Will Fallout 3 be remembered?

Discussion in 'Fallout 3 Discussion' started by Tagaziel, Nov 18, 2008.

Will Fallout 3 be remembered in 10 years' time?

  1. Absolutely. It will leave a lasting impression.

  2. Yes, it's a great game.

  3. Propably, yes. Look at the sales numbers.

  4. Maybe. I don't really know.

  5. Rather not, it's a mediocre game that's fun, but forgettable.

  6. No, the gamers will grow up and it will be forgotten.

  7. What, Fallout 3 exists?

  8. Yes but for the wrong reasons.

  1. Banestalker

    Banestalker Wanamingo Breeder

    Jun 5, 2014
    exactly how I feel about F3. F3 was good, it wasn't a bad game and all that. yet there was something -off- about it. it's not a Fallout game in its roots, it was just trying too hard to relate itself to Fallout on the surface. NV was more memorable at least.
  2. SnapSlav

    SnapSlav NMA's local DotA fanatic

    Jul 1, 2012
    As time goes by, my position on FO3 "not being a bad game" continues to change. In my oldest review of the game, I criticized it as a bad Fallout game, but not a bad game at its core. But now I see things differently. I just see "CHOICE!" touted and not lived up to. I just see disappointments. I just see monotonous gameplay that's honestly very boring. I just see bad and facepalming dialog. I just see a game that was designed with broken physics and laughable ragdolling because the developers thought "it's so bad it's funny" could ever be a good idea. Gradually I'm becoming more convinced, that even as a game TOTALLY detached from the word "Fallout", FO3 is still pretty lousy. I'm not 100% convinced of it, but I am moving in that direction, with nothing to convince me otherwise.
  3. Gizmojunk

    Gizmojunk Half-way Through My Half-life

    Nov 26, 2007
    Did it really? I don't think that it did.

    FO3 presented Bethesda's one and only game with a new skin on it ~that's not bringing Fallout back into popularity; that's bringing the name back into common use ~but with a different definition this time. :puppy-dog:

    In a way it's even like the Titanic... The movie did not make the Titanic popular again, it was seen as a neat movie... Does anyone here remember the day that Twitter 'exploded' with someone's astonishment that the Titanic was supposed to have been a real ship sometime back in the day?...

    Last edited: Jun 21, 2014
  4. The Dutch Ghost

    The Dutch Ghost Grouchy old man of NMA Moderator

    Jan 11, 2004
    Serious people?
    It reminds of that poll that they had a couple of years ago in the UK, apparently people believed that Star Wars and Lord of the Rings was based on historical events while Hitler apparently was a fictional character.

    Okay, I haven't been exactly away but sometimes it feels I have left society for a moment, and then I come back and things have turned to shit.

    I am an old schooler who liked the game for what it was, not because it was the most popular kid on the block.
    Having new fans is great, but it should not have been sold out for what it really was.
    Again, Bethesda should have made a PA RPG of their own that would appeal to the gaming audience, Fallout fans included, not re invent an existing one and reshape it badly.
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2014
  5. 5545Trey

    5545Trey Underground Deviant

    Jun 25, 2014
    Will it be remember as a game with a complex main quest, superb writing, impressive graphics for its time, memorable characters, and a sensible world? No.
    Will it be remember as a mediocre game that caters towards those who love to shoot things until their health bar is depleted? Absolutely.
  6. Counter

    Counter First time out of the vault

    Jul 9, 2014
    It will likely be remembered in a nostalgic way, not as instructions to build a good game.

    Not that the game-play isn't good, it is just the same concept as the Elder Scrolls series. Find lots of health potions and experience points in dusty old buildings so you can survive that fight with one of several evil boss guys.

