Impressions thread for positive impressions

[the4thlaw]

FO3, finished it, my opinion of it

Well it's been a while, but I finally finished Fallout 3.

What's that you say? I should have finished it in a day? Well.. true I guess... but I work stupid hours and have a family to attend to, so I had maybe 2 hours at the most a week I could play it.

Plus I didn't bother with the story for a long time, I prefered to explore.

At the end of the day Fallout 3 was entertaining and a decent enough game for me, there are alot of games I play then get bored with, but Fallout 3 managed to keep my attention through the entire course of the story.

Sure it's not Fallout 1 or 2 (or... tactics... although I never liked tactics), but I don't plan on making Fallout 3 myself so I didn't mind Bethesda having their crack at it.

 

[13BEAST]

Re: FO3, finished it, my opinion of it

So basically it's a good game because it exists?

It kept your attention playing it for 2 hours a week for a month and a half... That's really not saying anything.

 

[the4thlaw]

Re: FO3, finished it, my opinion of it

So basically it's a good game because it exists?

no, you certainly had to be extra vauge to pull that question out of the barrel, it's a good game because Bethesda made it a good game, I don't expect you to agree, that's why it's MY opinion. My statement was directed at the people who think it would be "better if....."

It kept your attention playing it for 2 hours a week for a month and a half... That's really not saying anything.

A bit of an exaggeration on my end I admit it, but alot of games I've played one afternoon and never picked up again. Halo 3 being one apparent "good" game which didn't interest me at all.

Was there any point to your reply? Besides trying to ridicule me? You'd need to try a bit harder if you thought you were being clever and witty.

 

[13BEAST]

Re: FO3, finished it, my opinion of it

no, you certainly had to be extra vauge to pull that question out of the barrel

Sure it's not Fallout 1 or 2 (or... tactics... although I never liked tactics), but I don't plan on making Fallout 3 myself so I didn't mind Bethesda having their crack at it.

Sorry, it doesn't seem like a stretch at all to have pulled that one out of the barrel. Infact, it seems to me that is almost exactly what you said.

Pointless threads get pointless replies. What did you expect? A well thought out reply to your post of "Well, it was ok, but it kind of sucked, but it rocked. I liked it, but it wasn't good, but it was cool still."?

 

[Corvin]

I imagine any thread saying they liked Fallout 3 would get that sort of reply. I got bored today... and even though I had a bunch of other choices I loaded up Fallout 3. I played a totally different character concept and then went off to do something else. I think this guy is reaching towards where Fallout 3 works... on a somewhat simple and not overanalyzed level.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Re: FO3, finished it, my opinion of it

Well it's been a while, but I finally finished Fallout 3.

What's that you say? I should have finished it in a day? Well.. true I guess... but I work stupid hours and have a family to attend to, so I had maybe 2 hours at the most a week I could play it.

Plus I didn't bother with the story for a long time, I prefered to explore.

At the end of the day Fallout 3 was entertaining and a decent enough game for me, there are alot of games I play then get bored with, but Fallout 3 managed to keep my attention through the entire course of the story.

Sure it's not Fallout 1 or 2 (or... tactics... although I never liked tactics), but I don't plan on making Fallout 3 myself so I didn't mind Bethesda having their crack at it.

Hey no one ever denied that Fallout 3 indeed CAN BE FUN ... just that its a bad Fallout game or RPG.

And since this is a community about Fallout the RPG ... you know the rest of the story .

 

[yester64]

@ k9wazere
actually i tried three attempts.
1. myself and die
2. have Flawel go in which he did not
3. let her do it (which pissed her off)

At 1. i gave in myself and died and with 3. you see her dying. and the ending is also different, which regards you as not like your father aka jerk.

 

[Shattering Fast]

Re: FO3, finished it, my opinion of it

Well it's been a while, but I finally finished Fallout 3.

What's that you say? I should have finished it in a day? Well.. true I guess... but I work stupid hours and have a family to attend to, so I had maybe 2 hours at the most a week I could play it.

Plus I didn't bother with the story for a long time, I prefered to explore.

At the end of the day Fallout 3 was entertaining and a decent enough game for me, there are alot of games I play then get bored with, but Fallout 3 managed to keep my attention through the entire course of the story.

Sure it's not Fallout 1 or 2 (or... tactics... although I never liked tactics), but I don't plan on making Fallout 3 myself so I didn't mind Bethesda having their crack at it.

Hey no one ever denied that Fallout 3 indeed CAN BE FUN ... just that its a bad Fallout game or RPG.

And since this is a community about Fallout the RPG ... you know the rest of the story .

A truer statement has never been uttered on this forum. Fallout 3 is inherently different, and that difference just so happens to attract as many people as it repels.

As a "Fallout game", it certainly must fail if the fanbase is so ardently against it. It failed to live up to expectations, which were quite high in certain circles. But, to say it failed as an RPG? I cannot acknowledge that. I believe, personally, that many of those people who refuse to accept Fallout 3 as a competent RPG or even a competent game do so out of their belief that it did not live up to its title.

