Honest Game Trailers: Fallout 3

[UberThetan]

When it comes to the world being alive, the details of the lore don't really make sense, but if we're being completely honest, outside of a few tiny fields here and there, the same is true of Fallout 1 and 2. With how many people there are, even scaled up a good hundred or two times the fields couldn't feed them all.

That's taking the logistics to ridiculous levels that aren't really necessary. All you need is to show something that makes sense and scale it appropriately. There's no need for the developer to spend time on a huge map that's just a field of corn (unless there's a quest there) when they can just imply it's existence by having it go off the screen. The issue some have with F3 is that it put almost zero effort into that kind of thinking. Felt a bit like too much "rule of cool".

Plus, the simulation vs. theme park idea kind of falls flat when talking about Fallout 3 and New Vegas when one remembers how in Fallout 3 you can go anywhere, while in New Vegas the first 9 hours or so are pretty damn linear.

Preference, again. You probably enjoyed being able to go up against Super Mutants early on in the game, and hated getting gutted by Cazadores and Deathclaws in New Vegas. Fine, but for me it was exactly the opposite. New Vegas felt realer and more threatening to me, DC didn't.

Honestly, the fanboy outrage a lot of people have for Fallout 3 really isn't warranted. Its existence saved us from Brotherhood of Steel 2, which was in development, and unlike Van Buren it actually would have seen the light of day had Bethesda not stepped in.

There's no fanboy outrage, unless you're talking about a lament for a game never to be seen. At least on my part. But most of us are fairly level headed and willing to at least discuss it - no need to get iffy. I actually do appreciate that Fallout 3 exists because it gave us New Vegas which implemented a lot of ideas that Avellone had for Van Buren - so yay!

 

[Dalisclock]

Hey now... Fallout Tactics is actually an excellent Fallout game. It knew that it wasn't Fallout 3 and never claimed to be. It told a good story, was fun to play and was true to the setting. No it isn't as good as Fallout 1 or 2, but like I said, it knew it wasn't a sequel to those, rather a different style game in that setting.

I'll give you that it could be considered a good game. My issue was that it doesn't feel like a Fallout game. It feels like another game that's wearing a fallout skin, pretending to be a fallout game. None of the non-combat skills(except maybe barter) are remotely useful. Almost none of the plot elements are referenced in any of the other games. The squad system feels fairly flawed and having to barter for/find all of your equipment feels stupid considering you are working for the closest thing to an actual military left. It also feels like certain bits and pieces of the game were left on the cutting room floor(the game seems to hint at you going through basic training before working your way up through command. Instead you pretty much start out in command of a small squad and it just builds from there).

That and the whole mystery of the "threat from the west" seemed unnecessary. Was it really so hard for someone you meet to tell you that that's a horde of killer robots advancing from the Rockies? Instead, everyone just kind of tiptoes around it to make it more of a "surprise".

Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed the one time I played through it. But unlike all of the fallout games, I never felt a need to return to Tactics and it really doesn't feel like a fallout game to me.

 

[VincentX3]

Fallout 3 > New Vegas

Much more interesting world, better level design, better sidequests, better atmosphere. NV has a slightly better main story, though not by much. Overall, I played FO3 a ton of times, barely dragged myself through NV once. And that's as a fan of the original games.

"Better level design"

Aka better block everything and force people to use subway systems :^)

 

[Ogoid]

For me, there was only 2 real Fallouts. Van Buren would have been the real 3. Everything else is just Oblivion with guns. The series lost the intelligent black humor that made 1 and 2 so great.

Completely agreed.

I completely lost any interest in Fallout 3 a mere 3 or 4 hours into the game. Even disregarding the fact the only things Fallout about it are the name and setting, it just bored me out of my mind.

New Vegas, I'd heard good things even from people at No Mutants Allowed, but still, the moment I found myself pew-pew-pewing, Quake-style, at some incredibly poorly animated Powder Gangers I went "yeah, you know what, I don't think better writing's going to do anything for me; this still isn't anything I'd even remotely recognize as a Fallout game".

 

[Jandau]

Fallout 3 > New Vegas

Much more interesting world, better level design, better sidequests, better atmosphere. NV has a slightly better main story, though not by much. Overall, I played FO3 a ton of times, barely dragged myself through NV once. And that's as a fan of the original games.

"Better level design"

Aka better block everything and force people to use subway systems :^)

Only in the DC downtown areas. And it's still better than NV's linear map that corralled you in one specific direction. I never felt free to explore in NV, never felt that I could just strike out in a direction and see what I uncover. It always felt like the game had a very specific idea of where it wanted me to go and discouraged me from straying off the path...

 

[VincentX3]

Fallout 3 > New Vegas

Much more interesting world, better level design, better sidequests, better atmosphere. NV has a slightly better main story, though not by much. Overall, I played FO3 a ton of times, barely dragged myself through NV once. And that's as a fan of the original games.

"Better level design"

Aka better block everything and force people to use subway systems :^)

Only in the DC downtown areas. And it's still better than NV's linear map that corralled you in one specific direction. I never felt free to explore in NV, never felt that I could just strike out in a direction and see what I uncover. It always felt like the game had a very specific idea of where it wanted me to go and discouraged me from straying off the path...

"NV's linear map"

AKA: Start the game, ignore the starting town if you want and go explore since there's literally roads everywhere.
Also coming from someone who still hasn't beaten the main story line and has 70hrs in.

