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

endtherapture

New member
Nov 14, 2011
3,127
0
0
It was clearly a good game with great production values. However it was an experience I just didn't enjoy at all. The subway systems were bad, the settings and environment was dull, the characters were bland and boring and the story was nonsensical. New Vegas was better in every way.
 
Aug 1, 2010
2,768
0
0
Put simply? It's my favorite game of all time and I probably have close to a thousand hours in it across multiple platforms.

I acknowledge every one of it's many flaws from the lacking of the Gamebryo Engine to the various lunacies of the story, but none of it bothers me.
No other game I have ever played has given me the feeling of atmosphere and exploration like Fallout 3 did. Ever moment in The Wasteland feels like a new experience. Every time I look off in a direction, I see new experiences to be discovered.

The music is perfect, the art design is perfect and the environments are incredible.

It has some of my favorite DLCs with The Pitt, Broken Steel and Point Lookout being absolutely brilliant in different ways.

And this was all just when I played through it a dozen times on console. When got my gaming PC, it only got more amazing with one of the strongest modding communities in gaming.

EDIT:
Since it seems a lot of people are bringing up the F3 v NV thing, I guess I'll throw in on that.
Objectively speaking, NV is a better game. Better written, better balanced and with more content. I do, however, still prefer Fallout 3. I think the main reason I still feel this way is the overpopulation of New Vegas. Everything feels so crowded with cites everywhere, so there's never that feeling that you can strike off in a direction and find adventure. In addition, NV has serious pacing issues. The first third of the game on the way to Vegas is essentially all combat and a character without combat skills has issues. Upon getting to Freeside, the game radically shifts and combat grinds to a total halt for numerous hours, at which point any character with poor diplomacy is left bumbling around failing dialog checks. The third after Freeside and meeting House, things get a lot better, but the stark contrast between the shooty bits and the talky bits is too extreme and jarring.

GloatingSwine said:
Fallout is a world which is rebuilding after the apocalypse, not huddling in its ruins like in Fallout 3.
I never understood why this is considered a fact. So often people like to say it's a post-post-apocalyptic series.

While this was certainly true for Fallout 2, Fallout 1 had an almost identical approach and feel as Fallout 3 with a heavily devastated world and a few small populations trying to survive in a hostile world.
 

Nieroshai

New member
Aug 20, 2009
2,940
0
0
I've lost track of how many times I've completed the main game. In my opinion, FO3 and Oblivion are Bethesda's best works of the last 2 console generations simply because of sheer replayability. What I feel is best about it is just how cathartic some of the mechanics are, and how the side missions don't particularly feel like cheap throwaways you could just not even bother with.
 

TheArcaneThinker

New member
Jul 19, 2014
211
0
0
Johnisback said:
TheArcaneThinker said:
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.
Well you're wrong.

TheArcaneThinker 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...
AKA. "Plot holes are fine."

TheArcaneThinker said:
Yes , I do feel that fallout 3 had better atmosphere.
I you prefer simple, one note atmospheres.

TheArcaneThinker said:
And the giant robot "extended set piece" was quite awesome , and you did have to kill enemies along the way...
Yeah because picking off stragglers while the computer has all the fun is really what video games are about.

TheArcaneThinker said:
There is only 1 mountain that contains a few mutants while fallout 3 had them scattered everywhere around the map.
One mountain, one town full of mutants, and several ruins and encampments full of them.
Did you even play New Vegas?

TheArcaneThinker said:
The children part did add unintentional humor to the game.
So that's how we excuse massive plot holes now is it?

TheArcaneThinker said:
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 .
Even when I first played the game I found it to be a hollow, shallow experience. And it was the first Fallout game I played, I couldn't be biased because I had nothing to compare it to.
My opinion is that it's a shitty game and I know for a fact it's a shitty RPG.
Nevermind... There is no convincing you about how wrong you are about this...

You clearly are the sort of person who would bash a game just because it has contradicting lore or something....

A extended set piece does not take away the fun from the game unless tour whole game is an extended set piece i.e COD .

And yes i have had multiple playthroughs of fallout new vegas and that town has 1 mutant and others were Nightkin not mutants... maybe they are... not sure...

We both have clearly have very different opinions , lets just leave it at that...
BTW fallout 3 is the better game , just saying...
 

