Plot-holes and logical inconsistencies of FO3?

[DevilTakeMe]

All I am saying is that criticism of FO3 is great and I agree with most of it, but panning those that enjoyed the game is going a bit far.

I pretty much belittle the fanboys mostly, for being mindless sheep.

"Well, your opinion is wrong! Fallout 3 got Game of the Year awards!" To which, we've already seen the problems with people who give those awards.

I pan them for calling Fallout 3 the "greetest gaem evar!" when they also demonstrate a clear lack of knowledge of games, including the other Fallout games.

The same arguments pop up all the time. And they're really hard to take seriously.

Statement made about Fallout 3: "Fallout 3 had the greatest story of all time! It showed u growing up in the vault!"

And yet, many people hated playing through that more than once, and kept a save at the end of "Escape!" Or better yet, used and created mods that add alternate starting points in an attempt to increase replayability. They are included in Fallout Wanderer's Edition (which formed much of the basis for features found in New Vegas), but not in Project Nevada for NV. Mods made by the same people, but alternate start points were deemed "unncessary" for inclusion in New Vegas.

"It had a great story because of Dad!" And yet, no one ever rebutts the issues about James, as I've stated above.

The problem is that many of the people who argue for Fallout 3 are just terrible at doing so. They'll make a claim that Fallout 3 had better characters or story or combat, or whatever, and then not back up their claims with any kind of evidence.

A common fall-back response is "You can't see the good parts about Fallout 3!" and then fail to elaborate. All I've ever asked for is an intelligent, well thought-out and completely solid example, and I've yet to see that in the last 4 years.

The most common response I get to heavy criticism, including yours, Gonzo, is to pick out problems in Fallout 1 or 2 or New Vegas, instead of defending the issues in Fallout 3. That's a logical fallacy called "ad hominem" - trying to dissuade critical analysis by pointing out a problem elsewhere, be it a different game or with the person bringing up the issue.

As for more plot holes, here's a simple one: Where is the power coming from in the Capital Wasteland? It's been two hundred years with little to no maintenance, but we've got electricity everywhere, but not other utilities like clean water or whatever.

I could take Fallout 3 more seriously, if it were more defensible. As it stands, it really isn't.

 

[Brother None]

There's no adequate reason to belittle anyone, DevilTakeMe. Ill-informed opinions, sure. People? No.

I do disagree that FO3 superseded FO2 in plot holes and inconstancies with preceding games.

No, it combined a lot of "we don't get the setting" with "we don't get the gameplay principles". Kind of a double whammy.

This board clears old and unused accounts and so having not been here in easily the past 4 years, my account was deleted like it was previously on at least two other occasions the same way.

Actually we haven't cleared useraccount since...2003 I think? 2004 maybe. Your old moniker should still be there.

 

[Knight Captain Kerr]

I did like Fallout 3. I thought it was a great game but by no means perfect. It has a large number of flaws but I still like it. It did introduce me to the series so that might play a part. However I prefer the originals and New Vegas over it.

As for Plot Holes well why not just use the GECK? We know this purification works on small scale so we can use that for water means if we really have to.

I think a choice between getting the GECK, using it, dying and having the enclave still around VS don't get the GECK, destroy the enclave and live would have been better. Then you have to question what is more important revenge, stoping the enclave and living or fulfilling your father's wishes and improving the lives of those in the wasteland at the cost of your own life.

 

[DevilTakeMe]

I think a choice between getting the GECK, using it, dying and having the enclave still around VS don't get the GECK, destroy the enclave and live would have been better. Then you have to question what is more important revenge, stoping the enclave and living or fulfilling your father's wishes and improving the lives of those in the wasteland at the cost of your own life.

Dad had two wishes - one was for you to live a full life (in the safety of the Vault however), the other was for the waters of life to be given to everyone without having anyone die. The vanilla ending kind of pushed for you to sacrifice someone for the sake of "Sacrifice."

"Why not send in the radiation-immune robot (RL-7), ghoul who is supposed to follow all your commands anyway (Charon), or the Super Mutant who had already gone into deadly radiation for you to retrieve the GECK (Fawkes)?"

But no, you had to spend an extra ten bucks for an ending that made actual sense (even if it call you a coward) and fulfilled both of Dad's wishes correctly.

I don't think there's a good answer for not using the GECK as it appears in Fallout 3. I simply don't believe that Bethesda even considered it. Blow up Megaton? Sure! Use the GECK to create tenable farmland?