    Not to mention the audiences were far different. Fallout 3 is the kind of role-playing game for teenagers and older children.
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2014
  7. Earth

    Earth Vault Senior Citizen

    Apr 7, 2013
    People will be nostalgic for it, then when they try to play it they will bore of it quickly and switch off. I played through the Fallout 3 story ONCE. I've played through New Vegas several times now. There's just nothing to keep you interested in Fallout 3.
  8. Tamas Balog

    Tamas Balog First time out of the vault

    Mar 7, 2015
    Well, the time gave the answer... 7 years gone (6.5 actually), but we still playing Fallout 3, mods are still coming for this game. Cool one... :clap: PS: My bubble head doll still shakin' its head on my desk
  9. gordog_frohman

    gordog_frohman namhofr_godrog

    Mar 4, 2015
    We still have 3 more years don't we?:mrgreen:
  10. Danza

    Danza Salter of Wounds

    Mar 11, 2015
    I feel like it has more longevity than we want to let on. Sure, it's a bad game in most of our eyes. Sure, it's a disgrace to what Fallout was, and is. But, to many people, it was their first Fallout, ever. It was mind boggling and amazing to kids who'd only played console games their entire lives. To them, that game will always stand as a testament as, Fallout. For the people that played the original, and Fallout 2, waited 10 years expecting nothing. Hearing about this "new" Fallout, fond memories and nostalgia blooming. All that expectation, all that hype, only to play a game smacked together by a huge corporation trying to spin a new game. It ripped their hearts from their chests. It made them hurt so deep, because it was nothing like what they imagined. It wasn't fallout. It was so vile and rotten to see fallout twisted into something different. It wasn't a terrible game, just a terrible game to the poor people who saw their franchise manipulated into something else. I don't know if the developers intended to do this to the vets or not, but they ended up doing it. And to most, that hurt people deep. The best way I can explain it, would be Bioshock 1 and 2. The second game was as Ken Levine described it, 5 new bad guys, 5 new levels, and 5 new guns. It wasn't the heart ripping tail that was the first. But most of the people described it as a good game, just not as good as the first. And that sickens people who fell in love with the first game. Anyways, off that doom and gloom. It's going to keep burning on. For better, or for worse.
  11. gordog_frohman

    gordog_frohman namhofr_godrog

    Mar 4, 2015
    @Danza It's interesting that you use the difference between Bioshock 1 and 2 as an analogy to compare how fans feel about the differences between the classic Fallout titles and then Fallout 3. I'm a die hard fan of the System Shock series, but I'm probably one of a small minority of people who felt disappointed when playing Bioshock for the first time. Everything that makes Bioshock good is due to the fact that Irrational simply ripped many story, setting, and gameplay elements from SS2 (and that is just my personal opinion, so don't judge me on it). Anyways, this isn't a System Shock thread/forum, so I'll just wrap it up by saying that I agree with your statement on how Fallout 3 was able to be successful due to marketing itself towards the console generation. However, sometimes you just gotta ask yourself whether you want to make a million dollars, or create a quality game that is both faithful to fans and original. I think I know where Bethesda and Irrational stand.

    Also, welcome to the forums. I'm new here, too
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2015
  12. JimmyJazz

    JimmyJazz First time out of the vault

    Apr 23, 2015
    I will remember it as a semi-decent Fallout spin-off, better than tactics perhaps but still nowhere close to real Fallouts.
  13. TheNotoriousAMP

    TheNotoriousAMP First time out of the vault

    Apr 21, 2015
    I'll remember it as the theme park that really reintroduced fallout to a new generation of gamers that otherwise would have never heard about the series. I kind of judge it along those lines, and tend to be a bit forgiving of it because of it. It served its job well as an entry point and "best of" type game. Players really got hooked on the fucked up wasteland 50's atmosphere, and it introduced them to the staples of the series, raiders, enclave, super mutants, brotherhood of steel. It had ton of flaws, but New Vegas, Wasteland and so much of the RPG world we are experiencing now would not have been possible without it. Plus, it was an easier game to just do what you wanted in. I love New Vegas more than any other game in the series, but if I ever just want to drop in and wander places, Fallout 3 is a bit better.
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  14. Gizmojunk

    Gizmojunk Half-way Through My Half-life

    Nov 26, 2007

    Fallout was a standout, in a sea of D&D wanabe titles, and turn based, and a shockingly good RPG.

    FO3 was not a shockingly good RPG, and was basically TES; and basically a mediocre FPS in the style of No one Lives Forever, but with a vast open world, moderately interactive NPCs, and really good graphics. Graphics get surpassed every six months, open worlds get better with every open world title. Everything that FO3 was really great at ~depreciates a little bit every week. It will be forgotten; yet Fallout 1 & 2 are ~STILL shockingly good RPGs; even if the PA setting has become over used. They are valued 18 years later... Does anyone really think FO3 will be valued 18 years later?

