Things that Fallout 3 did right!

I think "nice try" sums things up pretty well. After replaying the game again recently I do find that I was perhaps a bit too hard on it in the years after it first released, but if my tone was a bit too harsh back then most of the arguments were still perfectly sound. They can evoke a nice atmosphere even despite the dated-even-at-release graphics, but once you get into any sort of non-combat interaction or look at the world with any sort of critical eye it all dissolves into unconnected elements and yanks you out. It's like an impressionist painting; a pretty picture that breaks down into disjointed ephemera if you look too closely. Unfortunately, "closely" is the level a game is meant to be (and has to be) experienced on, especially one with in-world immersion as its major selling point. It's like somebody mocked up a proof-of-concept for a really cool 3d Fallout game and then just kept building on that instead of programming the actual game.

On that theme, and in keeping with naossano's post and the original question, I do think that GNR was actually a really good idea on paper and that radio stations were a good addition to the wasteland. The setting's tech level is at the point where that should have been a possibility even in Fallout 1, and if the setting is going to have to be 3d now anyway it's a plausible and flavorful way to tie the wasteland together. It's not out of keeping with PA themes, either-- one of my favorite post-apocalyptic characters of all time is eye-in-the-sky DJ Walter Dangerfield from P.K. Dick's Dr. Bloodmoney. Did F3 execute the trope properly? No way no how. But the resurgence of radio in the wasteland is sound. I'd love to see them do something with a few of the ham radios laying about in the next game. Utilizing more finnicky old-world tech like that would provide more opportunities for interacting with the world and more possibilities for solving quests and gaining information, as well as making tech skills useful for something aside from hacking doors again.
 
Last edited:
Gameplay wise, it serves almost no purpose, but i love Tabitha's Radio. It give lore to catch up for newbies, a funny character, utterly lying beyond believable, but still having depth, and it is local, so it can't get old, as you won't keep hearing the same thing for the whole trip into the Mojave.

There are also other local radio like the one in the Pitt, or in Vault 101, that are not that great, but you ussually stop hearing before the repetitions become too obvious, then utterly boring.
 
Walpknut said:
Well, their DLCs weren't the typical money grabbing shit. We can argue about their quality, but at least for 10 dollars they actually offered more than 2 hours of a story experience instead of just pretty armors or skins.
Click to expand...

Right, what about Broken Steel, more like Broken Steal.
 
Broken Steel reminds me of the "Epilogue" in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Completely unnecessary. Just an excuse to end the story on a happy, but incredibly contrived, note.

I think what bugged me most about it is the fact that it could have been something cool, you know? Instead all we got was a fanfic-esque extravaganza of Michael Bay proportions.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong here (I've never sided with the Enclave in any of my f03 playthroughs, so I might be talking shit here) but don't you wake up in the Citadel even if you sabotaged the purifier? Shouldn't the Brotherhood hate your guts for... you know... condemning everyone in the Capitol Wasteland to a horrendous, radioactive, and thirsty as fuck, death? Why would they ever trust you again, let alone take you along to the Enclave base with them? :irked:
 
Cyberfiend said:
Shouldn't the Brotherhood hate your guts for... you know... condemning everyone in the Capitol Wasteland to a horrendous, radioactive, and thirsty as fuck, death?
Click to expand...

The biggest problem is that with or without Purifier, nobody would die as people seem to be able to take care of themselves and their need for water. But hey, it's Fallout 3.
 
As indicated by the title this is not the right thread for complaining about Fallout 3.
 
Per said:
As indicated by the title this is not the right thread for complaining about Fallout 3.
Click to expand...

You're right, I'm sorry for derailing.

One thing FO3 did REALLY well is drum up tons of new interest for the series. I gotta be honest, if FO3 didn't exist I probably would've never even heard of the series, let alone end up playing most of them. For all its faults it introduced literally millions of people to the series, and even if some of the newcomers are a tad on the, ahem, overzealous side when it comes to defending their favourite game evah!!1!, the other games have benefited greatly from the exposure.

