Plot-holes and logical inconsistencies of FO3?

You made me laugh on a couple of those....:rofl:

The problems you listed were some of the main gripes I had with the story, other than the 1950's music complaint. If they put a different kind of music in the game people would complain that it didn't fit the setting.
 
well neither Fallout 1 nor Fallout 2 have been throwing really huge "this are the 50s!" references in to your face. So ... I dont know why anyone would have complained about it in F3. Except if F3 never was really trying to be "fallout" in the first place - which it wasnt in my eyes but that is a different story.

Does not mean you cant have some references here and there. But as comparison how many references do we have today which go directly to the 50s ? How many will we have in 2070 ? Probably not that much.
 
I disliked the 50s radio myself, how ammoral is it to blow someone's head off while listening to a love song. And the songs are boring anyways, at least for me.

Something ambient, like back from Fallout 1 and 2, would be great. TES tracks under a thin layer of change was unfit.
 
TorontRayne said:
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. :)
Click to expand...

What, so the fact that I haven't played many RPG's means I have a bad taste in games? My main points are that the people here are so stuck in a timewarp that they literally become rabid every-time someone says they like a Bethesda game since they hold the series to such a high standard and have become very bitter over the fact that there are no more isometric turn-based role playing games anymore.

It's like walking into one of those quaint and seemingly friendly towns that you think you might fit in. An inhabitant of the town comes up to you with a smile on his lips and perceptive awareness of this new stranger in town and he attempts to find out about him. "Have you ever played Fallout 1 and 2?" the inhabitant, whom I will refer to as Will, asks you. "Yes" you reply, and say how you enjoyed the game and Will starts to smile a little showing off his white teeth. His smile darkens however as he asks: "Did you ever play Fallout 3?" You nod that you did play Fallout 3 as it is what introduced you to the series and while it was not as good as the originals, it was a great game nevertheless. Will suddenly snaps at you "NOT AS GOOD AS THE ORIGINALS?! IT IS AN ABOMINATION!" You then notice that all the inhabitants of the town have suddenly crowded around you, and are nodding their heads in unison in their agreement with Will. You try and defend your thoughts of the game, but it only serves to aggravate them further, stating "Aren't you overreacting? It's not like I said the others were terrible and what the games should be like...". But it is at this point that you realise that the inhabitants have now gathered pitchforks and nailboards and begin to circle you like a pack of lions.. ready to pounce and devour their prey at the moment of retaliation...

I can appreciate the fact that they are good games and that Fallout 3 was not as good as the rest but only if YOU appreciate the fact that at the end of the day, a company's main reason to make a game is to make money, not to appease a small fan-base by making exactly the same game that the older guys like. Hence the reason why this is a 'cult series'.

Would you like to know why Bethesda chose not to make another isometric turn-based game? Because only a small group of people would buy it who were fans of the originals and would end up bankrupt. At least Bethesda tried to make another Fallout game with similarities in gameplay and environment. And the fact that they're the reason why people even know about the great series in the first place while the people here constantly slate how much they want to murder Bethesda because of the game's plot-holes and differences to the fabulous originals. :|
 
brandonhart61 said:
My main points are that the people here are so stuck in a timewarp that they literally become rabid every-time someone says they like a Bethesda game
Click to expand...

If that's your main point then you don't have a main point. If someone flames you for no reason then report them, otherwise try to think of some actual arguments. Hint: "they have to make money" is not a good response to "it doesn't make sense".
 
@Brandonhart: Most of what you said was gibberish, but I would like to go on the record and say this....

I don't think Fallout 3 should have been isometric, and I don't think it should have been turn-based either, but that isn't what made the game suck. The game sucked because of about 50 other reasons which have been repeated a billion times all over this forum. I am a hardcore Fallout fan, but I am also a realist. If Bethesda made Fallout 3 turn-based/ isometric many people would not have played it, so don't place EVERYONE into that category.