    30 years after its release Fallout 1 and 2 will still be shockingly good RPGs.

    "Eye of the Beholder" series are really great dungeoncrawlers. EoB released in 1990. What does Grimrock get compared to? Menzobarenzan (1994)? StoneKeep (1995)? Nope, Eye of the Beholder and Dungeon Master (1987).
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2015
  15. TheNotoriousAMP

    TheNotoriousAMP First time out of the vault

    Apr 21, 2015
    It's kind of unfair to compare fallout 3 and 1 because they are two completely different beasts. Fallout 1 and 2 (and also, lets be fair, most members of NMA are basically first and foremost fans of Fallout 1) are functionally pnp campaigns translated onto a computer screen, to the point that IIRC, they were even played as a campaign before computerizing. Fallout 3 is a video game designed to be a video game, in that the primary purpose of the gameplay is to play the game, not advance the story. I know it sounds wonky, but that's the best I can use to describe it. In 1 and 2, the primary purpose of the gameplay (stealth or combat) is to advance the story. It's not the type of game in which you just pop in for a few minutes to do random things. Honestly, are people really that excited to have a random encounter on the map? Oh boy I get to use the combat system! No, the combat isn't bad, but it's a bit dull and really its major purpose is to advance a quest. This is a common thread through much of the classic "Obsidian family" of games. It's less painful in Torment because you could skip so much of it, but dear God it makes playing Arcanum a bitch because there is so much combat and it suuuucks. The same goes back to PnP games. Few people play PnP games for the combat, because computer games do it so much better (including 1 and 2), you play it for the creative freedom. I'm not sure you could really replicate this in 3 because of the simple fact that PnP games collapsed in the late nineties/early two thousands and are really only coming back in the past few years. If you consider the fact that 8 years separate 2 and 3, there's a whole generation of players with no experience of fallout 1 and 2 or pen and paper games.

    Also, isometric turn based combat combined with reading heavy story creates great RPG's, but that sort of game will always be a bit niche. There is nothing wrong with that, but its not the type of title you hand over to a AAA game company. In large part because there's no point, the budget needed to produce it is accessible to a smaller company. While a lot of gamers are ready to fall in love with a great story, see Bioshock 1 and Infinite (ish, not as big a fan), the desire for exciting, quick paced gameplay will always tend to dominate a bit.

    Meanwhile, Fallout 3 is designed with the gameplay first. This is one of the reasons why some people prefer it to NV (read the article on the front page of the site). Oblivion with guns isn't necessarily out of tune with Fallout. You're a scavenger (adventurer) picking through ruined buildings (dungeons) to find supplies and left behind weapons (loot). The Capital Wasteland served its purpose by being close enough to what gamers were familiar with (go places, kill shit, get loot) while also being a fallout theme park. This is why it helped create so many new fallout fans.

    Secondly, Fallout 3 gets a lot of flak for its game design story wise, but its really not that different from Fallout 2. It's a gigantic toybox into which you are thrown. Want to be a raider? You can do that (not officially, but unofficially). Want to completely ignore the main story? You can do that. Consider how much Fallout 2's gameplay and quests had to do with the main story. For the most part, relatively little. Compare this to Fallout 1, where the main quest is the core of the game and the rest of it is mostly side branches you can do along the way. It's actually surprisingly linear if you play it for the first time like a normal gamer would. If someone just randomly buys it with no pre-knowledge, the game basically takes them from Shady Sands-Junktown (through Ian)-Hub-Necropolis-Brotherhood-Glow-Boneyard-final two zones. Very few quests besides the one for the brotherhood involving traveling back to previous places. It's also dominated by the overarching threat of the master and his mutants. The same actually goes for NV, in that both games clearly build to one huge moment at the end of the game, while 2 and 3 are mostly content to let you do whatever you want.

