Fallout 3 Review...By Tavenos

tavenos

New member
Jan 30, 2009
46
0
0
Ok guys, this is my first review so stay with me.

Intro: About a year or so ago I read about Fallout 3 in a friends issue of Game Informer, and from then on this became my most anticipated game of 08. Take this lightly, because not many other games interested me at that moment. So fast foward a year, and I hear about these videos demonstrating the gameplay and I am once again hyped. I counted down until it released, but unfortunatly, I didn't buy it until 2 months after it hit stores. So now after beating the game, I present to you: The following few paragraphs.

Graphics: I suggest that you don't take this part of the review too seriously, because I don't have a good machine running it. I played Fallout 3 on low settings with "Fade" (pop up) on a generally low setting. So needless to say, it was laggy, the textures were big, and pop up was abundant. However, I did go into Ultra quality for a few frames, and the game looked pretty good. Since I don't have a fair perspective on this, I can't give it a score.

Story: Fallout 3 is called an RPG, and while it has the elements of gameplay, it doesn't exactly have the story that is expected from the genre. There are plenty of holes, ridiculous characters and twists, and almost no character development at all. I'm serious, the development is one step shy of nonexistant. You will see many characters who may seem interesting at first glance, but 80 percent of the NPC's have 10 lines of dialogue, maximum. The 20 percent that talk don't have many interesting stuff to say.

For example, there is this woman name Moira Brown in a town not far from where you begin. She has perhaps the most dialogue in the entire game, but she is actually just a shop owner who sends you on a variety of missions. You get a basic story about her (very basic: she trades with caravans. Yeah, thats all), and all the rest are instructions, comments about you/her (just "you don't look too good" or "the dust is perfectly safe to breathe", and other one liners). These characters lack depth entirely, and are as minimally developed as possible.

As for the plot itself, its not too interesting. Heres a quick summary: *minor spoilers*

You are cast from Vault 101, where you have spent all your life, in order to search for your father. You quickly learn that you were born out in the wasteland, and you were only brought to the vault for your safety. When you meet up with ol' pops, he tells you that he was trying to purify all the radiated water with a giant Water Purifyer. To do this however, you need to find the GECK, which is a terraforming tool used to create life and such, but you never actually use it.

The main story is miraculously short, and consists of only this: Finding info, going to where dad is, going to water purifyer, going to geck, doing *spoiler*, going back, end game.


Gameplay: There is an abundance of things to do in the game, all in the form of quests. The wasteland is interesting and all, but there really isn't anything to do there other than finding people to shoot or finding people to tell you to shoot/fetch. The quest system is much more fun than I make it out to be, but it lacks substance. There are some things you can do while other than quests, such as collecting books for caps, collecting ID tags for caps, collecting technology for caps, collecting blood for caps, collecting cereal for caps, collecting american history for caps, collecting metal for caps, etc. So basically, your just going from place to place to get various jobs to do. But that's normal for a video game, so thats Ok. Not quite as OK for an RPG, but its still OK.

Combat is interesting, as there are two ways of carrying it out. You can use normal FPS controls, and shoot normally. Or you can use a system called VATS, in which time is frozen, you are rendered nearly godlike, and your chance of hitting someone is dictated by how much skill you've devoted to whatever weapon you have. In VATS, you target indidual body parts in order to kill your opponent. You can sometimes have fun with them by shooting their legs and watching them walk like they have some type of polio, but that is usually proceeded by blowing their heads off in an explosion of eyes, brains, and jawbones. So the most effective thing is to just aim for the head, which is has the same percentage as every other body part unless it is obstructed by some part of the environment. If you want to go at the game in a regular FPS style mode, you can, but the weapons don't feel powerful and unless your aim is perfect, you really are better off going into the invincible VATS mode. Enemies themselves vary in strength, and some get somewhat stronger as you get more powerful. There is also a stealth aspect, but it sucks. Sorry for being blunt, but thats the truth. The AI will either notice you from a mile away, or stand right if your face spouting the same lines. Even if you do have the patience to do the painfully awkward stealth, you don't get any experience for doing so, and all you DO get is a critical hit that is likely to piss whoever your shooting off and call one and a half dozens green giants to pummel you with their mechanical sledge hammers.

The RPG aspects of this game consists of leveling up and choosing perks every time you go up a level. There are 20 levels in total, and in each one you are awarded a varying amount of skill points depending on your level of intelligence (and some other things). These skill points can be used on any...skills, such as small weapons, large weapons, energy weapons, explosives, healing, speech, and so on. Skills relating to combat determine your accuracy in VATS the weapons overall damage. Speech skills can give you lower prices, increased dialogue options, and ways to complete quests. There are other skills that focus on specifics like repair, which determines how well you can take care of your gun.