Nieroshai

New member
Aug 20, 2009
2,940
0
0
endtherapture said:
It was clearly a good game with great production values. However it was an experience I just didn't enjoy at all. The subway systems were bad, the settings and environment was dull, the characters were bland and boring and the story was nonsensical. New Vegas was better in every way.
Fallout NV is great for realism and had a lot going for it, I'll give it that. My problem with it is that it's simply unfinished. So much integral content was cut due to deadlines, and the save bloat makes most expansions unplayable without modding, that on its own merits as a whole game I can't judge it as intrinsically better. For example, Caesar's Legion had a LOT more to it. The content they cut was about an expansion's worth, and they left a lot of debris in the game that would've led up to it or been a part of it. Even then, dull coming down to tastes, there's only so much sand and cracked pavement I can take. There's a reason no one's made other RPGs set in Nevada or Arizona.
 

endtherapture

New member
Nov 14, 2011
3,127
0
0
Nieroshai said:
endtherapture said:
It was clearly a good game with great production values. However it was an experience I just didn't enjoy at all. The subway systems were bad, the settings and environment was dull, the characters were bland and boring and the story was nonsensical. New Vegas was better in every way.
Fallout NV is great for realism and had a lot going for it, I'll give it that. My problem with it is that it's simply unfinished. So much integral content was cut due to deadlines, and the save bloat makes most expansions unplayable without modding, that on its own merits as a whole game I can't judge it as intrinsically better. For example, Caesar's Legion had a LOT more to it. The content they cut was about an expansion's worth, and they left a lot of debris in the game that would've led up to it or been a part of it. Even then, dull coming down to tastes, there's only so much sand and cracked pavement I can take. There's a reason no one's made other RPGs set in Nevada or Arizona.
Similarly for me, I found FO3 unplayable. A big part of the game is supposedly exploration, correct? There weren't any interesting facilities in FO3, simply ruined building after ruined building. In New Vegas there were more environments, from the air force base, to the red striking red canyon, to the prison, to the hoover dam and finally the casinos of Vegas itself. I felt it was far more varied and I enjoyed exploring it much more.

The factions and the way they were set up in different locales in New Vegas was also a big draw. I liked the politics of the game, which FO3 lacked.
 

RedDeadFred

Illusions, Michael!
May 13, 2009
4,896
0
0
It's one of my favourite games of all time and I still play it to this day. I liked it a lot more than New Vegas since it felt a lot more open and just bigger in general. I still liked New Vegas, but I liked 3 a lot more. Plus, I found 3's DLCs to be quite a bit better.
 

ThreeName

New member
May 8, 2013
459
0
0
I thought it was okay until New Vegas came out. It has since been rendered unplayable.

The plot/narrative was awful, the characters were awful, the environment was generic and awful, the weapons were good, the enemies were good, the bugs were annoying, the DLC were about as mixed bag as a mixed bag can get and modding capabilities were good.

But the ending.

Oh, the ending.

I don't give two fucks if Broken Steel came along, the original ending is the Original Sin of the game.
 

ThreeName

New member
May 8, 2013
459
0
0
TheArcaneThinker said:
Nevermind... There is no convincing you about how wrong you are about this...
He really isn't.

TheArcaneThinker said:
You clearly are the sort of person who would bash a game just because it has contradicting lore or something....
He literally said this was the first Fallout game he played.

TheArcaneThinker said:
A extended set piece does not take away the fun from the game unless tour whole game is an extended set piece i.e COD .
The Liberty Prime segment was awful. Did you just spend an entire game making a character with specific skills and weaknesses to tackle the challenges of the world in a specific way? Well fuck you, we're going to take over the gameplay with a giant plot device completely contrary to the rest of the atmosphere!

TheArcaneThinker said:
And yes i have had multiple playthroughs of fallout new vegas and that town has 1 mutant and others were Nightkin not mutants... maybe they are... not sure...
That's just painful to read... though it does make me feel a little better.
 

TheArcaneThinker

New member
Jul 19, 2014
211
0
0
ThreeName said:
TheArcaneThinker said:
Nevermind... There is no convincing you about how wrong you are about this...
He really isn't.

TheArcaneThinker said:
You clearly are the sort of person who would bash a game just because it has contradicting lore or something....
He literally said this was the first Fallout game he played.

TheArcaneThinker said:
A extended set piece does not take away the fun from the game unless tour whole game is an extended set piece i.e COD .
The Liberty Prime segment was awful. Did you just spend an entire game making a character with specific skills and weaknesses to tackle the challenges of the world in a specific way? Well fuck you, we're going to take over the gameplay with a giant plot device completely contrary to the rest of the atmosphere!

