Poll: Fallout 3 opinion Research ( Please come and answer this)
- Thread starter AcropolisParthenon
- Start date
They're really quite different though.momijirabbit said:
There's some crossover, but FO3's enemy list tends to just be tiers of the same type of thing, whereas New Vegas tends to have a broader spread.
Even when enemies are similar as well sometimes they're better contextualised. All bandits in FO3 are Bandits, but in FO:NV there are factional gangs like the powder gangers and fiends and you can manipulate their actions to the player, which makes mechanically similar (human enemies with simple armour and weapon) enemies thematically distinct.
Play New Vegas instead (and on PC).
FO3 isn't really bad, but the combat kinda sucks and the stealth mechanic sucks and the dialogs and voice-overs are generally poor most of the time and the main plot makes no sense and the game balance is totally out of whack. Also bugs.
It's saving grace is that the Fallout setting remains interesting and the flaws are not awful enough to totally ruin the experience.
FO3 isn't really bad, but the combat kinda sucks and the stealth mechanic sucks and the dialogs and voice-overs are generally poor most of the time and the main plot makes no sense and the game balance is totally out of whack. Also bugs.
It's saving grace is that the Fallout setting remains interesting and the flaws are not awful enough to totally ruin the experience.
I dont care if you dont believe me . I dont care if you think i am flip flopping . No , i am not a fanboy . Let it be fallout 3 or NV , they dont come in my top 15 list . I quite serious when i accused you of being biased . Yes that is my opinion . Yes , i was going to stop replying , when you were going to stop answering . Yes , you do seem to have a lot of time .Johnisback said:
Yes because fallout new vegas had multiple branches of quests . Just because a game has more quest , does not mean that it is better .momijirabbit said:
But do understand that i am not saying New vegas was a bad game . I am saying fallout 3 was marginally better , by a small negligible margin .
Fallout 3 was okay. I should finish it one day, but after being promised the moon, the second coming, and multiple orgasms all in one, I kind of got into "meh" territory.
If someone promises to turn water into wine, but only manages to turn it into beer instead, hey, at least you have beer.Zachary Amaranth said:
No game is perfect . Each has its own flaws . For example Medieval 2 total war is much better on paper but still does not manage to be better than Rome total war .Johnisback said:
Fallout 3 and fallout new vegas are very similar . You seem to reply to my comments as if i am saying that new vegas is shit and fallout 3 is the shit . Both games are very good with their own pros , cons and charms . If i was given the chance to play one of them , i would select new vegas but does that mean it is better than fallout 3 ? No . Fallout 3 is better than new vegas only by a little bit .
Fallout 3 did give you a mutant as a companion...
Face it John , you are in denial . Fallout 3 was a very good game .
Why do you have to leave so much space in between your comments....
To be fair, the survival elements of FO:NV were pretty weaksausage and mostly just added an extra layer of inventory fiddle.Johnisback said:
The only reason to keep it on is that it makes stimpaks heal over time not instantly (and therefore means you can't just instaheal and tank).
Was it a Super Mutant Nightkin in a flowery dress and gardening gloves who smacked things with a helicopter rotor?TheArcaneThinker said:
No?
Not as good then.
Fallout 3 was a good post-apocalyptic game but a terrible Fallout game.
I still haven't forgiven Bethesda for what they did to Harold and Frank.
I still haven't forgiven Bethesda for what they did to Harold and Frank.
Ok, I agree with you, but I have a serious problem with New Vegas (and fallout 3, but NV with it's better world actually highlights the problem.)CrazyCajun777 said: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.Happyninja42 said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvwlt4FqmS0&list=UUI3GAJaOTL1BoipG41OmfyA&index=11
Why the hell doesn't anyone clean up? I mean, god damn people. Ever heard of a broom? Or even a shovel? Your house has a giant pile of dirt instead of a room. Why don't you clean that shit up? You have a hole in your wall, there is an abandoned house right next door you could use as a source of lumber. Board that crap up. And why do you have 87 unreadable charred books?
I mean, come on. It's been 200 years since the war that destroyed everything. That's like 8 generations. Are you really going to tell me no one thought of actually building a new house in all that time? Or even thought of boarding up the massive hole in the wall their family has been staring through for 8 generations?
What the hell is wrong with everyone?
This is my biggest problem with Fallout. People are eventually going to get on with their lives, they aren't going to be content to wallow in the dirt of a civilization that died 200 years before. And while New Vegas explores this idea with the story the environment design just isn't there to support it. It still reads like 5 years after the apocalypse where everyone is still in pure survival mode.
200 years in we should be well past pure survival mode. Hell, we should be well past adapting to a new way of life and even well past any rebuilding efforts. The Fallout universe should be well into the establishment of an actual new society. But there is virtually nothing in the actual game environments to suggest that this is happening.
While I was a much bigger fandork of New Vegas (I still have to correct myself and remember that 3 happened in DC) Fallout 3 was a lot of fun. The initial ending was bassackwards, and there were elements that made no sense, but it felt like a fun game and was enough like fallout that I didn't mind the brief bits of dissonance.
Also, You're SPECIAL was really clever.
Also, You're SPECIAL was really clever.
I rated it a great game, though time will tell if certain aspects will hold up.
Pluses:
Exploration: Ruined Capital Wasteland was fantastic desolate urban sprawl, filled with beautifully destroyed national landmarks, dangerous supermutants, hidden events, and centuries old cars that would explode into a nuclear fireball from a stray bullet. There was definite sense of awe at the size and scope of it and it's hasn't been matched yet, even by Skyrim
Megaton: The best damn starting city, or the best damn starting city you blow the hell the up. Damn, I wish there was more of it.
