Is Fallout 3's story just expensive fan fiction?

[Yassen]

Now let me just say that I really enjoyed Fallout 3, it nailed the exploration aspects and it was so much fun to walk in any given direction and find something unexpected in your path. But after playing New Vegas, a game created and written by the original fathers of the series, I've realised something about Fallout 3.

The main plot just felt like fan fiction. Am I the only one who noticed this?

Think about it, what major plot points are in Fallout 3? Grew up in Vault, leave vault, find way to make pure water, super mutant hordes, Enclave, GECK. All that stuff was done before in previous games. In terms of major story points almost nothing was added. The best parts of the game were parts that weren't even in the main plot.

Then there's the Brotherhood of Steel. These guys were lavished in tongue baths compared to New Vegas. A group like theirs who believes no one besides them is capable of using or owning technology will not be liked or as righteous as Fallout 3 made them to be. Fact is, after playing New Vegas I'm noticing that Fallout 3 seems less excellent in hindsight.

So what do you think? Did you also feel that Fallout 3's story was more like Fan fiction? If it wasn't for the bugs, do you think that Fallout New Vegas is a much better game compared to Fallout 3?

 

[Cantehman]

Fallout 3's Brotherhood of Steel is a splinter faction, so yeah, they're not the same as the Brotherhood we know from the East Coast. The outcasts in Fallout 3's what you're looking for.

 

[Super Toast]

I liked the plot, but Obsidian still crafted a better story. So I agree with you, to a point.

 

[the_pleasure_is_mine]

I never had a problem with the story, but that was generally because I was too busy falling in love with the setting.

Now I think about it.. I still don't have a problem with the story. It's fine. It may not be amazing but I can hardly complain about it.

 

[Icarion (aka Stockholm)]

I never had a problem with the story, but that was generally because I was too busy falling in love with the setting.

Now I think about it.. I still don't have a problem with the story. It's fine. It may not be amazing but I can hardly complain about it.

This. Fallout 3 was supposed to be a rebirth of the series. And it did that, yes?

 

[JWRosser]

I love both games...but yes, the story line (in both) is a bit meh.

Also, I disliked the Brotherhood in New Vegas. They were a lot more dicky than the Capital Wasteland BoS...and that's saying something.

 

[Voodoo_Person]

Personally I prefered F3, I just didn't get into the NV story as much, not that it isn't a brilliant game mind you

 

[SmokingMirrors]

As i've once stated before in a previous thread; While I am a die-hard fan of the Fallout franchise, my love withers past the second installment when it was bought over by Bethesda.

But don't get me wrong, I don't exactly hate Bethesda so much as i'm disappointed in the lack of polish in their games as of late but then i've already touched upon that subject as well in yet another thread.

But the point is that I didn't enjoy the third and thus doubt that i'll appreciate New Vegas.

 

[oplinger]

...you're really going to use the modding tools against Fallout 3? It was -called- the GECK for a reason >_>

and I'd explain away every single one of those points, but you could easily explain away anything in a fanfic...so I guess it doesn't matter what I say.

 

[Souplex]

In Fallout 3's defense, the New Testament is sort of FanFiction as well.

 

[number2301]

That is an excellent way to describe it, having played Fallout 1, 2, 3, New Vegas and read about Van Buren I could see 3 just wasn't right. The best way I could put it into words before was that the original team had a proper understanding of the universe, whereas Bethesda just picked the headlines (vault, supermutants, enclave, BoS) and chucked them in a game whether it made sense or not.

Fallout 1, 2, Van Buren and New Vegas show a world progressing, factions come and go, the world develops in a sensible way. Fallout 3 is similar to a post on here saying, "wouldn't it be cool if Fallout came to my home town".

Don't get me wrong, Fallout 3 was great. The exploration and that atmosphere kept me playing for 120 hours. But the story line and the inconsistencies were a bit meh. And the excuse that it's the otherside of the country so everyone can be totally different wears thin quickly.

 

[Souplex]

That is an excellent way to describe it, having played Fallout 1, 2, 3, New Vegas and read about Van Buren I could see 3 just wasn't right. The best way I could put it into words before was that the original team had a proper understanding of the universe, whereas Bethesda just picked the headlines (vault, supermutants, enclave, BoS) and chucked them in a game whether it made sense or not.

Fallout 1, 2, Van Buren and New Vegas show a world progressing, factions come and go, the world develops in a sensible way. Fallout 3 is similar to a post on here saying, "wouldn't it be cool if Fallout came to my home town".

Don't get me wrong, Fallout 3 was great. The exploration and that atmosphere kept me playing for 120 hours. But the story line and the inconsistencies were a bit meh. And the excuse that it's the otherside of the country so everyone can be totally different wears thin quickly.

Well to be fair, Fallout 3's inherently superior by virtue of the fact that it takes place on the east coast.

 

[Yassen]

...you're really going to use the modding tools against Fallout 3? It was -called- the GECK for a reason >_>

Just to clarify, by GECK I meant the acual Garden of Eden Creation Kit that was the plot device about two/thirds into the main plot, not the modding tool. If you're just joking or not I can't tell but thought I'd clarify regardless.

 

[Harkwell]

...Fact is, after playing New Vegas I'm noticing that Fallout 3 seems less excellent in hindsight.

So what do you think? Did you also feel that Fallout 3's story was more like Fan fiction? If it wasn't for the bugs, do you think that Fallout New Vegas is a much better game compared to Fallout 3?

Try playing fallout 3 then trying 2. THEN going back to 3 and realizing how the storys (main and side) fall short of some in the previous fallout games.

 

[H0ncho]

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.


Bethesdas largest flaw is undoubtedly in the writing department. I don't think they have a single competent writer, or at least they fired him after Morrowind was released. If you look at New Vegas the main difference is that Obsidian has one or maybe two actual writers aboard - note that I don't say "good" because they're at the level of an English graduate - but it still beats 95% of the industry and makes Bethesda look like a kindergarten.

All of which is pretty sad, since they don't need more than 2-3 actual writers, which is very little compared to the size of a development team and even less compared to the budget of their games.

 

[oplinger]

...you're really going to use the modding tools against Fallout 3? It was -called- the GECK for a reason >_>

Just to clarify, by GECK I meant the acual Garden of Eden Creation Kit that was the plot device about two/thirds into the main plot, not the modding tool. If you're just joking or not I can't tell but thought I'd clarify regardless.

Nah, I was joking about it, but it's silly either way. All vaults were issued a GECK, that was stated in FO2 I believe (maybe even 1) Some didn't get theirs. But they were all supposed to have one.

>> It's still not a point against FO3.