So far you have not said anything to counter the fact that the game made no fucking sense and it sucked donkey dick. The only thing you have said is "You guys are stuck in the past" and "Bethesda introduced new fans to the series"....

I am actually thankful that Bethesda bought the fucking series because, like I have said before, Fallout: New Vegas was released because of them. I think it is hilarious how it bothers people that many NMA members hate the game. Who gives a fuck? Go play Fallout 3 and enjoy it, but don't expect everyone to agree with you. Most gamers are fucking retards, so Fallout 3 and it's uber-awesome reviews don't impress me, just like the legions of Call of Duty bitches ,and Halo fanatics don't impress me.

Am I a jaded bastard? Yes. Do I give a fuck? No. I have been playing games for over 23 fucking years, and I have more cultivated tastes than a retarded 12 year old, so forgive me for not liking some games just because other people like them.

When I see something in a game that makes me cringe it is so horrible, something is wrong with that picture. When I try to play a game, and it crashes every 30 fucking minutes, why is that my fault? Is it my fault that Bethesda can't design a fucking engine that works? Have you played the game on PC or on a console? There are over a thousand fucking bugs in the game even if the story and gameplay were perfect! God forbid you leave the fucking Autosave on, or it will CTD, or freeze your damn XBOX.

If you are too blind to see the faults, and have nothing else to add to the discussion beyond your clever stories, then don't bother continuing the conversation.

Again, I do not desire a turn-based , or isometric Fallout, but I expect a game to make a little sense. Fallout 3 made no sense.
 
I have something to say here. First of all, there is a difference between "logical inconsistancy" and "canon inconsistancy". The logical things, like where Project Purity was built etc., happen in every game. But on to canon.

If you actually do research, canon is not screwed as bad as NMA thinks it is. Enclave Power Armor looks different in Fallout 3. That's because the Enclave APA Mk II on the East Coast is a different model than the APA MKII on the West Coast. Lyons' Brotherhood wears T-45d instead of T-51b because T-51b was never mass produced on the East Coast. The T-51b in Fort Constantine was the only prototype for it in D.C., other than the pre-war Winterized suit stored in Operation Anchorage.

Some creatures and robots look different. But did you ever think that it's due to the geographical location? Animals evolve differently depending on their location. Mutation would probably occur the same way. Other robots, like Sentry Bots, have been changed so they don't look unintimidating anymore.

Story plotholes? Vault-Tec cut an under the table deal with Wes Tek Research Facility, obtaining FEV for the Vault 87 Social Experiment, which in turn created the Vault 87 Mutants plaguing D.C.. Vault Tec was responsible for nearly everything in Fallout canon. Lyons Brotherhood is "nice" because of the bleeding heart elder they have. Tactics and Fallout "POS" are not treated as canon, although the main events of Tactics happened. The Midwest BoS is nowhere near as strong as in-game however.

The Enclave retreated from Navarro, using what little Vertibirds they have to reach D.C. and join the Raven Rock branch of the Enclave. Others had to walk on foot. Not very many survived the attack on the Oil Rig anyway.

It is presumed Harold joined a caravan to the east coast. Bombs not being as effective? Well, what kind of game would it be if every last thing was blown to hell and back, and nothing remained to dig through? D.C. is the capital, yes. But to be a game, some things had to survive.

All of this can be found on the Fallout wiki, from Bethesda themselves, or from Chris Avellone.
 
LambentEarache said:
I have something to say here. First of all, there is a difference between "logical inconsistancy" and "canon inconsistancy". The logical things, like where Project Purity was built etc., happen in every game. But on to canon.
Click to expand...
Yeah. But it does stick out more in games which require actually quality writting and content like with Fallout games.

Not that past games didnt had such "holes". But the quality of the game was high enough regarding the roleplaying and characters that you didnt noticed it that much. Fallout 3 is somewhat throwing it right in your face. And pretty much every damn time ... (from the purity project to the kidz town and villages with 3 people next to raider camps ... ).

