Fallout 3 not a 'proper' Fallout game?

[LordRoyal]

I still remember buying the game on release date on Steam

That's probably the problem right there. Almost everyone I know who complains about bugs played it on PC. Odd.

You do realize that with regards to consoles they're easier to bugtest for because you only have one hardware configuration to optimize for. With the PC you have literally hundreds.

And yet Obsidian released the game entirely broken upon release until they released a patch literally weeks later that made the game playable. I still remember seeing one of the developers issue an apology about it.

I mean yeah I can see how the original fallout is great nad everything...but I dont think I could sit down and play it

When I first started to play the original Fallout the first thing that came to mind was it reminded me of Starcraft, with just 1 unit you move around and you could change how much damage his weapon did, and that it was turn based.

That was it, people tend to think of Fallout 1 and 2 as if they were these big relics of the past that are completely unplayable by today's standards. Yet people still play Baldur's Gate regularly even though it's a significantly more unforgiving game to play.

 

[Chibz]

You do realize that with regards to consoles they're easier to bugtest for because you only have one hardware configuration to optimize for. With the PC you have literally hundreds.

And yet Obsidian released the game entirely broken upon release until they released a patch literally weeks later that made the game playable. I still remember seeing one of the developers issue an apology about it.

I'm aware, but I was't saying odd about the fact that bugs were almost exclusively experienced on PC.

Although I can actually understand not spending a lot of money on bugtesting the PC version...

 

[LordRoyal]

You do realize that with regards to consoles they're easier to bugtest for because you only have one hardware configuration to optimize for. With the PC you have literally hundreds.

And yet Obsidian released the game entirely broken upon release until they released a patch literally weeks later that made the game playable. I still remember seeing one of the developers issue an apology about it.

I'm aware, but I was't saying odd about the fact that bugs were almost exclusively experienced on PC.

Although I can actually understand not spending a lot of money on bugtesting the PC version...

How? It completely slaps fans in the face. Especially considering the fact other developers release games that run properly without patches.

It's all to do with how Bethesda coded Gamebryo pretty retardedly, while Obsidian did try their best making New Vegas work they should have at least spent another month fixing it instead of just asking the fans to fix the game themselves temporarily.

 

[C95J]

I've never played Fallout 1 or 2. But if I am going to be honest, I don't really see that much of a difference between Fallout 3 or New Vegas. Fallout 3 is one of my all time favourite games, and I am currently 50 hours into a playthrough of New Vegas. Both games are brilliant, but both feel the same as well, apart from obvious gameplay changes. E.g. Aiming down sights, Hardcore mode, companion wheel.

 

[Chibz]

How? It completely slaps fans in the face. Especially considering the fact other developers release games that run properly without patches.

It's all to do with how Bethesda coded Gamebryo pretty retardedly, while Obsidian did try their best making New Vegas work they should have at least spent another month fixing it instead of just asking the fans to fix the game themselves temporarily.

TBH they have to fix it where the money is. It's basic financial sense. Please disregard the PMs, it's way too late and I'm way too tired.

 

[StormShaun]

Fallout 3 feels to me a proper game, New vages just feels like a add on, Fallout 3 had better story, gameplay, less gliches...muhc better then NV.

 

[ChupathingyX]

Fallout 3 feels to me a proper game, New vages just feels like a add on, Fallout 3 had better story, gameplay, less gliches...muhc better then NV.

Care to put some more reasoning behind that? Not onyl does Fallout 3 have a horrible ending and a story that is way too narrowly focused on the player, but New Vegas improved on gameplay in almost every way (ADS, repairing, survival, properly organised weapons, bullet types, less OP VATS, special melee attacks, different unarmed moves etc), glitches change from player to player plus you have to consider it was Betehsda's crappy, unstable engine in the first place.

 

[Chibz]

Care to put some more reasoning behind that? Not onyl does Fallout 3 have a horrible ending and a story that is way too narrowly focused on the player, but New Vegas improved on gameplay in almost every way (ADS, repairing, survival, properly organised weapons, bullet types, less OP VATS, special melee attacks, different unarmed moves etc)

I'd actually say that New Vegas had more ridiculous stuff going on. Man, some of the stories from me playing new vegas... Most of them involve explosions and killing Caesar. How strange.

Spoiler: In case you don't care

Recently (last night in fact) I killed benny in New Vegas. Got the chip. Went along with Caesar just to get in his area easily. When they returned Raul & my weapons I threw a couple of grenades tactically. Blew up the four guards in the room, and injured Raul an myself severely. Healed us using a couple of stim packs. Then went on a rampage throughout up to Caesar. Entered his tent, exited. Killed every single one of his guards as they exited, one by one.

Got bored. Left.

Believe it or not, but my character has max karma.

Open question: I wiped out almost every Legion encampment on the map. I killed most of their important leaders/etc. And house. And almost all house's robots on the map.

So... Who would the NCR be fighting over the Dam again?

 

[ChupathingyX]

Open question: I wiped out almost every Legion encampment on the map. I killed most of their important leaders/etc. And house. And almost all house's robots on the map.

