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

small

New member
Aug 5, 2014
469
0
0
Vendor-Lazarus said:
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.
that is actually one of its stronger points, its very much faction orientated so your choices matter along with how the area turns out long term ala fallout 2
 

Phrozenflame500

New member
Dec 26, 2012
1,080
0
0
God damn I should stop going into Fallout 3 threads. I'm sure my blood pressure spikes each time.

Let's just say that I didn't like Fallout 3 and I thought NV was infinitely better in every possible way. I strongly disagree with anybody who prefers Fallout 3 over NV.
 

DSK-

New member
May 13, 2010
2,431
0
0
It was an enjoyable game. I poured far more hours into FO3 than NV because of how, in NV, the setting and origin of the playable character was (ie the background of your character), and how the game was trying to forcibly steer me into doing things.

Whereas in FO3, after the "prologue", you're basically able to do your own thing. The moment you leave the vault always left a big impression on me, and just exploring the world and scavenging stuff was a ton of fun. Compared to that, I didn't like NV nearly as much.
 

GloatingSwine

New member
Nov 10, 2007
4,544
0
0
Happyninja42 said:
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.
They don't really show much effect of it though. Because all the inhabitants of the wasteland are huddled in their towns which they barely show any evidence of anyone leaving, and immediately outside the towns are infinite hostility (Megaton should be basically under siege by the raiders at Sprinvale School and Super Duper Mart), the lip service to "rebuilding" feels exactly like that. Lip service.

(Project Purity is a silly example as well, water is one of the easiest things to purify of radiation, you just filter the radioactive particulate out of it with charcoal or distil it, this should already be being done on a local scale everywhere in the capital wasteland)

Whereas in FNV you have things like working farms, evidence of real commercial activity above and beyond individual trade caravans run by people with names like Crazy Wolfgang who sell an assortment of useless crap (whatsisface organising exclusivity with the white glove society to sell his brahmin meat at a premium, for example).

The efforts of rebuilding shape the world in FNV, they're talked about in FO3 but are never really in evidence.
 

layne

New member
Jun 14, 2013
43
0
0
It took me a few tries to actually get into Fallout 3. Once I did, however, I wound up loving it. I liked the colourful characters, the atmosphere, the story, the music, etc. There's so much to explore and so many secrets to uncover. I've spent hours and hours just wandering around looking for new areas to add to the map. The DLC was another aspect I thoroughly enjoyed. Each of them added more to my experience and made me happy I picked up the GOTY version.
 

happyninja42

Elite Member
Legacy
May 13, 2010
8,577
2,947
118
GloatingSwine said:
Happyninja42 said:
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.
They don't really show much effect of it though. Because all the inhabitants of the wasteland are huddled in their towns which they barely show any evidence of anyone leaving, and immediately outside the towns are infinite hostility (Megaton should be basically under siege by the raiders at Sprinvale School and Super Duper Mart), the lip service to "rebuilding" feels exactly like that. Lip service.

(Project Purity is a silly example as well, water is one of the easiest things to purify of radiation, you just filter the radioactive particulate out of it with charcoal or distil it, this should already be being done on a local scale everywhere in the capital wasteland)

Whereas in FNV you have things like working farms, evidence of real commercial activity above and beyond individual trade caravans run by people with names like Crazy Wolfgang who sell an assortment of useless crap (whatsisface organising exclusivity with the white glove society to sell his brahmin meat at a premium, for example).

The efforts of rebuilding shape the world in FNV, they're talked about in FO3 but are never really in evidence.
I still disagree, but I would point out that the examples you gave in NV are still just as unchanging. The corn fields don't actually do anything but sit there. You never see traders loaded down with corn moving from community to community, actually trading the material. You never hear townsfolk saying things like "allright! Glad we have that corn from the NCR, otherwise this would be a ghost town!" They are just as cosmetic as the stuff you feel in Fallout 3 is. Your example of the brahmin steak guy with the white glove never actually has cows coming into the place, and you never hear any of the people in the place talk about it like it's actually impacting them.

If you think that Fallout is about rebuilding, and not about a post-apocalypse world, then I still feel that both games show examples of that. I disagree that a game series titled Fallout, isn't trying to evoke a feeling of the ruins of a previous society, and the people trying to survive in it. I mean, the game series' signature line isn't "Rebuilding, rebuilding never changes" it's "War, war never changes" That doesn't sound like a game series where the emphasis is on rebuilding society. Sure that's an aspect of it, but it's also about this post-apocalypse world and how dangerous it is to try and survive.

I still like both games, I just prefer the mood of Fallout 3 to New Vegas.
 

CrazyCajun777

New member
Apr 2, 2013
152
0
0
Happyninja42 said:
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"?
I mean that, as a fictional world, new vagas is more well thought out and realistic. The world of NV makes more sense and has better internal logic. I suggest checking out this youtube video to really see what i mean.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvwlt4FqmS0&list=UUI3GAJaOTL1BoipG41OmfyA&index=11

:D
 

Anti Nudist Cupcake

New member
Mar 23, 2010
1,054
0
0
I loved Fallout 3 because it's the only Post-Nuclear apocalypse game I've played that felt like it was actually somewhere that a nuke went off and not just in a random desert.