BN or someone else described F3 as amusement park with lots of "lulziness" to do. And exactly that is a perfect descrebtion. You dont follow a path nor has the world any consitency. The best thing you can do in F3 is "blowing shit up".
 
LambentEarache said:
I have something to say here. First of all, there is a difference between "logical inconsistancy" and "canon inconsistancy". The logical things, like where Project Purity was built etc., happen in every game. But on to canon.

If you actually do research, canon is not screwed as bad as NMA thinks it is. Enclave Power Armor looks different in Fallout 3. That's because the Enclave APA Mk II on the East Coast is a different model than the APA MKII on the West Coast. Lyons' Brotherhood wears T-45d instead of T-51b because T-51b was never mass produced on the East Coast. The T-51b in Fort Constantine was the only prototype for it in D.C., other than the pre-war Winterized suit stored in Operation Anchorage.

Some creatures and robots look different. But did you ever think that it's due to the geographical location? Animals evolve differently depending on their location. Mutation would probably occur the same way. Other robots, like Sentry Bots, have been changed so they don't look unintimidating anymore.

Story plotholes? Vault-Tec cut an under the table deal with Wes Tek Research Facility, obtaining FEV for the Vault 87 Social Experiment, which in turn created the Vault 87 Mutants plaguing D.C.. Vault Tec was responsible for nearly everything in Fallout canon. Lyons Brotherhood is "nice" because of the bleeding heart elder they have. Tactics and Fallout "POS" are not treated as canon, although the main events of Tactics happened. The Midwest BoS is nowhere near as strong as in-game however.

The Enclave retreated from Navarro, using what little Vertibirds they have to reach D.C. and join the Raven Rock branch of the Enclave. Others had to walk on foot. Not very many survived the attack on the Oil Rig anyway.

It is presumed Harold joined a caravan to the east coast. Bombs not being as effective? Well, what kind of game would it be if every last thing was blown to hell and back, and nothing remained to dig through? D.C. is the capital, yes. But to be a game, some things had to survive.

All of this can be found on the Fallout wiki, from Bethesda themselves, or from Chris Avellone.
Click to expand...

I agree with most everything you said. My gripe with the Enclave is mainly from a aesthetic point of view, but I see where you are coming from. I also agree that D.C would look pretty boring flattened like a pancake. I don't think the canon is screwed up either. I do think that the main plot for Fallout 3 was horrible though. The best part of the game (to me anyway) was Tranquility Lane. That made the game worth playing by itself.

I see what you mean on the "logical" and "canon" comparison, and agree with you as well. If the main quest was done better I think I would like the game more, but to be honest it was a huge letdown. I honestly can't understand why some people liked the main quest in F3 as opposed to FNV, since it was so poorly executed.

Nice post man.
 
LambentEarache said:
I have something to say here. First of all, there is a difference between "logical inconsistancy" and "canon inconsistancy". The logical things, like where Project Purity was built etc., happen in every game. But on to canon.

If you actually do research, canon is not screwed as bad as NMA thinks it is. Enclave Power Armor looks different in Fallout 3. That's because the Enclave APA Mk II on the East Coast is a different model than the APA MKII on the West Coast. Lyons' Brotherhood wears T-45d instead of T-51b because T-51b was never mass produced on the East Coast. The T-51b in Fort Constantine was the only prototype for it in D.C., other than the pre-war Winterized suit stored in Operation Anchorage.

Some creatures and robots look different. But did you ever think that it's due to the geographical location? Animals evolve differently depending on their location. Mutation would probably occur the same way. Other robots, like Sentry Bots, have been changed so they don't look unintimidating anymore.

Story plotholes? Vault-Tec cut an under the table deal with Wes Tek Research Facility, obtaining FEV for the Vault 87 Social Experiment, which in turn created the Vault 87 Mutants plaguing D.C.. Vault Tec was responsible for nearly everything in Fallout canon. Lyons Brotherhood is "nice" because of the bleeding heart elder they have. Tactics and Fallout "POS" are not treated as canon, although the main events of Tactics happened. The Midwest BoS is nowhere near as strong as in-game however.

