Do you Like Fallout 3? Yes.No.
- Thread starter xxnightlawxx
- Start date
Yeah its all right 
Not as good as the orginal 2 but a decent update though it really should be Fallout revamp as opposed to fallout 3. I found the VATS system didn't work as well as i had hoped you can't really use it all the time and no real decent sniping but every game has its faults and these are only small.
Not as good as the orginal 2 but a decent update though it really should be Fallout revamp as opposed to fallout 3. I found the VATS system didn't work as well as i had hoped you can't really use it all the time and no real decent sniping but every game has its faults and these are only small.
I did not like it. it bored me to tears and I felt sleepy after playing it for a good amount at a friends. Went through main quest parts and all the other side stuff and I found it a rather dull uninspiring game for me. The combat felt real clunky to me, the pace of the game was SLOW and I found characters rather annoying. Well I didn't like oblivion so I guess I was bound not to like this game. I really dislike it, but then again aside from a few games, I have always hated western RPG's as they were just dull, dull, dull for me. I can see why some may like it and I will not dispute what awards and praise it does get, just not my cup of tea.
No, I didn't. That's why they're called side quests, because you don't have to do them. If you can beat a game in 10 minutes (IE. Fallout) then the game is short, no matter how many irrelevant side quests surround it.Tattaglia said:
I'm on the fence about Fallout 3. On its own merit it's a fine game. Good ambiance, decent setting, lots to do. Granted, the main quest goes kinda quick and you'll miss out on a lot if you just follow the jellybean trail you're left as it shuts things down once you're done.. but that's a different issue.
On the other hand, as a Fallout game? I'm not so fond of it. It fails to live up to Fallout 2, which frankly is kinda what I was hoping for. I would argue it doesn't even really live up to Fallout 1. There are a lot of things that are missing, the two biggest being Explanation and the Endgame Rundown. To wit -
Explanation - both of the previous Fallout games did a pretty good job explaining where things came from and how they got to where they are now. Particularly the game's iconic badguys, the super mutants. They didn't just spring up out of nowhere and were generally violent, mindless dickjobs. They were created by the Master at Mariposa. No Master, no super mutants. Fallout 3's super mutants were just kinda.. there. No explanation, not even a basic one. They just were, now get to shootin'. That's sloppy. It wouldn't have been difficult to drop even just a side quest in that explains that the Master, when he was getting the whole mutant army thing rolling, sent one of his lieutenants back east to secure what he thought were essential resources. Master gets cakked and the Lt (when he finds out), as he's still a big believer in the cause, decides he's going to be the next Master and starts up the dipping program again. And that's just off the top of my head. But we didn't even get that much.
Endgame Rundown - Simple staple of the series. After you beat the game during the outro there's a brief mention of the places you've visited and what happened to them at some point in the future as a result of the things you've done. It's a great narrative tool that really makes you feel like you've had an impact on the world, one way or another. Not all of them are good.. sometimes a place just has problems that can't be fixed by one man. But that's okay. Fallout 3 didn't even have that. We just get some fruity blurb about the value of sacrifice and following in the footsteps of our father, fade out, roll credits. It was very unsatisfying.
Ultimately Fallout 3 was a decent game.. but it frankly needed some work in order to live up to its franchise.
On the other hand, as a Fallout game? I'm not so fond of it. It fails to live up to Fallout 2, which frankly is kinda what I was hoping for. I would argue it doesn't even really live up to Fallout 1. There are a lot of things that are missing, the two biggest being Explanation and the Endgame Rundown. To wit -
Explanation - both of the previous Fallout games did a pretty good job explaining where things came from and how they got to where they are now. Particularly the game's iconic badguys, the super mutants. They didn't just spring up out of nowhere and were generally violent, mindless dickjobs. They were created by the Master at Mariposa. No Master, no super mutants. Fallout 3's super mutants were just kinda.. there. No explanation, not even a basic one. They just were, now get to shootin'. That's sloppy. It wouldn't have been difficult to drop even just a side quest in that explains that the Master, when he was getting the whole mutant army thing rolling, sent one of his lieutenants back east to secure what he thought were essential resources. Master gets cakked and the Lt (when he finds out), as he's still a big believer in the cause, decides he's going to be the next Master and starts up the dipping program again. And that's just off the top of my head. But we didn't even get that much.