TheArcaneThinker said:
And yes i have had multiple playthroughs of fallout new vegas and that town has 1 mutant and others were Nightkin not mutants... maybe they are... not sure...
That's just painful to read... though it does make me feel a little better.
Enough ! I am done with this argument ! I dont want people jumping in and adding to it....
Whatever you or he might say about this game when compared to new vegas , fallout 3 wins , fucking wins ! Though just by a margin...but is victorious nonetheless.
 

Tuesday Night Fever

New member
Jun 7, 2011
1,829
0
0
Eh... it was alright. I enjoyed playing it back when it came out, but I've had no real motivation to play it again since.

I thought it got the quirky dark humor and general retro-future aesthetic of the universe right. It's just... everything else, really.

The story didn't engage me whatsoever. I found it so uninteresting that I bailed from it to go exploring pretty much immediately upon leaving the vault, and was actually disappointed when I was forced to go back to it. When Liam Neeson died it carried zero emotional weight for me because we barely knew the guy, he was just some random NPC with a great voice actor and nothing more. It didn't help that at the time of release the game's story ended with a frankly dumb choice to wander into deadly radiation, or send another human to wander into deadly radiation, despite the friendly Super Mutant following me around that would have survived it just fine.

Also not a big fan of the direction it took with humanity's post-apocalypse progress, or lack thereof. Fallout 3 takes place 200 years after the Great War, and yet the people of DC are still living in burned out ruins with little to no infrastructure whatsoever. The other Fallout games showed slow progress toward the rebuilding of civilization, then Fallout 3 comes along and backpedals to the point where a newcomer to the universe could be forgiven for assuming that the game takes place immediately after the war rather than 200 years later.

And while the VATS system was an interesting way to tie the game to its turn-based roots, it makes the game way too easy. Especially once I got the Lincoln Repeater.
 

verdant monkai

New member
Oct 30, 2011
1,519
0
0
It makes the post apocalyptic bloody boring, I hate it.

-None of the characters are memorable.
-The environments all look the same, brown and ruined buildings. I mean in fist of the north star one of the bad guys lives in a cruise ship which is lodged in a sky scraper, where are all the cool creative locations like that? They are all so bland and average.
-There is no cover, so unless you can tank the bullets you are stuffed as soon as you enter the area.
-It advertises the brotherhood of steel power armour but you only get it at the end, and if you don't know what you are doing it can fuck up your save.
-The ending kills you/ends your save even if you send the woman in, so its literally game over. You can't go back and do remaining quests with the cool gear. So the ending is shit.
-There is no main bad guy.
-There are no vehicles. Its the post apocalypse where are all the damn dune buggies. Walking everywhere takes ages, and as I mentioned there is no cover and everything is boring to look at.
-Its too busy focusing on being gritty and realistic to have any fun with the characters(I cant remember one), enemies (bandits are dudes, super mutants are yellow dudes, and deathclaws are brown messes) or the combat. Its just guns shoot, and broken pipes hit. Sure there are one or two cool weapons like the flaming fist, but why can't I dual wield machine guns and do round house kicks?
-Ammo is fucking scarce but the enemies have piles of it, but apparently when they die they eat it, as its not on there corpses. Yeah how realistic. There is nothing fun about no cover and no ammo.

I don't care if DLC fixes the ending, you shouldn't have to pay for someone to fix their shit product.
Bad bad game in my opinion, and I know its an unpopular opinion.
 

GloatingSwine

New member
Nov 10, 2007
4,544
0
0
Sir Thomas Sean Connery said:
GloatingSwine said:
Fallout is a world which is rebuilding after the apocalypse, not huddling in its ruins like in Fallout 3.
I never understood why this is considered a fact. So often people like to say it's a post-post-apocalyptic series.

While this was certainly true for Fallout 2, Fallout 1 had an almost identical approach and feel as Fallout 3 with a heavily devastated world and a few small populations trying to survive in a hostile world.
Fallout 1 was also set much closer to when the bombs fell. Even then though, there are communitites starting to look outwards, there are the Followers of the Apocalypse, the people of Shady Sands, who eventually found the NCR, etc.

ThreeName said:
The Liberty Prime segment was awful. Did you just spend an entire game making a character with specific skills and weaknesses to tackle the challenges of the world in a specific way? Well fuck you, we're going to take over the gameplay with a giant plot device completely contrary to the rest of the atmosphere!
Weaknesses? In Fallout 3? Where you can trivially have every skill at 100 and all stats at 10 by endgame even if your intelligence starts as low as 4?
 

RavingSturm

New member
May 21, 2014
172
0
0
The atmosphere of FO3 was great as well as the randomness of the enemy encounters. I dislike the story and cheap treatment of power armor though. I found myself killing members of the breakaway BoS faction with just a basic melee weapon when I ran into them early. I prefer the story and impact of your decisions in NV. Also NV had a more Fallout feel imho.
 

