Opinion on Fallout 3

[Gunda]

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadsanta -RPG. First and foremost it has to be this. To me an RPG means that I have a character that interacts with the world and the world reacts to my choices, I really don't feel there's enough of this in FO3 with a "good" path and a "bad" path that just lead you to the same conclusion. Also, RPG's rely on your characters' statistics to determine what you can and cannot do, something which is fairly absent from this Fallout (FO3 barely notices your stats, checks them, or limits them, especially when it comes to combat).

I agree with your assessment of what an RPG is. You have a classic thinking that I search for as well. Honestly this is an Action/Adventure FPS or Third person exlporer, rather then as ROLE playing game. Sure you play a role, but in must cases you can save and retry a conversation if you didn't like the turn out. Stats where used but not in the great desires of each player. Someone mentioned in other posts no factions and I sorta went off. Having been trying to find and join other factions on my second and third play threw there really are only the two. BoS and Enclave, and joining enclave isn't very full filling. This supports weak writing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadsanta -Difficulty. While I hated getting killed by ants for an hour in the starter dungeon in FO2, the whole game felt balanced towards the difficult in FO1-2, and struggling along with a sharpened spear or a pipegun for the first few hours made you respect the wasteland. Whereas FO3 lets you get a laser pistol almost instantly... for 20 caps :P FO3 also has a much faster levelling curve and the addition of perks every level (as opposed to every 3 levels in the originals) makes your character seem overpowered quickly. FO3 might have a level cap, but you hit it halfway through the game, with the perks that a level 60 character wouldn't have in FO1-2, and I think I never won FO1-2 with a character being more than level 24 anyway (8 perks).

There isn't enough of a "Caps sink" a reason to have all the caps to buy what ever you want, but as I remember my plays through on FO1&2 there wasn't much in the way of a money sink in them either past a point. Once I reached a point in FO1 for sure money was no longer an issue, you know.... right after you get your power armor and upgraded plamsa rifle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadsanta Dialogue depth. FO1-2 had it, FO3 doesn't. It's not just more dialogue either (it was), but it's better dialogue: Discovering your NPC's motivations and backstory, finding hidden plot twists through skill checks, having characters realistically respond to actions and dialogue you choose not just with them but with other NPCs are all hallmarks of the Fallout series that I think FO3 just drops the ball on.

There did seem to be more long term thought in the writing of the first two, although it was still pretty liniar thinking and didn't give much in the way of alternitive endings in the first two either, but the endings were better. And the dialog was far more in depth and fun to read. But more people you might have wanted to drop a grenade in their pocket as apposed to helping them. The people that get crappy with you in FO3 you can completely avoid and not worry about them ever again, while in the first two there were those you still had to deal with to get plot hooks from or give them too them to progress the story line.

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadsanta A good plot. FO1-2 both had similar "save the village" plots, but they both felt engaging to me in a way that FO3 just doesn't. I just don't care about vault 101, or my "father" in the same way I cared about Arroyo or Vault 13, probably because of the inane way the main storyline is written in FO3, with terrible plot holes and recycled material from the previous 2 Fallouts: Fallout 3 has water, mutants, brotherhood and enclave in some sort of mashup of the plots of the first two fallouts in what I consider to be not just lazy writing, but boring writing.

So did FO3, but it doesn't do as much for you to save them. There is likely going to be more in the DLC coming with the new year. It will be interesting to see if they fix some of our gripes with the DLC.

After playing through once, You struck upon the cord I had the second issue with, The Ending. The Ending(and reason I held back posting before) Lacks on a huge level! There is a potential solution standing next to you when you reach the end you could make use of in Fawkes, but no way to make use of it. This would have given a different ending, and could have given the player the option to continue to play in the world. This I think helps support your thoughts on the halfass writing. They did get lazy on their writing and that is obvious with some of the conversations. You can tell where they spent more time and effort while letting side quest conversations fall short and letting you know this doesn't matter and wont ever come up again, other then in passing mention.

