Will Fallout 3 be remembered?

Will Fallout 3 be remembered in 10 years' time?

  • Total voters
    898
Millim said:
I mean, I remember a lot of it still, like Republic of Dave, Old Oiney, Agatha, the one Vault with the music and white noise and The Dunwhich Building.

F3 however just feels dated.

I think a lot of people remember Fallout 3 with rose tinted glasses as the Game is just average.
Click to expand...

Wow, I don't remember half of the stuff you just listed :P and I played the game extensively. You're right on it coming across as very dated. Hilarious considering that's what Bethesda fans said about the original Fallouts. People have nostalgia for Fallout 3, but they don't actually play it.
 
Earth said:
Wow, I don't remember half of the stuff you just listed :P and I played the game extensively. You're right on it coming across as very dated. Hilarious considering that's what Bethesda fans said about the original Fallouts. People have nostalgia for Fallout 3, but they don't actually play it.
Click to expand...

I think most people just have some kind of presumption of what Fallout 3 actually is.
They just think that because it was really good then, it'll be really good now.

I will say you should have another go at it, if only to really see how weird it is to play nowadays.

The originals are timeless however, they just have a very strict set of mechanics.
The writing is still pretty relevant nowadays and with Trump becoming President, the President from Fallout 2 just seems funnier.
 
I didn't remember the Dunwich building until I saw people posting about it ~and I had gone through it to the end... What I remembered was the pointless ending/ obelisk, and all the time I spent in the room trying to trigger it, or otherwise get it to do something ~anything; what was this for? Apparently nothing but decoration. I got the story part, and the descent into madness... but I considered the whole location a waste of time.
 
Yes, it's a great game.

It definitely pales in comparison to the original cult classics that preceded it, and the piece of work that was New Vegas. But that doesn't mean it's a bad game.
I think classic Fallout fans give it bad credit because it didn't meet their expectations for a Fallout 2 sequel, like Van Buren. There's a lot I don't like about FO3, but I'm kinda glad the whole project was in the hands of Bethesda. They made the game their own, and didn't make it into a shitty cash-crop like they did with Fallout 4, and franlky that's all that matters.
 
YeeCop said:
I think classic Fallout fans give it bad credit because it didn't meet their expectations for a Fallout 2 sequel, like Van Buren.
Click to expand...
Which is plenty reason enough by itself IMO. It's a numbered sequel; had it [instead] been an official spinoff (sans the #3) there wouldn't have been any issue with it. It's a good game on its own, for what it tries to be, but it stands occupying a reserved place for a different game; for a different audience. Hence it will always be a thorn in the side regardless of merits; ie. It doesn't matter how good it is (or even how good it could have been had they contracted out the writing); the base premise and foundation of the game is rotely based on their TES formula, and that's primarily what is wrong with it... and unfixable.
 
Last edited:
Crni Vuk said:
Surprising Giz, I mean ... what was the good thing about F3?
Click to expand...
I enjoyed walking the deeper wastelands, alone, and undisturbed by NPCs ~when possible. I did not enjoy... just about any location with NPCs in it, but as for the environmental design ~the little of it there was, I thought it was not only spot on, but probably better than Troika or Obsidian would have done it.

It almost makes one wish that they [Obsidian or Troika] could have had Bethesda craft the landscape, towns and interiors as an outside contractor working to spec, and either of them use the provided maps as they saw fit in a Fallout game made without restriction or approval by Bethesda. I can't stand Bethesda's policies of RPG design, but IMO credit where credit is due, for their artists; (even though I despise their Mr.Handy model :seriouslyno:).

Handy-house4_zps9093ba32.jpg
mr-handy2-1-1-1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Gotcha, well I guess I can understand that part. But for me Fallout 3 and its landscape became very dull pretty fast. Like I said, I understand what you mean as I share the same feeling, but that only worked for like the first part of the game, because even the wasteland they created, is kinda shallow and the game felt way to small to give me that feeling.
 
Crni Vuk said:
...that only worked for like the first part of the game, because even the wasteland they created, is kinda shallow and the game felt way to small to give me that feeling.
Click to expand...
I have never encountered the Enclave in FO3. I found the Garage with Tranquility Lane sim, by chance, and early in the game. I didn't play much past that. Mostly I just climbed the overpasses, and wandered about. I think the most I've done is the quests at Megaton, Ten Penny Towers, Tranquility Lane, and Canterbury Commons; and explored Dunwich, the Subways and the Yao Guai cave. (And defeated some sort of Ant Queen I think.)
 
Last edited:
Forgive me for not having an immense sympathy for fans of classic Fallout. My first Fallout games were New Vegas and 3, I stumbled on the old games whilst waiting for Fallout 4 to come out, which, funny enough, turned out to be more in my favor than Fallout 4 turned out to be. But I digress.
 