Seeing the ruined buildings, the carcasses of civilization, the theme of the game, that I liked.

I also like how technology and history in the game differs from how we know it. The classic 1950's vibe combined with advanced sci-fi tech gives it its own unique charm.
 

hermes

New member
Mar 2, 2009
3,865
0
0

For me, Fallout 3 was a great game. It was open enough that allowed several play styles and characters, all valid in some way; which allowed me to get into conversations with friends about how they spec their characters to use heavy weapons, or snipe enemies from really far, or killing deathclaws with their bare hands.

The only thing that makes it not a "really great" game, is the amount of game breaking bugs it had. Nothing put me out of a game as having to talk to someone to complete a quest, but every time I did it, my console froze... After 3 or 4 times trying to do it and getting the same result, I uninstalled the game and never looked back.

And yes, if we are going for the obligatory 3 vs NV, I will go 3 all the way. NV committed the cardinal sin of forcing a path into the player until he is leveled enough. Linear is something no Fallout should be...
 

sataricon

New member
Oct 7, 2014
84
0
0
Phrozenflame500 said:
God damn I should stop going into Fallout 3 threads. I'm sure my blood pressure spikes each time.

Let's just say that I didn't like Fallout 3 and I thought NV was infinitely better in every possible way. I strongly disagree with anybody who prefers Fallout 3 over NV.
This.
 

happyninja42

Elite Member
Legacy
May 13, 2010
8,577
2,947
118
sataricon said:
Phrozenflame500 said:
God damn I should stop going into Fallout 3 threads. I'm sure my blood pressure spikes each time.

Let's just say that I didn't like Fallout 3 and I thought NV was infinitely better in every possible way. I strongly disagree with anybody who prefers Fallout 3 over NV.
This.
That's fine from both of you, you can have your opinion on the game, though I've never understood the need to state a claim such as "And I disagree with anyone who feels otherwise". Ok? So? Why is that even necessary to any discussion to declare that? You have a different opinion from others, that's fine and to be expected. And the fact that you like NV better than Fallout 3 sort of automatically states that you disagree with anyone who prefers 3 to NV, just by the nature of what your opinion is.
 

KenAri

New member
Jan 13, 2013
149
0
0
I found FA3 and NV to be basically the same game, but NV had factions in it, or something. NV also felt a lot more linear.

FA3 was pretty interesting to play, but not captivating. Combat was very simple and repetitive, and every enemy was dealt with the same way. Combat was also more about numbers and less about skill, which I find sad in a shooting game. The character progression was pretty cool perk-wise, but the skills (Lockpick, etc) were boring. I kill a beetle, level up and suddenly I know how to picklock a door that one minute prior I had absolutely no clue how to do? It was pretty weak.

Cool variety in items, but the player can soak bullets like a champ. None of the NPCs were that notable or interesting; I couldn't name any of them right now, from either game. Except 'Dad' from the first game, whose skin colour changed based off that of the player (wow!).

Quests were varied; some were genuinely interesting and believable. Others were lacklustre (Some NPCs just need to sort their own stuff out).

Fun game. Would buy and play a sequel. Don't feel sad that it's completed. Wouldn't be sad if no more were made.

EDIT: Both could've used another year of development. The amount of bugs in them is absurd.
 

michael87cn

New member
Jan 12, 2011
922
0
0
Your first reply compares it with NV. Opinions of FO3 will forever be tainted by bias because of NV.

When NV wasn't a thing, FO3 was the shit. Everyone, EVERYONE loved it. It was like Skyrim.

My vote is only real vote! Unbias ftw!!!
 

Rayce Archer

New member
Jun 26, 2014
384
0
0
Fallout 3 is probably the best example of a franchise going from 2D to 3D since Ocarina of Time. It really felt like walking around the Fallout universe, even if some elements felt tacked on (why are there radscorpions in DC?). It also did a wonderful job translating classic Fallout skills and targeting to real-time 3D. The plot... Well, once you get Broken Steel its pretty good, and characters like your dad and the "president" were really fun to interact with. The writing was all classic Fallout, too.

THAT SAID...

Fallout 3 is WAY too easy. Unless you set out to make the worst character possible, you're not going to have any trouble. Part of that comes down to all the OP unique guns and attribute-granting perks and bobbleheads. And it wasn't very original, was it? Look, it's the bad guys from Fallout 2, kill them again! I also felt like sneaking, pickpocketing, and negotiation weren't as robust as in past Fallouts, which is weird because Bethesda knocks those out of the park in the Elder Scrolls games. The everbleak environment was also a little tiring, but it served an aesthetic purpose.

