
TerminallyChill
Be excellent to each other.
I'm calling you ignorant for talking out of your ass. It honestly makes sense that you'd view everyone else as an elitist, considering that's how people treat you when you publicly act like an imbecile.
Can I be a crazy old scientist from Ohio who decides to kill everyone in DC's Brotherhood Of Steel and help the Vault 87 Supermutants take over the Capital Wasteland?
Can I be a former NCR politician who came to Washigton after disgracefully resigning from office, only to rise through the ranks of Paradise Falls and become a slaver tycoon?
No? Well then it sounds to me like you're completely full of shit.
Norzan
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Todd forgot to add two extra zeroes for the amount of endings in Fallout 3.
Big No
Watch as I open and close this door
I wouldn't say that personally. While TT isn't as morally grey as many of New Vegas' quests, I disagree that it's clear cut.
Most of the TT residents may be racist, but they are willing to try living with people they hate a lot and Herbert likes ghouls and would welcome them. Roy himself is essentially racist and is willing to blow up Megaton if it hasn't been done so yet. Roy's group also has Bessie, a girl who just wants to have a nice life and misses her younger years. She also has no idea about Roy's plan to kill everyone if you let them in. Killing his group means you're forced to kill her too. So, not counting stuff like kicking people out of TT, you can kill racists who are willing to give folks a chance if convinced or kill some poor ghouls who have a racist leader but are otherwise fine themselves.
From my point of view, there's nothing blatantly good there, mostly dark grey to bad.
Norzan
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Actually, after reading on all the ways you can handle the quest (i think i convinced them to stay together), it's all bad endings. So, it's either kill the ghouls, kill the people in the Tenpenny Tower by letting the ghouls in or convince them to live together but one group kills the other after a while.
Not to mention killing the ghouls gives NEGATIVE karma. The game is telling that this is the evil action.
That's somehow worse than having just a good ending and bad ending.
Last edited:
The game gives negative karma when you kill any of Roy's gang. So the game is telling us that it is evil to kill Roy or anyone else there.
Also why would a good character want to kill Roy?
Even Three Dog keeps commenting over and over, on the radio, that Tenpenny should let the ghouls in and that ghouls are people too with fears, and feelings and all of that.
It is obvious that the game makers are telling us that attacking the ghouls is an evil action. Same with killing the residents or allowing the feral ghouls into the tower.
Then there is the good way, convincing the residents to let the ghouls in.
We can also see it when Three Dog berates the player on the radio for killing the ghouls and praises the player for letting the ghouls live in the Tower peacefully. Even the makers of the game make it black and white.
EDIT: Also Roy is not racist. He doesn't hate humans. What he hates is Tenpenny and the residents because they are the ones that are racist against ghouls. He says he has plenty of money to live there with his friends, but Tenpenny doesn't let him in because they are ghouls.
Also why would a good character want to kill Roy?
Even Three Dog keeps commenting over and over, on the radio, that Tenpenny should let the ghouls in and that ghouls are people too with fears, and feelings and all of that.
It is obvious that the game makers are telling us that attacking the ghouls is an evil action. Same with killing the residents or allowing the feral ghouls into the tower.
Then there is the good way, convincing the residents to let the ghouls in.
We can also see it when Three Dog berates the player on the radio for killing the ghouls and praises the player for letting the ghouls live in the Tower peacefully. Even the makers of the game make it black and white.
EDIT: Also Roy is not racist. He doesn't hate humans. What he hates is Tenpenny and the residents because they are the ones that are racist against ghouls. He says he has plenty of money to live there with his friends, but Tenpenny doesn't let him in because they are ghouls.
Last edited:
Big No
Watch as I open and close this door
You're correct that even Bethesda makes the quest look black and white. Though this is Bethesda, moral compass stuff definitely isn't their forte. At the end of the day, I still feel it's dark grey to black.
"Dark grey" because Bessie seems alright and Michael is just kinda going along with it with Roy being the problem and TT is full of racists, though Herbert will die too and he was rather welcoming, a shame he doesn't live.
I'm not trying to convince anyone the quest was written great either, just throwing my 2 cents in.
"Dark grey" because Bessie seems alright and Michael is just kinda going along with it with Roy being the problem and TT is full of racists, though Herbert will die too and he was rather welcoming, a shame he doesn't live.
I'm not trying to convince anyone the quest was written great either, just throwing my 2 cents in.
TerminallyChill
Be excellent to each other.
As Josh Sawyer has gone on record saying, the goal with any narrative branch is to make it an interesting decision. While the binary, 'Jesus vs. Hitler' choices make up the typical Fallout 3 criticisms, the lesser discussed 'pick which arm you want to cut off' no-win scenarios are equally as boring.
The west coast Fallouts succeed in creating moral ambiguity by making rewards and consequences not directly comparable. I mean who can say what's better for New Vegas: an incompetent democracy like the NCR, or a competent dictatorship led by Mr. House? That's good design.
Cliffy McEdgeface
bitch I will cut you
*pops in to check on thread*
Well, going pretty much how I expected it to.
Enjoy beating your heads against this passive-aggressive brick wall lads, I'm dropping it before I start getting really mean.
Well, going pretty much how I expected it to.
Enjoy beating your heads against this passive-aggressive brick wall lads, I'm dropping it before I start getting really mean.
Norzan
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
I'm pretty much done myself, getting kind of tired of circular arguments.
TerminallyChill
Be excellent to each other.
Good debate practice, everyone. See you next week. Same time, same place.
josefrosty
First time out of the vault
yeah
TheHouseAlwaysWins
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
fallout 1, 2, and fallout new vegas aren't morally grey at all. I never got why people said this kind of thing.
So the enemy in fallout 2 is literally nazis and in fallout new vegas it's a bunch of larpers who look at women as subhumans and are barbarians that pretend to be righteous warriors or something. It is not morally grey at all I think
So the enemy in fallout 2 is literally nazis and in fallout new vegas it's a bunch of larpers who look at women as subhumans and are barbarians that pretend to be righteous warriors or something. It is not morally grey at all I think