I like fallout 3

[Gizmojunk]

I don't believe that for a minute. I believe that FO3 was designed as an Oblivion re-skin, with the intention of being just (barely) tolerable enough to sell to shooter fans, (TES-style) RPG fans, and Fallout fans.... and it succeeded spectacularly.

Spoiler

 

[Norzan]

S.T.A.L.K.E.R came out like a year before and did the post-apocalyptic fps much better than Fallout 3. That's why i scratch my head when people say Fallout 3 is a good game on its own because it's not really. It's pretty damn mediocre compared to that game.

 

[R.Graves]

I don't believe that for a minute. I believe that FO3 was designed as an Oblivion re-skin, with the intention of being just (barely) tolerable enough to sell to shooter fans, (TES-style) RPG fans, and Fallout fans.... and it succeeded spectacularly.

Spoiler

Except no because when put side by side oblivion is a far superior game in almost every aspect. And at any rate fallout 3 still fails at being an rpg, a shooter, and a fallout game so fuck sakes it doesn't succeed at anything outside of atmosphere.

 

[Gizmojunk]

That's why i scratch my head when people say Fallout 3 is a good game on its own because it's not really. It's pretty damn mediocre compared to that game.

a 4 out of 10?

Except no because when put side by side oblivion is a far superior game in almost every aspect.

But that's the pattern. Every game of theirs has gone further down hill in the linear order of each release.

And at any rate fallout 3 still fails at being an rpg, a shooter, and a fallout game so fuck sakes it doesn't succeed at anything outside of atmosphere.

Of course. (IE. a 4 out of 10.)

 

[Norzan]

a 4 out of 10?

You mean for Fallout 3? Like a 3/10 and that's stretching it. Sure it's nowhere as bad as Mindjack or Ride to Hell Retribution, but given the expectations and the franchise it was in, it had a lot to live up to. Failing to meet expectations in such an acclaimed franchise can easily be a big factor to argue its quality.

 

[Gizmojunk]

You mean for Fallout 3? Like a 3/10 and that's stretching it.

A three out of ten also fits.

 

[mef]

Remember, you can like Fallout 3

liking fallout 3 is not ok

 

[R.Graves]

: “the bomb fell over 200 years ago and it feels like it happened overnight” well the game was specifically designed that way.

There are way more reasons the map doesn't make sense.

You wouldn't build a purifier in the potomac because the river flows south from there so right off the bat the map breaks the main plot.

How is DC infested with supermutants if they come from the complete opposite side of the map with two seperate BOS headquarters between them am DC?

why is megaton so close to springvale? It being so close you'd think they'd have migrated once the storms stopped storming.

Both Canterbury commons and especially Dave's republic are uncomfortably close to old Olney.

Girdershade is a stones throw from a raider camp that has a behemoth... for some reason.

Tenpenny tower is weirdly isolated as far as other buildings go. Arefu is way too far away from anything to trade.

Underworld set up shop next to a literal war zone. Trenches and everything.

Who's idea was it to place little lamplight literally 4 steps away from vault 87?

And raven rock is just placed in a corner like a complete afterthought.

I'm not saying the map isn't fun to explore. Because it can be. Sometimes.

But all these problems pop up just from opening the map. The game's world is so broken it's just sad.

 

[Norzan]

Both Canterbury commons and especially Dave's republic are uncomfortably close to old Olney.

This is the best one. Let's put areas with people that can barely defend themselves or not defend themselves at all next to a place filled with killer dinosaurs that usually like to go out of their nests and go to surrounding areas. There's a reason a lot of people fled from areas around Quarry Junction in New Vegas and that's because it's filled with Deathclaws. And whoever remained is risking getting killed.

The world design of Fallout 3 and recent Bethesda games is really overblown and given undeserved praise. It's not that good.

 

[Gizmojunk]

It's only good at offering up isolated visuals... the actual function of it all is nonsense.

 

[TerminallyChill]

Fallout 3 is decent at being an adventure/exploration type game with some light action RPG elements thrown in there. Collecting things like bobbleheads and the unique weapons feels pretty rewarding. VATS is also fairly fun on a tactile level. Especially with those sounds. The environmental storytelling, easter eggs, and side quests can occaisionally be entertaining as well.

 

[R.Graves]

But that's the pattern. Every game of theirs has gone further down hill in the linear order of each release.

Eh no skyrim is a lot better than Fallout 3. And when put side by side id say morrowind, oblivion, and skyrim all have something to offer that the other two don't.