The Enclave retreated from Navarro, using what little Vertibirds they have to reach D.C. and join the Raven Rock branch of the Enclave. Others had to walk on foot. Not very many survived the attack on the Oil Rig anyway.

It is presumed Harold joined a caravan to the east coast. Bombs not being as effective? Well, what kind of game would it be if every last thing was blown to hell and back, and nothing remained to dig through? D.C. is the capital, yes. But to be a game, some things had to survive.

All of this can be found on the Fallout wiki, from Bethesda themselves, or from Chris Avellone.
Click to expand...
First, Enclave APA Mk II. Why a different model? The point stands, the only change is now it's a geo question instead of a faction question. Also, the Enclave is just one faction, who moved on after being defeated in California. It makes more sense they translading with their power armors than Enclave scavenging it in DC, and actually finding a better Power Armor than the BoS just in a rush of luck.
Also, the site of production doesn't mean anything really, if you consider the fact that in pre-war they could mass transport them. There were planes and vertibirds before the war.
The robots can't look different because of evolution...
And not, if you say evolution is different because of the location, mutation too. In fact, evolution and mutation are intimately related.

About the FEV mutations, that was talked, I think it was agreed it's not a big deal the HOW, but it's a big deal the WHY. Why will mutants with the IQ of a 10 years old still want to get other people to turn? How is it that none remember their previous life but manage to think about the process that make them turn into mutants? They doesn't seem to have a leader, they doesn't seem to have any motivation, they just learned out of a hat how to use the machines to release gaseous FEV into people, but are hardly sentient enough to talk.

I don't know what Harold has to do in that answer. I'm quite sure he has an ending in Fallout 2 who explicitly said it's believed to have traveled east and the tree in his head actually gave fruits and developed roots. Even when some people hates it (I liked it) it doesn't mess canon.

About the "not very many" Enclave survivors, it's contradictory how they are a few but you can see everywhere Enclave troopers fighting in random encounters. I don't know much about strategy, but if they already had a plan which will make them avoid all the fighting and just win, why would they waste resources and lives of their troops in fighting in random places?
 
Am I the only one who is just tired of the same old discussion? :/ I developed some thought about Fallout 3 that I just let it live, afterall I'm not forced to touch or play it. I just don't give a shit anymore. Ofcourse I am sometimes saddened when I see uneducated claims about the old games/silly stuff about FO3, but I don't really have the power anymore to discuss this. So a big :salute: to the likes of sea etc. to "fight the good fight". ;-)
 
To me most certainly too! :p But I kinda see this is some useless endeveaour here.. The damage (FO3) is already done, the future isn't looking too bright either. I still have FO1/2 to boot up, so I don't really care anymore at this point. :)
 
This is my first post so I believe a small introduction is in order. :)
Sorry for the wall of text btw....

I'm an old fart (literally) and have been playing games even longer than TorontRayne (if you can believe it, lol). RPGs and strategy games have been mostly my bread and butter, though there have been plenty of games from other niches I have played and enjoyed. I also have a computer and coding background and have done some modding for some games in the past (but never again, lol). I've always been a die-hard PC gamer until Steam and its clones showed up, at which time I made the heart-breaking but necessary decision to sell the farm and moved exclusively to console gaming. But that's enough about me....to get back on topic:

As an old player and fan of Fallout 1 and 2, I'd like to share my take on Fallout 3 for those who might care to read a fresh perspective. If you don't agree that's fine, you don't have to. I'm jaded enough not to care either way (no offense intended). I'd like to point out that (being an old fart who has learned a trick or two during his time) I waited until the GotY version was released before I bought the game for the Xbox360, so I never got to experience the majority of the bugs most of you have complained about.

I agree with TorontRayne that Fallout 3 (how'd he put it? Oh, yeah...) "sucked donkey dick", but at the same time it was a beautiful experience for me to play. Doesn't make any sense? It didn't for me either at first, so let me explain what I mean....

