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

[eimatshya]

I thought Fallout 3 was a good game. It definitely exceeded the low expectations Oblivion left me with. The story was engaging enough the first time through, and I liked that it allowed some flexibility (for example, when Three Dog told me do a bunch of dangerous stuff for him in exchange for one tiny piece of information, I was able to tell him to fuck off and managed to find my dad without his help). The environments looked nice and perfectly evoked the feeling of devastation and ruin. The fact that it could be modded so easily was another great feature.

To be honest, I would probably have been singing its praises if it hadn't had the Fallout name because that's where it fell flat on its face. Fallout 3 is a good post apocalyptic game. It isn't a good Fallout game. It completely failed to recapture the feel of the first two games (unlike Fallout: New Vegas, which nailed the feeling perfectly). Fallout 3 tried to include as much stuff from the first two games as it could (vaults, the Enclave, Harold, pip boys, stim packs, the Brotherhood of Steel, etc.), but most of it just felt contrived, like they made a game and then stapled a bunch of Fallouty stuff to it and said "look how Fallout we are", without ever managing to capture the spirit or feel of its predecessors.

So, yeah. Fallout 3: good post apocalyptic game, bad Fallout game.

 

[Geo Da Sponge]

Yeah, I'm another one of these people who just prefers New Vegas a lot, so I'm not sure what to vote. I've only ever played a small bit of Fallout 1 and 2 since, with one exception, I've never been able to get very far in old-school isometric RPGs. But despite that, I still really appreciate New Vegas' more consistent and well built narrative.

I'm actually replaying Fallout 3 at the moment, since I got it on Steam and fixed it up so it would run properly. I knew the story was going to hurt my head, but I never realised how much I would miss a lot of the gameplay mechanics that New Vegas introduced as well. Things feel a lot more bland without the same variety of weaponry and ammo types, and I seriously miss being able to craft all kinds of different stuff. Being able to cook up your own drugs with the science skill, or purifying water with survival, made everything feel a bit more real. Plus, yeah, all the stuff described in this video has really stuck in my head:

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...

HA, racist.
But in all seriousness if you aren't sure about that I really question that your claim that you've even one playthrough is true, let alone multiple playthroughs.
First of all there are plenty of regular, green super mutants in Jacobstown, there's just only one named green super mutant.
Second of all if you don't know whether the Nightkin are mutants or not you clearly didn't listen to any of the dialogue in the game or even glance at the visual design of the two variants. Look I'll post them below.
How can you not see from a glance that

Spoiler: This

is related to

Spoiler: This

You'd have thought that someone who apparently loves Super Mutants so much would have listened to the Super Mutant hosted radio show, wouldn't you? Then they would have learnt all about the differences with our best friend, Tabitha!

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Oh I know, some things in your argument are actually more objective than subjective. I just worded it the way I did so I don't get dragged into another FO3 v NV debate (I'm on NV side on that, but then again 43 characters over the years kinda shows it).

But I just can't help myself, the fact Obsidian will never make another Fallout game lights a fire in my gut.

The release of Fallout 4 might make me physically ill. I don't think that I'll be able to look at a copy of the game without getting agitated for a long time. Fallout deserved Obsidian.

 

[Owen Robertson]

A great game. Good mechanics (VATS can break the combat), great story, great visuals (Actually, the decrepit Washington monument visible when you leave Vault 101 haunts me, and I'm not even American.), and great fun. Not the best game ever, but the best game that year? Certainly, it has a case.

To be fair to series OG's, it's a bad Fallout game. Plus it had its share of bugs. But that's a trademark of Bethesda games, for better or worse.

 

[Guy_of_wonder]

i bought Fallout 3, the DLC, and New vegas all at once (all used). I played Fallout 3 to the story end and thought it was a good game with alot of walking back and forth, even with fast travel. The game got annoying when i tried to kill some Deathclaws and super mutants that took multiple plasma magazines to kill.

Fallout 3 has the same problem i have with Borderlands, the enemies are too bullet spongey and enemy re-spawning is annoying.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

Though I would say New Vegas is better in most ways than Fallout 3, I still can't deny that Fallout 3 was a pretty good game. I put a good amount of time into it, something a lot of games I get I can't say the same of.

Is New Vegas that much different than Original Fallout 3?
I've played Fallout 1 & 2 (prefer 2) and 3.

I feel like it was much more of a RPG, and it took out the really annoying parts of the Fallout 3, namely the main questline being less crappy.