Oh, and let's be the honest here; sure it might not be a great fallout game, it's still a damn good game in general. And really. Fandom rage be damned, that's what really matters at the end of the day.

Plus the soundtrack is kicks fucking ass.
 
- I quite enjoyed the Brotherhood Outcast. They have very cool colors and armors, they are faithfull to the dark brotherhood of steel, and are the only real neutral faction that wanders in the Capital Wasteland. Also, they have a very basic reputation system, with the friend status that can be gained and lost. I enjoyed patroling with them.

On the other hand, there are underdevellopped and share absolutly ZERO quest with the Lyons Brotherhood Of Steel. I don't see the point in term of gameplay or storytelling to have two factions like that, if there is no way to play with their differences and explore the conflict in the actual game. I kind of hope that it could be adressed in an upcoming Bethesda east coast game that is named Falllout something. On the other hand, if Bethesda continues like that they did with Oblivion, Fallout 3, Skyrim, the NPC will only grunt instead to talk in their upcoming games. So it is harder to keep hope. Also, i would have liked that those groups would have been called the Lyon's Brotherhood and the Casdin's Brotherhood, or at least two new names. After all, BOTH groups are outcasts and Casdin's group is the more faithfull to the real brotherhood and would have the elder support if they managed to contact them.
 
Last edited:
Man, the Outcast were REALLY cool. I appreciate that Beth went to the trouble of including dissenters who are critical of Lyon's unusual methods. It definitely takes the edge of an otherwise Mary Sue faction, even if they were under developed as Naossano mentioned.
 
- It disapointed so much Fallout fans that it helped Wasteland 2 to be funded quickly. Then Wasteland 2 success brought hope for other similar projects.

- They set Fallout 3 in the East Coast, so it leaves space for Obsidian to keep working on the West Coast. If they did it in the West Coast, it would be harder to reedeem the franchise and pretend Fallout 3 never existed.

- They didn't use the remnants of the master army and made sure to aknowledge the Brotherhood of Steel behavior in Fallout 3 is not the one of the real brotherhood of steel. Also, i still get to find any ingame evidence that the Enclave members in Fallout 3 are Navarro desertors. As far as i know in could be a different unrelated branch of the same faction, that already existed before the war. Eden speeches were nice, but the actual meeting disapointing, to say the least.

- They played with the expectancies of the audience by making some ghouls use the ghoul biggotry to make you side with them, while the game make clear that these guys are no more nice that any normies (Crowley, Roy Philips, Ahzukhal...). It emphasis that ghouls are humans for the best and the worst. (i don't recall any "evil" ghoul in older games. Even Set is quite reliable if you learn to know him) Also, it is not because some groups have more history of being bullied that it means that the people of that groups are better than those who bullied them. The quality of a being is not defined by the group he belongs. I kind of understand that there could be issues if it the issue is unbalanced but i am not fond of acceptable targets, like making all native americans nice guys in modern movies. They don't have to be good, bad or cliche, just humans, with good and bad guys amongs all groups. (like they were good guys in the Fo2 Enclave. It makes the group more believable)

- I liked Rivet City layout, but like San Francisco in Fallout 2, they should have population outside the boat as well, to gather the needs of the population.

- You can give many clothes to your followers and see their appearance chance accordingly. Too bad you can't give hats to Fawkes. He would have looked ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
I think the only good FO3 have done is to bring new people to the classics and all the consequences of being a successful game ( New Vegas). Le'ts not forget the influence of W2 camping had because of FO3.
 
- Modding. Even if Fallout 3 is far from being the only game that allow it, mods help to make the game less unbearable...
 
naossano said:
- It disapointed so much Fallout fans that it helped Wasteland 2 to be funded quickly. Then Wasteland 2 success brought hope for other similar projects.

- They set Fallout 3 in the East Coast, so it leaves space for Obsidian to keep working on the West Coast. If they did it in the West Coast, it would be harder to reedeem the franchise and pretend Fallout 3 never existed.

