Plot-holes and logical inconsistencies of FO3?

That won't happen. Even Beth aren't that crazy, look at how careful they were with Fallout 3, hardly added anything at all to the universe. Although they should have done so, main story was like a mediocre hollywood remake of F1 and 2.
 
I am pretty sure that Bethesda's Fallout 4 will center around the Brotherhood, Super Mutants and the Enclave again as their fans demand it.

You should see the requests for BOS or Enclave DLCs for FNV.

I rather see Fallout die than continue under Bethesda's developers, they are not writers or game designers, even their own in house franchise is a terrible mess thanks to them.
 
enclave enclave enclave ... I mean I do like that faction. But at some point we simply HAVE to give them a rest.

If they never concentrate on new factions we will just like in Vegas get something like the legion which is promisng but only half way done.
 
The Dutch Ghost said:
You should see the requests for BOS or Enclave DLCs for FNV.
Click to expand...
I really don't think they care what a bunch of retarded fans request.

I am pretty sure that Bethesda's Fallout 4 will center around the Brotherhood, Super Mutants and the Enclave again as their fans demand it.
Click to expand...
Doubt it, while they are not truly gifted developers, they aren't complete idiots either. It's obvious that F3 was a sort of a reintroduction to the universe, in a way they wanted to explain the universe and past events to the new players, which is why F3 kind of tells a story close to F1 and F2. If they do F4 oen day, they will most likely keep the old factions but probably center on something new.

I rather see Fallout die than continue under Bethesda's developers, they are not writers or game designers, even their own in house franchise is a terrible mess thanks to them
Click to expand...

I would rather not. Because once you ignore the terrible main story, Fallout 3 is still an enjoyable game. Its world is filled with interesting places, some decent quests and is just fun to explore. You might say it's not even close to F1 and 2, and I'll agree. But I'll say that it's still better, bigger and more ambitious than most games out there. Definitely better than nothing, if not more.

Also, Point Lookout was very freaking good and well written, which means that the designers learned a few things from F3. That's an example of the lead designers not using old Fallout themes and coming up with their own stuff. It was really enjoyable, better than F3 even. Hell, the chinese spy quest was so good that it could have easily feel right at home in F1 and 2.

What's also worth noting is at Point Lookout is the only DLC that the lead designers of F3 did, the rest was crap because it was made by the less talented part of the studio. So if these guys make F4 and not stick to old themes, they might do a hell of a lot better than with F3.
 
and is just fun to explore
Click to expand...

You don't find anything interesting in the locations. Only always the same useless shit items and combat, lot's of combat.

Their try to add background stories with spread out computer terminals was noble, but made no sense, as there was no energy and hell, how in hell can the terminals even still work after so many years.
 
Locations often have some kind of reward, like a terminal with interesting info, some interesting detail\character or some unmarked side quest. I can bring up a ton of examples if you want. So it's worth exploring and is better than other similar themed games like STALKER.

And really, what's the point of the "there's no power for the computers to run" or some similar argument about a lack of realism? Same can be just as easily said about Fallout 1 and 2, because all of these are sci-fi games, not real life simulators.
 
Lexx said:
as there was no energy and hell, how in hell can the terminals even still work after so many years.
Click to expand...

Nuclear powered computers?

I sure hope that if Obsidian isn't the one developing FO4, that bethesda learned from New Vegas for their next installement, they could even have something out of the events of FO3. For example if we just take the evnts of that game as just the exagerated tale of the rebelious chapter of the BOS on the west coast of how they defeated a Remnant of the Enclave, in Broken Steel there is an aliance between the West coast BOS and Rivet City, so if we fast forward and just take the events of FO3 as canon in broad strokes we could have a new Faction, maybe an Alyons (gedit? sorry.....) maybe in the same vein as the NCR? I sure hope they don't set FO4 in Washington, rehashing the same region when there is lots of other places to explore in how they were afected by the great war would be incredibly stupid.
 
Walpknut said:
Nuclear powered computers?
Click to expand...

Yeah, in the 50s they thought nuclear power would solve any and all problems. But power is just one silly aspect. My computers tend to live about 4 to 5 years before i have to scrap them. Of course in a sci-fi setting they could make nuclear powered computers that don't wear down and survive for 200 years in open desert or damp cave. If so, its beyond me why they did not use those components for guns, so they don't wear down after two bursts.

Anyway, constructing indestructible pepertuum computers sounds like just the thing a capitalistic consumersociety would do, eh? Just in case some punter comes along after a few centuries wanting to know what dear mary had on her mind.

Exploration was boring in FO3. Same cave, same vault, same house. Filled with more of same and another gun like the dozen you have already. If there was something special, it was a pointless bobblehead (what does it matter if your agility is 2 or 10?) or a named gun you don't need (you can kill everything with a hunting rifle). You cant learn something useful from your explorations, you cant change the world, you cant talk about it with npcs (other than the wonderful moira of course). Nobody gives a toss if you wander the wastes for years before purifying some water or if you hurry up. Exploration, like the rest of the game, is pointless in FO3.
 
Vik said:
And really, what's the point of the "there's no power for the computers to run" or some similar argument about a lack of realism? Same can be just as easily said about Fallout 1 and 2, because all of these are sci-fi games, not real life simulators.
Click to expand...

Fallout 1 and 2 only got running computers in locations where it made sense. Not in random city ruin xy outside in the wastelands. Plus, I just made one point. It wasn't meaned to be the answer to everything.

Locations often have some kind of reward, like a terminal with interesting info, some interesting detail\character or some unmarked side quest.
Click to expand...

Most locations I visited only had uninteresting shit. Especially locations that looked interesting first turned out to be one more battlefield. As if the game didn't got enough of that already.
 