You aren't a Vault Dweller, you're a courier with no history besides one you make up. You aren't searching for your dad, you're looking for the man who almost killed you and the reason why he wanted to kill you. You aren't forced to align with the Brotherhood of Steel against the Enclave to save the Wasteland, you now can choose from a multitude of factions each with their own different questlines and moral endings. The beginning of each game isn't that same twenty-some minute sequence of watching yourself grow up in the Vault, you can explore the Wasteland about two minutes after you start a new game. Speech, Science and Lockpicking aren't end-all skills that give you most of your XP and can cut huge corners of the game. Melee combat is the tiniest bit more viable. Karma is more-or-less done away with and replaced with reputation that varies between gangs and towns depending on how you treat them.

But it feels a lot like the same game otherwise. Movement, shooting, V.A.T.S., exploring, hilarious stealth, bulletsponge enemies, pretty good music. The extra things Obsidian Entertainment put into it are hard to turn away from though.

 

[f1r2a3n4k5]

I would agree that it has depreciated a little bit at time.

I was pleasantly surprised with Fallout 3 as a fan of the original. In many ways, I felt it kept much of the charm of the original while adding new elements. It wasn't the perfect sequel. But any transition as radical as isometric to first-person is going to have kinks. So I think they did a "great" job in that regard.

I would also agree that Fallout: New Vegas took that transition and started to tweak and improve it. I don't know if I would say it was "fantastic," but it was certainly very, very good.

So now, after New Vegas, looking back at FO3 seems a little dull in comparison. But only because the formula has been revisited and improved upon.

 

[TheArcaneThinker]

Nevermind... There is no convincing you about how wrong you are about this...

I have provided facts and rationale for why I think you're wrong.
You have simply told me I'm wrong.

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

No I am the sort of person who will bash the a game and it's story because it is simplistic, contains little internal logic and does not properly fit itself for the medium with which is it being told.

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 .

When the dog showed up in Call of Duty you didn't simply follow it around, watching the computer using it to take down guards. You took control of the dog yourself and actually played that part of the game instead of just watching it.

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...

HA, racist.
But in all seriousness if you aren't sure about that I really question that your claim that you've even one playthrough is true, let alone multiple playthroughs.
First of all there are plenty of regular, green super mutants in Jacobstown, there's just only one named green super mutant.
Second of all if you don't know whether the Nightkin are mutants or not you clearly didn't listen to any of the dialogue in the game or even glance at the visual design of the two variants. Look I'll post them below.
How can you not see from a glance that

Spoiler: This

is related to

Spoiler: This

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

We clearly both do have different opinions, mine are based on facts and carefully explained rationale. Yours are based on sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "LALALALALA I'M NOT LISTENING."
It's ironic that you accuse me of bias because your blatant fanboyism is so massive it's off the scale.

Yes i have had multiple playthroughs and fallout 3 is the better game and i will stand by that claim . Your facts are nothing more than a few technical problems and other things . I did not include jacobstown since it was a friendly place with no hostile mutants . Mutants and nightkin are different . I am listening and giving a proper answer to most of your claims and yes I am accusing you of being biased and no i am not a fanboy . It is just my opinion that fallout 3 is the better game .

 

[GloatingSwine]

Fallout 3 has the same problem i have with Borderlands, the enemies are too bullet spongey and enemy re-spawning is annoying.

Late game balance in Fallout 3 is shot to bollocks, especially with the DLC.

Even outside of how trivial it is to make a character who is perfect at everything (which you can't in FO:NV even if you do get 100 in all skills, which is possible but harder, due to how much perks specialise your character), you get DLC items like the Winterised T-51b, Metal Blaster, and Chinese Stealth Suit which ruin the challenge of most content entirely, and then to counter that they had to start giving enemies special armour ignoring attacks to overcome how monstrously hard they allowed players to get.

 

[Geo Da Sponge]

Yes i have had multiple playthroughs and fallout 3 is the better game and i will stand by that claim . Your facts are nothing more than a few technical problems and other things . I did not include jacobstown since it was a friendly place with no hostile mutants . Mutants and nightkin are different . I am listening and giving a proper answer to most of your claims and yes I am accusing you of being biased and no i am not a fanboy . It is just my opinion that fallout 3 is the better game .

What is it with you and super mutants? How did this whole discussion of "the game that lets you kill more super mutants is better" start? If killing big green brutish enemies is what really appeals to you, might I recommend Orcs Must Die?

Also, what do you mean by saying that someone is biased in favour of New Vegas? What is the soruce of that alleged bias? Are you suggesting that people who prefer New Vegas have some special relationship with the developers or have been bribed or something? I don't get it.

