Poll: Fallout 3 opinion Research ( Please come and answer this)

Vendor-Lazarus

Censored by Mods. PM for Taboos
Mar 1, 2009
1,201
0
0
small said:
Vendor-Lazarus said:
Johnisback said:
No matter how hard I tried Fallout 3 just kept throwing up more and more barriers to my attempts to role play. And for a game that purports itself to be an RPG that's just not right.
Before I played any other Fallouts I would have called it a good game.
After I played Fallout 1 and 2 I would have called it and average game.
Now that I've played New Vegas I call it a bad game.
Is New Vegas that much different than Original Fallout 3?
I've played Fallout 1 & 2 (prefer 2) and 3.

OT: I voted alright. The graphics was too monotone for me, color-wise.
I couldn't bring myself to search every nook and cranny like I did in 2.
Might have something do to with level sections. I can't take it all at once.

Captcha: blaze a trail
very different.

it pretty much ignores fallout 3 and is the continuation of the story from fallout 2, with the orientation more towards story and characters rather than exploration, where the third game felt like the bombs had dropped only a few years before hand, new vegas is civilisation clawing its way back
Nice to know, thanks! Though I do love me some exploration, is has to be meaningful and piecemeal.
I will have to look into it further.
Oh, does it have sections/stuff you can't do after X thing happens?
I do like consequences of my actions, but it has to be informed ones. At least reasonably informed.
Again, thanks for the info.
 
Aug 31, 2012
1,774
0
0
Only just pipped at the post for favourite game of all time by Civ IV. I bought it a good year or 2 after it came out so bugs weren't an issue for me.

I suppose technically New Vegas was a better game (shoulda kept the weapon crafting though and the way the different factions somehow instinctively knew you'd just offed one of their dudes was kinda irritating), but the setting did very little for me, I felt very little desire to explore. With Fallout 3 it was a case of "I am gonna explore the fuck out of this charred, irradiated carcass of a world". New Vegas felt more alive with all it's story and characters, but then "alive" is not really one of the qualities you expect from a charred, irradiated carcass, at best it should be gargling it's last breath.

EDIT: There were stories in FO3 but most of them were incidental shorts about the death of the world told through environment objects and recordings/diaries etc.

Also, the well realised First Person RPG aspect was a revelation for me, one of those "where have you been all my life" moments. 3rd person RPG's just don't cut it anymore for me, though if I'm honest I'd only played 1 or 2 that I'd liked before FO3, I think FO3 just made me realise what it was about them I didn't like.

I voted fantastic. It has it's flaws, but what it does it does so well I can ignore them.
 

death525

New member
Aug 29, 2009
149
0
0
I out its a fantastic game. Now, I'm a little biased in that it was one of the first game I played that made me realize gaming is important. It really all boils down to that crushing atmosphere. Its on Silent Hill 2 levels of crushing your soul from simply walking around in the world to much.
 

chocolate pickles

New member
Apr 14, 2011
432
0
0
Loved it. Some people say half life 2 or final fantasy 7 is there 'best game of all time'

For me, that game is Fallout 3: It's RPG aspects were detailed enough to create a sense of progress (definitely aided by the perk system), without compromising the 'action' feel of the game - I could still use melee with some success without a major points sink.

Combine that with a fantastically developed and detailed open world, and a story that actually made your actions feel significant (side quests were good for this too), and you've got yourself a game that has lived on in my heart and across 3 platforms.
 

Spaceman Spiff

New member
Sep 23, 2013
604
0
0
It was a great game and I enjoyed the hell out of it. But now I just can't get into it. New Vegas spoiled 3 for me.
 

VaporWare

New member
Aug 1, 2013
94
0
0
Fallout 3 was a very quintessential Bethesda game that was crippled by an overweening need to /be/ Fallout.

Instead of being a wholly unique look at the Fallout Capitol region, the story was an awkward rehashing of both Fallout 1 and Fallout 2, with a lot of elements grafted in whether they belonged or not, and executed in ways that didn't always make much sense even taken out of the context of the series as a whole. When they shot for dark comedy, they got slapstick. When they shot for serious, they were too hamstrung by borrowed tropes to be taken seriously. Their use of the Karma system turned everything into a trail of Broken Aesops.

They brought an all-star cast to a very dramatic but ultimately B-List pile of scripts half written by Marketing.

It was arguably good enough as a game, the shooter, VATS and RPG mechanics certainly carried well enough, but it should have been better, and later games have suffered for it's failings.
 