- They didn't use the remnants of the master army and made sure to aknowledge the Brotherhood of Steel behavior in Fallout 3 is not the one of the real brotherhood of steel. Also, i still get to find any ingame evidence that the Enclave members in Fallout 3 are Navarro desertors. As far as i know in could be a different unrelated branch of the same faction, that already existed before the war. Eden speeches were nice, but the actual meeting disapointing, to say the least.

- They played with the expectancies of the audience by making some ghouls use the ghoul biggotry to make you side with them, while the game make clear that these guys are no more nice that any normies (Crowley, Roy Philips, Ahzukhal...). It emphasis that ghouls are humans for the best and the worst. (i don't recall any "evil" ghoul in older games. Even Set is quite reliable if you learn to know him) Also, it is not because some groups have more history of being bullied that it means that the people of that groups are better than those who bullied them. The quality of a being is not defined by the group he belongs. I kind of understand that there could be issues if it the issue is unbalanced but i am not fond of acceptable targets, like making all native americans nice guys in modern movies. They don't have to be good, bad or cliche, just humans, with good and bad guys amongs all groups. (like they were good guys in the Fo2 Enclave. It makes the group more believable)

- I liked Rivet City layout, but like San Francisco in Fallout 2, they should have population outside the boat as well, to gather the needs of the population.

- You can give many clothes to your followers and see their appearance chance accordingly. Too bad you can't give hats to Fawkes. He would have looked ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Love this post right here--While I disagree with some of it (namely point 2, I don't think the franchise has any "redeeming" to do, they just need to start coming up with better plots then "OMG, (insert evil faction name here) is trying to kill us all!!!), I think it shows the balance that people should have when looking at FO3. So many people just bash and hate the SHIT out of this game, but nothing is ALL negative, and regardless of whether you despise FO3 in every way or are a fanboy or girl of the game, you should be willing to acknowledge that it has some merits, and brought a lot to the table.

I don't think Rivet City or San Fransisco's problems were so much an error on Obsidian and Bethesda's parts respectively, moreso it's an error in the gaming industry in general. Often times towns in games feel like...isolated from the environment, like outside the town has little to no impact on the inside of it. I think you see this in gaming a lot, not just in Fallout. A lot of times, towns and what it would take to reasonably keep the population cared for just aren't often handled realistically. It's one thing I like about Skyrim, you DO see industry and guards and other things going on outside of township walls.

Really though, glad to see a more balanced look at FO3 rather than the nasty hate one usually sees for the game--because it IS a good game; it just has a few flaws here and there, what game doesn't?
 
I wouldn't bash the game here as the thread is for good, half-good, nice tries, good on paper, forgivable features, and that have the opportunities to expand on flaws on other threads.
But IMO, the flaws outshines the rest by a LARGE margin.

Actually, i wanted to give the game its chances.
I waited a few years between the release of the game and actually playing it, because of my outdated computer, the cost of the game, and also to forget any news that i read about it, even the demo i played in a game exhibition.
I came into it with a fresh mind, and actually enjoyed the beginning, even if it was very straightforward.
The thing is, the beginning of the game actually makes you believe you are in an actual RPG, making you start in two of the five most populated areas, making you make choices that you think will payoff later.
It is after quite some time that the flaws are increasing and made even more apparent.
I finished it and explored every rat hole, and for a good part of the time i was actually wondering what were the good sides of that game, is there things that ended up poor, but at least you could see a better intent. Does Fallout 3 has any reedeeming qualities ?
I try to be vocal about it, as a way to express my feelings and thought that i had when playing many hours.
I am quite relieved to share my opinions about pros & cons, and even more relieved to see other fans sharing the same opinion and willing to expand on their though. It is like healing the wounds, by talking about the cause of the problem, telling the doctore your symptoms to find a cure. Also it is not just to say this is bad or good, but to provide lenghty explanations about it. Turn out there are more bad things to say than good things, so we are more lenghty about bad things.
But i am, by no mean, happy to have played a game that gave me a very bad taste in my guts. Also not happy to have many bad things to tell about.
When playing Fallout 3, i wasn't expecting anything great, but i was hoping some faithfullness, some good new plots, some mature content, some meaningfull though that would keep me hooked after i turned it off, and some actual RPG features, some actual consistency. I wanted to give Bethesda a chance. I wanted them to make me give them credits, to make me interested in upcoming fallout games from Bethesda. I wanted to hope that Fallout wasn't dead.
Even after i played Fallout 3, i was thinking they maybe inexperienced, they will do better in the next games.
Turn out they were already making games in the 80s, turn out that Oblivion & Skyrim (from what i heard and seen) are as bad, turn out that their games tend to be worse and worse, turn down the dumbing down is on purpose.
Seems that everytime i try to give them any chance, i end up utterly disapointed.
So excuse me if i consider it is up to them to make us change our mind, not us being forgiving, while they purposly sink themselves, while having all the opportunities to improve.

