Impressions thread for negative impressions

[TheLastOutlaw]

My experience with Fallout 3 is a bit strange. I started off loving the game. I really liked the character customization, the post apocalyptic feel, and the amount of material to explore. I played it nonstop for several hours until I finally reached over 60 hours of playtime. I beat the game, explored most locations of interest (didn't bother with all the tunnels, radio towers, or bobbleheads) and finally stopped playing for a day or tow. Then I got to thinking, "Why am I still playing this game?"

That almost perfectly replicates my own experience (except I did find all the bobbleheads.) I loved FO3 pretty much until I got into the main quest in depth, and once you beat it there really is no incentive to do it again. Replay value is one of the things FO1/2 had in spades, FO3 severely lacks it.

 

[Commiered]

I think killing someone should be based really on who they are, not who is near them. Fallout 1/2 used a faction based system that worked well. In the Den, if you killed Tubby, a merchant, his friends would attack you, but no one else cared in the town. It was an every man for himself town where you could kill junkies and no one would respond, it was part of life. That said, in more advanced towns, there were guards and killing had major consequences.

A duel in Megaton, eh, I don't really like the idea. I think everyone fighting you is realistic. If you start shooting up the sheriff, the inhabitants are going to fight back. IIRC he is generally well liked, and he is their best protector against the enemies of the wasteland. Now, group fighting isn't what Bethesda does best, so it ends up a little funny, but it is IMO the best approach.

Now I haven't been to Rivet City yet in my playthrough, so I have no idea what the themes of the city are. If it has a strict government like NCR, I could see a jail system, maybe. Simply put, why would the town put you in a jail instead of just protecting themselves? I think that the guards would more likely shoot you up as soon as you became a threat.

I think the Gothics 1 and 2 did this very well. If you killed someone and noone saw it, then no problem. If you just knocked out a person and didn't use a spell on him/her to make them forget, they you would be fined or arrested as they would go to authorities. If you started a fight in a rich area then the guards and other people would attack you. If you started a brawl in a run down area, noone would care, UNLESS you then killed the person. If you were the one attacked then people would sometimes help you otherwise you could do what you like in defending yourself. The more people that would see your crime, the greater the punishment. It wasn't always perfect, but for the time even until now, I haven't seen a better system in an RPG.

 

[Shattering Fast]

My experience with Fallout 3 is a bit strange. I started off loving the game. I really liked the character customization, the post apocalyptic feel, and the amount of material to explore. I played it nonstop for several hours until I finally reached over 60 hours of playtime. I beat the game, explored most locations of interest (didn't bother with all the tunnels, radio towers, or bobbleheads) and finally stopped playing for a day or tow. Then I got to thinking, "Why am I still playing this game?"

That almost perfectly replicates my own experience (except I did find all the bobbleheads.) I loved FO3 pretty much until I got into the main quest in depth, and once you beat it there really is no incentive to do it again. Replay value is one of the things FO1/2 had in spades, FO3 severely lacks it.

I don't mean to sound glib, but I fail to see any difference in the replay value between Fallout 1 and Fallout 3.

Now, this is not an outright criticism of either game or any of the opinions expressed on this forum, so much as a single question: why is there more incentive to replay the first two Fallouts over the 3rd one? Can anyone help me with this?

 

[BloodyPuppy]

My experience with Fallout 3 is a bit strange. I started off loving the game. I really liked the character customization, the post apocalyptic feel, and the amount of material to explore. I played it nonstop for several hours until I finally reached over 60 hours of playtime. I beat the game, explored most locations of interest (didn't bother with all the tunnels, radio towers, or bobbleheads) and finally stopped playing for a day or tow. Then I got to thinking, "Why am I still playing this game?"

That almost perfectly replicates my own experience (except I did find all the bobbleheads.) I loved FO3 pretty much until I got into the main quest in depth, and once you beat it there really is no incentive to do it again. Replay value is one of the things FO1/2 had in spades, FO3 severely lacks it.

I don't mean to sound glib, but I fail to see any difference in the replay value between Fallout 1 and Fallout 3.