Drops a Sweet Katana

Folded 1000x for her pleasure
May 27, 2009
897
0
0
I'm on the 'eh' side of the fence. It was decent enough. Some good characters and quests, and a handful of neat places. Other than that, it didn't grab me. I'm not a fan of the wasteland as a setting (not enough variety on the whole) and the gunplay sucked shit. I kinda prefer New Vegas in some ways, but it's in the same boat really. I'm more into the Elder Scrolls if I'm honest.
 

Roxas1359

Burn, Burn it All!
Aug 8, 2009
33,758
0
0
Sir Thomas Sean Connery said:
While this was certainly true for Fallout 2, Fallout 1 had an almost identical approach and feel as Fallout 3 with a heavily devastated world and a few small populations trying to survive in a hostile world.
The reason people bring it up is because of the time frames in which they take place. Fallout 1 takes place in 2161, not even 100 years after the bombs had dropped. Meanwhile, Fallout 2 took place 2241, while Fallout 3 takes place exactly 200 years after the bombs dropped. The fact that after 200 years the East Coast couldn't rebuild when the West Coast not only got hit harder, but also had literal armies of the newly made Super Mutants as well as the Master himself controlling him is what seems the most jarring. Especially since in Fallout 3 the Brotherhood had apparently been there for 30 years, and some of those Brotherhood members fought off the original Super Mutants and the Enclave when they were at their peak in power. Now I know that they never knew where the Mutants were located, but you'd think they'd have found it in 30 years considering all other things.

My main problem with Fallout 3 is that it should have been set at the same time as the first Fallout, 2161, so then when we get to Fallout 4 we have two possibly different rebuild nations going toe to toe.

OT: In terms of atmosphere I preferred Fallout 3 more, but in all honesty I think New Vegas is the better game overall. Not just because of the continuity New Vegas reestablished. The gameplay changes introduced in New Vegas also makes it very hard for me to go back to Fallout 3, mainly it's because the mods and companions are so much more fleshed out than in Fallout 3. I think other big problem that I had with Fallout 3 as opposed to New Vegas was that the karma system was severely flawed and really only gave you 3 choices: Ultimate Hero, Savior of All; Demonic Bastard who steals children's toys and burns them in front of them; or that guy that just so happens to show up where plot is, no affiliation one way or the other. While for New Vegas I can be a lauded hero/renegade to some factions, while also still being a lying and stealing asshole. :p

I'm not saying Fallout 3 is a bad game, no I think it's a good game to revive the franchise for a time which is needed. But, while it was good I find that New Vegas did everything else better. Hell just look at it this way, at least neither Fallout 3 or New Vegas are the piece of shit that was...Brotherhood of Steel. *shivers*

TheArcaneThinker said:
Nevermind... There is no convincing you about how wrong you are about this...
I just love how you and JohnisBack are arguing on the fact that the other's opinion is wrong. Both of your wordings are basically saying that your opinion is unequivocally fact, and theirs is entirely wrong. Ah internet, it never changes. Just like war. :3
 

The_Darkness

New member
Nov 8, 2010
546
0
0
Fallout 3 has consumed more than 200 hours of my life (I'm sure there are people in this thread with a higher number than that).

Is it a good game? Yes. Great even. I have, however, overdosed on it to the point that I've avoided both New Vegas and Skyrim on account of "Been there, done that." (There's only so much walking from place to place to say some stuff, see some stuff, or deliver some stuff that I could take before it all began feeling... pointless. I guess I lost the illusion somewhere. Two many wooden characters, too much world that felt constructed. Beautifully constructed, but constructed nonetheless.)
 

Korentin_Black

New member
Apr 5, 2014
6
0
0
It was a flawed but enjoyable game with - as is usual for Bethseda - many glaring flaws that didn't stop you from sinking hour after hour into it. There were a lot of places where it failed to live up to the standard of storytelling that Fallout set and the core story was a tad flat when you get right down to it, but there was a lot to do, a lot of fun to be had and while some of the DLC was dumb, some of it was splendid. Plus of course, the simple fact that it had mod support right from the get-go meant that there was almost nothing that didn't get toyed with from the sublime (weapon mods, revised UIs, extra story content) to the inevitable (play with boobies on display!) to the exceedingly niche (why... why are there ponies?).

But yeah... only Bethseda could manage the feet of spending the night with an irradiated hooker in a town made from wrecked aircraft parts in a bar on top of an unexploded atomic bomb breathtakingly dull. ^_^