ThePuzzldPirate

New member
Oct 4, 2009
495
0
0
I found the game rather captivating and was rather hooked to it for quite some time after its release. The Vanilla ending however ruined any good-will I had for leaving it rather low on my recommended list, even after the DLC which fix/extended it.

I was able to let the stupid slip by out of sheer fun but that logic abuse at the end broke me.
 

Knight Captain Kerr

New member
May 27, 2011
1,283
0
0
It was a damn good game, much better than Tactics and Brotherhood of Steel. That said, I have a tonne of problems with it. It's worse than Fallout, Fallout 2 and Fallout: New Vegas. Biggest problems are story, setting and choice. The main story is crap, lots of the setting stuff (What do people eat? Why do they use bottlecaps as the currency, who backs it? How does Little Lamplight exist, why haven?t Super Mutants overrun it and how does it sustain it?s numbers? Why are there no plants outside Oasis? Why would you even need Project Purity when you can purify all the water you need on a much smaller scale?) makes no sense and choice, both in terms of character creation and things you can choose to do leaves a hell of a lot to be desired.

That said I do like the game, otherwise I wouldn't have said it's good. It oozes with the mood of Fallout, gameplay is good although New Vegas makes a lot of improvements and VATs is a win game button so I prefer not to use it. Exploration and environmental story telling was really enjoyable.
 

happyninja42

Elite Member
Legacy
May 13, 2010
8,577
2,947
118
CrazyCajun777 said:
It was a very good game. It's aesthetic was more interesting that New Vagas, in my opinion. However, New Vagas had a more well constructed world. However, F3 had a more fleshed out origin story, and liam neeson.

if you like open world games with lost of fun wandering a nuclear wasteland then you will do well with either game.
I agree with your views for the most part, though I think 3 had a more well constructed world. Though I'm not sure what you mean by "well constructed"? If you mean "structurally stable as a game" then I would heavily disagree, as New Vegas is buggy as hell. xD

I personally love Fallout 3 for the atmosphere and mood of it, but the mechanics of New Vegas I like more. I LOVE hardcore mode, and the repair perk that lets you Jury Rig items together from other stuff. I loved the crafting system and how you could make a lot of useful items, though I felt the supplies were too frequent, it didn't actually feel like I was ever lacking or scrounging to survive in New Vegas. So mechanics/system-wise, Vegas was better hands down. Story and atmosphere-wise, Fallout 3 wins top marks in my opinion.

I just don't feel like I'm in a post-apocalyptic setting in Vegas, I just feel like I'm out in the desert. Whereas Fallout 3, with the Capital Wasteland, you felt smack dab in the burned out corpse of the previous world, and it was great.

My perfect game of the Fallout world would be Fallout 3, with New Vegas mechanics. Hopefully Fallout 4 will merge the good traits of both.
 

KarmaTheAlligator

New member
Mar 2, 2011
1,472
0
0
Great game marred by too many bugs. I'm glad I got it on the PC, where mods could fix most of those, as I would have hated it otherwise. Most of the DLC for it were great, too.
 

MHR

New member
Apr 3, 2010
939
0
0
The first time I stepped out of the vault, saw that ruuuiinnneed post-apocalypse landscape, then went down and saw some milk bottles and cans, and then was able to pick them up, my inner-hoarder nearly lost it with glee, and I knew this was one of the best games I've ever played. That opinion hasn't changed since.
 

babinro

New member
Sep 24, 2010
2,518
0
0
Vote: eh, it was an alright game

The game had some great side quests and a few interesting characters but it ultimately suffered from a rather bland aesthetic. Kudos in trying to make post apocalyptic visually interesting but the experience ultimately felt bland and boring before too long.

The combat system is where the game truly suffers. Vats completely take you out of the experience by design. They also feel like a crutch once you start using them. The game essentially tries to blend action and tactics while failing at both. The action is weak because you constantly pause it. The tactics are weak because they lack depth. The game can be played without using vats but you're severely punished by design for doing so.

Fallout 3 is a pretty great game on the surface but it's negatives bring the game down and only become more of a frustration as you put more time into it. My impressions were far more positive during say the first 5 hours vs the last 40 hours.
 

GloatingSwine

New member
Nov 10, 2007
4,544
0
0
Happyninja42 said:
I just don't feel like I'm in a post-apocalyptic setting in Vegas, I just feel like I'm out in the desert. Whereas Fallout 3, with the Capital Wasteland, you felt smack dab in the burned out corpse of the previous world, and it was great.
You're not supposed to, and you kinda never were in Fallout. Fallout is a world which is rebuilding after the apocalypse, not huddling in its ruins like in Fallout 3.

