Plot-holes and logical inconsistencies of FO3?

[Muro]

Another question is why you can't blow up the vault after retrieving the GECK... I mean, you are there already, you found out the origin of the problematic mutants is right there, just put a little C4 or sabotage their nuclear plant so it blows up and you neutralize the threat.

A conversation between two super mutants in Vault 87 reveals that they are running out of FEV. Perhaps the lesson here is meant to be that there is no need to seal/destroy the source, seeing how it will soon dry out on its own.

Of course, being almost out of FEV may very well mean there is still enough of the virus to create dozens of super mutants. I like how the game informs us that not doing anything to prevent dozens of people being kidnapped and turned into suffering mentally-impaired abominations and many more being killed and eaten by them is no biggie.

 

[brandonhart61]

There are good things, but most of the Fallout buffs agree that Fallout 3 was made for a different crowd than the originals, and the bad outweighs the good in most respects. Fallout 3 was one of the most horribly written games I have ever played. The main plot was bullshit and I can't understand why some people prefer it to New Vegas. I don't understand why some people praise Fallout 3 and it's quests. I might add that I defended the game from many haters before it came out, but it let me down bigtime. I enjoyed Fallout 3 the least out of all the core games, but at least it continued the series for new fans, as a result New Vegas came out, so it worked out ok. Fallout: New Vegas redeemed the series for me.

I did not try to over-analyze any of Fallout 3's plotlines, but they all instantly fell apart when I encountered them. They made no logical sense, and were poorly done. After trying to play Fallout 3 again after playing New Vegas, I couldn't enjoy it in the least bit. New Vegas had issues, don't get me wrong, but Fallout 3 takes the cake.

Make the Enclave look like the BOS with black suits. Check.

Make all Raiders bloodthirsty cannibals who leave dead bodies on the walls in their houses? Check.

Make the Brotherhood of Steel like Arthurs Knights of the Round? Check.

Make the Wasteland appear to be completely incapable of surviving ,thriving, and sustaining life, due to more focus on "{"Kewl"? My native language is retard.}" things to do instead of working farms, power supplies, and trade routes. Check.

Completely change the look and attitude of the Mutants, thereby transforming them into rampaging Orcs. Check,

I could go on and on, but it boils down to Fallout 3 being the weak link in the series, it's game sales being due to Oblivion fans, FPS fans, and the remaining Fallout fans. The game brought people that don't normally play RPG's into the genre, but it dumbed down the series to the point of absurdity. Obsidian corrected many problems with FNV , minus the core game engine faults, so Fallout 3 shows it's flaws even more now.

To each his own though.

But how are those plot holes? They're just differences between the other two games that you use to emphasise your hatred of the way that Fallout 3 is different to the others, and the only thing that I truly agree on is this that you said: "Make the Wasteland appear to be completely incapable of surviving ,thriving, and sustaining life, due to more focus on "{"Kewl"? My native language is retard.}" things to do instead of working farms, power supplies, and trade routes. Check." It's logical to remark on how they have no resources to trade yet still survive.

 

[Oppen]

There are good things, but most of the Fallout buffs agree that Fallout 3 was made for a different crowd than the originals, and the bad outweighs the good in most respects. Fallout 3 was one of the most horribly written games I have ever played. The main plot was bullshit and I can't understand why some people prefer it to New Vegas. I don't understand why some people praise Fallout 3 and it's quests. I might add that I defended the game from many haters before it came out, but it let me down bigtime. I enjoyed Fallout 3 the least out of all the core games, but at least it continued the series for new fans, as a result New Vegas came out, so it worked out ok. Fallout: New Vegas redeemed the series for me.

I did not try to over-analyze any of Fallout 3's plotlines, but they all instantly fell apart when I encountered them. They made no logical sense, and were poorly done. After trying to play Fallout 3 again after playing New Vegas, I couldn't enjoy it in the least bit. New Vegas had issues, don't get me wrong, but Fallout 3 takes the cake.

Make the Enclave look like the BOS with black suits. Check.

Make all Raiders bloodthirsty cannibals who leave dead bodies on the walls in their houses? Check.

Make the Brotherhood of Steel like Arthurs Knights of the Round? Check.

Make the Wasteland appear to be completely incapable of surviving ,thriving, and sustaining life, due to more focus on "{"{"Kewl"? My native language is retard.}"? My native language is retard.}" things to do instead of working farms, power supplies, and trade routes. Check.

Completely change the look and attitude of the Mutants, thereby transforming them into rampaging Orcs. Check,

I could go on and on, but it boils down to Fallout 3 being the weak link in the series, it's game sales being due to Oblivion fans, FPS fans, and the remaining Fallout fans. The game brought people that don't normally play RPG's into the genre, but it dumbed down the series to the point of absurdity. Obsidian corrected many problems with FNV , minus the core game engine faults, so Fallout 3 shows it's flaws even more now.