 

[Gizmojunk]

Eh no skyrim is a lot better than Fallout 3. And when put side by side id say morrowind, oblivion, and skyrim all have something to offer that the other two don't.

I have played Skyrim less than I've played FO3; because I got tired of it sooner.

Every TES game by Bethesda after Daggerfall, would seem to be following a progressive state of reduction; while their graphics, and open world building expands and improves... but that's what they make—the reactive play-pen. The RPG part is just a decal they slap on the surface of it. Eventually they won't even bother with that either. It's their pattern.

*I know it doesn't list Battlespire & Redguard.

Not long ago I mentioned as further evidence... them scrapping skills as part of doing away with character creation—towards having only a full on environment sim. Now they have announced scrapping NPCs.

Don't you think they use other companies to test the risky stuff, before they sign their name to it in one of their own?

 

[R.Graves]

I have played Skyrim less than I've played FO3; because I got tired of it sooner.

I've played fo3 less because skyrim is less offensive both as a sequel and as a setting. So.... pblttt

 

[Jogre]

As the only true fans of this series, it is our duty to defend the honor of Tim Cain by pedantically refuting each and every point made by these heathens SENTENCE BY SENTENCE.

I relate to this a lot more than I should.

 

[Gizmojunk]

...because skyrim is less offensive both as a sequel and as a setting. So.... pblttt

I can agree with this.
(Except for the raspberry...)

But look what it follows. Every TES game discards more and more of its RPG credibility in exchange for (what they truly want to offer) servile simulationism; digital cosplay. Skyrim does further the reactive play-pen; and for the player whose only interested in that in the first place... it's superb, and getting better all the time. I'm sure they can't wait for Elderscrolls 6.

 

[Helloitme]

Let’s start with the beginning shall we?


A lot of people don’t like the intro to fallout 3 because it gives you your backstory as a 19 year old vault dweller, however I believe fallout 3s intro is great for an RPG. The backstory may be set for your character but the purpose of fallout 3s intro is more so to introduce character development and personality. Specifically on ways that your character deals with specific situations like bullying, what you do when you see your friends getting bullied and how your character treats his friends and family. Now yes, new Vegas does allow you to have more freedom with backstory however I find character development a more important mechanic to showcase in an RPG as it’s more focused on what your character does and showing what type of person he grows up to be. It makes more sense for an Rpg to showcase character development as the first mechanic the game introduces.


Next is the nitpick about the vault 101 guards and how they attack you once you escape vault 101. Frankly, it makes a lot more sense for the vault guards to attack you, you see you and your dad entered vault 101 as foreigners. The second your dad leaves the overseer turns into a dictator and enforces martial law on the vault and seeing as you are his son who also entered the vault as a foreigner, it would only make sense for the overseer and the kill you seeing as the overseer is xenophobic against the wasteland. I also just don’t get why people complain that the first human enemy in the game is automatically hostile, there are many other side quests in fallout 3 where you don’t even have human enemies. The power of the atom, blood ties, oasis, rescue from paradise, the superhuman gambit, trouble on the home front are all quests where you don’t have any human that’s automatically hostile towards you but people are so fixated on this particular quest.


This also brings me up to my second point about why people claim that fallout 3 is morally black and white. This is completely false, in fact, I’d argue there are many more morally grey quests in fallout 3 than black an white ones:


Morally black and white quests are: power of the atom, big trouble in big town, head of state, and take it back.


Morally grey quests include: tenpenny tower, blood ties, trouble on the Home front, oasis, the super human gambit, the replicated man and rescue from paradise.


Yet this is a myth that constantly gets pushed that fo3 only consists of black and white decision making.


Next is the argument that fallout 3 isn’t an RPG and that most quests are linear. I really don’t understand how people say this because not only do you have multiple builds and play styles to choose from but you also have complex quests with multiple ways of completing:


Trouble on the home front where you have the overseer and her daughter fighting over what’s best for vault 101, you can either kill the overseer, kill the rebels or convince either of them to that they are wrong, you can also tell the overseer about the guards plans to raid the rebels or completely destroy their home.


Oasis, a quest that deals with euthanasia and wether you should kill Harold or convince him to live, and even then the people of oasis are deciding wether it’s good to share oasis with the rest of the wasteland or keep it to themselves, another situation you can choose to interfere with.


