Fallout 3 not a 'proper' Fallout game?
- Thread starter Hotshots
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Fallout 3 was a great game! Fallout New Vegas sucks big time. I enjoy playing evil characters but there's no way you can do that in FNV.
You can try but you will reach a point where it's impossible to continue unless you do some "good" deeds.
I don't even know why they let you choose to play the game as an evil character when it is obvious that the developers don't want you to.
I absolutely hated New Vegas!
You can try but you will reach a point where it's impossible to continue unless you do some "good" deeds.
I don't even know why they let you choose to play the game as an evil character when it is obvious that the developers don't want you to.
I absolutely hated New Vegas!
Fallout 3 was awesome. I say this as someone who played the first two ( Other fallout games? Never heard of them) I understand the moving of the series to the East coast so Beth' could get their own bearings without too much flak and the little changes. Obsidian simply improved on it.
What about helping the Brotherhood in Fallout 3? You can't do anything to harm them until the very end of Broken Steel, and you're forced to help them no matter how much of an evil bastard your character is.DarkHuntress said:
I only played 2 before 3 so maybe I'm missing things but I never found it that funny. I did laugh sometimes but the same with 3. I must be odd. I completely agree that 3 does move away from the theme of how humanity rebuilds and instead is focused upon a more black and white tale. There is nothing IMHO wrong with this but I do prefer the other way of moral greyness.
That said I far prefered the gameplay. Way more. I just don't dig the turn based stuff.
I still think New Vegas is the best out of the lot of them (and you can ally with the bad guys which was never an option in 2 or 3)
That said I far prefered the gameplay. Way more. I just don't dig the turn based stuff.
I still think New Vegas is the best out of the lot of them (and you can ally with the bad guys which was never an option in 2 or 3)
Less not forget that Fallout 1&2 had an incredible atmospheric sound track that was unique to the game and each location had its own sound track compared to Fallout 3 and New Vegas which had all the sound track scattered about and the majority of the music are older songs thrown into the game instead of composed for the game like in 1&2.
I just played it as an evil character a month or two ago. It was easy to do. You have to go through a lot of the same quests as with the other ways, but you're given choices in how you complete them. You can backstab almost everyone you meet, and in a glorious fashion.DarkHuntress said:
Like the time I met a guy, then killed him, cooked him, served him at a banquet full of unsuspecting guests, and framed his father for the murder.
Its funny, but I've never really seen the humor in the old games. Not really sure why, perhaps because I'm a little too young and all that. Personally I preferred Arcanum to Fallout 1/2 but that's just me. Then again, I prefer fallout 3 over New Vegas for one particular reason. Sure the writing was terrible, and sure, some of the lore didn't quite match up.
But it brought it back. Despite the faction and such system that was in New Vegas, I like to think that you made more of a difference in fallout three. I mean, you can single handedly destroy an entire region/wipe it out of life and not in the stupid 'team up with an idiot to cliche rebuild the world' type thing. You can simply wipe it all out, just for the fun of it.
Its not like you'd personally care after all. Throw in the fact that without fallout three there would never be new Vegas, and that New Vegas often felt like an expansion of three without many changes and all that. Three had more fun exploring, and more genius bonus type things in comparison to New Vegas as well.
It might not be a proper fallout game in comparison to the first two, but then unlike New Vegas, it didn't follow through on the incredibly bugginess of the first two either.
Plus Three Dog was superior to Mr New Vegas easily. He played better music.
But it brought it back. Despite the faction and such system that was in New Vegas, I like to think that you made more of a difference in fallout three. I mean, you can single handedly destroy an entire region/wipe it out of life and not in the stupid 'team up with an idiot to cliche rebuild the world' type thing. You can simply wipe it all out, just for the fun of it.
Its not like you'd personally care after all. Throw in the fact that without fallout three there would never be new Vegas, and that New Vegas often felt like an expansion of three without many changes and all that. Three had more fun exploring, and more genius bonus type things in comparison to New Vegas as well.