"Oh, I'm sorry, I wasn't paying attention because I was watching Wrath of Khan again. I think we can steal a major plot point from that movie! I think we should make a radiation ending where someone has to sacrifice themselves. What's this about a device that can turn dead land into arable and tenable farmland? Preposterous!"

What I questioned was turning the GECK into a long-term device for purifying water. One GECK was a fairly difficult matter. What happens if it breaks down? In Fallout 3, the GECK is treated as a mini-genesis torpedo - a one-time use sort of thing with no intention of being used long term. What would have happened if the stupid thing broke down?

 

[Gonzo]

No, it combined a lot of "we don't get the setting" with "we don't get the gameplay principles". Kind of a double whammy.

That is the exact complaint there was about FO2 back in 98. I remember many of us talking about how the world was supposed to be desolate and yet it seemed to be teeming with hoards of raiders and monsters at every turn. Even though technology was supposed to be rare, there were laser and plasma rifles that you tripped over and every ganger had one. Computer terminals were everywhere and tons of robots that seemed to be perfectly operational after more than a hundred years of exposure and constant radiation. There were complaints about there being a tree in Harold's head. New Reno was an aberration in a world where everyone was just on the verge of survival. I could go on and on.

I think the problem with FO3 is that it took pretty much all of its "inspiration" from FO2 rather than the original. It was the original Fallout that was much more desolate. Only one location that I can recall had a strong movie reference and that was the Hub with the Maltese Falcon. In FO2 you had all the references to mafia movies in New Reno, the Big Trouble in Little China scenario playing out in San Fran, the talking plant, the hubbologists being a parody of Scientology, etc. Where FO1 had some of that but mostly keeping to the 50's pop-scifi and then a bunch of amusing easter eggs, FO2 really took it to the next level with modern day pop culture references everywhere you turned.

FO3 to me is much the same way as FO2 where they designed almost all of the locations with some kind of a theme in mind. The Lord of the Flies location with the kids, and the super heroes, and all the crap everyone here complains about... and I agree.

I wish we had a Fallout installment where everything went more back to the basics with a heavy focus on the 50's scifi, and only a limited amount of easter eggs and some modern-day pop culture thrown in sparingly. Having said that, I still like FO3 even though not as much as the original Fallout. I like it less than I liked FO2 by about the same amount as I liked FO2 less than the original.

The original Fallout was the best. Some of the younger audience will never appreciate that because they simply don't have the context of living as an adult or at least a teenager in the late 90's. Fallout is dated and the graphics are worst than what we have on our phones now. Nobody that is used to today's technology will be able to enjoy it. I accept that. Just like almost no kid today would enjoy the NES in the slightest even though I would still play the crap out of it if I had the chance.

FO3 was a decent game. It was not a breakthrough, but it was good enough to revive a franchise that I love. I am also glad it generated a "bunch of fanboys" because that is exactly what I am when it comes to the original Fallout. It means that there are that many more people to push for more Fallout games. I just hope they get better and not worst, but I am encouraged by the fact that people here seem generally pleased about FNV (I have not played it yet, not enough time to play with video games when trying to pay bills).

BTW: about my account... if you want to look up Gonzo13 and see if it exists and merge it with this account then I am all for it. I had another account before that and I remember talking to Odin about reviving that and merging it as well, but it never happened.

 

[DevilTakeMe]

FO3 to me is much the same way as FO2 where they designed almost all of the locations with some kind of a theme in mind. The Lord of the Flies location with the kids, and the super heroes, and all the crap everyone here complains about... and I agree.

The big problem I have with Fallout 3's particular approach is that these 'thematic' locations do not show any sort of in-story support for that particular design. Tenpenny Towers is a building full of rich people who are rich because they say they are rich. Little Lamplight is full of children because they somehow get enough kids in there to continue existing this way after two centuries.

The locations in Fallout 2 at least try to justify their existence. New Reno, while an affront to the sensibilities of wasteland living, at least makes some sense in a greater scheme in that they didn't just make their money over night, and much of it is a result of their drug trade (which affects mining in the town of Redding).

FO3 was a decent game. It was not a breakthrough, but it was good enough to revive a franchise that I love. I am also glad it generated a "bunch of fanboys" because that is exactly what I am when it comes to the original Fallout. It means that there are that many more people to push for more Fallout games. I just hope they get better and not worst, but I am encouraged by the fact that people here seem generally pleased about FNV (I have not played it yet, not enough time to play with video games when trying to pay bills).

