I think Fallout 3 is better than Fallout 2

[Crni Vuk]

Because to TRULY render a city with millions of inhabitants each with their own personality, AI, jobs, habits and so forth you need a supercomputer.
Video games have at best have about 1000+ NPCs and are very very very limited whether they're 2D or 3D.

Never played Daggerfall then I guess. Frankly, it was all generic and most even randoom and some people gave it the name ... Buggerfall. But they at least TRIED it. They [foremost Bethesda] dont even try today anymore to push the limit higher or even create something further to "their" immersion busswords. They are copycats that simple, and that since Morrowind as that was the last time they gave a unique game "life". No one of the people in charge at Bethesda since Morrowind was able to pull out a "own" franchise, story with fleshed out background and mechanics. No all they keeped doing since then was using already established mechanics and franchises to water them down "for greater accessibility" as how they say. Though ...sadly this was never Fallout. And even if they repeat it a 100 times, it makes it not "more" falloutish.

...
Get it thru your thick skulls fanboys the fact that a game is 3D doesn't mean it's not condensed/"symbolic" like the good all 2D games.

Just one suggestion. Stop it. The one or other could take it a bit offensively you know and even might get the idea ... you ... know ... would be trolling ... or something like that. And you registered here to tell people YOUR point of view.

1] It isn't OK, but it's reduced enough not to be that annoying.

Debatable. But I guess that is a oppinion here.

3] Vanilla F3 combat isn't a charm but it way better then the TB system and as a Bethesda game it can be easily modded. I play it with mods BTW.

Who ever said Turn Based combat in Fallout 1/2 was perfect or had no room for improvements? Do you suggest now seriously "real time is better then Turn Based" here? See, many people here say even that Tactics had really "ok" combat (even though when it was designed in favour for Real Time ... and still it was no real progress to turn based) but it was not a good Fallout game. If you want to see some good Turn Based mechanics give Jagged Alliance 1 and 2 a try, or if you can not stand the graphics try Silent Storm, I heard X-Com was good also. The mechanics in Ja2 are excelent. Fallout 3 has done here NO step forward only sidewards [so much to Bethesdas "we improved everything" here]. It still has a very mediocre like real time mechanic almost copied over from Oblivion. Even the way how your skills work (the higher your skills the more damage your weapons do) is from Oblivion. Gone are even the critical misses by you and your enemies.

by the way. A game should be enjoyable for most without mods. Mind you, Fallout 1/2 were very enjoyable for many without mods (the restauration project here is not changing mechanics, they give more quests/story thats a difference).

4] How the hell does the FEV distinguish friends from foes to leave your people/allies alone but kill almost all the other Enclave enemies civilians/staff ?!
I can understand that that you and soldiers have armors/helmets but I didn't knew a virus could take sides.
And why didn't BIS designed the game to allow you to avoid fighting Horrigan ?!

Go and play that part of the game again. It is not our job to educate you in Fallout and its dialogues. Try to read carefully again what the scientist explained to you how he would make it happen to rescue your people. Simple.

By the way. Why you or others register here to suggest that 'Fallout 3 has holes in the plot. Fallout 1/2 had holes too! So its ok for Fallout 3 to have [even biger] holes'. Awesome logic.

6] Ditto for 3D games.
And how about them 200 year noodles ?!
Or that 200 years plus car ?!
Or them 200 year + GECKs and waterchips ?!

Food preserved for more then 200 years "fitt" the setting at one point. It perfectly matches about the 50s future and Fallouts timeline. Computers wondoursly working somewhere in the wasteland after 200 years, cars exploding in nuclear mini-fireballs or buildings and installations with some look like the bombs droped last week do not fitt the Fallout world.

7] The spreadsheet is NOT a major part of any RPG.
RPG means immersion in a role in a fantasy world, choices and their consequences, influence over the world/quest/sidequest.