So... Who would the NCR be fighting over the Dam again?

Well my question wasn't aimed at you but anyway...

Oh and to answer your question not every Legionary is stationed at Hoover Dam, they do bring in more soldiers from other Legion held areas as the story advances, plus unless you used mods or something you wouldn't have killed Lanius.

 

[Chibz]

Oh and to answer your question not every Legionary is stationed at Hoover Dam, they do bring in more soldiers from other Legion held areas as the story advances, plus unless you used mods or something you wouldn't have killed Lanius.

It's more that with so many of their troops (and leader) utterly annihilated (BY TWO PEOPLE) their moral would be in the gutter. Especially knowing that they'd end up fighting these two people at the dam.

I'm just sayin', at that level of obliteration there really shouldn't be much of a battle.

 

[ChupathingyX]

It's more that with so many of their troops (and leader) utterly annihilated (BY TWO PEOPLE) their moral would be in the gutter. Especially knowing that they'd end up fighting these two people at the dam.

I'm just sayin', at that level of obliteration there really shouldn't be much of a battle.

Legionaries are trained hard since they are children, they know no fear or respite, they long for battle and they enjoy it ("I can't wait to get sent across the river").

Also consider that these are guys who charge into battle wearing American football gear and wielding mainly melee weapons.

Also Caesar is only the political and ideological leader of the Legion, Legate Lanius is in charge of all the militray affairs during the Second Battle of Hoover Dam. Ther are even characters in New Vegas who think that even without Caesar the Legion will still march to Hoover Dam eiher way.

 

[Anti-American Eagle]

Yes... well fallout 3 was good, it was missing the humour.

Only thing I have to say to you is "A vault filled with Gary clones".


Funny is in the eye of the beholder.

OT: Naturally, it's 'different' in some way. It's the other end of the United States and the first time Fallout's in 3D. But arguments against the game being proper are ultimately pointless. This isn't "No Mutants Allowed", so we're not closed-minded pains in the ass.

You don't understand what I meant, I liked fallout 3 but it was much much too dark, fallout is funny as in weirdness, and dark humour, fallout 3 missed parts of the atmosphere that fallout naturally exudes.

Edit: plus ive already done gary, I enjoyed the first two, waited for van buren (it never came), then played throught three (thoroughly), and enjoyed new vegas for the humour and the variety, im not trying to start an argument, I just wanted to explain my pint

 

[Anti-American Eagle]

Yes... well fallout 3 was good, it was missing the humour.

Fallout 3 was a great game on it's own, but the writing was bad. The dialogue was atrocious, the story was rubbish, and it just felt completely out of the rest of the Fallout universe.

You guys are perfectly right. Gameplay wise, fallout 3 was great, but the writing completely threw me.

The story lacked, but wasn't terrible, but it was just missing the feeling the first two had, unfortunately new vegas didn't capture the epic feeling that the first two had. Nobodys relying on you in vegas... your pivotal but not required.

 

[Gorilla Gunk]

Is this about the whole Enclave thing?

Are you guys still not over that?

 

[FalloutJack]

-Stuck Inna GECK-

Nah nah nah, I understand perfectly. What we have here is mileage deciding to vary between us. It's all cool, man. I found it more funny, that's all.

Is this about the whole Enclave thing?

Are you guys still not over that?

Out of curiosity, and because I'm wearing the powersuit, whachu talkin' 'bout, Gorilla?

 

[ChupathingyX]

Is this about the whole Enclave thing?

Are you guys still not over that?

Oh trust me there are many more reasons, that's just one.

 

[Hong Meiling]

Fallout 3, despite all its shortcomings, was pretty okay to play!
So even if it isn't the same deal as FO1 and 2 I would not want someone to try to be just like 1 and 2 (and probably fail/feel like a rehash.).

 

[chuckman1]

Yes... well fallout 3 was good, it was missing the humour.

Only thing I have to say to you is "A vault filled with Gary clones".


Funny is in the eye of the beholder.

OT: Naturally, it's 'different' in some way. It's the other end of the United States and the first time Fallout's in 3D. But arguments against the game being proper are ultimately pointless. This isn't "No Mutants Allowed", so we're not closed-minded pains in the ass.

Haha that's hillarious.
Personally I liked Fallout 3 but agree with many people it was a bit too serious most of the time.

 

[ChupathingyX]

Haha that's hillarious.
Personally I liked Fallout 3 but agree with many people it was a bit too serious most of the time.

Really? I thought it was being too stupid most of the time.

There was none of the political and social aspects that made Fallout 1 and New Vegas great.

Fallout 3 tried too hard to be funny and failed (Little Lamplight).

 

[Kashrlyyk]

...
Fallout 3 is still a proper Fallout game.....

No, it is not. They completely destroyed the character and skill system. There is a video where someone makes the worst unarmed combat fighter that is possible in Fallout 3 and then beats up 3 raiders on hard difficulty. Chance to hit? Over 80% as shown in VATS!!! Good luck trying that on any of the proper fallout games.

The character system is a very important part of a RPG.