I, for one, found Fallout 3's game world to be perfectly realized and, like Oblivion, it could be as immersive as the roleplayer wanted it to be.

I have two qualms with the game: the level cap, and the forced ending. Otherwise, this game is just about beautiful as they come.

 

[Roflcore]

Fallout 3 is not an rpg. You can not play roles in Fallout. You can only play the sole action hero with the gun. You don't need a single skill for the mainquest, stats and skillpoints are totally pointless (can kill a super mutant on level 3 with 32% in small guns and a 10mm) and most quests consist of "go to x, kill y" while the markers tell you exactly where to go.

Nope, not a chance. Wikipedia says Action-RPG but I still disagree, if F3 is an action-rpg, then GTA 3-4 & Half-Life 2 are also action-rpgs

 

[Crni Vuk]

Re: FO3, finished it, my opinion of it

A truer statement has never been uttered on this forum. Fallout 3 is inherently different, and that difference just so happens to attract as many people as it repels.

As a "Fallout game", it certainly must fail if the fanbase is so ardently against it. It failed to live up to expectations, which were quite high in certain circles. But, to say it failed as an RPG? I cannot acknowledge that. I believe, personally, that many of those people who refuse to accept Fallout 3 as a competent RPG or even a competent game do so out of their belief that it did not live up to its title.

I, for one, found Fallout 3's game world to be perfectly realized and, like Oblivion, it could be as immersive as the roleplayer wanted it to be.

I have two qualms with the game: the level cap, and the forced ending. Otherwise, this game is just about beautiful as they come.

Not our expectations are so high. Their (like Bethesda) standarts are so low.

Thats how I see it anyway.

 

[Shattering Fast]

Re: FO3, finished it, my opinion of it

A truer statement has never been uttered on this forum. Fallout 3 is inherently different, and that difference just so happens to attract as many people as it repels.

As a "Fallout game", it certainly must fail if the fanbase is so ardently against it. It failed to live up to expectations, which were quite high in certain circles. But, to say it failed as an RPG? I cannot acknowledge that. I believe, personally, that many of those people who refuse to accept Fallout 3 as a competent RPG or even a competent game do so out of their belief that it did not live up to its title.

I, for one, found Fallout 3's game world to be perfectly realized and, like Oblivion, it could be as immersive as the roleplayer wanted it to be.

I have two qualms with the game: the level cap, and the forced ending. Otherwise, this game is just about beautiful as they come.

Not our expectations are so high. Their (like Bethesda) standarts are so low.

Thats how I see it anyway.

To each their own, I reckon.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Re: FO3, finished it, my opinion of it

To each their own, I reckon.

Well I have no clue how to see it different when a developer from Fallout 3 ( I will not tell any names now ) says about a "RPG" he is making it might have 'to much to read for the console players'

Make out of that what you want ... but it tells me that they have either very very low standarts regarding RPGs or do not expect much from their consumers, which somewhat is almost the same in some way. They also are worried 'god' might be to much for people to take ... you konw cause of the references in the game to the bible and such. Anyway ...

 

[M-26-7]

This thread is positive...postively negative.

 

[yester64]

I have to disagree. If that would be true what you state, then Final Fantasy games are no rpg's either. Simply because you only get to play as the hero and thats about it. Although you do have a party.
But even with this game, since you can not choose any classes, you still give your point towards base stats. Also you do improve your skills (although at some i did not even notice an improvement) and get the added perks.
To me its not a real rpg, but it is still a action oriented rpg (or elements if that suits better).
Overall not bad at all.

Fallout 3 is not an rpg. You can not play roles in Fallout. You can only play the sole action hero with the gun. You don't need a single skill for the mainquest, stats and skillpoints are totally pointless (can kill a super mutant on level 3 with 32% in small guns and a 10mm) and most quests consist of "go to x, kill y" while the markers tell you exactly where to go.

Nope, not a chance. Wikipedia says Action-RPG but I still disagree, if F3 is an action-rpg, then GTA 3-4 & Half-Life 2 are also action-rpgs

 

[yester64]

Last night i went to vault 94 which was interesting. I had forgotten to go there before i finished the game.
Also, did you know that you can actually blow up the president with his fortress? But i think that it does not change the overall game really. Actually a real bummer with the game, that every action you do does not really have anything to do with the outcome later. Or does it?

 

[Crni Vuk]

But even with this game, since you can not choose any classes, you still give your point towards base stats. Also you do improve your skills (although at some i did not even notice an improvement) and get the added perks.
To me its not a real rpg, but it is still a action oriented rpg (or elements if that suits better).
Overall not bad at all.

Sad is only that I did not wanted a action oriented RPG with Fallout 3 ... I wanted a game that has the same quality as RPG like the past Fallout 1/2

 

[Critter]

Sad is only that I did not wanted a action oriented RPG with Fallout 3 ... I wanted a game that has the same quality as RPG like the past Fallout 1/2

Oh, it can be done. It just requires effort to pull off.