RPGs are in the traditional sense not about "immersion". They are about what their name suggest. Playing a Role. You can make immersive RPGs, but that was not the target of Fallout. By the way I am sure many people here will agree when I say that Fallout 1/2 was immersive to many in some way. Just probably not in a way like Fallout 3 ...

...
There's no such thing as a video-game true/pure/real RPG, there never was and until a Matrix type of AI there won't be.
There are video-games that have RPG elements, but that's it.

Was Doom a RPG for you?

 

[Ausdoerrt]

Don't waste your time, the guy got a third strike on the last page

 

[Nodder]

This is turning into the most pathetic Fallout forum on the internet (and there aren't that many). What's more: it has its faithful members to blame for this. The apocalypse must be right around the corner. One would almost hope it is.

Truly, truly, truly disappointed because of all this ridiculous flip-flopping lately.

I love this. Fan drama is NMA's greatest export. It's why I signed on. Keep on shining you crazy diamond.

 

[Darkform]

are you not able to turn on the turrets in the room you fight Horrigan and have them do most of the fighting for you?

I'm old and forget things every now and then but I thought there was turrets you could activate if you had a high science skill in FO2 ending making it so a person with low combat skills can still kill him. I must be mistaken.

 

[Crni Vuk]

are you not able to turn on the turrets in the room you fight Horrigan and have them do most of the fighting for you?

I'm old and forget things every now and then but I thought there was turrets you could activate if you had a high science skill in FO2 ending making it so a person with low combat skills can still kill him. I must be mistaken.

You would need the presidential keys to do that. So yes you could turn the turrets hostile toward Horrigan. Same to talking with 3 enclave soldiers at the entrace just before you meet Horrigan. If your skill was high enough you could talk them in to fighting against him.

Anyway, with this point I have to agree somewhat though. Horrigan was a pretty weak end villain and feels somewhat lifeless, nothing in comparison to the SMs and Master from Fallout 1. But well, its still miles better then anything Bethesda has in Fallout 3 the real important characters were the President and his Vice President anyway!

 

[Public]

He was pretty tough facing 4-5 turrets and few Enclave soldiers

I think for turning turrets against Horrigan you needed some science skills too, but I'm not sure.

 

[TamaNeko]

Meh Enclave. One of my biggest gripes against Fallout 2.

Does anyone else think they're cool-looking, but ultimately shallow and pointless villains for the Fallout series? Unlike the Master in F1, who did have a genuine desire to rebuild the world, even if it was misguided, the Enclave are just a bunch of the standard "evil-government-going-to-destroy-the-world" types with no real depth and sense of purpose. This already bothered me way back in Fallout 2 when you could never find a non-violent way to negotiate with President Richardson or Frank Horrigan.

I actually like Fallout 3 quite a bit, but one of my biggest disappointments with Bethesda is that they didn't do any better with the Enclave, yet had the opportunity to flesh them out better. I had no idea there was even any real conflict between Eden and Autumn until the very final moments when you get to talk to him. And yet it ended in a jumbled mess - how would the top Enclave soldier like Autumn disagree with the core Enclave mission objective of destroying all "mutants" with the FEV? Thankfully the rest of the game was good enough for me to enjoy, because the main quest was almost bad enough to drag the whole game experience down for me and turn my like for this game into outright hatred. Best way I can compare this to is watching a 26-episode anime series that ends with a crappy ending that ruins the whole experience, even if the earlier episodes were good.

Fortunately this is a videogame, so I don't have to actually finish it to keep on enjoying it, unlike anime.

 

[BloodyPuppy]

Yeah, I never really understood the motivations of the Enclave in Fallout 2 that well. They looked cool and all, but they just sort of seemed to be there because the game needed a villain.

 

[Public]

What do you think would be better?

And I don't see them as villains, they were just another organization which wanted to take control of the wasteland. Raiders wanted their spot too, and Slavers, even BoS. Enclave was just a bigger one that wanted to get rid of everyone.