New Vegas was not designed by Bethesda, but by Obsidian Entertainment, which employs several of the original crew of Black Isle Studios. From statements made by Bethesda representatives, we know that Bethesda bought the Fallout franchise with the intent of developing more games themselves, while also stating that New Vegas would have no bearing on their future Fallout developments.

I would really recommend playing New Vegas before you really compare 3 to the old games, and then you need to listen to what "Bethesda/Fallout 3 fanboys" say about New Vegas. There's lots of "Fallout 3 vs. New Vegas" arguments out there, and as I was saying before, the fanboys have the "3 is the greetest evar" arguments ad infinitum with absolutely no understanding of what made Fallout such a great franchise in the first place.

 

[Gonzo]

True. I freely admit that I am at a disadvantage here not having played FNV, and I have been away from this community for too long to be able to adequately know all the nuances of the arguments made by some of the hard core believers on either side of this argument.

My point ,however, is broader in that the same complaints I see made in this thread against FO3 are exactly the same ones made against FO2 by myself and others here. I also think that touting FO2 as an example of what was done right is a really far stretch. The "in-story" support for FO2 was not really that deep at all. Justifying New Reno had nothing in the "in-story" except for relying on our real world knowledge of what drugs can do, and the Myron side story was just as ridiculous as Little Lamplight. FO2 had almost no 50's pop sci-fi ambiance except what it cannibalized from the original Fallout.

I think a good way to describe it is that FO2 was a poor facsimile of FO and FO3 is a poor facsimile of FO2. FO3 is a copy of a copy and so it has all the problems associated with it.

I think that arguing too much about the minutia of any of these games really starts getting away from a lot that was positive and that is what I am trying to point out. I like the fact that Fallout has been revived, even in a flawed form. I like that there are a lot of new fans out there, even if I don't agree with all of them. Many of the new fans introduced to the series through FO3 have now played the originals and like them, and that is a good thing. FO3 was just good enough to revive the franchise and I do enjoy playing it.

 

[DevilTakeMe]

My point ,however, is broader in that the same complaints I see made in this thread against FO3 are exactly the same ones made against FO2 by myself and others here.

The point of this thread is to point them out and discuss them. If they are the same, then by all means, make it implicitly clear instead of alluding to old complaints, if you don't mind.

I also think that touting FO2 as an example of what was done right is a really far stretch. The "in-story" support for FO2 was not really that deep at all. Justifying New Reno had nothing in the "in-story" except for relying on our real world knowledge of what drugs can do, and the Myron side story was just as ridiculous as Little Lamplight. FO2 had almost no 50's pop sci-fi ambiance except what it cannibalized from the original Fallout.

Like I said, "ad hominem" arguments are logical fallacies and don't do anything to either analyze or discuss Fallout 3. If there's a comparison to be made, make it.

Little Lamplight makes zero sense, and hardly ties into any of the other settlements in a meaningful way. Big Town makes even less sense, and there's hardly any other npc presence from either in other settlements, except one obscure npc here and there.

Myron's story ties into the drug trade of New Reno, which also has effects visible in other settlements. "In-story" continuity, something that Fallout 3 doesn't have enough.

I think that arguing too much about the minutia of any of these games really starts getting away from a lot that was positive and that is what I am trying to point out. I like the fact that Fallout has been revived, even in a flawed form. I like that there are a lot of new fans out there, even if I don't agree with all of them. Many of the new fans introduced to the series through FO3 have now played the originals and like them, and that is a good thing. FO3 was just good enough to revive the franchise and I do enjoy playing it.

I don't like that Fallout was revived in a flawed form. Mistakes can be made, but if the central part of the story or structure is solid, then at least there's still that. As it stands, very little of Fallout 3 can be withstand critical analysis.

 

[JohnBrowning]

I've said this once in another thread and I'll say it again:

"You know what would improve Fallout 3?

Make Super Mutants fewer and far between, just another group from the West fighting for a bit of DC and get rid of them from Vault 87 alongside the mere existence of FEV in the East Coast. Make the Talon Company the main foe, keeping the other enemies.

Make the Outcasts the true BoS and rename the BoS, only giving PA to the highest ranking soldiers and make them less... Brotherhood like. They can remain altruistic but now have a more practical means to gain control. They can still originate from the BoS and that civil war could still occur.