But even by contributing on this thread, i want to give them credits, i want to be wrong. I am trying pretty hard to find things valuables in Fallout 3 to contribute to this thread. Because if i was wrong, it would mean other good fallouts, (if we except mods, that i am confident about quality, even fonline mmo that aren't supposed to be as deep) it would mean that them owning the franchise is not a bad thing. There is still a part of me that hope it is possible. But it is hard, as there are many things that factually counter this hope.
The only think that i am not even sure about, but i keep hoping, is that Beth leaves West coast alone and let only Obsidian take care of it, so we could just pretend there are two different franchises not linked to each other, the West Obsidian coast and the East Bethesda Coast. But i would never be sure Beth will leave the west coast alone... If they choose to do it, no one won't be able to say anything, not even Cain, Avellone or Fargo, even if Beth never had anything to do with the creation of the franchise.

Even if i sound unconvincing if i say i want to be wrong, it still stands.
 
Last edited:
when I can get on my laptop I'll post where I thought FO3 really did great, and why I like it :)
 
Last edited:
I've enjoyed the different choices you can get with that sweetroll situation, unfortunately that is all destroyed by th PC being a little bitch.
 
The random encounters that happen when you're walking through the wasteland. It made the wasteland feel more interactive than in new vegas.
 
2house2fly said:
Onholyservicebound said:
I ask myself, what has FO3 done right that NV didn't do better? The answer is: nothing.
Click to expand...
Combat progression. For all the problems level scaling has, later on in Fallout 3 you're fighting tough Super Mutants and power-armoured Enclave troopers who pose a challenge. At high levels in New Vegas you're fighting the same Legionaries and Fiends as ever, and the only real challenge past level 20 or so is deathclaws. The only really challenging vault is 34; vault 11 is full of rats and mantises and the enemies in 22 are creepy but not difficult. Broken Steel ruined this with bullet sponge enemies, but then the New Vegas expansions had their problems with this too.

Fallout 3 was also better at portrayals of racial equality; New Vegas is lily white almost all over. The only non-white companion you can get in NV is a ghoul, as opposed to THREE non-white human companions in F3;I get that Arcade is based on Sawyer's old RP character so fair enough, but what was keeping Cass, Veronica, Boone from being some other race? Just about every major character in the game is white as well. I love New Vegas to death but this always niggles me.
Click to expand...
Well Cass is Cassidys daughter and he's white. I think Veronica is Spanish or Mexican. And also why does it matter? I hate when movies and games shoehorn a minority character just to try to be "racially equal." Its really lame when you throw a black character in just for the sake of having a black character. Like in real life there's a school with mostly white kids and there's a few black kids. Is that racist? No its just how it is.
 
How it is where? There are plenty of schools with mostly black kids and a few white kids, and the schools I went to were about 60% Asian. Films and games about those kinds of places largely don't get paid for by major studios and marketed to the mainstream, though, because "that's not how it is." Kind of self-perpetuating, neh? Which is why representation matters. I've especially never understood why people are willing to accept dragons or nuclear abominations or starfighters but the instant you ask why more of the starfighter pilots can't be women or Space Mexicans it's suddenly all about "realism."

That's probably an issue for a different thread in a different forum, though. F3 didn't do poorly as far as representation is concerned, at least by industry standards.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top