(My personal favorite) you gotta shoot em in the head, it starts off as a simple kill and loot quest, but if you actually talk to the people your supposed to kill they reveal that they were part of a mercenary team sent by tenpenny to explore Fort Constantine. My favorite part of this quest is that it rewards you for talking to npc’s and investigating why you’re sent to kill these people. Sure, you can kill everyone mr Crowley says and give him the keys, that’s a valid way of completing the quest but it rewards you for a more thought out play style. And even then you can either double cross mr Crowley, do what he says, kill everyone with the key or sneakily take the key off of everyone.


The superhuman gambit: kill them both, kill one or kill none. A classic RPG quest, you can either side with one of them and/or eventually double cross who you teamed up with or convince them both that they are wrong.


Even black and white quests have a level of complexity to them:


The power of the atom, it’s simple at first, either rig the bomb to explode, or disarm it. However if you don’t have the skill required to mess with it you unlock this mini quest with Leo stahl where you can either convince him to stop his addiction or use it to your advantage, and either warn Lucas Simms about mr Burke.


Head of state: you can either kill all the slavers yourself, get help from the temple of the union, or tell the slavers where they are and just sit back as you watch the fireworks or join them.


I just don’t understand how people can say that this game is linear when it is filled with multiple solutions, play styles and choices. Well I’m done with this unorganized rant, I might write a part 2 because there are still arguments I have to talk about that don’t make sense leave your feedback down below and we’ll discuss it out.

 

[Alphons]

A lot of people don’t like the intro to fallout 3 because it gives you your backstory as a 19 year old vault dweller, however I believe fallout 3s intro is great for an RPG. The backstory may be set for your character but the purpose of fallout 3s intro is more so to introduce character development and personality. Specifically on ways that your character deals with specific situations like bullying, what you do when you see your friends getting bullied and how your character treats his friends and family. Now yes, new Vegas does allow you to have more freedom with backstory however I find character development a more important mechanic to showcase in an RPG as it’s more focused on what your character does and showing what type of person he grows up to be. It makes more sense for an Rpg to showcase character development as the first mechanic the game introduces.

My problem with the intro is that it sets too much. You're always James' shy kid that is only friends with Amata and is liked by teacher, Gomez, Stanley, Old Lady Palmer and Jonas. You're always bullied by Butch and other Tunnel Sneks, you're disliked by Overseer for being friends with Amata.

You can't do anything to change your relation with any of these characters (you can save Butch's mum, but even if you bash her head in with security batton you took from dead guard he'll always join you as a companion if vault is opened in Trouble on the Homefront).

If your character's backstory is set in stones as much as Lone Wanderer's why not give it as many moving parts as possible?

You could alienate James and Jonas to score points with Overseer, so when James escapes he sends you after him. There are so many wasted opportunities in this intro.

Now to quests you mention:

I really like You gotta shoot 'em in the head and Tenpenny Tower, so it's a shame that they're exceptions from the rule.

blood ties

What's so morally grey about it? Your only choices are
What should be done with a Family?
A)Make an alliance between them and Arefu (everyone gains)
B)Leave them be (no one gains or loses)
C)Kill 'em all (everyone loses, in unpatched games Arefu becomes hostile)

Should Ian return to Arefu?
A)Yes (Ian returns to Arefu, nothing happens)
B)No (Ian stays with Family, nothing happens)

oasis

What should you do with Harold?
A)Kill him (Harold dies happy, Oasis propably dies)
B)Stop his growth (Sapling Yew convinces Harold that life is gud so he lives happily, Oasis still exists, Wasteland doesn't get plants)
C)Accelerate his growth (Sapling Yew convinces Harold that life is gud, Oasis still exists, Wasteland goes green, old guy that wanted you to stop Harold's growth is grumpy for one voiceline)
D)Burn Harold alive (Harold dies in agony, everyone goes hostile, you get nothing but some loot from corpses and lots of evil karma)

the super human gambit

Should I kill two people with mental problems or use power of logical arguments so they both give up before someone is hurt?
A)Kill, kill (two sets of unique armour)
B)Convince, convince (two sets of unique armour)

rescue from paradise

There could be an argument about previous ones, but what is morally grey about rescuing 3 children from slavery before they're sold as sex slaves/cheap labour?

fo3 only consists of black and white decision making

Whole MQ is black and white decision making. First side quest is blow up a town (you get less money for it than for collecting colas) or not. It's the hardest game to complete on neutral karma, when you have to constantly deliver scrap and water for free and pay off preachers in breaks between selling slaves to achieve karmic balance, so I get why some people get this impression.

most quests are linear

They mostly are, but they're exceptions from it. To only mention characters like Pinkerton or Zimmer that can't be killed until you complete side quests that are tied to them.