That's what's happening in New Vegas, and the plot is about who gets to stamp their ideals on the world that gets rebuilt in the Mojave.

Fallout 3 is a good game, but its strength is in environment design not in narrative or in having interesting filling in the environments. The locations are meticulously crafted, they tell stories through their design and how things were left or how they fell apart.

And then most of the locations are just filled with the same generic bandits or ghouls or whatevers as all the others. Apart from some of the vaults, Fallout 3 has a serious lack of variety in its population.
 

Kyrian007

Nemo saltat sobrius
Legacy
Mar 9, 2010
2,352
411
88
Kansas
Country
U.S.A.
Gender
Male
I loved Fallout 3. I never understood the folks who hated one or the other of Fo3 and NV. I never really thought it was important for history to remember which was the better of those two fantastic games. There are things that 3 did better (crafting and map/world) and things NV did better (companions/branching.)

Frankly fanboying over one to the extent of hating the other... I find really stupid (sorry, just how I feel.)
 

happyninja42

Elite Member
Legacy
May 13, 2010
8,577
2,947
118
GloatingSwine said:
Happyninja42 said:
I just don't feel like I'm in a post-apocalyptic setting in Vegas, I just feel like I'm out in the desert. Whereas Fallout 3, with the Capital Wasteland, you felt smack dab in the burned out corpse of the previous world, and it was great.
You're not supposed to, and you kinda never were in Fallout. Fallout is a world which is rebuilding after the apocalypse, not huddling in its ruins like in Fallout 3.

That's what's happening in New Vegas, and the plot is about who gets to stamp their ideals on the world that gets rebuilt in the Mojave.

Fallout 3 is a good game, but its strength is in environment design not in narrative or in having interesting filling in the environments. The locations are meticulously crafted, they tell stories through their design and how things were left or how they fell apart.

And then most of the locations are just filled with the same generic bandits or ghouls or whatevers as all the others. Apart from some of the vaults, Fallout 3 has a serious lack of variety in its population.
Eh, I disagree about the lack of rebuilding in Fallout 3. You have the group your father is working for, trying to provide clean water to the entire region. You have the Brotherhood of Steel trying to rebuild society, and preserving the Pre-War Books. You have the Oasis trying to revitalize the ecosystem directly, and all the other various communities like Megaton, that have established a strong foothold in the area, and developed an economy for themselves. The fact that it's in the middle of a destroyed city is simply geography.

Whereas with New Vegas, the developers flat out said that the Mojave area was barely hit during the Great War, which is why there is very little irradiated zones, compared to Fallout 3. Because there were far less strategically important sites out there. So, again by the devs own words, it had very little damage done to it. Meaning that it's not really been effected by the apocalypse. And that's fine I guess, but the amount of just open land with nothing going on got really tiresome to me. It felt like any desert you could run into at any time in history, mutated animals not withstanding. It wasn't varied enough for me. The communities and factions were fun, but it just didn't hold my attention as much as other games have. I didn't really become invested in the groups, and actually care about what they were trying to do. The only group that I really enjoyed on an asthetic level were the Followers of the Apocalypse, but they were so tertiary as to be very underwhelming.
 

idon'tknowaboutthat

New member
Nov 30, 2009
65
0
0
I voted it as great... on PC. I originally played in on 360, and it was pretty fun. When it first came out, it was a huge deal, a great game. It hasn't aged that well though as others have mentioned. Which is why playing it again on PC - with mods - made it a great game again. Seriously, mods make F3 a crazy fun game, although vanilla it is kinda meh, especially on PC where I feel the bar is higher, especially in terms of graphics. So, great game when modded.

Edit: Oh yeah, forgot about the obligatory F3 vs. NV discussion. F3 all the way. Because "atmosphere". No but seriously, NV just felt cartoon-y to me, it wasn't grounded. F3 was a believable post-apocalyptic wasteland, it felt appropriate. NV was randomly cowboy and casino themed. Didn't make sense.
 
Mar 30, 2010
3,785
0
0
Fallout 3 was a great stand-alone title, as taken on its own merits there are many things to recommend it, but it didn't really hold up when set against the other titles in the overall series. The main problem with 3 was that it felt like the bombs had dropped only 20 years before rather than 200. Humanity was still huddled in bomb craters under rusted corrugated metal sheets rather than being well on the road to building new civilisations like in previous games. The other problem (for me) was that 3 took itself too seriously. The original games always had a sense of fun about them, but there were very few laugh out loud moments in 3. Don't get me wrong, there were a few (Moira could have stepped straight out of Fallout 2) but not enough to lift the overall tone.
 