To each his own though.

But how are those plot holes? They're just differences between the other two games that you use to emphasise your hatred of the way that Fallout 3 is different to the others, and the only thing that I truly agree on is this that you said: "Make the Wasteland appear to be completely incapable of surviving ,thriving, and sustaining life, due to more focus on "{"{"Kewl"? My native language is retard.}"? My native language is retard.}" things to do instead of working farms, power supplies, and trade routes. Check." It's logical to remark on how they have no resources to trade yet still survive.

Right, but do you realize that being part of a series means you have to achive plot consistency with other titles on the series?
The graphics part is no problem about this. I mean, how Enclave looks, is not that relevant to the plot.
The raiders are mostly random and could be differente in DC than in Nevada and surrounding places.
And the same for mutants and that.
But the BoS changes are mostly the harder to save piece, within the survival argument.

EDIT: Meant California, not Nevada.

 

[brandonhart61]

There are good things, but most of the Fallout buffs agree that Fallout 3 was made for a different crowd than the originals, and the bad outweighs the good in most respects. Fallout 3 was one of the most horribly written games I have ever played. The main plot was bullshit and I can't understand why some people prefer it to New Vegas. I don't understand why some people praise Fallout 3 and it's quests. I might add that I defended the game from many haters before it came out, but it let me down bigtime. I enjoyed Fallout 3 the least out of all the core games, but at least it continued the series for new fans, as a result New Vegas came out, so it worked out ok. Fallout: New Vegas redeemed the series for me.

I did not try to over-analyze any of Fallout 3's plotlines, but they all instantly fell apart when I encountered them. They made no logical sense, and were poorly done. After trying to play Fallout 3 again after playing New Vegas, I couldn't enjoy it in the least bit. New Vegas had issues, don't get me wrong, but Fallout 3 takes the cake.

Make the Enclave look like the BOS with black suits. Check.

Make all Raiders bloodthirsty cannibals who leave dead bodies on the walls in their houses? Check.

Make the Brotherhood of Steel like Arthurs Knights of the Round? Check.

Make the Wasteland appear to be completely incapable of surviving ,thriving, and sustaining life, due to more focus on "{"{"{"Kewl"? My native language is retard.}"? My native language is retard.}"? My native language is retard.}" things to do instead of working farms, power supplies, and trade routes. Check.

Completely change the look and attitude of the Mutants, thereby transforming them into rampaging Orcs. Check,

I could go on and on, but it boils down to Fallout 3 being the weak link in the series, it's game sales being due to Oblivion fans, FPS fans, and the remaining Fallout fans. The game brought people that don't normally play RPG's into the genre, but it dumbed down the series to the point of absurdity. Obsidian corrected many problems with FNV , minus the core game engine faults, so Fallout 3 shows it's flaws even more now.

To each his own though.

But how are those plot holes? They're just differences between the other two games that you use to emphasise your hatred of the way that Fallout 3 is different to the others, and the only thing that I truly agree on is this that you said: "Make the Wasteland appear to be completely incapable of surviving ,thriving, and sustaining life, due to more focus on "{"{"{"Kewl"? My native language is retard.}"? My native language is retard.}"? My native language is retard.}" things to do instead of working farms, power supplies, and trade routes. Check." It's logical to remark on how they have no resources to trade yet still survive.

Right, but do you realize that being part of a series means you have to achive plot consistency with other titles on the series?
The graphics part is no problem about this. I mean, how Enclave looks, is not that relevant to the plot.
The raiders are mostly random and could be differente in DC than in Nevada and surrounding places.
And the same for mutants and that.
But the BoS changes are mostly the harder to save piece, within the survival argument.

EDIT: Meant California, not Nevada.

So basically, what you're saying is the fact that the Brotherhood aren't a bunch of technological fetishist pricks and decided to break away and help people is a plot hole and a reason to hate the game? You don't see all of them even liking it, some even hate how they broke away from their roots and don't act like a knights in shining armour.

 

[TorontoReign]

There are good things, but most of the Fallout buffs agree that Fallout 3 was made for a different crowd than the originals, and the bad outweighs the good in most respects. Fallout 3 was one of the most horribly written games I have ever played. The main plot was bullshit and I can't understand why some people prefer it to New Vegas. I don't understand why some people praise Fallout 3 and it's quests. I might add that I defended the game from many haters before it came out, but it let me down bigtime. I enjoyed Fallout 3 the least out of all the core games, but at least it continued the series for new fans, as a result New Vegas came out, so it worked out ok. Fallout: New Vegas redeemed the series for me.