I end it by saying that FO3 is a really flawed game, but I enjoy it for the most part.

 

[Helloitme]

Blood ties is morally grey because some could argue that the family deserves to be killed, for vandalism, harassment and most notoriously: killing people and drinking their blood. Or you can argue that they should live because this mutation that they have is reall and that the only way that they could be able to survive is to drink blood so they shouldn’t be to blame.

You can also argue that Ian deserves to live with his family because the family is brainwashing him to believing there’s something wrong with him, or you can say it’s better he stays with the family because they are the only people who can understand what he’s going through, and that if he goes back to arefu, he might get the hunger again and kill someone.

I don’t remember sampling yew convincing Harold life is good when I go through the caves. He reacted the same way, anguished and tiresome, idk maybe you were able to convince him that life was worth living while doing shit for the others. I think wether or not the wasteland deserves the paradise of oasis is an interesting argument. It might be good for the wasteland because again, the wasteland can finally be a green paradise where everyone can be safe, or you can argue that it’s not good for the wasteland as raiders, slavers and Mercs will just destroy it.

You simplified the superhuman gambit a little bit more than it was, you can either convince only one of them to stop, give that costume to the other villain/hero and get a unique weapon, convince both of them to give and get both their costumes, you can even side with one of them to take the other one down so you can still get that weapon, or you can just kill both of them and get both costumes, a decent level of complexity.

The reason why I brought up rescue from paradise is because if you are a good character who’s low on caps the only way you can get into paradise falls is to enslave a person, a doctor, 2 escaped slaves and a paranoid vigilante who’s just trying to defend themself from slavers, (Arkansas). And when you figure out a way to get the first two kids out, you have an option to rescue the third, but doing that either requires a speech check or sending an innocent slave to his death.

I completely agree with the fact that the main quests are linear and black white. But most fallout 3 fans aren’t really driven by the narrative of the game, we are more so driven by our own little adventures by interacting with these settlements and coming up with our own ways to solve their problems. that’s the difference between new Vegas and 3. It’s just a preference in the games. New Vegas fans prefer narrative driven gamplay while we don’t want a narrative to be the only reason we explore places.

And as I just said, they aren’t, most quests have 2 or more solutions. The lists of quests I just have gave all have multiple options and solutions. And for god sakes, please stop calling fallout 3 linear, you want to see linear? Look at Skyrim and fallout 4 then compare them to 3. ( sorry for appearing rude)

But overall what’s your opinion on the game? What do you think of it as an RPG and what aspects do you think it did right or wrong?

 

[TorontoReign]

Something I have noticed over the years, while older members die out, is the younger members coming into NMA have all grown up with Fallout 3. Then they found out about the old games. So they hold a fond place in their heart for 3 and especially New Vegas, which you can see by the responses in this thread and others like it. The "It's good for what it is just let people like what they like, GAWD!" type responses are a prime indicator.

Whereas once NMA was totally comprised of purely old school Fallout fans bickering over whether Fallout 2 was a good sequel or Tactics was some sort of abomination, now it is predominately made up of younger NuFallout fans that are almost apologists for Bethesda. Mostly due to New Vegas.

Yes, we understand people like us with the OCD tendency to obsess over games, pour over lore, and collect every little item and side quest, can derive some sort of sadistic pleasure (mostly with mods) while playing Bethesda games. It's the nature of being starved for content you crave.

I liked Fallout 3 at one time too. I was around 21 at the time, in the Army, married with kids, with no time to play computer games anyway, so I bought it for 360. You can multitask kids and nagging (ex)wives with console games because you can be in the living room pretending to listen about whatever nonsense they are whining about. Anyway I digress...

It was a mindless game I could play while on lunch break. It guided you like a child to where you needed to go, so if you were distracted by a sudden shit diaper it could be winged. The games are made for everyone. Not just niche fans. They sell shirts, bobbleheads, posters, drinks, etc, so it is easy to see that the niche Fallout series is dead, supplanted now with something for the modern age of instant gratification, memes, and titty mods. Bathe in what you have supported by defending the decline of a once great RPG series as it was turned into some sort of adventure simulation. I too was a small contributor to the decline before I was awoken, in those early years of misery. You simply must understand the position I was in before I bought Fallout 3. I had just found out about PoS not months before. It tainted my soul in such a way that I was oblivious to the damage that I was doing. Really! Maybe it was due to Oblivion being the first game I ever modded. Maybe they impressed me at the time. Truly they were something unique. Morrowind was great after all. But how wrong I was...