YeeCop said:
Forgive me for not having an immense sympathy for fans of classic Fallout. My first Fallout games were New Vegas and 3, I stumbled on the old games whilst waiting for Fallout 4 to come out, which, funny enough, turned out to be more in my favor than Fallout 4 turned out to be. But I digress.
Click to expand...
In my case, Oblivion was the first Bethesda title for me, and I thought it was pretty neat, but I discovered that I seemed to like the games better as I went backwards through the TES series. I don't believe that the first exposure creates a preference or bias against anything after it. But I do believe that an intentional omission and lack of fidelity in later works of the same series ~does. It's not what FO3 (or 4) offers the player that's particularly wrong, it is what they don't offer (but should as a Fallout SEQUEL) that engenders the enmity and sense of loss.

A quick example: In the RTS Homeworld, the player could command every single ship they had, and create custom formations ~that had tangible effects on the outcome. It was a major point of play. In Homeworld 2, they improved the graphics, but stripped down the player's control. One could only give generic commands to their fighters, and critically damaged ones could not be sent back for repairs without sending the whole squad. That was enough to poison the game for me; though there were other things wrong with it, alongside the real (and welcome) improvements.

The situation with FO3 is [almost exactly] the same as if Relic had released Spacemarine as 'Dawn of War III' instead of a new Warhammer IP. Spacemarine is a great game; but one that offers nothing to the 'Dawn of War' player. I could, and do, say the same of FO3 & 4.

I will remember FO3 as the first nail in the coffin, and NV as a determined kick at the boards from inside box; and FO4 is the dirt piled on top of the unmarked grave.
 
Last edited:
YeeCop said:
Yes, it's a great game.

It definitely pales in comparison to the original cult classics that preceded it, and the piece of work that was New Vegas. But that doesn't mean it's a bad game.
I think classic Fallout fans give it bad credit because it didn't meet their expectations for a Fallout 2 sequel, like Van Buren. There's a lot I don't like about FO3, but I'm kinda glad the whole project was in the hands of Bethesda. They made the game their own, and didn't make it into a shitty cash-crop like they did with Fallout 4, and franlky that's all that matters.
Click to expand...

It's really not though. It's a role playing game where character builds have no bearing on the actual world or story, its a first person shooter with horrendous shooting, and it's an open world game that's incredibly tedious to explore and lacks worthwhile content. Remove the Fallout name and all of this is still true.
 
I wouldn't mind seeing [buying] a Bethesda title that suits their preference and aptitude well; I would fairly consider a Lands of Lore 4 or a Palladium books Rifts FPP/cRPG by them; but they clearly know nothing about the Fallout series, and probably never considered anything more than grafting its name on to their next TES clone.

Just as you wouldn't ask a podiatrist to re-wire your house, nor a plumber to repair your teeth... One shouldn't choose Bethesda to make the next game in a tactical turn based RPG series that is noted for depth and consequence; it's beyond their ken, and they KNOW that it doesn't suit their target audience. I blame Interplay for all this; they are the ones that sold us out.

What we have in FO3 & 4 seems very much [IMO] like a cobbler doing their best to make a car.
Electric-Shoe-Car-by-Ao-Kang_zpsld2q4zzi.jpg
 
Last edited:
Gizmojunk said:
In my case, Oblivion was the first Bethesda title for me, and I thought it was pretty neat, but I discovered that I seemed to like the games better as I went backwards through the TES series. I don't believe that the first exposure creates a preference or bias against anything after it. But I do believe that an intentional omission and lack of fidelity in later works of the same series ~does. It's not what FO3 (or 4) offers the player that's particularly wrong, it is what they don't offer (but should as a Fallout SEQUEL) that engenders the enmity and sense of loss.

I will remember FO3 as the first nail in the coffin, and NV as a determined kick at the boards from inside box; and FO4 is the dirt piled on top of the unmarked grave.
Click to expand...

I can't say I know the feeling of waiting for something as exciting as Van Buren, only to have it absolutely shat upon by Bethesda buying the rights and painting a far less pretty painting like Fallout 3, but I understand your perspective.
I know nearly everyone on NMA has a vehement disdain for the Bethesda Fallout titles, more so Fallout 4, from what I've seen so far. For me though, at least, I immensely enjoyed Falllout 3 for what it was. Looking back, Fallout 3 definitely had a lot less to offer than Interplay or Black Isle could, but they built up some good material. Ignoring the piss-poor direction of the new and existing factions, I liked the terminal lore, exploration and scavenging was improved, and (gonna get shanked for this) how the Karma system was refurbished and utilized more in-game than it was in Fallout 2.
Given the game takes place in the East Coast, it can easily be ignored in terms of lore, and I consider it a spin-off anyways. Though, I loved the experiences I got from it. :)
 
How on earth does the first option have almost 700 Votes!?
 
No one is going to forget Fallout 3, until Fallout 1-2-tactics-NV-4 are forgotten.

Slap "Fallout" in google, and look around, and "Fallout 3" is included with the wikipedia page.
 
I guess we will be the last to remember it. As there will be a subsection of the forum for fallout 3 and no subsection for fallout of nevada or fallout resurrection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top