I did not try to over-analyze any of Fallout 3's plotlines, but they all instantly fell apart when I encountered them. They made no logical sense, and were poorly done. After trying to play Fallout 3 again after playing New Vegas, I couldn't enjoy it in the least bit. New Vegas had issues, don't get me wrong, but Fallout 3 takes the cake.

Make the Enclave look like the BOS with black suits. Check.

Make all Raiders bloodthirsty cannibals who leave dead bodies on the walls in their houses? Check.

Make the Brotherhood of Steel like Arthurs Knights of the Round? Check.

Make the Wasteland appear to be completely incapable of surviving ,thriving, and sustaining life, due to more focus on "{"{"Kewl"? My native language is retard.}"? My native language is retard.}" things to do instead of working farms, power supplies, and trade routes. Check.

Completely change the look and attitude of the Mutants, thereby transforming them into rampaging Orcs. Check,

I could go on and on, but it boils down to Fallout 3 being the weak link in the series, it's game sales being due to Oblivion fans, FPS fans, and the remaining Fallout fans. The game brought people that don't normally play RPG's into the genre, but it dumbed down the series to the point of absurdity. Obsidian corrected many problems with FNV , minus the core game engine faults, so Fallout 3 shows it's flaws even more now.

To each his own though.

But how are those plot holes? They're just differences between the other two games that you use to emphasise your hatred of the way that Fallout 3 is different to the others, and the only thing that I truly agree on is this that you said: "Make the Wasteland appear to be completely incapable of surviving ,thriving, and sustaining life, due to more focus on "cool" things to do, instead of working farms, power supplies, and trade routes. Check." It's logical to remark on how they have no resources to trade yet still survive.

Those are not my only reasons for thinking the game is horrible. The game is near impossible to run without it crashing for starts. You have to scour the internet to get it to work on PC, and it even runs like shit on the consoles. The autosave bug has been around for how long? Why is it not fixed yet? Do they lack money and resources? I don't think so.
The changes that they made are usually stupid, and make no sense at all. Was it hard for them to make the right model for the Enclave armor, or did they just not give a shit about canon? The fact that you can nuke Megaton, but that stupid bitch Moira survives, just so she can give you the shitty Survival Guide Quest, is just one of the mindless "Illusions of choice" that they thrust upon you throughout the game.

You have no real choices in Fallout 3. Blow up Megaton. Don't blow up Megaton. The choices are endless right?

Here is a quick list of things that Fallout 3 did wrong in my opinion, other than the already mentioned ones:

You don't have to think about your character's stats when you create them, because you can amass enough books to max out your character completely.

I have to mention the plot again. Horrible. These things have been discussed countless times on here, and I hate to beat a dead horse, but give me a fucking break: Little Lamplight, Big Town, Canterbury Commons, Arefu.... These have to be the worst locations in a Fallout game I can possibly imagine. They make no practical sense whatsoever. I could elaborate on that one for hours though.

You can't even sleep in a bed after you kill the owner of it.

Harold is a fucking tree. Whoever thought of this should be kicked in their nuts.

Stat checks are practically non-existent minus a few exceptions.

Fallout 1 and 2 were known for their non-linear gameplay. Fallout 3 is about as linear as you can get with a RPG.

To me the locations in the game appear to be designed with the sole purpose of looking cool, without paying too much attention to the rhyme and reason behind it. To me it looked like this:

Lets make a town that was overrun by Ants like in the movie Them.
Lets make a vault with a bunch of clones of one guy.
Lets make a town built around a nuke.
Lets make a town on a boat.
Lets make a town populated with kids.
Lets make a town town run by a dumbass named Dave.
Lets make a town run by slavers.

Everyone praises the game because there are so many things to do. But really what the game boils down to is wandering through the same subway tunnels/buildings repeatedly, amassing lots of loot, dropping loot off at the house/trader, and completing simple inane quests that require 0 brainpower to solve. Basically you do the same thing over and over again until the game is over. Just because the game sold good, does not mean that it is good. I bought the game and tired of it fairly quickly. Many others did the same. It comes down to quality over quantity. Fallout 3 gives you a lot to do, but no reason to do it. Even with mods the game is barely playable in my opinion, but if people enjoy it that is fine.

 

[brandonhart61]

Those are not my only reasons for thinking the game is horrible. The game is near impossible to run without it crashing for starts. You have to scour the internet to get it to work on PC, and it even runs like shit on the consoles. The autosave bug has been around for how long? Why is it not fixed yet? Do they lack money and resources? I don't think so.
The changes that they made are usually stupid, and make no sense at all. Was it hard for them to make the right model for the Enclave armor, or did they just not give a shit about canon? The fact that you can nuke Megaton, but that stupid bitch Moira survives, just so she can give you the shitty Survival Guide Quest, is just one of the mindless "Illusions of choice" that they thrust upon you throughout the game.