It might not be a proper fallout game in comparison to the first two, but then unlike New Vegas, it didn't follow through on the incredibly bugginess of the first two either.
Plus Three Dog was superior to Mr New Vegas easily. He played better music.
meh, Fallout 3 beat the hell out of New Vegas in terms of environments and atmosphere (though, I can't speak for vanilla...I installed about 20 mods before I started playing), so in terms of quality, it's more of a proper Fallout game than Obsidian's mess. Writing sucked, but that's Bethseda for you. I don't see how either FO3 or New Vegas were in any way similar to FO1/2, so I suppose neither are a "proper" fallout game.
Fallout 1/2 were good games, but they're so overrated. BG2, Arcanum, and Black Isle's own Planescape Torment are all much better games
+1Sucal said:
Fallout 1/2 were good games, but they're so overrated. BG2, Arcanum, and Black Isle's own Planescape Torment are all much better games
DustyDrB said:
How did you ever finish the job Ceaser sends you on? You have to talk to one of his men who is working for the NCR ( can't remember their acronym) yet the NCR sees you as a terriorist, if you are playing evil, and they shoot you on sight! So how can you complete the mission if you can't even start it?
Nope Fallout New Vegas is a lemon all wrapped up in a shiny little package for those who want to be good.
Fallout 3 felt very cold to me, like who made it was crossing off ticks like "immersive intro" and "desolate world", "mutated stuff" "future of tommorow", etc.
That's because New Vegas focuses a lot more on grey morality, not "Darth Vader, baby eating evil" vs "Altruistic, Jesus descending holiness" that we found in Fallout 3, anyone with basic grammar and half a brain can write black vs white morality.DarkHuntress said:
e.g: I walk into a town, the sheriff wants me to stop a bunch of bandits who are killing people for lulz, however, the bandits said that if I murder the sheriff and all the townspeople I will be given a large reward.
That's the kind of black vs white morality you find in F3, simple, boring and obvious. In New Vegas the morality is more complicated and usually comes down to personal preference and what you think is right and wrong, not what the game does, the ending decision in Honest Hearts is a good example; neither choices are perfectly good or bad, they both have pros and cons and it depends on what you think is better.
You're wrong about the dumb-dumbs never being explained. It's in the holodisks in Vault 87 discussing how the variant of FEV they had also led to severe mental degradation. Then in New Vegas it's further explained that the mutants that were simply virus induced were grossly inferior to the vat dipped mutants.blindthrall said:
As for the feral ghouls, I won't have any explaination you'd accept. Who knows, maybe because it's further on the timeline more ghouls went feral. Or conditions in the Capital waste were different, much like with the mutants. I'm not about to say FO3 is perfect. But it is a proper Fallout in theme and application.
Well clearly it must be, because you say so. Your word is God, and differing opinions are VERBOTEN. Get off your high horse. Fallout was never hard, and yes, you COULD beat the game in the worst armor possible. How do I know? Because I've actually done it. Start to finish, wearing nothing but Vault suit.Kashrlyyk said:
Oh, and simply mentioning VATS to prove your point proves nothing. Pretty much everyone will agree the damage immunity in VATS was an awful idea, which is why New Vegas removed it.
1) I never use the word "armor" in my reply at all. That was probably the worst attempt at a strawman argument I've have seen in my life.Jennacide said:
2) I never talked about the "damage immunity" in VATS at all, too.
What I talked about is this: The mentioned character used a weapon he was terrible at. In fact you can not make a character that would be worse at using that particular weapon. On top of that he is the physically weakest possible character you can make, which means he will deal the lowest amount of damage each hit, he will miss with most of his attacks and he will die as fast as it is possible in Fallout 3.
Just to summarize: Strength AND Endurance at 1!!! No skill points in melee fighting at all, he had a skill level of 8 in unarmed combat, I think. Hardest difficulty setting the game allows and obviously the character fights unarmed.
