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

Auron225

New member
Oct 26, 2009
1,790
0
0
I'd say it was a great game - it did everything right and would have been fantastic IF;

1) The lagging, bugs and freezing issues weren't there.
2) The ending wasn't so nonsensical
 

GloatingSwine

New member
Nov 10, 2007
4,544
0
0
momijirabbit said:
Idon'tevenknow.

Fallout 3 and New vegas have the EXACT SAME roster of enemies, with New vegas having a few more.
They're really quite different though.

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.
 

veloper

New member
Jan 20, 2009
4,597
0
0
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.
 

TheArcaneThinker

New member
Jul 19, 2014
211
0
0
Johnisback said:
TheArcaneThinker said:
Yes i have had multiple playthroughs
I don't believe you.

TheArcaneThinker said:
and fallout 3 is the better game
I don't believe you.

TheArcaneThinker said:
Your facts are nothing more than a few technical problems and other things.
Patently false.

TheArcaneThinker said:
I did not include jacobstown since it was a friendly place with no hostile mutants.
Flip-flopping.

TheArcaneThinker said:
Mutants and nightkin are different.
But they're both mutants, more flip flopping.

TheArcaneThinker said:
I am listening and giving a proper answer to most of your claims
No you're not.

TheArcaneThinker said:
and yes I am accusing you of being biased
Laughably.

TheArcaneThinker said:
and no i am not a fanboy.
I don't believe you.

TheArcaneThinker said:
It is just my opinion that fallout 3 is the better game.
"Well that's just like totally your opinion man."

I thought you said you were going to stop replying. I gotta tell you dude I got nothing better to do with my time.
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 .

momijirabbit said:
Look at Fallout 3 compared to New Vegas in quest terms.
Not
Even
Close
Yes because fallout new vegas had multiple branches of quests . Just because a game has more quest , does not mean that it is better .

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 .
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
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.
 

GloatingSwine

New member
Nov 10, 2007
4,544
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
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.
 

TheArcaneThinker

New member
Jul 19, 2014
211
0
0
Johnisback said:
TheArcaneThinker said:
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 .
Well you've not given me much to work with here and like I said, I have nothing better to do with my time but ferociously nerd out so I'm gonna just keep going.

Level scaling - There's no feeling of progressing in strength in Fallout 3 because the enemies grow in strength alongside you, that sucks.

No hardcore mode - Fancy a bit of extra challenge? Fancy some survival elements to your post apocalyptic game? Not with Bethesda.

The opening - You know what's not fun? Sitting through a 20 minute long introductory sequence you've seen a hundred times before. I'd much rather sit through a 2 minute long introductory sequence I've seen a hundred times before.

The ending - "Hey Fawkes, you wanna go push the button in that radiation filled room for me so I don't die pointlessly? No? I have to pay extra money to Bethesda for that? Go fuck yourself Fawkes."

The Quests - "Hey Bethesda, fancy giving me more than just one or two ways to finish a quest? No? That would take actual time and effort to program? Okay I guess."

Companions - Companions in New Vegas are actual characters with actual personalities that you can actually influence. Companions in Fallout 3 boil down to "Your karma good, me like."
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 .

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....
 

GloatingSwine

New member
Nov 10, 2007
4,544
0
0
Johnisback said:
No hardcore mode - Fancy a bit of extra challenge? Fancy some survival elements to your post apocalyptic game? Not with Bethesda.
To be fair, the survival elements of FO:NV were pretty weaksausage and mostly just added an extra layer of inventory fiddle.

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).
 

GloatingSwine

New member
Nov 10, 2007
4,544
0
0
TheArcaneThinker said:
Fallout 3 did give you a mutant as a companion....
Was it a Super Mutant Nightkin in a flowery dress and gardening gloves who smacked things with a helicopter rotor?

No?

Not as good then.
 

TheArcaneThinker

New member
Jul 19, 2014
211
0
0
GloatingSwine said:
TheArcaneThinker said:
Fallout 3 did give you a mutant as a companion....
Was it a Super Mutant Nightkin in a flowery dress and gardening gloves who smacked things with a helicopter rotor?

No?

Not as good then.
Well , he did have a mini-gun that shot lasers .
 

RhombusHatesYou

Surreal Estate Agent
Mar 21, 2010
6,590
838
118
Country
Australia
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.
 

DrOswald

New member
Apr 22, 2011
1,443
0
0
CrazyCajun777 said:
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
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.)

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.
 

zalabar

New member
Jul 8, 2011
2
0
0
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.
 

tyriless

New member
Aug 27, 2010
234
0
0
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.
 

pandorum

New member
Mar 22, 2011
249
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
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.
 

tyriless

New member
Aug 27, 2010
234
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.
You are wrong, and everything you say is wrong!

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.
 

Reincarnatedwolfgod

New member
Jan 17, 2011
1,002
0
0
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.