Get rid of the Enclave and replace them with a group that formed from a few survivors of the old group who moved East, gaining new recruits, stumbling upon DC and deciding to make use of the purifier as a means of control, NOT genocide. Make them perform questionable actions that would put DC in a progressive direction but make power their ultimate goal, not altruism. Make is so when they intercept you at Vault 87 and choose you to give the real code, you set aside the events and a new questline where you take their side. Why shoot someone for helping you? Make it so that they are harsh and ruthless but their plan isn't STUPID.

Remember what I said about the Talon Mercs? Their employer is unknown. But what if their employer was the New Enclave who hired them to keep the DC in turmoil and make the New Elcnalve appear as heroes as grounds for power? What if you could actually join the Talon Company by being a jerk and gaining some reputation by helping them in their ultimate goal? These quests could conflict with or build on that aim to help some settlements. There could be conflicting quests with Reilly's Rangers and as an optional part of their quest, you can report them to the leader at Fort Bannister to have them killed and further their agenda. By doing the good quests or choosing the good options, these will be noted by by the new BoS spies. If you support the Talon Company, fetching the GECK and giving a fake code, or just flat-out refusal at Raven Rock would be your last chance before you devote yourself to the New Enclave.

What if there were final bosses. With the New BoS, you have to destroy President Eden after taking over the purifier and he could (somehow) summon powerful robots into the battle and there are various ways to destroy the computer? How about making the final boss in the New Enclave storyline Liberty Prime at the Citadel but was undergoing charging and you could destroy the power generators to make your battle easier?

What about getting on both faction's bad sides by giving the New Enclave the read code AND asking Eden to destroy Raven Rock and go indie?

Damn, wasted opportunities."

And in addition to that, totally disregard Little Lamplight and give Big Town different origins. Give the Talon Company some background story, especially with regards to their formation. Then disregard Zeta altogether (a no-brainer).

 

[JohnBrowning]

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

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.

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

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.

Thank you for voicing my exact throughts.

In addition, I would not want Chris Avellone to do ANY of the writing because he is responsible for things about Fallout 2 that sucked e.g. talking deathclaws, The Enclave, tribals etc.

 

[Oppen]

I've said this once in another thread and I'll say it again:

"You know what would improve Fallout 3?

Make Super Mutants fewer and far between, just another group from the West fighting for a bit of DC and get rid of them from Vault 87 alongside the mere existence of FEV in the East Coast. Make the Talon Company the main foe, keeping the other enemies.

Make the Outcasts the true BoS and rename the BoS, only giving PA to the highest ranking soldiers and make them less... Brotherhood like. They can remain altruistic but now have a more practical means to gain control. They can still originate from the BoS and that civil war could still occur.

Get rid of the Enclave and replace them with a group that formed from a few survivors of the old group who moved East, gaining new recruits, stumbling upon DC and deciding to make use of the purifier as a means of control, NOT genocide. Make them perform questionable actions that would put DC in a progressive direction but make power their ultimate goal, not altruism. Make is so when they intercept you at Vault 87 and choose you to give the real code, you set aside the events and a new questline where you take their side. Why shoot someone for helping you? Make it so that they are harsh and ruthless but their plan isn't STUPID.

Remember what I said about the Talon Mercs? Their employer is unknown. But what if their employer was the New Enclave who hired them to keep the DC in turmoil and make the New Elcnalve appear as heroes as grounds for power? What if you could actually join the Talon Company by being a jerk and gaining some reputation by helping them in their ultimate goal? These quests could conflict with or build on that aim to help some settlements. There could be conflicting quests with Reilly's Rangers and as an optional part of their quest, you can report them to the leader at Fort Bannister to have them killed and further their agenda. By doing the good quests or choosing the good options, these will be noted by by the new BoS spies. If you support the Talon Company, fetching the GECK and giving a fake code, or just flat-out refusal at Raven Rock would be your last chance before you devote yourself to the New Enclave.

What if there were final bosses. With the New BoS, you have to destroy President Eden after taking over the purifier and he could (somehow) summon powerful robots into the battle and there are various ways to destroy the computer? How about making the final boss in the New Enclave storyline Liberty Prime at the Citadel but was undergoing charging and you could destroy the power generators to make your battle easier?

What about getting on both faction's bad sides by giving the New Enclave the read code AND asking Eden to destroy Raven Rock and go indie?

Damn, wasted opportunities."

And in addition to that, totally disregard Little Lamplight and give Big Town different origins. Give the Talon Company some background story, especially with regards to their formation. Then disregard Zeta altogether (a no-brainer).