    In NV, to a much larger extent than 3, the main storyline really drives the game. Almost all of the major sidequests from are tied to it in some fashion. Such as the rocket ghouls of Novac. Once you hit the strip, the major location and faction quests are all dependent on the lead up to the final clash at Hoover dam. While it's a ton of fun, it's still a fundamentally linear game at its heart. As the article mentioned above even points out, in 3 you leave the vault and can basically go anywhere you want. In NV you are shepherded south by Cazadores and Deathclaws. There's nothing wrong with this, but Fallout 3 always did give me a greater sense of freedom gameplay wise, because of the greater tie in of player level to enemy strength. Barring Old Olney, I could go about wherever at whatever level and still be able to do something. You do lose some of the wasteland danger aspect of things, but in terms of gameplay (ignoring the story) its a lot of fun to just go "OOH SHINY" and head off to someplace where yet another mundane location fell to ruin because of 1950's style disaster.

    Fallout 3 is not as good as 1 and 2, but for a ton of gamers it is quite memorable and doesn't slip away. Its a theme park, and the sense of freedom it gives is unmatched even by modern open world games. It never got too much traction among hardcore fallout fans because it was never intended for us in the first place. It was there to introduce new and larger audiences to the IP. The fact that they then greenlighted NV is in part a recognition of this. Its why for many people who didn't play the first two games, or who played them later, I feel 3 will always be the most memorable, because it was the first taste of such a great series. Now if only we could get an enhanced version of 1 and 2 because Wasteland 2 in a lot of ways just made me think "this could have been so much better had it been more like Fallout 1 and 2". Not in terms of areas and quests, but the lack of differing ways to solve problems was a bitch.
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2015
  16. naossano

    naossano So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Oct 19, 2006
    You might want to change that sentence. One of the very reason Fo1-Fo2 are still highly regarded today is that they amongs the most non-linear games released to this day.

    On the other hand, amongs the many things that crippled Fo3 is that total forced linearity that is totally contradicting the very soul of the series.

    Also, the Fallout IP wasn't given to Beth. They fought hard for it. They wanted it badly. Which makes even more surprising how much they failed with it.

    Other than that, of course Fo1-Fo2 were meant to be played, they were also made to be fun. They were also made to be enjoyable by non-pnp-players. Although they were also niche-y at the time. But it was also amongs the things that set it apart. People enjoyed it because it was different than other popamoles released at the time, not despite being different. It doesn't improve anything to make it un-different and clone to the other AAA games released today. They took something unique, removed what make that unique and expected cheerings.
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2015
  17. TorontoReign

    TorontoReign BLUE BLUE BLUE Staff Member Moderator

    Apr 1, 2005
    I have gotten someone I know into Fallout due to letting him borrow Fallout 3 and another one I let borrow New Vegas. Normally they would not play RPG's, but they are able to play these games no problem so, there is that I guess.
  18. TheNotoriousAMP

    TheNotoriousAMP First time out of the vault

    Apr 21, 2015
    Fallout 2 is very much non linear, which is why I didn't mention it. Functionally speaking, the main "story" of Fallout 2 and 3 is the wanderings of the Chosen One and Lone Wanderer. For example, New Reno was practically a game in and of itself. The best way to explain this is to look at Fallout 2's ending slides. Very few of them have to do with Arroyo or the Enclave. Rather, they're all about what you got up to on your way to the G.E.C.K. Just look at all the sub plots in the game. The war against Jet and Slavery (Crime and Anarchy vs Order) which is the core of the Den, Redding and New Reno's storylines. This is then tied into the NCR, when you can join the Rangers. Or, the issue of uniting populations in forging a new order (Modoc, NCR and Vault 15, Gecko and Vault City). Ect. Relatively little of the content is solely linked up to the Arroyo and Enclave plotlines, though the Enclave's presence in the wastes is cleverly tied into the storylines in many points.