 

[TheArcaneThinker]

Yes i have had multiple playthroughs and fallout 3 is the better game and i will stand by that claim . Your facts are nothing more than a few technical problems and other things . I did not include jacobstown since it was a friendly place with no hostile mutants . Mutants and nightkin are different . I am listening and giving a proper answer to most of your claims and yes I am accusing you of being biased and no i am not a fanboy . It is just my opinion that fallout 3 is the better game .

What is it with you and super mutants? How did this whole discussion of "the game that lets you kill more super mutants is better" start? If killing big green brutish enemies is what really appeals to you, might I recommend Orcs Must Die?

Also, what do you mean by saying that someone is biased in favour of New Vegas? What is the soruce of that alleged bias? Are you suggesting that people who prefer New Vegas have some special relationship with the developers or have been bribed or something? I don't get it.

Well you see , I can accused him of being biased to new vegas for liking it to a certain extent that he cannot admit that something else can be better , then he called me a fanboy , then i called him biased again.... its pointless really . I am tried to this conversation... every time I think its over , it pulls me back in...
The super mutant point was made along with controlled deathclaws (forgot to add the behemoth) previously while comparing to NV to show that fallout 3 had better enemies .

Btw if you dont mind me changing the subject . How is Orcs must die ? Is it good ?

 

[Silverbane7]

i voted great game for fallout3 because i spent so many hours on it. on the 360.
i got all the DLC because when the GotY version came out, i gave my vanilla copy to my fiance and bought the GotY version for the same price as vanilla (it was £40 at ASDA that time, and since the DLC on 360 came to nearly as much as the game was, it was worth me buying the GotY. then i used my disk on my fiance's 360, and he also got the fun of it.)

then when new vegas came out, i bought that for my ps3. and slowly bought all the dlc on that...and then eventualy bought a 2nd hand copy of the vegas GotY on 360 because my ps3 copy kept crashing on me.

finaly, when i eventualy got steam, it was new vegas i bought when steam had a sale, because i prefer the heal over time system for nuka cola and the other food / drink items. because it has a bigger crafting system (to me, from comming from no mods vanilla console version) and because one day, when i am good enough at shooting and dont just make a smack-it-if-it-moves type melee char, i may try playthru on hardcore mode.

however, there are one or two mods that allow you to play fallout3 using the new vegas engine, and some that allow you to not only play both games together, but allow you to go between the two (though those may or may not still be around, i havent checked recently)
once i get a taste for the modded version, i probably will buy fallout 3 on sale on steam and just mod the two together, using the new vegas system, and maybe even hardcore mode them together. i dont know.

im looking forward to whatever version fallout 4 is, so long as it isnt just another CoD type thing with post apocalypse plastered over it (ie just cover based regen hp fps type). i LIKE sneaking up and knifing a raider in the neck or smashing his head off with a lead pipe...hm, now i know my next playthru chars name will be Leela XD and she likes knives...lots of knives. and if they let me, poisons...wonder if they have thorn bushes i can pick the sharp bits off in the next fallout....

so yes, i voted it a great game, becasue i have spent a lot of time and money on the versions i have XD

 

[momijirabbit]

Well you see , I can accused him of being biased to new vegas for liking it to a certain extent that he cannot admit that something else can be better , then he called me a fanboy , then i called him biased again.... its pointless really . I am tried to this conversation... every time I think its over , it pulls me back in...
The super mutant point was made along with controlled deathclaws (forgot to add the behemoth) previously while comparing to NV to show that fallout 3 had better enemies .

Idon'tevenknow.

Fallout 3 and New vegas have the EXACT SAME roster of enemies, with New vegas having a few more.

The Story in Vegas is better and makes logical sense.

There is more stuff to do, better characters and weapons.
And the quests.

Spoiler: Look at this crap

Look at Fallout 3 compared to New Vegas in quest terms.
Not
Even
Close

 

[Auron225]

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]

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]

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]

Yes i have had multiple playthroughs

I don't believe you.

and fallout 3 is the better game

I don't believe you.

Your facts are nothing more than a few technical problems and other things.

Patently false.

I did not include jacobstown since it was a friendly place with no hostile mutants.

Flip-flopping.

Mutants and nightkin are different.

But they're both mutants, more flip flopping.

I am listening and giving a proper answer to most of your claims

No you're not.

and yes I am accusing you of being biased

Laughably.

and no i am not a fanboy.

I don't believe you.

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 .

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]

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]

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]

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....