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadsanta Aethetics. This is a toughie, since it tends to be subjective, and it's one place that FO3 actually approaches the previous titles. For me, what makes a Fallout is not just that it is set in a post-apocalyptic milieu, which FO3 pulls off in spades, but that it is a retro-futuristic vision of that landscape, which FO3 is clearly not, or not consistently. One example: FO3 gets the robots right, they look like retro-50's futuristic robots from Lost In Space... but the landscape looks like actual 1950's clapboard houses, and that's just wrong. You need Buckminster Fuller homes of the future there, you need Frank Lloyd Wright taken to the nth degree, or pulp fiction rocket sci-fi accoutrements and it's just missing. There are Popular Science issues from the 1950's that "predict" what this future should look like, and they do a better job explaining what's wrong here than I can, go check em out on google.

I agree with you on all your points. it would have been more interesting to see more of the 1950's purposed future, then the pockets of "see it's in the future, kinda." Bathrooms don't look like Pop-sci 1950's neither do the kitchens or a lot of the buildings dwellings included(those places you can see remains of houses.) Too few people in Village PoI's Nothing telling me yes, I buy it thats a village and not just a couple of families living in the same place. Truly there are more people in the Citadel then in 80% of the other "towns"

I still enjoy the Game a lot. It has the feel of Fallout which is keeping me from chewing off a leg or something for a new Fallout game. The DLC needs to take Fallout to the next step as well and have an option to play multiplayer. My roommate and I are both deeply hoping for some Multiplayer oppertunities within the DLC. G.E.C.K. has more potential of getting more players to play if we can special make multiplayer maps and not just another FPS battleground fighting like Halo, Battlefield 1942 and 2142, among the many other FPS type games. It would be nice to get some good co-op play out of a Fallout Game, that would take fallout to the next level. But it has to be done right and not rushed.

[Aerosmith]

Bethesda spent their money on this, so they didn't have money for that... What budget did Black Isle have back when they were making Fallout and Fallout 2? By Gamers For Gamers!! It saddens me when I see they sold 5 million copies without much effort (they already had ready engine from Oblivion) and that Fallout 3 got so much praise from magazines and everyone. Sad in the way when I think in what miserable numbers the originals were sold and that the games are becoming dumber and dumber... Because of the mass popularity of today's video games and availability. I miss the days when games were harshly judged and only geeks were gamers...

I hope I made sense...

[Tricky]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aerosmith I miss the days when games were harshly judged and only geeks were gamers...

Hear ye.

[feenicks007]

I enjoyed this game, although it really didn't live up the the Fallout standard. Quite a few of you have already touched on some of the points, but I enjoy hearing my own opinon so I'll reiterate.

In FO2, there were 3 basic character models that I'd play as: Combat specialist, Stealth guy, or diplomat. There were multiple ways to play those types of characters, but any character I made fell into one of those roles. When faced with an obstacle, I'd either blast it, sneak around it, or talk my way through it. It all depended on which skills I took and what my stats were.

A great example would be getting the information out of Vault City (I don't remember it actual name). The leader of the city denies you entry into the vault to get the info you need. You can solve it a few different ways. You can take her quest and kill the ghouls. You can charm her (and her cronies) and get accepted as a citizen, allowing you access to the vault, or you can sneak in there on your own.

FO3 doesn't really give me those types of options. You don't need to be a diplomat at all, in fact there are very few dialogue options and the people don't show you their emotions to your responses. Most of the options fall directly into the good (sure I'll help you) evil (stay away from me and die) or neutral (I'll help for caps). I don't find that a lot of the back stories are all that compelling either.

By the time I was lvl 20, most of my skills were maxed out (between books and bobbleheads it was easy). There was no need to choose a path to follow, when all my skills were at 100%. You don't need the medicins skill or barter skills at all because you find more than enough stimpacks and can trade ANYTHING in for money. I ended the game with 30000 caps and I never put a single point in barter (other than books).

In FO2 there were warring groups in most towns, and you could decide to side with either of them or try and make them work together (which gave you a different "ending") There's only 2 options for that in 3, and neither is very flushed out as a story.

There were some great improvements as well. I loved having multiple sidekicks in FO2, but it was always dangerous because they didn't care who they shot. I don't know how many times I had to reload because Marcus would gun down Sulik and Vic. I couldn't even let him hold a rocket launcher!!. In FO3 sidekicks are actually useful, and don't shoot me, although they will run into my line of fire from time to time.

The Fatman was a great weapon, but it was overkill for most situations. The same goes for mines and grenades. I took out all of Paradise Falls with just bottlecap mines and 1 grenade. I'm glad they were improved from FO2, where they weren't nearly as prevalent.

[Realag]

you may say it's not a fallout game because it's more like oblivion but i enjoyed oblivion and FO3 is even better it's a great game but if you didn't like oblivion don't even try it

[shift244]

Did not play Oblivion, so cannot make comparison there.

I'd like to say that my previous attempts to first-person RPG (really olde titles of more than 5 years back) was not what I found particularly pleasant (Until VtM:Bloodlines). I was not very happy in the initial F3 announcement/news, nor thought that VATS would work. I was proved incorrect on both accounts.

Fallout 3 on it's own:
Is a good title and worthwhile. It does capture the bleakness of a post-apocalyptic world and introduces strange and interesting ideas and concepts, if you take the time to deviate from the main plot to explore. The main plot is rather short and very fast paced, almost hurrying the player beyond the initial starting... one would be quite willful to ignore the core story and pursue the (rather rewarding) side quests. I took the time to access every corner of the map (quite literally) and am, in overall, satisfied.

RPG elements are acceptably balanced and variously used in the game's many side quests. The skills do play in favor to those spending levels and points into raising successful %. To argue that one can save-load to make low % check successful is a moot argument, because you're not supposed to abuse the save-load in that way.

Most of skill check results however do not make too much difference as the designers of the game appear to have the following objective: "Do not punish players for any option they may choose." It is a rather interesting choice since practically everything you do, while it may have some drawbacks, are usually not punished. You cannot choose to use a poorer weapon group because all 4-5 are quite the same overall; you cannot quite choose to fail in most of the quests unless you go out of your way to do so. Small setbacks for failing, small advantages to successes.

In comparison to Fallout 2 (never did play Fallout 1 either):
Fallout 2 is harsh. It penalizes you for being below average. Heck, it penalizes you for not being good. It tells you that you suck right out from the start, and you need to gain XP to simply survive. Some do miss the ruthlessness from F2, and perhaps are the core of the complaints. F3's post-apocalypse wasteland is friendlier than F2. F2 has no qualms killing you for doing anything, even the right thing. F3 tries to allow you stay alive too much, and quite easily.

I do not think F2 quests usually have that many options that F3 is claimed to fail to provide, really; perhaps the nostalgic memory remembers it to be that much better? Perhaps one or two quests, but not that very many; I'm apprehensive to claim since my own recollection of F2 might be rose-tinted as well.

Spoiler:
F2 has meaningful side quests that is impacted by your resolution by tying up basically every loose thread in the end. You have an end game mention of the town or individual related to a quest you've undertaken. It's a small thing, but seeing mention of a town surviving because you did the right thing or conversely seeing it be swept away because you did not, makes more than a little difference. Something, which, I most sorely missed in F3. It seems to me, a very little extra effort for all the quests that would've made a much large impact than what needed to be put in. I'd accept it if there was only a screen capture of the town/individual and a paragraph of 20 sentences in text for it, without voice over.

F3 also tries to be friendly to draw in the crowd. Games have a far more reaching audience range today than it did 10 years ago. To limit this range by recreating F2 gain respect from a small crowd by sacrificing a larger audience (and their $). F3 did a lot of things right for sure, and it could've been better; but that can be said for many good titles out there as well.

[jklinders]

I never expected this game to be anything like the previous Fallout titles so I could not be disappointed.
Taken on it's own, it is a good and absorbing game. biggest disappointment for me is most of the settlements being so small that a raider farting in their general direction would wipe them out. I mean Arefu had what 6 people living in it? the settlements needed to be larger to be believable

[Andurbal]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunda I agree with your assessment of what an RPG is. You have a classic thinking that I search for as well. Honestly this is an Action/Adventure FPS or Third person exlporer, rather then as ROLE playing game.

So, why is it under the "Traditional RPGs" category here...?

I've played only a tiny bit of the game (I'm level 2!), but it's already started to disappoint me...

First of all, the main quest isn't immersive for me... And the way "they" came up with to make me get out of the Vault is hilarious... Just because my father escaped, they were after me??

Then in Megaton I noticed that when I sell something to a shopkeeper other than Moira, this thing disappears right away! WTF?

My biggest disappointment so far came when I told the Sheriff that Mr. Burke suggested me to activate the bomb: He tells me to follow him and runs to the saloon where he "arrests" Mr. Burke. But as soon as he turns his back to him, Mr. Burke shoots and kills him inside the saloon... Well, either nobody takes notice, or they just don't care. (That's kinda strange, especially compared to the reaction everyone in town has if I shoot any of them.) I immediately enter VATS and Mr. Burke's head rolls on the floor next to his body... No reaction from anyone at all... Now I'm SURE they just don't care...

Maybe it's true that such games shouldn't be considered RPGs...

Some may say that I've played too little to critisize, but it's like someone that sees a wonderful huge cake and takes a bite of it and it tastes rotten... What would he say?

[shift244]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andurbal Some may say that I've played too little to critisize, but it's like someone that sees a wonderful huge cake and takes a bite of it and it tastes rotten... What would he say?

Try to eat a little more of that cake and see how the rest tastes like (you've already bought the cake so let's check out the rest).

The writing is rather full of holes and can really do with much more polish. You will find more problems with the scripting in various other side and even main quests as you go along.

[Grizlok]

It is the best RPG of the year no doubt, but its what RPGs seem to be now, more action'y like the witcher and oblivion. I am really hoping Dragon Age brings back a more classic rpg feel.

yeah but just because someone doesnt like FO3 ( i kinda didnt - not my style ) but that doesn't take away the fact this is an rpg and its the best we got this year according to anyone not desperately wanting fallout to be fallout.

The only issue I have is the patch broke VATS so it misses too much (this has been semi-confirmed). I like seeing my dudes and i like party members who join me and are not created by me.

I'm old school, I don't want cameras to move all around in my isometeric views, i don't need to zoom in. I'd be happy if fallout 3 was literally fallout 2 with new story and better graphics/slightly improved interface maybe. honestly i wish they made fallout 3 the way it looks like blizzard is making D3.

That leads me to a small tangent the people crying over D3 should take a long hard look at what we got for FO3. FO3 is a good game, but its not Fallout - and that is what all the whiners are hoping to goad blizzard into doing with D3.

[Fallout skater]

I totally agree with deadsanta I know exactly what you are talking about. As my friend once said a you dont get fallout after you mix a wasteland with radiation. there are a niumber of thing that I have acknowledged that make the fallout, fallout ( of course there are some things that I cannot point, but feel while playing the older fallouts)

Story line, the battles (turn bassed system), random encounters (which in my opinion are omitted in F3), the angle you seeing you character, the dark humor, skill use and last, but not least the opening with the voice : war , war never changes.

I find F3 like a post apocalyptic elder scrolls, a shooter, not an RPG

The game by itself is probably good, I am just not into shooters.
But the as a fallout game I think is a complete failure. Most key points are omitted only the storyline coincides which I think is not enough to make the game a fallout game.

Another stupid thing abut F3 is that you see all possible enemies in the beginning and the excitement when I see robots is gone, it was cool when I meet new enemies throughout the game

And whats with the stupid races and inaccurate terms Races are Mongoloid, Caucasian, Negroid (NOT AFRICAN AMERICAN, thast the term they taught us in school), Indians (red one I forgot the term) and cross race which I'm not going to list.

I have a friend who has only played F3 and thinks that f3 is a fallout game since the tittle says fallout 3 and the story line is the same. I told him you just don't understand the spirit of fallout and he replied I know more about fallout than you do

PS I am sorry for repeating some(all) of the said before my reply I wanted to say what I had in mind to people that would understand what I mean, again sorry