You have no real choices in Fallout 3. Blow up Megaton. Don't blow up Megaton. The choices are endless right?

Here is a quick list of things that Fallout 3 did wrong in my opinion, other than the already mentioned ones:

You don't have to think about your character's stats when you create them, because you can amass enough books to max out your character completely.

I have to mention the plot again. Horrible. These things have been discussed countless times on here, and I hate to beat a dead horse, but give me a fucking break: Little Lamplight, Big Town, Canterbury Commons, Arefu.... These have to be the worst locations in a Fallout game I can possibly imagine. They make no practical sense whatsoever. I could elaborate on that one for hours though.

You can't even sleep in a bed after you kill the owner of it.

Harold is a fucking tree. Whoever thought of this should be kicked in their nuts.

Stat checks are practically non-existent minus a few exceptions.

Fallout 1 and 2 were known for their non-linear gameplay. Fallout 3 is about as linear as you can get with a RPG.

To me the locations in the game appear to be designed with the sole purpose of looking cool, without paying too much attention to the rhyme and reason behind it. To me it looked like this:

Lets make a town that was overrun by Ants like in the movie Them.
Lets make a vault with a bunch of clones of one guy.
Lets make a town built around a nuke.
Lets make a town on a boat.
Lets make a town populated with kids.
Lets make a town town run by a dumbass named Dave.
Lets make a town run by slavers.

Everyone praises the game because there are so many things to do. But really what the game boils down to is wandering through the same subway tunnels/buildings repeatedly, amassing lots of loot, dropping loot off at the house/trader, and completing simple inane quests that require 0 brainpower to solve. Basically you do the same thing over and over again until the game is over. Just because the game sold good, does not mean that it is good. I bought the game and tired of it fairly quickly. Many others did the same. It comes down to quality over quantity. Fallout 3 gives you a lot to do, but no reason to do it. Even with mods the game is barely playable in my opinion, but if people enjoy it that is fine.

[/quote]

Please don't get me started on how hard the game is to run, with the new patches out the game runs almost smoothly now on console versions and PC as far as I know. Quite frankly, the first two had major problems when I tried to run them on my PC, I ended up buying two different versions of the games to see if they would work and they didn't.

I tried changing background colour to solid, running compatibility mode and I still ended up with psychedelic colour schemes that made the game a nightmare to play and the fact that some of the endings are impossible to achieve even with damn patches installed. I love all the games of the series and never in my life have I come to a forum filled with so many biased people towards video games.

Wow, you hate a game because of some changes like aesthetics of how some damn armour looks? Canon? Are there rules for the Fallout series in that super mutants have to be friendly to talk to in order for the game to be good even though these ones come from the other damn end of the U.S? Or that the previous protagonists' siblings have to end up in the game otherwise it's 'too different and is horrible'.

Choices? Yes like there was a whole bunch of choices in Fallout; kill the mayor of a town or help a fat gangster take over? Work for a crime lord in a city or help the police kill the crime lord? Rescue the brotherhood initiate or don't help him? Destroy the mutants or join the mutants? Yeah, the choices are REALLY endless.

Why is Harold a mutated tree? Because he had a tree growing out of his head and a tree can grow by a lot in 80 years and I don't know about you, but I would find it very hard to walk around with a heavy ass tree growing out of my head. Let's make a town run by a crime lord working out of the Maltese Falcon bar (like the name of the movie!) A town run by slavers, was the den not literally run by slavers? They had a strong presence there.

 

[Per]

Start trimming your quotes.

 

[brandonhart61]

Start trimming your quotes.

As you wish.

 

[Oppen]

So basically, what you're saying is the fact that the Brotherhood aren't a bunch of technological fetishist pricks and decided to break away and help people is a plot hole and a reason to hate the game? You don't see all of them even liking it, some even hate how they broke away from their roots and don't act like a knights in shining armour.

First of all, I don't hate the game. It's pretty much a good title. But has plot holes in the sense it belongs to a series which has some things predefined, and it must be consistent to that. If the BoS used to be a bunch of technofetishists, you're able to change that, but probably the ones who cares about the people will be the minor faction. I actually enjoyed that BoS, but that doesn't take away the fact it's pretty much a contradiction that someone who doesn't believe the same things the high command of BoS can be an elder and somehow break with the tradition in the original BoS. It's far more likely that the breakage occurs in DC and that they're the splitted faction. The real problem with Fallout 3 is that it's supposed to be canon with two previous games.
Anyway, there was things I liked a lot about the game, such as one of Harold's ending. He was able to make the wastes fertile again, and achieved something the Master only could dream of, which is expand it's conciousness without the need to absorb other living beings (he is aware of everything through the trees).