 

[BloodyPuppy]

Hey, I didn't say I had any better ideas, I just thought that their motivations were less interesting than the Master. More generic than I would have hoped.

 

[TamaNeko]

What do you think would be better?

And I don't see them as villains, they were just another organization which wanted to take control of the wasteland. Raiders wanted their spot too, and Slavers, even BoS. Enclave was just a bigger one that wanted to get rid of everyone.

Simple - actually make them someone you can sympathize with. No more narrow-minded black/white, good/evil outlooks for videogame villains. Fallout 1 was almost perfect with this, I actually found myself sympathizing with the Master in the end, he truly believed that his path was the best course for humanity to stop repeating the stupid mistakes of the past. They could've done something similar for the Enclave in Fallout 3 by say, fleshing out Autumn's true motivations, maybe even turning the Enclave good against Eden.

Ahh...so many wasted opportunities to have made a truly memorable main quest. Oh well, maybe that's why there's that DLC coming up soon.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Hey, I didn't say I had any better ideas, I just thought that their motivations were less interesting than the Master. More generic than I would have hoped.

I think its quite clear though that already with fallout 2 they started slowly (and later with Tactics and PoS even a lot more) to move further away from the Fallout 1 concept. I realy wish they would have followed in fallout 2 for example a idea they originaly had for Fallout 1 or would even have already used it already there! To contine the game as Super Mutant after you got dipped! Or the Original ending for Junktown for example when you kill Gizmo (read about it in the Wiki). I think this are the things they should have used and can make a game much more richer. New dialogues, new quests and ways to play the game.

Compared to the Master and his army. Yeah the enclave seems 2 dimensional (not just literaly ...). But anyway, I really liked the President, he feelt "ok". Not awesome, but really pretty descent. And of course Lynette. My all time "I want to punch your face" charcter ... good times indeed. Something I really liked though that you got some background about the characters if you searched for it (like who the Master was before his accident, Riached Grey! A vault dweller). Totally missing such things in Fallout 3 ... whos autum? President Eden? Elder Lyon? Oh somewhere from the "west", alight. Thats enough for me. Why no background informations and such.

 

[Public]

What do you think would be better?

And I don't see them as villains, they were just another organization which wanted to take control of the wasteland. Raiders wanted their spot too, and Slavers, even BoS. Enclave was just a bigger one that wanted to get rid of everyone.

Simple - actually make them someone you can sympathize with. No more narrow-minded black/white, good/evil outlooks for videogame villains. Fallout 1 was almost perfect with this, I actually found myself sympathizing with the Master in the end, he truly believed that his path was the best course for humanity to stop repeating the stupid mistakes of the past. They could've done something similar for the Enclave in Fallout 3 by say, fleshing out Autumn's true motivations, maybe even turning the Enclave good against Eden.

Ahh...so many wasted opportunities to have made a truly memorable main quest. Oh well, maybe that's why there's that DLC coming up soon.

Oh I get it now. My bad.

It would be cool if you could join the Enclave in FO2, or at least try to. Bethesda made everything even worse by pulling back dead Enclave from the grave (for some, magical reason) and changing BoS into "I love you Wastelanders!" pricks with no balls "OMG! Enclave is here, what should we do??!".

 

[Ozymandias]

I don't see much point in debating which FO game was most realistic. (But I guess I will anyway!)

I personally don't think that the cities in FO2 were that unbelievable considering that there was so much technology laying around. Most towns had some kind of electricity generated. Plus FO2 took place some 150 years after the first game! So wouldn't you expect there to be some developments.

What IS important which makes FO2 better than FO3 is that FO2 had freedom! FREEDOM baby! There were tons of hilarious dialogue options which got unique responses each time, and more dialogue options available to different kinds of characters. Every town had several different endings you could spur according to how you fulfilled or didn't fulfill their quests.

