PhillyT said:
Isn't about whether or not it's a good game? Isn't that the whole point?
This is a Fallout fansite. No, whether or not it is a good game of itself is not the point for a Fallout fansite.
Similarly, if Half-Life 3 was made into an absolutely stellar pinball game, expect people to complain that it isn't Half-Life 3. And rightfully so.
PhillyT said:
As far as fitting with the themes of the original, it is thematically as similar as the second game. Is it as good? Certainly not, but when you play the game, it is Fallout.
No, it isn't.
It plays like an entirely unrelated post-apocalyptic game that throws in some Fallout elements somewhat randomly.
Fallout 3 is much more densely populated, the empty wasteland being replaced with an area filled with half burned-down houses and raiders around every corner.
The 'two worlds' atmosphere is almost entirely gone. In Fallout you had an aged, destroyed post-apocalyptic world, and a few choice, pre-war locations that still survived. See The Glow and the Vaults.
Instead, in Fallout 3, everything is destroyed, including all the treasure troves of Vaults you can come across. Incidentally, it all feels as if the destruction took place just 15 years ago instead of the 200 years ago that you feel in Fallout.
Choices and consequences are largely gone from Fallout 3. There are a few quests that are absolutely great exception, but then you're thrown back into reality that what you do has no effect.
Throughout most of the game (not all of it, though, there are exceptions), Bethesda tries to never exclude a player based on his choices. Also meaning that choices become quickly irrelevant.
The main quest is both silly (especially the very end), and almost entirely linear. Again: choices barely matter. Moreover, the game forces you into sacrificing yourself or someone else, which is entirely unnecessary considering you can have a Super Mutant capable of walking through radiation nearby. Of course, he refuses saying that it's your path to walk or something ridiculously stupid as well.
Most dialogue has been significantly dumbed down and simplified, and your stats play almost no role except for some small additions of loot and a few options to skip fed-ex bits.
The only similarities to Fallout it carries, are the use of the names of the stats (which, again, are changed entirely to the point that they're largely immaterial), the use of some '50s aesthetics, the Vaults, some critters and a few quests that show that Bethesda does have it in them to make some parts of the game that do do justice to the name.
It is not a good Fallout game, at all. It does not work on the same core design tenets (being a Pen & Paper simulation, largely), and it doesn't come close in practice.
PhillyT said:
I recognize that it isn't as good as the first, that said I actually prefer it. When I go back to play, I like it considerably better for the improved party system, greatly expanded weapon and equipment options, far larger world, and multiple options of play. Fallout 3 isn't as good, but the amount of venom being launched at it is far greater than the game or Bethesda deserves.
Fallout was a clean, wonderful game which was shockingly original for its time. It offered very good flexibility and built on the success of my previous favorite game, Wasteland. It is a classic. Fallout 2 bettered it in many ways, but was still a sequal and wouldn't be able to gain the same status as the original. Fallout 3 is worse than the previous two, ut when they were as good as they were, is it possile or it to e anythin else? It is still a great game, and a worthy successor. I would rather have another romp through Fallout light than no romp at all.
And yet again this argument surfaces.
A full sequel that changes core design principles changes the entire series. As such, Fallout 3 simply ends the Fallout series as we knew it.
WIth the choice between a possible Fallout 3 that could continue the series at some point in the future Maybe, and a definite Fallout 3 that simply ends the series, I'll take the former.