EDIT: a word from my native language slipped in

 

[Joelzania]

heehee, those last two comments were funny one after the other like that

 

[TorontoReign]

@ Brandonhart61: I could literally go on for hours about this, but I am not trying to make you change your opinion on the game. I don't hate the game to begin with, but I don't really love it either.

The point I was trying to make with the locations in the game is that most of them are pretty one-dimensional locales. A town run by slavers is fine, it makes sense for Fallout to have it, but that appears to be all the thought they put into it. The world that they create is supposed to draw you into it, and it failed to do that like the previous games in the series, and even Fallout New Vegas. The only reason Fallout New Vegas was better is because Obsidian developed it, and they actually know how to make RPG's with choice.

In New Vegas, if you look at the numerous ways you can alter the game world, change the ending, and discover your party members backstory, then you can see what I am talking about. Fallout 3 did none of this. You discover next-to-nothing important about your party members-they don't really change anything if they die or not.

I have no problem with them changing certain things about factions like the Enclave or BOS, but when the changes make no sense, and are based upon making something look cool, instead if it making sense, then I don't care much for it. The developers actually said they put things in just because they looked cool. I don't think those things looked cool at all. I think those things appealed to a certain group of people. Obviously you fall into that group and I don't.

I am not saying that the game has no value whatsoever. I played it and got a some enjoyment from the process, but in hindsight, the game was a pretty shallow. This community is made up of hardcore Fallout fans, so if you hear some unconventional wisdom, it isn't necessarily because it's biased, it may actually be because they are on to something.

I am not saying Fallout 2 is the best game ever, and it had no faults, but if you put Fallout 2 and Fallout 3 beside each other, I will pick Fallout 2 every time. Because every time I play it the game is different. Every time I play Fallout 3 I have to do the same boring shit over and over. It's just personal preference, and I value games that make me think.

The points you brought up are pretty shoddy at best. Have you ever played Fallout 2 all the way through twice? I think you will find that the choices are a little more deep than what you listed. Many of the changes Fallout 3 made were fine to me, but some of the changes were completely mindless.

A lot of the over-the-top moments could have been solved by adding the Wild Wasteland perk like in New Vegas. The superhero battle in Canterbury commons was utter nonsense, and should have never been put in. I honestly tried to like the game. I bought it twice for shit's sake, so don't get the impression that I played it, and started instantly bitching about things. I played the fuck out of that game, and I gave it a chance, and I am telling you that the game is flawed as hell.

One of the most annoying problems I have with the game is the ambient music. You can take that same ambient music and play it with Oblivion, and that should not be the case. It's a post-apocalyptic wasteland not a fucking fairy forest. The music in the original titles and even in New Vegas is top notch.

So it comes down to you saying Fallout 2 does not work on your computer, but Fallout 3 does not work on my computer, so really who cares? I can't play Fallout 3 without mods, so that is where I stand on it. Fallout 2 runs fine for me with Killaps Restoration Patch, and has ran fine on every computer I have ever owned.

Fallout 3 ran ok on my Xbox with a crash about every couple of hours, but on PC it ran like shit.

The game doesn't want to run in fullscreen, the game doesn't want to autosave without crashing, the game doesn't want you to breath on it, the game doesn't want you to put objects on dead npc's, the game doesn't want you to use your pipboy in combat- or it will freeze up.

I am no moron with computers, but the game has ran like shit on three of my Pc's, and thousands upon thousands of other peoples, so you saying it works on your pc, so it is fine, is a bit off. Bethesda is known for launching buggy games, and Skyrim is the latest example.

But even despite all those complaints Fallout 3 is still a decent game, it just doesn't compare to some of the other games. It did add the Radio and that is one of the best ideas they had in my opinion. They revitalized the franchise of which I am thankful. They also let Obsidian develop New Vegas, and that was the best thing they could have done. As much as I dislike Bethesda at times, they do occasionally hit one out of the park, and for me that was New Vegas.

I admit that many on this site appear to be jaded, but that does not mean that we are wrong about everything. If you are looking for more people to see your point of view, then you may be in the wrong place. Bethesda is not super popular around here.

 

[brandonhart61]

@ Brandonhart61: I could literally go on for hours about this, but I am not trying to make you change your opinion on the game. I don't hate the game to begin with, but I don't really love it either.