Well, I must say I like your ideas about how to make the game better.
But do you realize that when you see it that way, the original game also looks improvised? I mean, so many ideas seems simply unexplored, like Beth just kept with the first brainstorming session and made a Fallout out of that. Fallout 2 might be plagued by sillyness, but most of your actions are deeply developed, with consequences for a lot of ways to solve any quest. However, I'll always prefer it with RP, Killap made a hell of a work there

 

[JohnBrowning]

Oh, I agree without a doubt with what you're saying. Fallout 3 is incredibly flawed, I'm not going to argue that. Regardless of how silly FO2 was, your actions counted. It's a shame that many area's were of no significance, I just think that if you need to criticize FO3, think twice before comparing to FO2.

I can only hope that Bethesda learn from their mistakes. Skyrim is supposed to have better writing so one can hope.

 

[Joelzania]

I can only hope that Bethesda learn from their mistakes. Skyrim is supposed to have better writing so one can hope.

Skyrim? Better writing? I'd have to disagree. It's pretty basic; dragons invade and you're the "chosen one" who is said to defeat the dragons in the prophecy. Even if cliche, it's pretty safe, on the whole. I like what Bethesda did with the Thalmor, although. It might have even been better if the Thalmor were actually behind the dragons, or something or other. Oh well.

 

[Walpknut]

He said better writting and you are talking about the premise. While I never played a TES game before so I don't have a point of comparison i nrelation to other TES games, I played FO3, and the writting in Skyrim was a lot better than the one in FO3, this of course is not such a big feat.

 

[Tagaziel]

In addition, I would not want Chris Avellone to do ANY of the writing because he is responsible for things about Fallout 2 that sucked e.g. talking deathclaws, The Enclave, tribals etc.

What? Avellone's hardly to blame for that, he didn't design this stuff. Plus, he's awesome.

*points to the NV DLCs*

 

[Sub-Human]

*points to the NV DLCs*

I'd have to dispute that...

 

[WillisPDunlevey]

The suckiest thing about skyrim (aside from all the quests breaking etc)

Writing... Hello, nice to meet you, do a couple quests for me and you can be the Archmage.

20m later= Awesome!

I did not bother to see if any of the other questlines sucked so bad.

Skyrim became an expensive tea coaster.

 

[BFox17]

Aaaah Skyrim, a game I never hope to play since it will take up too much time for my liking...

 

[SouthboundSoul]

The suckiest thing about skyrim (aside from all the quests breaking etc)

Writing... Hello, nice to meet you, do a couple quests for me and you can be the Archmage.

20m later= Awesome!

I did not bother to see if any of the other questlines sucked so bad.

Skyrim became an expensive tea coaster.

Skyrim is just an overrated piece of shit. To this day I believe people only play the game to look at the pretty land scape. I got the game given to me for Christmas last year, I played the damn thing for half an hour, said meh. And haven't touched it since.

Back to the matter at hand, I'm not making any judgments about Fallout 4 yet because Fallout 3 is one game and Fallout 4 is another. I'm not going to judge the future of an entire series based one game. Also since Bethesda published New Vegas I think if they wanted to make it like Fallout 3 they could of. Think of it like a movie producer. The Director and Write make the movie the way they want it, but then the Producer comes in and tells them what they should take out or add because it will sell that way. The same can be said for musicians. It's happened to games in the past *cough*Callofduty*cough*

 

[CaveJohnson]

The suckiest thing about skyrim (aside from all the quests breaking etc)

Writing... Hello, nice to meet you, do a couple quests for me and you can be the Archmage.

20m later= Awesome!

I did not bother to see if any of the other questlines sucked so bad.

Skyrim became an expensive tea coaster.

Skyrim is just an overrated piece of shit. To this day I believe people only play the game to look at the pretty land scape. I got the game given to me for Christmas last year, I played the damn thing for half an hour, said meh. And haven't touched it since.

Back to the matter at hand, I'm not making any judgments about Fallout 4 yet because Fallout 3 is one game and Fallout 4 is another. I'm not going to judge the future of an entire series based one game. Also since Bethesda published New Vegas I think if they wanted to make it like Fallout 3 they could of. Think of it like a movie producer. The Director and Write make the movie the way they want it, but then the Producer comes in and tells them what they should take out or add because it will sell that way. The same can be said for musicians. It's happened to games in the past *cough*Callofduty*cough*

Skyrim is a solid game, it's clearly a Bethesda game but it's great.