I give gameplay a 7/10

Conclusion: To me, this game was a big dissapointment. It was too short, too linear (hard to believe, right?), and too boring. Overall, I give this game a 6.5/10.


P.S. As I said, first review. Kind of sloppy, and also a spur of the moment thing, but let me know what you think.
 

quack35

New member
Sep 1, 2008
2,197
0
0
Hmm, a 6.5? Seems a little harsh. Oh well, your opinion. Not a bad review. Went more in depth than most.
 

ellimist337

New member
Sep 30, 2008
500
0
0
Pretty good first review; you bring up some excellent points. The only argument I have is that There are enough side missions that lengthen gameplay that it didn't feel short or linear to me. Granted, they had little to do with the main story, and some were downright frivolous or ridiculous, but it was still a lot of gameplay. Good job.
 

ZippyDSMlee

New member
Sep 1, 2007
3,959
0
0
6.5 is abut right. The game is simply rushed and under developed and it shows it far more than Bioshock which had holes in its gameplay,AI designs.


Bioshock has a more linear story and dailog which dose fair a bit better in those respects FO3 dose have good level layout design but that is what they spent the most time on it seems.

In the end FPO3 is bland and shallow, it did have its moments and did keep me entertained for a week or so 30 hours in 3 to 6 hours a day. I didn't finish it as I switched to modding since the game got old,stale(buggy as hell with missing NCPs) and the flaws more apparent.

Modern gaming in the 7th generation has been an almost utter disappointment for me system wide.
 

Alex_P

All I really do is threadcrap
Mar 27, 2008
2,712
0
0
tavenos said:
Fallout 3 is called an RPG, and while it has the elements of gameplay, it doesn't exactly have the story that is expected from the genre. There are plenty of holes, ridiculous characters and twists, and almost no character development at all.
Sounds like a pretty standard RPG to me. ;)

-- Alex
 

Looking For Alaska

New member
Jan 5, 2009
416
0
0
Nice to see someone give an average(right?) score to fallout 3. It seems everyone either loves it or hates it.

I disagree with some of your points but if I marked you down for having different opinions I'd be a bastard.

Solid review.
 

runedeadthA

New member
Feb 18, 2009
437
0
0
Quite a Fair review (though i personally like Fallout 3) it presents points and backs them up with a bit of evidence (more then quite a few of these reviewers do) and judges them according to your feeling on the matter (and doesn't seem to be influence by Popular opinion), maybe a few comments which seemed a bi unfair to me but so as not to sound like a dick i won't complain, I'm probably a bit biased.

Summed up: A good review with its opinions backed up, but society dictates that i must hate you for not liking a game that i do ;p.

Review score: 8.5/10
 

tavenos

New member
Jan 30, 2009
46
0
0
Well guys, thanks a lot for replying. I sort of wish I had gone more in depth about the gameplay though, because I forgot many things like stimpaks and those other small details. If I had written this review 2-3 weeks earlier, I would have given it about a 8 because I had never played a game this big, save for GTA.

And no, I don't have a "bad review" gimmick. I just believe that FO3 could have had tons more depth. Once you get the anticipation out of the way, every game reveals it's flaws and I just think Fallout had more than most.
 

McClaud

New member
Nov 2, 2007
923
0
0
I'm surprised there aren't more No Mutants Allowed twinks hanging out to say you're too NICE for a 6.5 score.

It kept me busy for days just wandering around, enjoying the exploration. I gave FO3 a 7.5 out of 10, and I have no problem with it having the Fallout name attached to it (unlike some asshats who do).

Nice review.
 

Alex_P

All I really do is threadcrap
Mar 27, 2008
2,712
0
0
tavenos said:
I sort of wish I had gone more in depth about the gameplay though, because I forgot many things like stimpaks and those other small details.
Oh, the stimpaks! You just had to remind me. I absolutely hate the "pause the game and heal as much as you want" mechanic.

KOTOR had it, too, but I think that was more like an interface bug.

-- Alex
 

tavenos

New member
Jan 30, 2009
46
0
0
I don't see how a game that has medkits in any form can have any different system of doing so, other than having the medkit slowly give you health when activated. I don't know about many, or any, of those types either.

Also, I never played any of the earlier Fallout games until after I beat this one.
 