Half my brain was rebelling against all the inconsistencies and plot holes most of you have been complaining about. The other half was focused solely on one fact: "I was playing Fallout!" A franchise that by all right should have been irrevocably dead and never seen the light of day again....and I was playing it! Like Dr. Frankenstein yelling: "IT'S ALIIIIIIIIVE!". So what if was as grotesque, dumb, and stupid as the actual Frankenstein monster? The beauty and wonder of it was that it was alive and breathing at all. If you reunite with a long lost, well-loved relative whom you had thought was dead, you sure as hell are not gonna say to him/her "Damn dude, you look and smell like shit!". Instead you hug them and welcome them home. So yeah, my left brain was sorrowing and crying over the state of the game, while my right brain was celebrating the reunion a-la cheesy lifetime movie scene.

After having Played Fallout 3 once, would I play it again? No. Its got no replay value after having done it all and having maxed out my skills. THIS is my biggest gripe with FO3: maxed skills. I'm not going to explain why that was such a horrible thing. It's too long an explanation. Suffice it to say, if you don't get it, then you haven't been playing long enough.

Knowing Beth had made the game, I did not go in thinking it was going to be ANYTHING like the original Fallouts. Different company, different developers....it was bound to get screwed up, and of course, it did. But here's the caveat in all that mess. Beth seems to have realized they screwed up and took FO3 and used it as a learning experience. FNV is the result of that experience and, at least, made an effort in not repeating most of the more serious mistakes they made with FO3. If this trend continues with FO4 and beyond, then as far as I'm concerned, having to endure FO3 will have been well worth it.


That's my meager 2 cents on FO3. Hello all.
 
Silenus said:
Beth seems to have realized they screwed up and took FO3 and used it as a learning experience. FNV is the result of that experience and, at least, made an effort in not repeating most of the more serious mistakes they made with FO3. If this trend continues with FO4 and beyond, then as far as I'm concerned, having to endure FO3 will have been well worth it.


That's my meager 2 cents on FO3. Hello all.
Click to expand...
Bethesda didn't make New Vegas, Obsidian did. Bethesda just published it. So, right now, we HOPE Bethesda learned anything of their mistakes and their successes. But we don't quite know, because we didn't see Fallout 4 yet.
 
@Silenus: I am right there with you man. I did enjoy the game, but like you said, it has no real replay value, beyond mods of course. FNV redeemed Bethesda since they at least cared enough to turn it over to some of the former developers. I am thankful that a Fallout 4 will actually come out, but I hope they use more ideas from FNV and less from F3. At least Bethesda releases the fucking Mod kit with their games. We can always correct things they screw up, or things we don't like, but Fallout 3 was pretty hard to fix even with mods.

As much as everyone praises Interplay, they sure fucked the franchise over no matter how you slice it. Van Buren appeared to be epic, but we know how that went, and I won't mention the other shit that went down. But it all works out in the end. Van Buren lives on with FNV, and maybe Fallout 4 won't suck, but even if it does I will buy it. Bethesda is a hit and miss with me, but then again so is Capcom, Square Enix, and many other developers. I would complain a lot less if Bethesda hired new writers because the quality has dropped since Morrowind.

The only reason I rant and rave is because Morrowind was one of my favorite RPG's of all time, and they ruined the series (for me at least) after that. They did similar things to Fallout 3, but FNV changed that, although I don't think the Obsidian guys will be around next time. One can hope right?
 
Let's just say we're at a stand-still. You guys didn't like the game because of plot-holes ect. but I like the game regardless of that because I liked its gameplay, characters and environment even though you didn't. You have your opinion and I have mine, that's why it's a free country
 
I happen to like FO3 just fine, in spite of the plot holes. I tend to play as a "prospector"/trader anyway. The holes don't affect that at all. My biggest complaint about FO3 is that it's a little short on quests. There should have been more to do.

I'm not crazy about the plot holes but I don't let it ruin a good game. Do you consider SuperMario plausible?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top