Now, this is not an outright criticism of either game or any of the opinions expressed on this forum, so much as a single question: why is there more incentive to replay the first two Fallouts over the 3rd one? Can anyone help me with this?

Because the character builds in Fallout 1 are far different from each other. You can get a lot of different things happening and methods of beating the game from changing your build. You can have a dumb guy run through, you can try for a no kill game, you could try to play as a charismatic gunslinger (though it seems everyone has done that one), etc. And the thing is that unlike Fallout 3 all of these playthroughs are going to be really unique from one another and you won't get quite the same feeling of deja vu.

 

[Shattering Fast]

My experience with Fallout 3 is a bit strange. I started off loving the game. I really liked the character customization, the post apocalyptic feel, and the amount of material to explore. I played it nonstop for several hours until I finally reached over 60 hours of playtime. I beat the game, explored most locations of interest (didn't bother with all the tunnels, radio towers, or bobbleheads) and finally stopped playing for a day or tow. Then I got to thinking, "Why am I still playing this game?"

That almost perfectly replicates my own experience (except I did find all the bobbleheads.) I loved FO3 pretty much until I got into the main quest in depth, and once you beat it there really is no incentive to do it again. Replay value is one of the things FO1/2 had in spades, FO3 severely lacks it.

I don't mean to sound glib, but I fail to see any difference in the replay value between Fallout 1 and Fallout 3.

Now, this is not an outright criticism of either game or any of the opinions expressed on this forum, so much as a single question: why is there more incentive to replay the first two Fallouts over the 3rd one? Can anyone help me with this?

Because the character builds in Fallout 1 are far different from each other. You can get a lot of different things happening and methods of beating the game from changing your build. You can have a dumb guy run through, you can try for a no kill game, you could try to play as a charismatic gunslinger (though it seems everyone has done that one), etc. And the thing is that unlike Fallout 3 all of these playthroughs are going to be really unique from one another and you won't get quite the same feeling of deja vu.

Well, I'll keep that in mind in the future. Thanks for the help.

I attempted a diplomatic build recently and was eaten alive by cave rats before I even left the Vault cave. I suppose I need to get alot better.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Well, I'll keep that in mind in the future. Thanks for the help.

I attempted a diplomatic build recently and was eaten alive by cave rats before I even left the Vault cave. I suppose I need to get alot better.

Well its definetly not a easy way to play the game. But it provides (for the case you get trough the frustration) a different kind of experience in the game which is not provided by Fallout 3. Not even slightly [when it comes to the main quest at least]. Fallout 3 has not much room for a pure "diplomath" (in my eyes no one at all). While Fallout 1, even if very difficul offered you that opportunity. You would miss things a "gunner" would get, yes. But so is the tide of "role playing".

 

[jamesmcm]

Fallout 3 has not much room for a pure "diplomath" (in my eyes no one at all). While Fallout 1, even if very difficul offered you that opportunity. You would miss things a "gunner" would get, yes. But so is the tide of "role playing".

I think the Science/Speech char still works quite well in FO3. (There were unavoidable random encounters in FO1&2 too). Really, though Fallout 3 is miles too short in lack of perks, easiness of maxing skills, low level limit, etc.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I think the Science/Speech char still works quite well in FO3. (There were unavoidable random encounters in FO1&2 too). Really, though Fallout 3 is miles too short in lack of perks, easiness of maxing skills, low level limit, etc.

Its not about how it works ... but where you can apply it.

In one playtrough I maxed out my inteligence to 10 and science 100 but the times I could use this "skills" [in conversations to a viable "not fighting" alternative] I could count of the fingers of one hand.

Particularly in the mainquest. I ask my self ... how is a "diplomath" ever considered to finish the main quest? (not that it would be hard to kill those freaks in the wasteland even with low skills but anyway). There is no way to get around the "enclave" base and the fighting. No way to get the GECK out of the vault without fighting. No way to clear the purifer from Supermutants/enclave ... again without fighting. And so are many of the other quests.