Alex_P

All I really do is threadcrap
Mar 27, 2008
2,712
0
0
tavenos said:
I don't see how a game that has medkits in any form can have any different system of doing so, other than having the medkit slowly give you health when activated. I don't know about many, or any, of those types either.
Most games that let you carry healing stuff have you healed instantly but make using that healing item into an in-game action that takes a certain amount of time. If you heal yourself using the normal interface in KOTOR, it takes a "round" of combat. Ditto for Baldur's Gate, Final Fantasy games, &c. In Fallout 3 you can just pop open the inventory screen, use three stimpaks, and then go back to fighting immediately. Using the stimpak is basically an instantaneous action that doesn't impair you in any way.

-- Alex
 

McClaud

New member
Nov 2, 2007
923
0
0
Alex_P said:
tavenos said:
I don't see how a game that has medkits in any form can have any different system of doing so, other than having the medkit slowly give you health when activated. I don't know about many, or any, of those types either.
Most games that let you carry healing stuff have you healed instantly but make using that healing item into an in-game action that takes a certain amount of time. If you heal yourself using the normal interface in KOTOR, it takes a "round" of combat. Ditto for Baldur's Gate, Final Fantasy games, &c. In Fallout 3 you can just pop open the inventory screen, use three stimpaks, and then go back to fighting immediately. Using the stimpak is basically an instantaneous action that doesn't impair you in any way.

-- Alex
Well, you could do that in the first two Fallout games, so they tried to emulate that into the third. While not exactly satisfying, it actually helped since I didn't have to RELOAD my previous save if I screwed up. I could "heal" myself enough to get through my blunder.
 

tavenos

New member
Jan 30, 2009
46
0
0
But that mechanic only works on turn based games, right? I haven't played KOTOR so I'm not sure how that works, but if it has rounds it must be somewhat turnbased. Same goes for Baldur's Gate. In any type of FPS, the healing has to be instant because there is no system for doing it other than the one I mentioned above.
 

Stryker Z

New member
Feb 20, 2009
13
0
0
tavenos said:
But that mechanic only works on turn based games, right? I haven't played KOTOR so I'm not sure how that works, but if it has rounds it must be somewhat turnbased. Same goes for Baldur's Gate. In any type of FPS, the healing has to be instant because there is no system for doing it other than the one I mentioned above.
I find it quite possible for them to have you go back into the game or combat to stick a needle into your arm and make an injection with the Stimpak. You know, stick it in your arm and actually get healed from an injection, not from a choice on a menu. It might be neat to see you pop out some pills to take Mentats, and stuff like that.

-- Z
 

Alex_P

All I really do is threadcrap
Mar 27, 2008
2,712
0
0
tavenos said:
But that mechanic only works on turn based games, right? I haven't played KOTOR so I'm not sure how that works, but if it has rounds it must be somewhat turnbased. Same goes for Baldur's Gate. In any type of FPS, the healing has to be instant because there is no system for doing it other than the one I mentioned above.
You can just use an animation to time it. Like the one you see for reloading a weapon (or drawing a weapon). Imagine if using a stimpak or other power-up triggered a short animation of you jabbing yourself in the thigh/shoulder/arm.

KOTOR and BG are both real-time with an underlying individual turn structure -- each character has their own little turn counter which paces the movement. And you can pause to give commands to characters. They're not all that different from Fallout 3 (though looking at the way some of the mods work leads me to believe that Bethesda basically cheated a little and the engine is really just real-time-y but they freeze you in place for a few seconds after you do something in VATS).

-- Alex
 

hearty0

New member
Jul 22, 2008
115
0
0
Stryker Z said:
I find it quite possible for them to have you go back into the game or combat to stick a needle into your arm and make an injection with the Stimpak. You know, stick it in your arm and actually get healed from an injection, not from a choice on a menu. It might be neat to see you pop out some pills to take Mentats, and stuff like that.

-- Z
You should try suggesting this idea at fallout 3 nexus. If it hasn't already been done then someone might be willing to make it. Maybe you think a game shouldn't need mods, but I've have the extended death cam just so I can see my guy hit the ground after being nuked.
 

Alex_P

All I really do is threadcrap
Mar 27, 2008
2,712
0
0
hearty0 said:
You should try suggesting this idea at fallout 3 nexus. If it hasn't already been done then someone might be willing to make it. Maybe you think a game shouldn't need mods, but I've have the extended death cam just so I can see my guy hit the ground after being nuked.
I find about one third of the games I play unplayable without at least some light modding. ;)

-- Alex