In general world design: Bethesda just rocked the post-apoc world design in general. From the slave city made out of junkyard and old car parts to the old ship that became a city unto itself. It was all awe inspiring.
The Finale: Holy shit. Giant Mecha of doom walking through fortified enemy lines. It's still the endgame experience to beat.
Minuses:
Lack of great characters: Sure there are great characters and some stories are interesting, but I cared way less about the denzions of the Capital Wasteland then in New Vegas. Cass, Mr. House, The King, The Van Graffs, hell even Caesar himself were fascinating individuals that I would of loved to encounter again and again. Fallout 3 just pales in comparison.
So so writing: I was invested in the find your father plot, but only to a degree and when the game was done, nothing really kept my interest. Yeah, there are some fun and funny side-quest, but nothing compares to the epic scope of New Vegas. I really cared about that world, and what would happen to it, while in Fallout 3, I only cared about my dad.
The music: Ok, I am a sucker for folk and country, and not a fan of Big Band so I barely listened to the Fallout 3 soundtrack, while I always had my radio on in New Vegas. However, New Vegas was in desperate need of a Three Dog. Sorry Wayne Newton.
Pluses:
Exploration: Ruined Capital Wasteland was fantastic desolate urban sprawl, filled with beautifully destroyed national landmarks, dangerous supermutants, hidden events, and centuries old cars that would explode into a nuclear fireball from a stray bullet. There was definite sense of awe at the size and scope of it and it's hasn't been matched yet, even by Skyrim
Megaton: The best damn starting city, or the best damn starting city you blow the hell the up. Damn, I wish there was more of it.
In general world design: Bethesda just rocked the post-apoc world design in general. From the slave city made out of junkyard and old car parts to the old ship that became a city unto itself. It was all awe inspiring.
The Finale: Holy shit. Giant Mecha of doom walking through fortified enemy lines. It's still the endgame experience to beat.
Minuses:
Lack of great characters: Sure there are great characters and some stories are interesting, but I cared way less about the denzions of the Capital Wasteland then in New Vegas. Cass, Mr. House, The King, The Van Graffs, hell even Caesar himself were fascinating individuals that I would of loved to encounter again and again. Fallout 3 just pales in comparison.
So so writing: I was invested in the find your father plot, but only to a degree and when the game was done, nothing really kept my interest. Yeah, there are some fun and funny side-quest, but nothing compares to the epic scope of New Vegas. I really cared about that world, and what would happen to it, while in Fallout 3, I only cared about my dad.
The music: Ok, I am a sucker for folk and country, and not a fan of Big Band so I barely listened to the Fallout 3 soundtrack, while I always had my radio on in New Vegas. However, New Vegas was in desperate need of a Three Dog. Sorry Wayne Newton.
You are aware that your voicing your OPINION as fact right? New Vegas was a good attempt but the story is nothing more than flat and lets not forget they promised a definitive end to the game not just some slide shows for an ending. They gave us a shit bunch of slid shows that had all the bad voice actors read the script instead of Ron Perlman, the story never goes anywhere and its a shit premise. Nothing you do matters as you dont get to experience the choices made. At least the tried in 3 with broken steel and had some success but could of done it better. This is my OPINION with some real facts about the fake promise about the ending, look it up.Johnisback said:
You are wrong, and everything you say is wrong!Phrozenflame500 said:
Awh man, it's so good to argue about games rather than other stuff. I love this thread. In all seriousness, Fallout 3 should get points over New Vegas for design. They managed to make different shades of grey look gorgeous. Other than that, I most likely feel the same way you do. New Vegas was the superior game.
I liked it fallout 3 for what it was but it goes a lot of thing wrong. if you want a time sink and are into the game with low exceptions for anything that is not exploring then there is fun to be had. I had my fun and have no desire to play this game ever again.
there was not a single ncp I liked or disliked in the whole entire game. Either a ncp useful to me or there not and might as well not exist in the game. It take passion to like or dislike anyone and this game inspired zero passion.
-the story is done poorly. there was only single moment of good write in the whole entire game.
-the combat is kinda meh
-no mod can fix the base game writing wise
positive aspects-
-the exploring is very good
-in the pitt dlc there was a single moment of good writing. if I actually gave a shit about the plight of the slaves it would have a single elevated a single good moment of writing, to great writing.
-attacking the enclave base in the broken steel was actually kinda fun
-using mods to improve the combat then combat becomes kinda fun
-using a mod to add more type of monsters in the game adds a nice verity of monsters
-using a mod to fix remaining bugs make the game less buggy
overall I would call it an alright game.
If you disagree with me then I automatically agree to disagree and will not reply to you if you quote this post and try to debate my option. me forcing my self to replay fallout 3 would a productive use of time then debating about fallout 3 on the internet.
there was not a single ncp I liked or disliked in the whole entire game. Either a ncp useful to me or there not and might as well not exist in the game. It take passion to like or dislike anyone and this game inspired zero passion.
-the story is done poorly. there was only single moment of good write in the whole entire game.
-the combat is kinda meh
-no mod can fix the base game writing wise
positive aspects-
-the exploring is very good
-in the pitt dlc there was a single moment of good writing. if I actually gave a shit about the plight of the slaves it would have a single elevated a single good moment of writing, to great writing.
-attacking the enclave base in the broken steel was actually kinda fun
-using mods to improve the combat then combat becomes kinda fun
-using a mod to add more type of monsters in the game adds a nice verity of monsters
-using a mod to fix remaining bugs make the game less buggy
overall I would call it an alright game.
If you disagree with me then I automatically agree to disagree and will not reply to you if you quote this post and try to debate my option. me forcing my self to replay fallout 3 would a productive use of time then debating about fallout 3 on the internet.