When people talk about a "diplomath" in Fallout 1 in contrast to Fallout 3 they do not have randoom encounters in their mind. Those do not contribute more or less to your gameplay like the raiders/rad scorpions/robots you encounter in Fallout 3 somewhere outside in the wasteland. Its about the content in your quest. The way to change people, offer different not combat related routes. And those are not very much in Fallout 3. A great example would be more quests in the sens like talking mora out of her idea to make the wasteland guide if your skill was high enough. Awesome. Thats great. But why not more such aproaches ? Why not finding a solution to get in the enclave base WITHOUT a fight a similar approach to how you could get inside maripose or the cathedral?

 

[jamesmcm]

Yeah, parts of the main quest like that felt really rushed. It's a shame, hopefully Bethesda will release an expansion or something to pad out the main quest - it's alright up to Raven Rock but then it just feels incredibly rushed.

 

[TheLastOutlaw]

Blood Puppy hit the nail on the head regarding the replay of the the earlier Fallouts when compared to 3.

My first playthrough of FO1 was a pretty rough jack of all trades character, I tried to be good at everything and struggled horribly to finish it. I also didn't quite understand the perk system and how sets of them meshed with each other, I just sort of picked them because "ooh, that sounds cool, so does that one!"

My second playthrough I was much more focused on combat, pumped a lot into big guns and energy weapons, figured out how to maximize my ranged damage with sharpshooter, sniper and such, I even posted a character creation guide somewhere on the net showcasing this character way back when. (I still have the old .doc if anyone wants it for a laugh )

Then I tried using INT as my dump stat and laughed hysterically at my crippled dialogue choices.

I tried a melee only fighter, I made stealth/infiltration experts, I literally cannot count how many builds I played through Fallout 1 with.

Fallout 3 on the other hand...

My first playthrough was my pretty typical "goody two shoes hero" I sprinkled skill points across the board willy nilly trying to get a feel for how things worked. By all rights I should have screwed myself because I ignored science for a very long time, by the time I realized how valuable it was I was level 12 or 13 and had less than 30 points in it. By the time I beat the main quest it was at 100 anyway.

The bobbleheads and multiple skill books skew the importance of carefully choosing your skill point placement as you level up.

SPECIAL stats give you extra benefits and discussion options if high enough but I've yet to find a negative result for skimping on one. INT 1 is just a talkative as INT 10?

I tried to replay FO3 and despite being evil instead of good the game is not a significantly different experience. I had more or less assumed that being evil would have prevented Talon company from being hostile by default, nope, they still aggro me for breathing. Is nuking Megaton a game changing experience? Nope. Tenpenny tower offers the same perks, and you don't even cut off your chances of finishing the survival guide. Let ghouls into Tenpenny tower? No sweat, they'll still let you live there once the dust settles.

I'm not saying that the player needs to be destroyed for making "bad" choices but FO3 really makes you feel like your choice doesn't matter because nothing you do really impacts anything.
If your choices change nothing there really is no new experience from a replay. Other than making a different looking character? Oh wait, nevermind I can go see the plastic surgeon and make myself look different anyway. I've tried twice now to replay FO3 with different builds and both times gave up from boredom.

 

[Shattering Fast]

Between the bobbleheads and the skillbooks, all of my characters ended up being more or less the same. As much as I loved the game, it got far too easy near the end. The Alien Blaster pretty much ensures that you'll be able to blast through the entire final mission with nothing but one-hit kills.

 

[TheLastOutlaw]

I didn't find the alien blaster during my first playthrough so I had to settle for some two shot kills when the plasma rifle failed to give me a critical head shot on the first shot.

 

[Dirty Smuggler]

This is not my Fallout

This game is bad. This is just another Oblivion. Actually it is worse than that. Same bland sandbox game, but without the decent sidequests. It has no athmosphere, no story. It is cliched. And what the fucking fuck`s fuck is with the whole deppressing visual bleakness thing?!? Fallout was never about visual bleakness, it was about color and variety. It`s because this thing is not Fallout that is what it is. This thing is bullshit! It is perfectly summed up by the retarded english accent on "your father". I picked hispanic appearance and named myself Carlito, but my old man is "James" and speaks Oxford English?!? Go fuck yourself Bethesda. You wouldn`t know athmosphere if it hit you on the balls with a brick!!