The point I was trying to make with the locations in the game is that most of them are pretty one-dimensional locales. A town run by slavers is fine, it makes sense for Fallout to have it, but that appears to be all the thought they put into it. The world that they create is supposed to draw you into it, and it failed to do that like the previous games in the series, and even Fallout New Vegas. The only reason Fallout New Vegas was better is because Obsidian developed it, and they actually know how to make RPG's with choice.

In New Vegas, if you look at the numerous ways you can alter the game world, change the ending, and discover your party members backstory, then you can see what I am talking about. Fallout 3 did none of this. You discover next-to-nothing important about your party members-they don't really change anything if they die or not.

I have no problem with them changing certain things about factions like the Enclave or BOS, but when the changes make no sense, and are based upon making something look cool, instead if it making sense, then I don't care much for it. The developers actually said they put things in just because they looked cool. I don't think those things looked cool at all. I think those things appealed to a certain group of people. Obviously you fall into that group and I don't.

I am not saying that the game has no value whatsoever. I played it and got a some enjoyment from the process, but in hindsight, the game was a pretty shallow. This community is made up of hardcore Fallout fans, so if you hear some unconventional wisdom, it isn't necessarily because it's biased, it may actually be because they are on to something.

I am not saying Fallout 2 is the best game ever, and it had no faults, but if you put Fallout 2 and Fallout 3 beside each other, I will pick Fallout 2 every time. Because every time I play it the game is different. Every time I play Fallout 3 I have to do the same boring shit over and over. It's just personal preference, and I value games that make me think.

The points you brought up are pretty shoddy at best. Have you ever played Fallout 2 all the way through twice? I think you will find that the choices are a little more deep than what you listed. Many of the changes Fallout 3 made were fine to me, but some of the changes were completely mindless.

A lot of the over-the-top moments could have been solved by adding the Wild Wasteland perk like in New Vegas. The superhero battle in Canterbury commons was utter nonsense, and should have never been put in. I honestly tried to like the game. I bought it twice for shit's sake, so don't get the impression that I played it, and started instantly bitching about things. I played the fuck out of that game, and I gave it a chance, and I am telling you that the game is flawed as hell.

One of the most annoying problems I have with the game is the ambient music. You can take that same ambient music and play it with Oblivion, and that should not be the case. It's a post-apocalyptic wasteland not a fucking fairy forest. The music in the original titles and even in New Vegas is top notch.

So it comes down to you saying Fallout 2 does not work on your computer, but Fallout 3 does not work on my computer, so really who cares? I can't play Fallout 3 without mods, so that is where I stand on it. Fallout 2 runs fine for me with Killaps Restoration Patch, and has ran fine on every computer I have ever owned.

Fallout 3 ran ok on my Xbox with a crash about every couple of hours, but on PC it ran like shit.

The game doesn't want to run in fullscreen, the game doesn't want to autosave without crashing, the game doesn't want you to breath on it, the game doesn't want you to put objects on dead npc's, the game doesn't want you to use your pipboy in combat- or it will freeze up.

I am no moron with computers, but the game has ran like shit on three of my Pc's, and thousands upon thousands of other peoples, so you saying it works on your pc, so it is fine, is a bit off. Bethesda is known for launching buggy games, and Skyrim is the latest example.

But even despite all those complaints Fallout 3 is still a decent game, it just doesn't compare to some of the other games. It did add the Radio and that is one of the best ideas they had in my opinion. They revitalized the franchise of which I am thankful. They also let Obsidian develop New Vegas, and that was the best thing they could have done. As much as I dislike Bethesda at times, they do occasionally hit one out of the park, and for me that was New Vegas.

I admit that many on this site appear to be jaded, but that does not mean that we are wrong about everything. If you are looking for more people to see your point of view, then you may be in the wrong place. Bethesda is not super popular around here.

Did I ever say that I liked them because they looked 'cool'? No I didn't, I thought they were okay because they intended to help people and not act like possessive pricks all the time and you automatically assumed that just because I thought they were okay, that I was some stereotypical gamer that only plays the game because it looks cool which is the stigma that has been placed over Fallout 3 because of the many idiots who play it and give the normal guys who play it, like me, a bad name.

And for your information, I have played Fallout 1 and 2 (with it's Killap patch) because I had to buy them from GOG and they have no bugs at all to be honest apart from the occasional few second freeze and yes, I think they are great games but they are not the greatest games ever made.

In my opinion I agree that New Vegas was better than 3 because of better characters and factions despite the fact the game begun in a very cliché crime movie manner. And you seem to have disregarded my previous points about choice as I was talking about the first Fallout not the second so frankly, my points were valid and not 'shoddy' as you stated and yes, Fallout 2 did have more choices than 3.