So linear :^)

 

[GabeZhul]

Fallout 3 > New Vegas

Much more interesting world, better level design, better sidequests, better atmosphere. NV has a slightly better main story, though not by much. Overall, I played FO3 a ton of times, barely dragged myself through NV once. And that's as a fan of the original games.

"Better level design"

Aka better block everything and force people to use subway systems :^)

Only in the DC downtown areas. And it's still better than NV's linear map that corralled you in one specific direction. I never felt free to explore in NV, never felt that I could just strike out in a direction and see what I uncover. It always felt like the game had a very specific idea of where it wanted me to go and discouraged me from straying off the path...

I believe we had this conversation several times already (possibly even with you personally) in other F3 vs F:NV threads, and my response is still the same for this argument: That's just how you felt. If you wanted to do it, you could have turned north right outsude Goodsprings and trekked all the way over to New Vegas on foot. Yeah, it is definitely the harder road, and you had to dodge around some nasties on the way, but it could be done.

Hell, I have done it! On my first playthrough, because I didn't know it was supposed to be a beef gate [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BeefGate], so I just sneaked, mountaineered and ran my way there, completely circumventing an entire chain of quests (which the game actually acknowledges as a legit way of playing the game by automatically jumping ahead in the main-quest as well).

Also, this ties into another gripe of mine: When open world games have areas with stronger enemies, people cry about railroading and being unfair. If they have all enemies level with the player instead so all areas are accessible, then people cry about rubber-banding and lack of challenge. Could you really blame them if developers stopped caring about what people cry about at this point?

 

[Jandau]

Fallout 3 > New Vegas

Much more interesting world, better level design, better sidequests, better atmosphere. NV has a slightly better main story, though not by much. Overall, I played FO3 a ton of times, barely dragged myself through NV once. And that's as a fan of the original games.

"Better level design"

Aka better block everything and force people to use subway systems :^)

Only in the DC downtown areas. And it's still better than NV's linear map that corralled you in one specific direction. I never felt free to explore in NV, never felt that I could just strike out in a direction and see what I uncover. It always felt like the game had a very specific idea of where it wanted me to go and discouraged me from straying off the path...

I believe we had this conversation several times already (possibly even with you personally) in other F3 vs F:NV threads, and my response is still the same for this argument: That's just how you felt. If you wanted to do it, you could have turned north right outsude Goodsprings and trekked all the way over to New Vegas on foot. Yeah, it is definitely the harder road, and you had to dodge around some nasties on the way, but it could be done.

Hell, I have done it! On my first playthrough, because I didn't know it was supposed to be a beef gate [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BeefGate], so I just sneaked, mountaineered and ran my way there, completely circumventing an entire chain of quests (which the game actually acknowledges as a legit way of playing the game by automatically jumping ahead in the main-quest as well).

Also, this ties into another gripe of mine: When open world games have areas with stronger enemies, people cry about railroading and being unfair. If they have all enemies level with the player instead so all areas are accessible, then people cry about rubber-banding and lack of challenge. Could you really blame them if developers stopped caring about what people cry about at this point?

You CAN do it, but there's no point. There's no content for you there at that level. You're just running around pointlessly before conceding to the game's demands and going back on rails. And how the game FELT is a big deal - and NV felt much less fun than FO3, at least to me.

Also, I'm not saying that providing high level areas in an open world game is bad. I'm saying that the way FO3 did it was poorly done. It would make vastly more sense if the high level content was sprinkled around, maybe concentrated in specific zones. As it stands, the NV map has a clear direction in which the content ramps up, making it feel far more linear. You can walk elsewhere, but all that will happen is you'll get eaten by some Cazadores.

It would have been cooler if the high level content was scattered more, so you could be doing your low level stuff and come across high level areas that send you packing, then vow to return later when you're stronger. FO3 felt like I was heading out and conquering a lawless wasteland, piece by piece. NV feels like a guided tour...

 

[Kathinka]

For me, there was only 2 real Fallouts. Van Buren would have been the real 3. Everything else is just Oblivion with guns. The series lost the intelligent black humor that made 1 and 2 so great.

Completely agreed.

I completely lost any interest in Fallout 3 a mere 3 or 4 hours into the game. Even disregarding the fact the only things Fallout about it are the name and setting, it just bored me out of my mind.

New Vegas, I'd heard good things even from people at No Mutants Allowed, but still, the moment I found myself pew-pew-pewing, Quake-style, at some incredibly poorly animated Powder Gangers I went "yeah, you know what, I don't think better writing's going to do anything for me; this still isn't anything I'd even remotely recognize as a Fallout game".

New Vegas got a tiny bit of the magic back, but it was still nowhere close to the real thing.

Man, with all of us grognards, why isn't there a Kickstarter for the real thing yet?

 

[SadisticFire]

"Better level design"

Aka better block everything and force people to use subway systems :^)

Yeah, those invisible walls sure are much better than a subway system. Seriously, an entire north west corner of the map is not navigable. Why? Because there's some cars in a ditch.
"Can't I climb over them?" No, says the game. That area is forbidden to you. For ever.

 

[VincentX3]

"Better level design"

Aka better block everything and force people to use subway systems :^)

Yeah, those invisible walls sure are much better than a subway system. Seriously, an entire north west corner of the map is not navigable. Why? Because there's some cars in a ditch.
"Can't I climb over them?" No, says the game. That area is forbidden to you. For ever.

Implying Fallout 3 doesn't have the same "invisible walls" at the edges of the map(?) :^)
Much argument.