Regarding Fallout: New Vegas I'll echo what most people are saying- the writing is still good, and the world is way prettier, but exploration is blocked by mazes of invisible walls and hoards of unstoppable barrier enemies, and the glitches are worse and more common than in 3.
 

Mikeyfell

Elite Member
Aug 24, 2010
2,784
0
41
I never played the first 2 fallout games,
I thought Fallout 3 was great, not one of the best games ever, but great.
 

Muspelheim

New member
Apr 7, 2011
2,023
0
0
Damn good game. Not without its problems, but a damn fun experience nonetheless. While New Vegas is better in most ways, I still think 3 is slightly closer to my heart. That said, I treat them more like equal bookends, rather than directly in competition.

It did choose style over sense on quite a few occasions, I feel. But honestly, the Fallout series never made much sense in the first place. But they were simply not as good in masking that as the original developers.

Calling it Fallout 3 was a bit careless, however. That title meant more than they thought, and while it'd be impossible to introduce such a different game to the series without offending the locals somewhat, it was a bit too brazen. No need prodding the waspnest if they're already stinging you.

EDIT: Come to think of it... I think the biggest problem in the game is the attempts at tying it closer to the earlier in the series. Trying to slot it into the timeline just wasn't a very good idea. It didn't leave their game with enough elbow room to be its own entity, messed up the plot threads and cheapened the whole thing overall. All while upsetting the locals even more.

For example, they could've developed why the Capital Wasteland was in such a state that it was a bit more. Some character or notice at some point could've said "Oh, it was just too hot. Hardly a thing or two alive until people started trickling in some ninety years ago." We learn someone is hiring the Talon Company to destabilize the wasteland, but we never hear from that plot again.

Or better still, set it slightly earlier than it was, like indeed I imagine they wanted at first, before they got fixated on lashing it to the rest of the series come hell or high water.
 

ninja51

New member
Mar 28, 2010
342
0
0
Mimic said:
For me it was a good game. I really liked how they set up the character customisation at the beginning and the vault. The combat was very good especially the VATS system with some interesting weapons. The ending and ending mission really marred the experience for me though. I remember it bugged out on me the first time through, the end villan you just one-shot and then the 'decision' at the end and epilogue was such a contrived pile of crap it really annoyed me.

Either you're a 'hero' and you martyr yourself or the game judges you as a coward (even if during the end you die anyway). I had a mutant guy immune to radiation with me, why couldn't he go in? - 'Cos he doesn't feel like it.

The Broken Steel DLC actually changed that, allowing you to make use of your mutant companions, or still survive, or martyr yourself, either way, the game continued afterwords with new Brotherhood of Steel storylines, it was pretty fun.

Knowing all that, I think its safe to say I'm a pretty big fan of Fallout 3. Like someone said earlier, I think Fallout 3 was more realized in its storytelling and atmosphere, while New Vegas succeeded more at building a living world with interconnected events. I'm not too bugged by that though, Fallout 3 was a huge innovator in the open world genre, with many its own mistakes just as Morrowind, Oblivion, and Skyrim have all been. I love all the series for their heights and successes even in despite of each of their flaws. Obsidian did some cool stuff with New Vegas as well, kinda the same thing they did with Kotor 2, a more fully realized universe (and in Kotor 2's case better writing) than the previous game in the series. Shame they couldn't actually finish Kotor 2, but there's some cool mods out there restoring an unbelievable amount. Its also a shame they couldn't understand the open gameplay that makes Bethesda's games great and they forced in invisible walls, and enemies you for some reason couldn't do any damage to or outrun to keep you on a forced path. I still played it a shit ton on the consoles though, and there's some cool mods out there fixing all that crap too!

I'm actually in the midst of a heavily modded Fallout Wastelander's Edition playthrough of Fallout 3, its more archaic designs are apparent, but it (especially with its gameplay refined to majesty by the community) is still fun and engaging as hell.
 

Zen Bard

Eats, Shoots and Leaves
Sep 16, 2012
704
0
0
I enjoyed "Fallout 3". And having never played the earlier Fallout games, I had no frame of reference or prior biases. It was an enjoyable open world action RPG that leaned a little heavily on the shooter side. It also had probably one of the best and organic tutorials I've ever encountered in an RPG.

As a departure from other Bethesda RPGs, the world seemed a bit more dynamic. And some of the player's actions did appear to have some consequence and impact on the story. However, I found the majority of the quests somewhat repetitive. While it wasn't nearly as bad as "Skyrim", the majority of them were messenger quests (go here, talk to this person, go back and report what as said).

Personally, I prefer "New Vegas". I felt the writing was better, the quests are more varied and interesting and the faction system (as annoying as it could be) gave me the feeling that my actions matter. Plus I think I could just related to the "Lone Wanderer" character better. It felt like a post-apocalyptic western, being thrust headlong into a situation with little resources and even less information. From there, you can either help a faction achieve its goal...or tell them all to piss off and be King of Vegas yourself.