Vik said:
Locations often have some kind of reward, like a terminal with interesting info ...
Click to expand...
This:
Lexx said:
Their try to add background stories with spread out computer terminals was noble, but made no sense, as there was no energy and hell, how in hell can the terminals even still work after so many years.
Click to expand...

I think its nice if they have sometimes interesting topics in those "computers" across the wasteland. But I think it it happens way to often ~ thinking about it like the icing on a cake, if you get a whole bowl of it its not that great anymore. And often enough confusing. I dont know if others had the same issue but I was sometimes pretty confused about if the information in those terminals was either "new" or "old". It seems the game has sometimes not made that really clear.
 
As a Bethesda forum veteran(oh god) I can tell you Fallout 3 is a mess.
How can you eat 200+ yearold boxed food? Why is the BOS a bunch of pussies? Why can I easily take out Power armor enclave with a 10mm pistol and leather armor? So yes I know we are all butt hurt that Fallout 3 sucked (for us) but why argue over something that's said and done? Bethesda doesn't give two shits what you or anyone else thinks as long as the game sells.


Rant over/
 
Don't all the Fallout games have plot holes?
Fallout 1: Your average vault dweller gets out of a vault and defeats a literal army of super mutants, even though he's some average civilian
Fallout 2: A tribal with no knowledge of guns manages to defeat heavily armed military personnel with heavy armour
Fallout 3: Why couldn't Fawkes activate the damn purifier before broken steel was created? Combined with a teenager defeating super mutants and enclave military.
Fallout NV: Who the hell gets shot in the head and survives?

And the biggest plot hole of all, how the hell do the characters carry over 100 pounds of equipment without backpacks?
 
brandonhart61 said:
Fallout NV: Who the hell gets shot in the head and survives?
Click to expand...
gabriellegiffordsphoto.jpg
 
The first two are not plot holes, you should check your definition of it. Specially because you had to be very well armed to take on the Enclave and Mutant Army, or have high speech. Killing a Power Armored soldier with a basic pistol was not posible in Fo1 and 2, they could easily kill you with a lucky shot or a screw up on your part.

FNV: who the hell gets shot in the head and survives? Lots of people, it's hard to survive it but is not a 100% death situation.

And the last bit, ABSTRACTIONS, that's what RPGs live off of.
 
I like 1 and 2 but people always claim how retarded Fallout 3 is for being unrealistic ect but the only way to really survive combat near the end of 1 and 2 short of injecting yourself with a gazillion stims is to get Brotherhood armour which literally makes you impervious to bullets. And you ignored my point, how does some random vault dweller stuck in a vault with absolutely no knowledge of the outside world manage to killer super-genetically altered mutants and marauding gangs with knowledge of the wasteland who have survived by picking off the others. Surviving a shot in the head is about 90%. But, surviving AND without brain damage or loss of coherent thinking? That's a bit silly.
 
How a Vault Dweler manages that? because you travel the world and gain new skills and weaponss and you couldn't hope to kill a Super Mutant with a 9 mm and you have acces to a party?
And depending on how you distribute your stats your character can be dumb as a rock (Mitchell even jokes about brain damage), with no charisma or perception, get traits like Wild Wasteland, etc.
 
Walpknut said:
How a Vault Dweler manages that? because you travel the world and gain new skills and weaponss and you couldn't hope to kill a Super Mutant with a 9 mm and you have acces to a party?
And depending on how you distribute your stats your character can be dumb as a rock (Mitchell even jokes about brain damage), with no charisma or perception, get traits like Wild Wasteland, etc.
Click to expand...

How on earth do you gain skills in lockpicking for example by killing several raiders and advancing in level? I'm just saying, it's stupid how people argue over how they think that a certain game of a video-game series is illogical and lacks intelligence when it's a fictional creation with fictional qualities. Many people (not all) on NMA seem to yabber on and on how they hate it and how their games are more realistic when they're GAMES! I like playing these games because they have great gameplay, settings, story and characters. I don't play them because I like to go and bicker about their damn plotholes. People of 1 and 2 need to get along more with the 3'ers.
 
Have you ever heard of ABSTRACTIONS? you don't gain points in lockpickign by killing them, leveling up is an arbitrary number of points the game sets you as your goal to be able to put points into skills, it represents you training on the side. How can you not comprehend the concept of an abstractions while playing RPGs? and in Fallout you get more Exp Points by completing quests than killing Raiders.
Nobody here talks about realism in Fallout, they are talking about consistency.
 
You have to recognize that realism and believability are not the same thing. That a character can carry lots of stuff based on weight rather than bulk is a convenience and an abstraction. That someone can prevail against all odds to topple an adversary with much more manpower and gunpower is a storytelling device. All of this can be covered by suspension of disbelief; it's possible to accept the premise that ghouls and giant mutants are possible if the story keeps to its own rules and premises. But when people engage in nonsensical conversations and enterprises, when their motivations are bland or bungled, or the consequences of your actions make no sense whatsoever, that hurts your belief in the world on a fundamental level. I'm sure you can find cases of this in Fo1-2 as well, but they're not necessarily things that those who criticize Fo3 for making no sense would jump to defend.
 
Walpknut said:
Have you ever heard of ABSTRACTIONS? you don't gain points in lockpickign by killing them, leveling up is an arbitrary number of points the game sets you as your goal to be able to put points into skills, it represents you training on the side. How can you not comprehend the concept of an abstractions while playing RPGs? and in Fallout you get more Exp Points by completing quests than killing Raiders.
Nobody here talks about realism in Fallout, they are talking about consistency.
Click to expand...

Let me hear your POV then, what make 3 more plot hole ridden?
And inconsistent?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top