Endgame Rundown - Simple staple of the series. After you beat the game during the outro there's a brief mention of the places you've visited and what happened to them at some point in the future as a result of the things you've done. It's a great narrative tool that really makes you feel like you've had an impact on the world, one way or another. Not all of them are good.. sometimes a place just has problems that can't be fixed by one man. But that's okay. Fallout 3 didn't even have that. We just get some fruity blurb about the value of sacrifice and following in the footsteps of our father, fade out, roll credits. It was very unsatisfying.
Ultimately Fallout 3 was a decent game.. but it frankly needed some work in order to live up to its franchise.
Love the setting, gameplay's okay, and I HATE how little respect Bethesda showed to the setting with it's stiff, boring NPCs and horrendous story.
The problem with the level is that at 20 I wasn't being challenged by any enemies anymore. I could take on three deathclaws at a time just through strategy and stats. When they add the new level cap I demand some turbo enemies.Tattaglia said:
ps. to the crash bandicoot 3 thing...second.
Maybe.
Shouldn't this be a poll, anyway?
Me, I hope the current trend will continue until all non-Fallout 3 threads die the death they so richely deserve for daring to discuss any other topic.
Shouldn't this be a poll, anyway?
Me, I hope the current trend will continue until all non-Fallout 3 threads die the death they so richely deserve for daring to discuss any other topic.
Second?! Lies!! Maybe you should try fighting Deathclaws on Very Hard mode. Even on level 20 it's quite difficult. Hell, try exterminating Old Olney if you dare.jboking said:
That's like eating the icing of a delicious cake, then saying the cake was shit because there wasn't much icing. If you don't play the sidequests in an open-world RPG, you're not playing the whole game, and therefore can't say it is bad.GenHellspawn said:
It's actually more like taking a bite of a half-baked cake and refusing to eat more because it tastes bad. Just finishing the game was bad enough. Now you want me to do the side quests?Tattaglia said:
Yes..........
Ok I had never even heard of Fallout Franchise until recently because when the first 2 came out I was still a toddler. But anyway I when I first heard about Fallout 3 I was just totally shocked it blew my mind (ok not really) I had first played oblivion back in 2006 and I loved it and still played until Fallout 3 came out. Now it may be true that fallout 3 is oblivion with guns but that isn't a bad thing it takes what oblivion started and makes it better like Oblivion 2.0. So ya I liked it if you can't tell by this pic
<---
Ok I had never even heard of Fallout Franchise until recently because when the first 2 came out I was still a toddler. But anyway I when I first heard about Fallout 3 I was just totally shocked it blew my mind (ok not really) I had first played oblivion back in 2006 and I loved it and still played until Fallout 3 came out. Now it may be true that fallout 3 is oblivion with guns but that isn't a bad thing it takes what oblivion started and makes it better like Oblivion 2.0. So ya I liked it if you can't tell by this pic
<---
Well there is like 20-30 side quests, thats not really that much, but all of the quests has 3 different ways to end so then, and well you got the search for the bubbleheads witch actually is very fun, and you can do alot, like scavanging and exploring, but I actually cleared the game in under 24 hours doing all the quests, and finding everysingle bubblehead, in Oblivion there is more than 150 sidequests! thats counting with Knights of the nine and Shivering isles.Xanadu84 said:
but yeah, I know what you mean when you say you miss the good ol' RPGs there is just so few made these days, almost only online 2D games, Bethesa games and Final Fantasy... at least that I can remember just now....