FO3 depends entirely on the enjoyability of its gameplay to redeem it, and I don't find scavenging junk and ammo all that fun. FO2 had more unique items, more weapons, and more enemies. I feel like I could count the enemies in FO3 on two hands.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

^ My fav. was in FO2 when you kept choosing to prowse the files over again for who knows how many times, there were special messages =)

 

[Holocausto]

That is pretty good in 10 months, even reusing assets.

Yup. I mean, look at Beth. 4 years and many millions, and they are doing the same thing: reusing assets. Not quite as successfully though, but that's maybe because the assets they are using are... *cesored*, ahem, I mean *Oblivion* ^____^

So basicly F3 should have same engine,graphics,sounds just other content like quests and location...

Damn im gona make a gaming company and sell same thing over and over im fucking briliant and morons will buy...

Morons WILL buy. Make sure to invest heavily in OMFG PURTY commercials/ads and of course your OMFG graphics PRON department which should be the backbone of any kiddie bait game. The kids will go nuts for that shit and you'll be rich!

 

[jamesmcm]

I absolutely agree, Fallout 3 is my favourite game, ever.

Sure there are some minor issues like not being able to sleep while trespassing (should use Fable's system where if you are caught you get attacked/fined but you can do it), not being able to kill children (blame Fox News), combat is a bit too fast outside of VATS.

But these are minor issues compared to the overall masterpiece. I think Bethesda have done a great job with the setting.

Hopefully Bethesda will make Fallout 4, where they can add more factions which you can join, make it so you can join mutants, etc. no fixed enemies, seamless environments (the engine atm is the antithesis of this with fixed maps and discrete exit and entry points), and smoother combat out of VATS. But I really love the job they've done and don't forget they also provide great modding tools.

 

[DForge]

Well, Fallout2 was incredibly easy and combat was very screwed (easy) and unoriginal (aim at the eyes.. the eyes.. the eyes.. zzzzz..), and had lots of things out of place, and I consider Fallout1 as superior in terms of atmosphere...

... but it's unfortunately a better game than F3. Way better.

 

[Patton89]

I absolutely agree, Fallout 3 is my favourite game, ever.

Sure there are some minor issues like not being able to sleep while trespassing (should use Fable's system where if you are caught you get attacked/fined but you can do it), not being able to kill children (blame Fox News), combat is a bit too fast outside of VATS.

But these are minor issues compared to the overall masterpiece. I think Bethesda have done a great job with the setting.

Hopefully Bethesda will make Fallout 4, where they can add more factions which you can join, make it so you can join mutants, etc. no fixed enemies, seamless environments (the engine atm is the antithesis of this with fixed maps and discrete exit and entry points), and smoother combat out of VATS. But I really love the job they've done and don't forget they also provide great modding tools.

It depends.
If you loved oblivion, and wanted it to be like oblivion, you will certainly love fallout 3. If you wanted Fallout, you wont like this game.

But issues arent small issues, they are big issues. Bad story , bad , easy combat, bad overall writing etc. I have already stated many times the faults of this game, and people still ignore them. The settting isnt even made by bethesda. Interplay and BIS made the setting and beth just screwed it up. They pretty much took the same factions, and just put them into a pile of rubble called DC.
And the wasteland looks and feels like its right after nuclear war, not 200 years after nuclear war. No developed settlements. Honestly, they were lazy.

It isnt even that good of a RPG or a FPS. It is just mediocre. I really cant understand what would make fallout 3 masterpiece. Combat isnt that good in FPS standards, and RPG part is butchered and simplified.

And many other gaming firms provide great modding tools, so its not like they are the only one doing so. Remedy and Blizzard come to mind.

 

[Crni Vuk]

And many other gaming firms provide great modding tools, so its not like they are the only one doing so. Remedy and Blizzard come to mind..

Not to forget Epic with Unreal.

They have a support towardin the modding community anyone modding Bethesda games can only dream about ...