Spider RedNight

There are holes in my brain
Oct 8, 2011
821
0
0
The first time I played it, I was enamored by the size, colours and the seemingly endless possibility - which is accurate as it's the first open sandbox I've played as well as the first Fallout game I played.

However, I have this weird relationship with Bethesda games where I can play it obsessively then put it down and just not give a crap for like half a year. The prospect of Liam Neeson always has me coming back though.

It had it's flaws like weak characters (with the exception of Fawkes. I loved Fawkes), the story was "eh" and while I liked the VATS system, I got annoyed with how much grinding was required and how long it took to down the easiest enemies - especially when not playing as a stealthy character that can sneak crit anything and everything. "SERIOUSLY? I only got three XP from that? This is stupid" etc. etc.
 

TheArcaneThinker

New member
Jul 19, 2014
211
0
0
Johnisback said:
Vendor-Lazarus said:
Is New Vegas that much different than Original Fallout 3?
Yeah. The writing is a hundred times better, the world and characters actually react to the choices you make and the way you play, it doesn't have the typical Bethesda curse of 50% of the NPCs being immortal (in fact the only NPCs that are immortal without actual in-world plot justification are two children I think) and there's about five times as much content.

TheArcaneThinker said:
New vegas was not better than fallout 3.
I wholeheartedly disagree.

TheArcaneThinker said:
Fallout 3 has better story,
No, no it doesn't.
"Liam Neeson has created a magical artifact that will make everything good again" is not a better story.
"Black and white, Brotherhood good, super mutants bad and Enclave moustache-twirling bad" is not a better story.
Plus the continuity and world building in Fallout 3 was abysmal.
"Hey guys, it might be 200 years since the bombs dropped but somehow full communities that have existed since then are still finding pre-war food to scavenge as their only source of nutrition."
"Hey guys, I know you just nuked an entire city but no one will notice besides Liam Neeson and even he'll only say one line about it."

TheArcaneThinker said:
atmosphere,
If you think a monotone bleak atmosphere is better than the varied and nuanced death of the apocalyptic old west atmosphere.
Which it isn't.

TheArcaneThinker said:
made the player use the V.A.T.S system which i dont know , if it is a good or bad thing but still.
Neither of the games make you use the V.A.T.S. system. But one would struggle to do parts of New Vegas (like sloan quarry) without it if they weren't at absolute peak level and peak equipment.

TheArcaneThinker said:
In fallout 3 you could kill hundreds of mutants,
In New Vegas you could kill hundreds of mutants. You could also talk to them, take their side, help them develop their community and learn why they are the way they are and where they come from.

TheArcaneThinker said:
enclave controlled death claws
Barely different to killing regular Deathclaws. Plus you can fight unique and Legendary Deathclaws in New Vegas.

TheArcaneThinker said:
and end the game with a giant robot.
AKA. An extended setpiece where you walk behind an NPC that's actually doing all the fun stuff.

TheArcaneThinker said:
The world really felt post apocalyptic
And if it was set 10 or 20 years after the bombs dropped that would make sense. But it's set 200 years after the bombs dropped. Children surviving on their own in a cavern for 200 years without aging? Yeah, real post apocalyptic.
And it's not like New Vegas doesn't feel post apocalyptic. It's just not a one-note, cliched and poorly thought out version of a post apocalyptic setting.

I HATE Fallout 3. If it was the beginning of it's own series then it wouldn't be so bad, but as part of the Fallout series it's just an overly-simple, poorly thought game that was completely non-conductive to role playing.
But the real reason I hate Fallout 3? The thing that infuriates me to my very core? Is that Obsidian will never make another one. Bethesda will not allow it and I sure as hell don't have any faith in them to create a Fallout that isn't trite, Hollywood inspired bullshit.

/rant
I already said why I liked fallout 3 better than new vegas . I stand by what I said and I completely disagree with everything you said .

The things you stated at 1st are some technical issues like 200 years after bombing and the rest of them... They dont really affect the game or its feeling unless your so angry that over 200 years line made you feel so bad that you broke the disc...

Yes , I do feel that fallout 3 had better atmosphere.

And the giant robot "extended set piece" was quite awesome , and you did have to kill enemies along the way...

There is only 1 mountain that contains a few mutants while fallout 3 had them scattered everywhere around the map.

The children part did add unintentional humor to the game.

You seem quite biased against fallout 3 and angry just because you dont consider it well thought out you dont see the game for what it is , a great game .