    The same goes for Fallout 3 in a way. There is a reason the PC is called the Lone Wanderer. The story there is of a scared kid who leaves the vault and wanders about the wastes. Though there is a main plot, in terms of the content dedicated to it its relatively minor in scope, reflecting the fact that this isn't a huge region we're playing in, its a city and the surrounding areas. Whereas Fallout 2 and New Vegas basically have you resolve everyone's problems, Fallout 3's PC is a much more mundane character. You help bring water to the wasteland and are one of the key soldiers in the war against the Enclave, but the world's fate doesn't revolve around you. The capital wastes was surviving before the fresh water, it can survive without it. While this makes for a blander story, it also can be kind of refreshing at times. When I play Fallout 2 I know that the fate of each city revolves around my choices. While impactful and fun, it's also very cliche in a way. You're the all powerful agent without whom each town would suffer. Meanwhile, part of Fallout 3's appeal to me at times is that in the end I'm just some guy wandering about, scavenging for good shit to make some caps off of. If I become a slaver the whole capital wasteland doesn't become a slave state dun dun duuuuuun. I'm just a bloke enslaving for caps and giggles. It's also why I love the capital mall as a general region. More than any other place in the game, this is where you get to feel powerful. In Fallout 2 I expect to be the all conquering hero. In Fallout 3, I'm just some wanderer, so cleverly fighting my way through trenchworks and taking out both an army of Talon Company mercs and super mutants feels damn exciting. Once again, I have a ton of frustrations with the game, but no other game in the series just lets you drop in for an hour or two when you get bored to do some random shit.

    Now, let's fully address why I called Fallout 1 linear. Much like Fallout New Vegas, the main story of 1 and NV is the main story, if you get my drift. Many of the major sideplots of the game are tied into the upcoming battle for the dam, or the struggle against the super mutants. In fact, contrary to 2, most of the ending slides are based upon your decisions in the lead up to the dam. While on the one hand this does place you more firmly in the story of the game, on the other it does make you feel like you are under pressure to follow the story. It's not really a place where you can feel like dropping in for an hour or two to raid a place and then leave. Each action you take you do under the knowledge that the Mojave's fate rests on you. This is great for RPG play, but it also strips some of the freedom you feel in 3.

    1 is even more blatant in this. While there are other paths to do the main quest in 1, most of these really only happen when you are replaying the game, often with the benefit of the wiki. For most people who played Fallout 1 without preknowledge, the game set them down a fairly set path. There were different ways to overcome the obstacles on the path, but it was still a clear line to follow. For example, few quests tie into other towns in a way that give a sense of life to the place. You need to join the Brotherhood to help you fight the mutants. They send you to the glow, you come back and are allowed in, unlocking the tools you needed to finish the game. Most of the sidequests, barring the "take down Decker and Gizmo" storylines, are really about unlocking tools and knowledge on your way to accomplishing the main task. The time pressure placed upon you by first the water and secondly the rise of the mutants emphasizes this. Whereas in 2 you have places like Modoc that have nothing to do with the main storyline, Fallout 1 is a much tighter experience. Adytum is the only region which feels a bit freer and that's because the Follower's of the Apocalypse were stripped of a lot of their content involving their conflict with the children of the cathedral. Not to mention the fact that the main use of the gun runners and adytum is to get you the upgraded endgame gear you'll need to fight the master and mutants. s why 1's atmosphere and story feel so much tighter than 2, for good or for ill. From the time you hit Shady Sands, you are being built up to encounter the deathclaw and find the water chip, this reaches its apex once you reach the hub and the deathclaw is used to transition you to the super mutants. Its a wonderfully executed story, but it's still fairly linear in design.

    To reply to Torrent, glad you were able to get someone else into Fallout! RPG's with a focus on pre game character creation are a bitch to get into without a wiki guide and personally I tend to prefer that Fallout NV style leveling where stat choices are less important than skills is really nice. It avoids the "fuck you you played the game wrong" tendency of early rpg's where poor choices make the game impossible to get out of the gates on. Instead you improve the areas that you like using and the game then rewards you for certain choices in quests.
  19. Battlecross

    Battlecross Banned

    Jun 17, 2015
    This poll shows the huge disconnect here, of course it'll be remembered. It still is and forever will be whether or not you liked it. It saved the Fallout franchise from complete collapse, and yet the purist fans just want to complain all day. It's baffling.
  20. Walpknut

    Walpknut This ghoul has seen it all

    Dec 30, 2010
    Of course it will be remembered, we still get an influx of fanboys registering on the forums exclusively to call us poopy heads for not liking it. That's gotta count for something :razz: