A Wasteland Revisited

Baldry

New member
Feb 11, 2009
2,412
0
0
Yeah now I understand, Ive played fallout 3 3times the first for fun, which I had it was a great joy but the second time well it was for trophies I still enjoyed but not as much cause I rushed it and now the second time im going thourgh it its good im not rushing and im happy ahhhhhhhhh
 

WickedArtist

New member
May 21, 2009
69
0
0
It comes down to difference of opinion and what sort of games do you prefer to play.

Fallout 3 continues with Bethesda's game design choice to let players create their own stories, offering them a relatively large and allegedly detailed world to explore and interact with. This is what Bethesda games are all about. They don't go to offer you a hand-crafted experience, they give you the opportunity to make your own. Do they do this perfectly? Of course not. But if you go into their games with the wrong mindset, you are in for a disappointment, regardless of whether or not they have done good work.

In comparison to Fallout 3, the first two Fallout games offered a more hand-crafted experience at large. The world offered only a few points of interest, with random encounters littered across the way, and overall I feel the game was more directed than Fallout 3. This is not a bad thing, but it shows that even open-ended games can vary to different degrees, and I think Fallout 3 varied from its two predecessors quite a bit there.

When I first played Fallout 3, I joined the unsatisfied echoes calling the inadequacy of the game compared to its predecessors almost instinctively, and in spite of my enjoyment of the game. Having recently played Fallout 1/2 I realized, and this realization may definitely be only my own, what happened: I was being nostalgic. Not the good kind of nostalgic moaning about the lack of interesting and well-designed stealth elements when compared to the Thief series. The bad kind of nostalgic where the old games become so over-glorified in my mind that a cup of mud may well as well be remembered as a cup of sweetly goodness (or in the case of Fallout, a cup of sweetly goodness being remembered as the nectar of the gods themselves).

The first two Fallout games were good, even great, and having their memories still fresh in my mind I can more clearly see the fundamental difference that I find between them (and STALKER) and Fallout 3.

I have my share of criticism for Fallout 3 (after all, nothing is perfect unless one is being pretentious about it). Overall, I feel Bethesda has done a good job in capturing the Fallout experience, and I can definitely count it as a Fallout game. I found that I managed to get immersed into the world and experience it the way Bethesda intended for players to experience their games and explore the world to my heart's content, telling my own personal story in the Wasteland (something I never managed to do in Oblivion).

I am not one to argue the difference of opinion, and certainly am not so pretentious as to call a game bad (or good) based on my own opinion alone, particularly an uninformed ones. Like I said, I can call the flaws that I find on Fallout 3, but I would warn against being overly nostalgic or expecting something out of this game that it never intended to give.
 

Zetona

New member
Dec 20, 2008
846
0
0
I never played Fallout 3. The wasteland does not interest me in the slightest. Occasionally I'll get interested in playing it, then I'll look at a few screenshots or some video and lose interest again.
 

Osloq

New member
Mar 9, 2008
284
0
0
I'm pretty much at the same position as at the start of the review, I'm still waiting for my epiphany. I think I've put about 25-30 hours into Fallout 3 and I really haven't enjoyed any of it. I appreciate it aesthetically, it's sheer size and the insane number of side events occurring within the universe but I personally don't find it entertaining and all the hours I've lodged up were a chore, not a pleasure like it should be. Maybe there's just something wrong with my mindset but I think it comes down to me not liking the world of Fallout. It's the same with Red Faction. The world doesn't inspire anything in me so playing for any length is unappealing because there's no imaginative involvement.

Although the one time I saw a random group of wastelanders getting owned by about 7 Yao Guai was pretty amusing, especially when you're on a hill several hundred meters away so you don't have to worry about getting mauled.
 

Sparrow

New member
Feb 22, 2009
6,848
0
0
GodsOneMistake said:
AkJay said:
GodsOneMistake said:
WhiteTiger225 said:
johnman said:
I tried to slow my pace down and enjoy the wasteland, but I just couldn't. I'm no old fallout fan, the entire game just felt boring to me. I've been spoiled by Stalker's zone I think, which is much more atmospheric and interesting.
I wouldn't call it Atmospheric and interesting... But what I will say is this..

The main reason MOST retards can't like fallout 3 is this... and your post summed it up nicely... When they see guns in an FPS view the first thing every retarded Halo fan will shout is "ZOMIGAWD A FURST PURSHON SHOOTAR!" Fallout 3 is an ACTION RPG, NOT A FIRST PERSON SHOOTER! For god sakes you just compared Stalker, a FPS open world with some equipment management, to a GOD DAMN ACTION RPG that just HAPPENS to have guns XD Now if you said you would rather play Fable 2, or something like that, then I would understand, but comparing 2 different genres isn't only unfair, it's retarded.
Nice use of the word retarded... -.- No body will take you seriously unless you clean up your language and remove all emotions from the text
I took him pretty seriously, i found the emotion to have the little extra kick of enthusiasm.
Well than I suppose it's just me, cause I don't think anybody that uses retard three times in one post has anything of any importance to say
You shouldn't call people retards. It's not nice to call people a retard. After all, would you like to be called a retard?

There, retard, three times, three sentances and it is of importance.
 

Razorback0z

New member
Feb 10, 2009
363
0
0
"I wanted to love Fallout 3 when it was launched. I was not sitting around carping about Black Isle's discarded isometric revival, Van Buren. I had accepted the fate of the franchise and its inescapable need to be a mass market product with multiple avenues of distribution. I am practical about the reality of the video game market"

I wanted to love it too. I also shared your realistic view on the way FA3 was to be presented, despite my revulsion.

But unlike you I have not softened my view on it. Time has not made my glasses any rosier on the topic of the demise of the fallout franshise and it is a demise.

One of the most complex, rich and detailed RPG's of all time has been reduced to an FPS.

End of story.

Nice work Bethesda.
 

samsonguy920

New member
Mar 24, 2009
2,921
0
0
Chipperz said:
I genuinely can't understand how people rush through the storyline.

First time I tried to do the main story arc, I ended up getting so pissed off with Moria Brown I shot her in the face with a combat shotgun. The second time I tried to do the main story arc, I ended up in a power station somewhere up north after someone ran up to me, screamed "I HAVE A GRENADE IN MY POCKET!" and exploded and I went off to investigate from the general direction she ran in from. Third time, I ended up in the middle of a war between two superheroes, with no idea how I ended up there. It just goes on and on...

It must take a focus on target on par with the Terminator to keep on that storyline, but damn the game was amazing...
Sounds like you had quite an adventure, from giving in to the demons that tell you that a shotgun blast to her face improves her looks dramatically(and they do), to people running up to you to tell you what dangerous items they have in their pocket(but not to say they are happy to see you, which is rude). Gets me to want to lean up that way, see if I get the same hospitality. My luck they will just be happy to see me...in which case I will just use my shotgun to reciprocate.
As for rushing through the storyline, it's what people have been trained to do for many years in games. There really hasn't been a game with a sense of sandbox to it until what, Grand Theft Auto 3?
Though I will admit I wasted an hour or two on the old Atari 2600 Adventure exploring every nook and cranny that bridge could take me. Got stuck in some interesting places, but never found the easter egg (didn't know to look for it though).
 

Razorback0z

New member
Feb 10, 2009
363
0
0
samsonguy920 said:
Chipperz said:
As for rushing through the storyline, it's what people have been trained to do for many years in games. There really hasn't been a game with a sense of sandbox to it until what, Grand Theft Auto 3?
.
I know what your saying but it depends on your gaming background. Those of us that played a lot of Elder Scrolls and similar like Baldurs Gate, Eye of the Beholder etc etc actually do have a penchant for exploring side quests. Often in these games you needed to do a bunch of random exploring to gain the levels and the gear to ensure victory in the main storyline.

Despite that fact, my experience in FA3 was one of stumbling upon the end game without even trying and I know I am not alone in this. I did not even realise I was about to end the game until the credits rolled, the story telling was so lacklustre that if thats what Bethesda calls an ending, Id hate to see an Anti climax.

To me FA3 could have been made as a completely seperate post apocolyptic RPG. To associate it with the Fallout Franchise was wrong for both the developers and the fans. For the devs it restricted thier scope of vision and for the fans it set unrealistic expectations.
 

WhiteTiger225

New member
Aug 6, 2009
1,039
0
0
Razorback0z said:
"I wanted to love Fallout 3 when it was launched. I was not sitting around carping about Black Isle's discarded isometric revival, Van Buren. I had accepted the fate of the franchise and its inescapable need to be a mass market product with multiple avenues of distribution. I am practical about the reality of the video game market"

I wanted to love it too. I also shared your realistic view on the way FA3 was to be presented, despite my revulsion.

But unlike you I have not softened my view on it. Time has not made my glasses any rosier on the topic of the demise of the fallout franshise and it is a demise.

One of the most complex, rich and detailed RPG's of all time has been reduced to an FPS.

End of story.

Nice work Bethesda.
I just lol at this XD

A company WELL KNOWN for First person view Action RPGs gets ahold of the game, and you think they are going to change what makes them, well, them? And honestly, if Fallout 1-2 was so great and extraordinary... Why did Black Isle go out of buisness? And why is it they couldn't even get enough money to keep the rights to the Fallout MMO? I liked Fallout 1-2 when I first played them, they were damn decent games (Had some gaping holes in the game though, like missing NPCs for quests and such) and were rough jewels of their time. But times have changed. Black Isle didn't make as much money as they hoped and are now a companies *****, while the company that made them their ***** has made a game that has made multi millions, and doing 1000's of percentiles better in sales then the old versions. Can you HONESTLY, with a straight face, tell me that Fo3 would have been better in both gameplay AND sales if it was left isometric turn based gridlocked movement like its predecessor? Bethesda took a risk by picking up a mostly dead franchise that was slowly being buried with time, and they took a risk adapting it to THEIR style instead of the original owners style, and I applaud them for that. And honestly, how can you call the franchise dead? From what I see it's a well selling game thats only unaccepted by 3 groups. The purist fanboys, the Retards who expected it to be a fullout FPS like STALKER or CoD4, and the people who actually legitemetly just don't like it because of meer taste, which honestly that I can accept. This isn't the franchises death, this is the Franchise's rebirth into the modern world of gaming.

Next you will say Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" is going to suck because he changed it from the original bright and colorful to his own gothic styled envisionment XD
 

Matey

New member
Jun 25, 2008
84
0
0
WhiteTiger225 said:
Razorback0z said:
"I wanted to love Fallout 3 when it was launched. I was not sitting around carping about Black Isle's discarded isometric revival, Van Buren. I had accepted the fate of the franchise and its inescapable need to be a mass market product with multiple avenues of distribution. I am practical about the reality of the video game market"

I wanted to love it too. I also shared your realistic view on the way FA3 was to be presented, despite my revulsion.

But unlike you I have not softened my view on it. Time has not made my glasses any rosier on the topic of the demise of the fallout franshise and it is a demise.

One of the most complex, rich and detailed RPG's of all time has been reduced to an FPS.

End of story.

Nice work Bethesda.
I just lol at this XD

A company WELL KNOWN for First person view Action RPGs gets ahold of the game, and you think they are going to change what makes them, well, them? And honestly, if Fallout 1-2 was so great and extraordinary... Why did Black Isle go out of buisness? And why is it they couldn't even get enough money to keep the rights to the Fallout MMO? I liked Fallout 1-2 when I first played them, they were damn decent games (Had some gaping holes in the game though, like missing NPCs for quests and such) and were rough jewels of their time. But times have changed. Black Isle didn't make as much money as they hoped and are now a companies *****, while the company that made them their ***** has made a game that has made multi millions, and doing 1000's of percentiles better in sales then the old versions. Can you HONESTLY, with a straight face, tell me that Fo3 would have been better in both gameplay AND sales if it was left isometric turn based gridlocked movement like its predecessor? Bethesda took a risk by picking up a mostly dead franchise that was slowly being buried with time, and they took a risk adapting it to THEIR style instead of the original owners style, and I applaud them for that. And honestly, how can you call the franchise dead? From what I see it's a well selling game thats only unaccepted by 3 groups. The purist fanboys, the Retards who expected it to be a fullout FPS like STALKER or CoD4, and the people who actually legitemetly just don't like it because of meer taste, which honestly that I can accept. This isn't the franchises death, this is the Franchise's rebirth into the modern world of gaming.

Next you will say Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" is going to suck because he changed it from the original bright and colorful to his own gothic styled envisionment XD
if it had been true to the originals. had a better thought out game world... had an isometric view... had better dialogue, better quests, better comedy, better combat. (sorry i shouldn't say better... i should say similar to the original) then i know for a fact it wouldn't have been as successful as it was. i have no doubt about that. but i do believe they could have done a way better job on the writing for dialogue and story. and they could have animated the characters expressions and body language much better. and make the combat less repetitive... and it would have done even better than it did. i understand the isometric version had to go in order to appeal to larger crowds. and making games is about making money. its not the style that upsets me. its the lack of effort put into making the story and setting coherent. tell me how there can be a scattering of settlements that are so poorly defended that a single traveler with an assault rifle can wipe them off the map... and yet they survive in a wasteland that has a 500 to 1 ratio of hostiles to neutral/friendlies.
then tell me how they feed themselves with no food. or how they have rich people with no source of income. also explain to me how 250 years after the apocalypse... there are still vaults and buildings all over the place that have not been looted. anyways. like i said the writing and level of detail in the setting and story sucked, although it looked real pretty. VATS got annoying fast(wow look at me miss the target in slow motion!). and having to fight everything all the time also sucked. and its a very weak RPG since you spend 95% of your time wandering around killing shit. not to mention the quests are almost always "go here and kill stuff" or "go here and find something(which involves going to a location full of hostiles).

ok done ranting for now.
its still a decent game. i have mixed feelings about it... fallout 3 brought a ton of new fans to the fallout universe... which is good... except a lot of them have never and will never play the originals which were far better rpgs.

also why does everyone say comparing stalker and fallout 3 is unfair?
i admit i havent finished stalker. ive only put in a couple hours. but i started it off... talked to an npc. got a quest. wandered around completed the quest. talked to some npcs. decided on wether to help or kill some guys. solved quests in different ways... went back talked to some npcs... got more quests... it seemed pretty damn similar to me. the only big difference is the lack of the character creation and level up...
 

Dirty Apple

New member
Apr 24, 2008
819
0
0
I am still enjoying the game and belong to the explorers camp. In fact, my aimless wandering was so bad that I maxed out my levels before I even found the father. If I were to make one complaint though, it would be an over-abundance of supplies. I traveled with no less than 3000 rounds of AK ammo and about 60 stims. Not that the stims really mattered, there were hydrants, sinks, and toilets everywhere. I would have liked it more if guns and ammo felt more like an extravagance than a given. I never used melee weapons, because there was no need. I know my complaint is small and petty, but feel as though it's a valid point. That being said, I would recommend this game to anyone.
 

tomasmac2

New member
Aug 24, 2009
1
0
0
i am really impress your post such a really valuable information give me


Acne [http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=1839461]
 

Razorback0z

New member
Feb 10, 2009
363
0
0
Matey said:
WhiteTiger225 said:
Razorback0z said:
"I wanted to love Fallout 3 when it was launched. I was not sitting around carping about Black Isle's discarded isometric revival, Van Buren. I had accepted the fate of the franchise and its inescapable need to be a mass market product with multiple avenues of distribution. I am practical about the reality of the video game market"

I wanted to love it too. I also shared your realistic view on the way FA3 was to be presented, despite my revulsion.

But unlike you I have not softened my view on it. Time has not made my glasses any rosier on the topic of the demise of the fallout franshise and it is a demise.

One of the most complex, rich and detailed RPG's of all time has been reduced to an FPS.

End of story.

Nice work Bethesda.
I just lol at this XD

A company WELL KNOWN for First person view Action RPGs gets ahold of the game, and you think they are going to change what makes them, well, them? And honestly, if Fallout 1-2 was so great and extraordinary... Why did Black Isle go out of buisness? And why is it they couldn't even get enough money to keep the rights to the Fallout MMO? I liked Fallout 1-2 when I first played them, they were damn decent games (Had some gaping holes in the game though, like missing NPCs for quests and such) and were rough jewels of their time. But times have changed. Black Isle didn't make as much money as they hoped and are now a companies *****, while the company that made them their ***** has made a game that has made multi millions, and doing 1000's of percentiles better in sales then the old versions. Can you HONESTLY, with a straight face, tell me that Fo3 would have been better in both gameplay AND sales if it was left isometric turn based gridlocked movement like its predecessor? Bethesda took a risk by picking up a mostly dead franchise that was slowly being buried with time, and they took a risk adapting it to THEIR style instead of the original owners style, and I applaud them for that. And honestly, how can you call the franchise dead? From what I see it's a well selling game thats only unaccepted by 3 groups. The purist fanboys, the Retards who expected it to be a fullout FPS like STALKER or CoD4, and the people who actually legitemetly just don't like it because of meer taste, which honestly that I can accept. This isn't the franchises death, this is the Franchise's rebirth into the modern world of gaming.

Next you will say Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" is going to suck because he changed it from the original bright and colorful to his own gothic styled envisionment XD
if it had been true to the originals. had a better thought out game world... had an isometric view... had better dialogue, better quests, better comedy, better combat. (sorry i shouldn't say better... i should say similar to the original) then i know for a fact it wouldn't have been as successful as it was. i have no doubt about that. but i do believe they could have done a way better job on the writing for dialogue and story. and they could have animated the characters expressions and body language much better. and make the combat less repetitive... and it would have done even better than it did. i understand the isometric version had to go in order to appeal to larger crowds. and making games is about making money. its not the style that upsets me. its the lack of effort put into making the story and setting coherent. tell me how there can be a scattering of settlements that are so poorly defended that a single traveler with an assault rifle can wipe them off the map... and yet they survive in a wasteland that has a 500 to 1 ratio of hostiles to neutral/friendlies.
then tell me how they feed themselves with no food. or how they have rich people with no source of income. also explain to me how 250 years after the apocalypse... there are still vaults and buildings all over the place that have not been looted. anyways. like i said the writing and level of detail in the setting and story sucked, although it looked real pretty. VATS got annoying fast(wow look at me miss the target in slow motion!). and having to fight everything all the time also sucked. and its a very weak RPG since you spend 95% of your time wandering around killing shit. not to mention the quests are almost always "go here and kill stuff" or "go here and find something(which involves going to a location full of hostiles).

ok done ranting for now.
its still a decent game. i have mixed feelings about it... fallout 3 brought a ton of new fans to the fallout universe... which is good... except a lot of them have never and will never play the originals which were far better rpgs.

also why does everyone say comparing stalker and fallout 3 is unfair?
i admit i havent finished stalker. ive only put in a couple hours. but i started it off... talked to an npc. got a quest. wandered around completed the quest. talked to some npcs. decided on wether to help or kill some guys. solved quests in different ways... went back talked to some npcs... got more quests... it seemed pretty damn similar to me. the only big difference is the lack of the character creation and level up...
Yup fair call I see your POV

However my post was really all about me. I really dont subscribe to the linear ratio of popularity to quality, more often than not they are mutually exclusive or Brittany Spears and Justin Timberlake are two of the greatest musicians the world has ever known.

I just wanted it to be more like the originals in terms of content, not necesarily in terms of gameplay. FA3 was just way to sliced down and it didnt need to be. If you look back at Dues Ex and Dues Ex2, they did everything FA3 does and it took me a lot longer to finish Dues Ex, which also had a way better, way more complex story.

So all Im saying is, if your going to re-create a game like Fallout, at least ry and make it similar in scope. I am not the only person to say that..... there was just no sense of adventure to it, the world feels so cramped its less of a sandbox and more of a shoebox.

Bah... I could wear my fingers out....
 

Tattaglia

New member
Aug 12, 2008
1,445
0
0
Woah, that matched my opinion on Fallout 3 exactly. Strangely enough, I quite liked Fallout 3 for the first umpteen playthroughs, finding myself engrossed in the desolate post-apocalyptic landscape and 1950s vibe; so much so that I found myself purchasing Fallout 2.

And you know what? I loved Fallout 2. Sure, it's a bit hard to get into and it has its quirks, but it is a brilliant game with so much more to do than its sequel. And Fallout 2 Bloody Mess > Fallout 3 Bloody Mess so easily.
 

Knight Templar

Moved on
Dec 29, 2007
3,848
0
0
Its hard for me to enjoy Fallout 3 since I finished my first play through, now I think about how I'm going to play which ruins the fun.
I'm not sure why.

GodsOneMistake said:
Well than I suppose it's just me, cause I don't think anybody that uses retard three times in one post has anything of any importance to say
In this case I agree with you, sometimes you can do so and still have a very valid point, but WhiteTiger did not do this. Its not that he used swears, its how he did so.
 

Generic_Dave

Prelate Invigilator
Jul 15, 2009
619
0
0
If there's one wonderful thing about Fallout 3 it's the other characters that randomnly pass through the Wasteland, the first time I got to the Super Duper Mart there was a raging gun battle going on outside between Raiders and a couple of wastelanders and their dogs. The second time there was a trader selling Bots. The third time there was no-one. Later on in the game I was picking through the DC ruins, and I came across a Super-mutant firing on some wasteland chick and I dutifully took out the Mutie. I turn around to see the fruit of my labour lying dead on the ground, three scavanger / traders moving towards her. They pick over her corpse and lo and behold they're cannibals. Three well placed shotgun rounds and they'll no longer be chasing dinner across the Wasteland.

What I'm trying to say by this is that basically, for me, the actual story is superfluous. It's there, but not essential. These little moments make you feel like the actual Wasteland is alive in a very unscripted way. It's like playing GTA and seeing the cops chasing some NPC or taking a pot shot at a car and having the driver hop out and shoot back.

Personally, I feel that while, yes the Story could have been more involving, the conversations less wooden, the map space bigger (on Oblivion scale maybe)and I would've preferred a higher level cap, I found the world of Fallout 3 to be intensely involving. And I'm on my fourth play through at the moment. Which has to count for something. Can't remember the last game I played through more than twice.
 

domicius

New member
Apr 2, 2008
212
0
0
I wandered around 3 for a while and really liked it. There was no urgency to complete the main quest, and there were so many side-quests and little corners to investigate that there was always a reason to keep going.

I think overall it's a much better game than the first Fallout. I remember trying to get past my first combat in that game. I seem to remember that I had a six-shooter of some sort, and was being attacked by 12 giant scorpions (which seems excessive for a first fight, I guess).

The... game... made... you... wait... for... each... shot... and... you... had... to... reload... one... bullet... at... a... time...

My patience ran out after about half an hour of watching suspect scorpion pathfinding (I felt like shouting "I'm over here!"), not to mention realizing that gaming really had moved on from those days of yore.

Sometimes, them guys are wearing rose-tinted eye-patches.
 

Gerazzi

New member
Feb 18, 2009
1,734
0
0
I liked both old and new, they were all good games.
Fallout 2 had perhaps too many pop culture references for me to get into it without feeling like it's a joke game though (I'm looking at you, holy hand grenade).

But anyway, good review(?) it looks like you're playing it correctly now.
 

Woodsey

New member
Aug 9, 2009
14,553
0
0
WhiteTiger225 said:
johnman said:
I tried to slow my pace down and enjoy the wasteland, but I just couldn't. I'm no old fallout fan, the entire game just felt boring to me. I've been spoiled by Stalker's zone I think, which is much more atmospheric and interesting.
I wouldn't call it Atmospheric and interesting... But what I will say is this..

The main reason MOST retards can't like fallout 3 is this... and your post summed it up nicely... When they see guns in an FPS view the first thing every retarded Halo fan will shout is "ZOMIGAWD A FURST PURSHON SHOOTAR!" Fallout 3 is an ACTION RPG, NOT A FIRST PERSON SHOOTER! For god sakes you just compared Stalker, a FPS open world with some equipment management, to a GOD DAMN ACTION RPG that just HAPPENS to have guns XD Now if you said you would rather play Fable 2, or something like that, then I would understand, but comparing 2 different genres isn't only unfair, it's retarded.
Wow.

I'm not a 'retard' (as you so delicately put it) and I didn't like Fallout 3. What does that make me?