Lastly, my point of view is very open minded which means that is is in some ways incorrect for you to tell me to find other people 'with my point of view' as you seem to have labelled me as some Bethesda fanboy (I have never even played the Elder scrolls games) and while not everyone here is biased, it does not change the fact that there are some- how shall I say?- rabid Fallout fans on this site that have let their conviction to hold Fallout games to a high standard and have an irrational hatred of new games that carry the name 'Fallout' that are different to the originals. You are not one of those overzealous fans who give this site a bad name and therefore, I respect you to an extent.

 

[Millim]

You guys are conplaing that F3 fucked up the canon, but look at the rest of the games. I know they arn't seen as official canon but still, look at Tactics and PoS. In Tactics, Ghouls where harmed by radioation, but wern't they immune in the rest of the series? Also, Tactics also states that the brotherhood came from Vaults. Well that's abit fucked up as wern't they disendents to the familys that worked in the Mariposa Military Base?
Also, PoS had the Vault Dweller wondering about, didn't he die at the start of F2? (oh am I just crazy?)
Also, in F2, you get to travel back in time and destroy the water chip. Still WTF. And you get to go to a Cafe where you find your dead dog.
So, in a way, all fallout games have their own inconsistences, compare these to a differnt Enclave armour, yellow supermutants and the fact that you get to roam about on an alien spaceship, they are fairly small. But that's the thing about Fallout, every games will break at least one form of canon. I get that some of you think that the inconsitances in F3 are stupid like how the supermutants are always hostile to you, but you gotta think why they are hostile instead of just saying "yeah, their good for exp"
Where, that's my two cents anyway

 

[Sub-Human]

You guys are conplaing that F3 fucked up the canon, but look at the rest of the games. I know they arn't seen as official canon but still, look at Tactics and PoS. In Tactics, Ghouls where harmed by radioation, but wern't they immune in the rest of the series? Also, Tactics also states that the brotherhood came from Vaults. Well that's abit fucked up as wern't they disendents to the familys that worked in the Mariposa Military Base?
Also, PoS had the Vault Dweller wondering about, didn't he die at the start of F2? (oh am I just crazy?)
Also, in F2, you get to travel back in time and destroy the water chip. Still WTF. And you get to go to a Cafe where you find your dead dog.
So, in a way, all fallout games have their own inconsistences, compare these to a differnt Enclave armour, yellow supermutants and the fact that you get to roam about on an alien spaceship, they are fairly small. But that's the thing about Fallout, every games will break at least one form of canon. I get that some of you think that the inconsitances in F3 are stupid like how the supermutants are always hostile to you, but you gotta think why they are hostile instead of just saying "yeah, their good for exp"
Where, that's my two cents anyway

That was one of the most ignorant statements ever. I mean, ever.

First, you start off by saying Tactics and PoS. This is a thread related to Fallout 3, not Tactics or PoS. You also seem to complain about it when Tactics and PoS are spin-offs, unrelated to the main game. They're just games set in the nearly same universe but with totally unrelated shit going on.

Then you cite various Easter Eggs and say they fuck with canon. What are Easter Eggs, ask yourself? They're just there for the fun it. Easter Eggs are totally random events that happen in the game and are considered totally uncanon. It's just funny shit. Not related to canon. Understand?

And 'good for exp' is not an excuse. Make quests where you go around and collect experience. Quests where you assassinate little presidents and ghosts. There's no need to push generic enemies down your throat.

Seriously, pal, what's with your two cents?

 

[Millim]

You guys are conplaing that F3 fucked up the canon, but look at the rest of the games. I know they arn't seen as official canon but still, look at Tactics and PoS. In Tactics, Ghouls where harmed by radioation, but wern't they immune in the rest of the series? Also, Tactics also states that the brotherhood came from Vaults. Well that's abit fucked up as wern't they disendents to the familys that worked in the Mariposa Military Base?
Also, PoS had the Vault Dweller wondering about, didn't he die at the start of F2? (oh am I just crazy?)
Also, in F2, you get to travel back in time and destroy the water chip. Still WTF. And you get to go to a Cafe where you find your dead dog.
So, in a way, all fallout games have their own inconsistences, compare these to a differnt Enclave armour, yellow supermutants and the fact that you get to roam about on an alien spaceship, they are fairly small. But that's the thing about Fallout, every games will break at least one form of canon. I get that some of you think that the inconsitances in F3 are stupid like how the supermutants are always hostile to you, but you gotta think why they are hostile instead of just saying "yeah, their good for exp"
Where, that's my two cents anyway

That was one of the most ignorant statements ever. I mean, ever.