In the three real Fallout games, Fallout 1, 2 and even Tactics, he would be killed by the first pistol using human enemy he encounters, probably earlier. Why? Because the character is the shittiest unarmed fighter in the world and you expect someone like that to NOT WIN against other fighters.
But in what Bethesda called Fallout 3 that character wins against 3(!!!!!) pistol using human fighters! Even though he is the worst unarmed fighter in the world he still has a chance to hit of over 80%! If the worst fighter has an 80% chance to hit (the chance to hit would be around or lower than 30% in the 3 real Fallout games), what's the chance to hit for a slightly less shitty unarmed fighter? 95%??? The character system in Fallout 3 is completely a joke. And it gets worse.
There are 25 skill books for EVERY SKILL, another +10% to every skill from "bobbleheads", +1 to all attributes again through "bobbleheads". Now remember all skills are capped at 100%! So you can raise every skill by 35 to 60% (if you have a certain perk) without spending a single skill point. On average the skills start at around 19%! So on average you can have every skill at 79% without spending a single skill point! I think in total you can max out around 7 of the 13 skills and the rest is really close to 100% too.
If a character system doesn't allow the player to create a character that is really shit at something it is a bad character system.
Its nothing to do with "themes", or "engine" or first person "perspectives" to me. Fallout 3 to me just felt like "Bethesdas attempt at a Fallout game". There is nothing wrong with that, it just didnt feel like "true" Fallout.
Playing New Vegas, that felt more like Fallout to me.
Its not a slight against Fallout 3 (well not much), it has certain things going better for it than NV, and vice versa.
Ultimately though, now whenever I get that "Fallout" craving, I go to New Vegas. Not just for the great updates, and things like Hardcore mode. Just because its more "Fallout" to me.
Plus the main story of Fallout 3 is shit, and in a series with crappy stories like Fallout 1 and Fallout 2, thats saying something. (I saw too many parallels between 3's plot and the first two games, large parts of which ultimately boiled down to overarching fetch quests in the form of the water chip/GECK).
However, Fallout 1 & 2 offered that great "wasteland character" and lore that I love. Fallout 3 just offers a nice square shaped wasteland to explore which, typical of Bethesda is well crafted.
But Id much rather get lost in the Mojave and tangle with New Vegas' factions and actually *survive* in its wastes rather than just avoid getting killed in combat in the "capital wasteland".
Edit: Oh and from a storytelling point of view, New Vegas is the greatest thing ever to happen to the Fallout series. After 1, 2 and "3" I was sick to death of the "Forced Evolutionary Plot Device" (and that fucking GECK isnt much better). Glad to see it was kept to nothing but minor references in New Vegas.
Playing New Vegas, that felt more like Fallout to me.
Its not a slight against Fallout 3 (well not much), it has certain things going better for it than NV, and vice versa.
Ultimately though, now whenever I get that "Fallout" craving, I go to New Vegas. Not just for the great updates, and things like Hardcore mode. Just because its more "Fallout" to me.
Plus the main story of Fallout 3 is shit, and in a series with crappy stories like Fallout 1 and Fallout 2, thats saying something. (I saw too many parallels between 3's plot and the first two games, large parts of which ultimately boiled down to overarching fetch quests in the form of the water chip/GECK).
However, Fallout 1 & 2 offered that great "wasteland character" and lore that I love. Fallout 3 just offers a nice square shaped wasteland to explore which, typical of Bethesda is well crafted.
But Id much rather get lost in the Mojave and tangle with New Vegas' factions and actually *survive* in its wastes rather than just avoid getting killed in combat in the "capital wasteland".
Edit: Oh and from a storytelling point of view, New Vegas is the greatest thing ever to happen to the Fallout series. After 1, 2 and "3" I was sick to death of the "Forced Evolutionary Plot Device" (and that fucking GECK isnt much better). Glad to see it was kept to nothing but minor references in New Vegas.