 

[Commiered]

Yeah, parts of the main quest like that felt really rushed. It's a shame, hopefully Bethesda will release an expansion or something to pad out the main quest - it's alright up to Raven Rock but then it just feels incredibly rushed.

Wrote the same wish on another thread, but then shot it down with the realisation that Beth is more interested in those paid expansions. They won't do anything to fix the main quest, though really at the very least they should devote at least a few weeks to do it and bundle it with the Anchorage expansion.

Good to see that after the initial fanboyism the scales have fallen from your eyes and you see more and more faults with this game .

 

[TheLastOutlaw]

I think I read somewhere that one of the later expansions is supposed to fix the game so it doesn't end at the main quest (Which was retarded, maxed out on rad-x and wearing power armor and I still die of rads? Meh...)

Maybe that will add something worthwhile? The jury is still out on whether or not I'll buy and of the DLC, I'll likely hold off until I hear some reviews by someone with half a brain (eg, from NMA.)

 

[Commiered]

Well it would be good if this was true. Though to make people pay for a fixed main quest is fucking rich.

I have nothing against a fan mod of it, but we'll have 100 different mods all with various perspectives on how it should be and that is only marginally better than having the shit quest that we have already. I know it sounds weird given how much Beth has raped Fallout, but I'd rather see THEM fix it as it is their vision.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I think I read somewhere that one of the later expansions is supposed to fix the game so it doesn't end at the main quest (Which was retarded, maxed out on rad-x and wearing power armor and I still die of rads? Meh...)

Maybe that will add something worthwhile? The jury is still out on whether or not I'll buy and of the DLC, I'll likely hold off until I hear some reviews by someone with half a brain (eg, from NMA.)

I think people expect to much from the DLC. Its not like they decided to suddenly rewritte the whole game. And even if. What would it tell about their "original" design and idea?

To me this a looks pretty intentionally to me anyway, as a "boost" for the DLC. "Oh dont like the ending we present you? Wait for the DLC to rock your socks!".

 

[TheLastOutlaw]

It's definitely a blatant ploy to sell the DLC, especially to the console market who can't use the GECK to fix the main quest ending themselves. If only BethSoft would apply as much thought and ingenuity to their game design as they do to their marketing...

 

[Chaito]

Fallout 3 killed Fallout story?

Hey! I read NMA a long time ago, but I'd never registered because my email was "banned" like all hotmails/gmails/yahoos and well... I preffer to read than to post my opinions here.

Well, I am a very big fan of fallout 1/2, I played them a lot of times since I knew them ten years ago or so.... They were the best games I've ever played, best gameplay, best humor, best analogys, best plot and storyline... well I can go on talking like this but...

Well, lets go to the fact... I played fallout3 some time ago, at first, it was fascinating through my eyes to se the wasteland with such graphics and effects... I started to play it and well, I hate shooters but it was a Fallout! I had to play it...

NEVER! in the 30 hours that I played it, came that feeling, that touch that interplay guys had to make this games... the whole game is such... TYPIC! a normal thing, a "Hollywood movie".... the storyline is a complete trash mixing content from fallout 1 and fallout 2 but without that interplay touch!!! zero creativity!!!

IF YOU PURCHARSE SUCH A LICENSE AS IT IS FALLOUT, YOU HAVE AT LEAST TO GIVE WHAT OLD FANS SEEK!

Not an obvlivion with guns and a trash history mix... to make another "Game of the year" with full graphics and all that sh*t

I am not talking about its gameplay, therefore i hate shooters, I repeat, but thats other issue, I knew it was going to be like this, but i expected some more from the "Story" side.

Although its not a bad game, is a normal game like most modern games, full graphics and effects and some gameplay, and kill an espectacular story like fallout's. The game don´t desserve that name, deffinitly.

Well sorry about my english, I am Argentinian pleasure to meet you all.

 

[MrCanon]

For me, personally, it's the Oblivion engine (Gamebrio?) that breaks thhis game

I HATE IT !!!

I don't like the way it looks or moves for an FPS/RPG game.
Really can't stand it.