First, you start off by saying Tactics and PoS. This is a thread related to Fallout 3, not Tactics or PoS. You also seem to complain about it when Tactics and PoS are spin-offs, unrelated to the main game. They're just games set in the nearly same universe but with totally unrelated shit going on.

Then you cite various Easter Eggs and say they fuck with canon. What are Easter Eggs, ask yourself? They're just there for the fun it. Easter Eggs are totally random events that happen in the game and are considered totally uncanon. It's just funny shit. Not related to canon. Understand?

And 'good for exp' is not an excuse. Make quests where you go around and collect experience. Quests where you assassinate little presidents and ghosts. There's no need to push generic enemies down your throat.

Seriously, pal, what's with your two cents?

Yeah, I get what easter eggs are and you make a good point by saying that there where no Quests for supermutants, I can't argue with that.
But I'm just saying, canon or not, every fallout game has some type of inconstinecy, I'm not trying to say that F3 didn't have many at all, F3 was the worst offender, I mean yes, there where stupid little things like Kids taking over a settlement. But at the same time, you got to relise it's hust a game, there are gonna be stupid little things like that with explenation. Also I'm not putting a downer on Tactics or PoS for breaking some sort of canon, I'm just saying that they have.
And on a last point, yes, easter eggs are there for fun, but yet, they are still there. They wern't put in with a mod they where created by the devs to show that they created a game that is both dark and fun at the same time.

But yeah, I agree with everyones statements about how F3 failed at being cool, it was just laughable at times

 

[Walpknut]

If uou are trying to defend a game, actually defend it "it's hust a game" is not a defense, is just the same stupid crap eople say whenever they find themselves without anythign to say. Because it's a game it doesn't mean quality is not important...

 

[Sub-Human]

If uou are trying to defend a game, actually defend it "it's hust a game" is not a defense, is just the same stupid crap eople say whenever they find themselves without anythign to say. Because it's a game it doesn't mean quality is not important...

True.

Millim, pal. Easter eggs aren't considered canon, ever. They're just a joke in the game.

A game can be very serious, there's no need to put laughable, ridiculous and fake moments in there. A game's supposed to be an interactive movie (at least for me), but that doesn't mean that the movie in a nutshell has to be disappointing.

 

[Millim]

I get what everyones saying about how easter eggs are only put in for fun. And I do get how F3 is a laughing stock to Old School Fallout Fans. I think it's just because I got into Fallout through F3, so sorry if I said idiotic comments

 

[Sub-Human]

I get what everyones saying about how easter eggs are only put in for fun. And I do get how F3 is a laughing stock to Old School Fallout Fans. I think it's just because I got into Fallout through F3, so sorry if I said idiotic comments

Well, you aren't the only one, but they have a more critical, preferrable taste.

 

[TorontoReign]

I think Walpknut and Sub-Human said it best. This has pretty much ended like these debates usually do. Let us meet in the middle and agree to disagree. When you start the series with Fallout 3, and say that is how the games should be, then you are going to look pretty foolish. Give me a break man.

BrandonHart, you even said in another thread that you didn't like RPG's that much until you played Fallout 3. How many RPG's would you say you have played? Most of the hardcore fans on here have been playing PC RPG's for years, long before Fallout 3 was around, and long before Fallout was even out, so forgive me if I don't entirely agree with you. Fallout 3 is a shitty RPG, but a good game otherwise. It's a lot like Skyrim I guess. Sometimes it is fun to play, but it doesn't really make you think.

If I can't enjoy the game because the plot makes me laugh instead of actually give a fuck, then what can I say? Like I said before, the game is a lot better with mods, but it still leaves a lot to be desired, as far as I am concerned. If you like the game that is great. More power to you for being entertained, but I tend to go against trends, and Fallout 3 was a trendy game that will be forgotten when Fallout 4 comes out. The shortcomings in Fallout 3 were a lot more obvious when New Vegas came out, and so on and so forth.

Have you ever played Baldurs Gate? What about Witcher? What about Final Fantasy 7? Those three games are all RPG's, but are very different in many ways.

Maybe you prefer more linear RPG's than I do, and there is nothing wrong with that, but don't expect some revelation from this side of the table when referring to Fallout 3. I have played through countless RPG's numerous times, and tend to compare the games a lot. Fallout 3 fails in comparison to Baldurs Gate 2 and Witcher.

I didn't respond to the Fallout 1 remark because I didn't feel it applied to what I was saying. I think Fallout 1 was fairly short and straight forward, but even it had more variety in solving quests than Fallout 3. Yes the outcomes may have been fairly linear, but the way you get there can be pretty open ended.

No worries though. Don't let me piss in your cool-aid.