I guess effort is something certain companies can't "do well" at or anything.

Copy+Paste game design, ftw!

 

[Roflcore]

I have to disagree. If that would be true what you state, then Final Fantasy games are no rpg's either. Simply because you only get to play as the hero and thats about it. Although you do have a party.

Uhm..they aren't? People tend to call it "JRPG", but whats wrong with action adventure? Because thats what it is.

you still give your point towards base stats. Also you do improve your skills (although at some i did not even notice an improvement) and get the added perks.

You don't need a single skill for the mainquest, stats and skillpoints are totally pointless (can kill a super mutant on level 3 with 32% in small guns and a 10mm) and most quests consist of "go to x, kill y" while the markers tell you exactly where to go.

/e note: somewhere in the forum is somebody (forgot the nickname ) who is playing F3 with all stats lowered to zero. funny (action)rpg eh?

 

[Yazman]

My impression: Its technically flawed, but good lorewise

My impressions of Fallout 3 after having played it quite a lot. Overall I think for their very first effort, especially after having picked up where others left off, was a decent job. But I think there's a few key problems, all of which have to do with systemic/technical aspects of the game.

I think the main problems with it, are purely to do with the systems/niggling gameplay issues. The dialogue could be a bit more "adult" but I think in a lot of places they did a good job, however there needs to be more options.

They implemented SPECIAL well imo but they didn't implement it strongly enough. I think this is just a difference of design philosophy in that Bethesda's RPGs generally are more related to player choice rather than stat-heavy, and no developer can erase their history. BI had a long history of developing very stat-heavy (in terms of their impact on gameplay choices/events) RPGs, especially if we look at their usage of the D&D licenses which epitomise stat-heavy RPGs. Given their previous efforts Fallout 3 is more stat-heavy but not enough, and I think this is easily rectified and probably will be in the event of another Fallout title. They also gave us too many skill points and a level cap - the level cap makes sense given that we now get a perk every level, and there would be some big problems perk-wise if we had level 50 characters running around. They SHOULD reduce the amount of skill points however, or maybe just reduce them in higher difficulty modes.

I think the ending wasn't very good - and Bethesda themselves have admitted this and will be changing it in an upcoming content patch - and that we should have been given info on the future consequences of our actions like in Fallout 2, or at least allow us to continue playing after the main quest - which we will be able to do after the new content patch, so these problems are both being rectified really (here's hoping the new ending is better!)

My other primary concern was that we didn't have item descriptions, although its not a major concern at all. This could probably be easily fixed in the event of a future game.

One thing I think they did well was the implementing of the new first person perspective, and while a lot of people piss and moan about it I think it gives us an entirely new perspective on the Fallout universe allowing us to see everything in a way we've never seen it before. I really like it, and the detail in the graphics is awesome purely because its Fallout and they faithfully reproduced the old graphics in detail. Even the old wall-mounted computer consoles for example were exactly like in the other games. Reproducing shit like that was not something they needed to do at all, but they did it and I was pretty damn happy with it when I found out they did it.

While the dialogue isn't always strong I think the overall flavour of the setting, the locations, and the treatment of the fiction/lore was all done very well. There wasn't anything immediately obvious to me that conflicted with established facts in the other games and in this way I think they did an excellent job. I'm also very pleased they included the Enclave, BOS, etc because we weren't just plunged into something 100% new. We had a few familiar things in an alien location and I think they all work pretty well, even if the gameplay does fall short sometimes. Places like Megaton, Underworld, and ESPECIALLY Rivet City I loved. Rivet City was a fucking cool idea and fits in so well with the Fallout universe.

Overall I think there are a fair few technical flaws. The stats AND skills need to have more of an impact on everything, the dialogue needs to be more interesting in general, and they need to make VATS less of a "god mode", but these problems are offset just enough by the respectful treatment of the franchise to make me think its a good "first try" at picking up a franchise which wasn't theirs to begin with, even if it's not my ideal picture of Fallout 3. If they learn from at least some of their mistakes, which I'm sure they will, then the next one will be a hell of a lot better.

 

[Ravager69]

I both agree and disagree.

Bethesda made their game "resemble" Fallout, instead of making a Fallout game. Thus the detailed graphics like the wall computers or the look of Vaults. The thing is, they could pay less attention to that (I mean how the game looks, with all the trouble of making it in FPP) and should focus on making varied quests and fun dialogue. They partly succeeded with the first and made baby steps towards improving their quest-design, but they miseralby, completly failed at dialogues (most of the people talk like retards AND the horrible VO makes them ubearable) and without the last being at least good, you can't name your game "Fallout".

Also, their world is very inconsistent and many things don't make sense. There are no farms, the world looks like the war was yesterday, not 200 years ago, illogical behaviour of the NPCs (look Enclave or your Dad for example) etc.

The fact that this is their first approach at the subject does not change nor justify the fact that the game is mainly crap and judging on their tendency to screw their games even more (Morrowind -> Oblivion), I don't even want to think how will Fallout 4 look like.