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

[GloatingSwine]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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.

New vegas was not better than fallout 3.

I wholeheartedly disagree.

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."

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.

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.

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.

enclave controlled death claws

Barely different to killing regular Deathclaws. Plus you can fight unique and Legendary Deathclaws in New Vegas.

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.

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]

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]

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.

 

[Reincarnatedwolfgod]

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).

I have question out of curiosity. if you made 43 charters in new vegas then how many hour have you played it the game?
for me steam says I played fallout new Vegas for about 1240 hours and have not even made more then ten characters yet. when I make a character generally try play them to some level of completion and that includes plaything thorough the dlc, and quest mods like new vegas bounties 1 and 2, the inheritance, and others.

 

[GloatingSwine]

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).

And ammo weight, which meant you had to pick and choose which weapons you took instead of just hoarding all the best ones.

True, although you picked your weapons when you picked your perks, and ammo weight just makes you break down all the other ammo to turn into hand-loaded ammo.

 

[Roxas1359]

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).

I have question out of curiosity. if you made 43 charters in new vegas then how many hour have you played it the game?
for me steam says I played fallout new Vegas for about 1240 hours and have not even made more then ten characters yet. when I make a character generally try play them to some level of completion and that includes plaything thorough the dlc, and quest mods like new vegas bounties 1 and 2, the inheritance, and others.

It was mostly on consoles, PS3 to be precise. I only got the PC version a while ago, but it tends to crash from time to time. Total hours I'm not sure, but it is my most played game of all time in my entire history of gaming. So if it were anything, at minimum it would be 4300 hours. Now that I have mods I can do so much more, but I'm restarting Fallout 3 right now to try out my new controller I got since I'm not a big fan of the 360 controller.

 

[TheArcaneThinker]

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).

And ammo weight, which meant you had to pick and choose which weapons you took instead of just hoarding all the best ones.

No game is perfect . Each has its own flaws.

Some are less perfect than others.

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.

It's just a shame you can't give a single reason for that being the case besides "I likeded it."

Fallout 3 did give you a mutant as a companion...

You think my usage of the name Fawkes was a coincidence?

Face it John , you are in denial . Fallout 3 was a very good game.

On it's own? Maybe. As a Fallout game or as an RPG? Absolutely not.

Why do you have to leave so much space in between your comments....

Grammar.

Yes , fallout 3 may be less perfect , but turns out to be much better . Yes , it is my personal opinion that fallout 3 is better . You too in your comments have nothing substantial to say against fallout 3 expect some technical issues . Yes i know the fallout 3 gave mutant companion fawkes , i was just emphasizing the point that they gave a mutant companion with a laser minigun . Ofcourse fallout 3 is not a very good RPG but it is a very good game . Yes , i know... the grammar....but that is too much space .

 

[Zontar]

I loved Fallout 3. The atmosphere is what gets me. New Vages may be better mechanically, but the immersive world of Fallout 3 keeps drawing me back in. It's the type of game I play on a rainy Saturday afternoon where I can get lost for hours without worrying about the consequences. I go on walks in the game and even now, dozens of playthroughs and 500+ hours later I still find new things each time I play.

 

[linwolf]

Fallout 3 was good but I find it pointless to go back and play it, since New Vegas does everything better.

 

[bringmeahorse]

I enjoyed it, much better than NV, but that isn't exactly difficult. Don't get me wrong I enjoyed NV, but the amount of glitching and crashing it did kinda ruined it a bit for me. Also why wasn't I able to play after the end? If I'd have been able to do that then it might have been more fun. fO3 IMO had more memorable characters, I can barely remember any from NV, I mainly remember that Benny was a douchebag with bad voice acting and that Caesers legion was ridiculous. Also the DLCs were kinda meh compared to FO3s, so all round FO3 is more fun. In my opinion obviously

 

[raankh]

I'm it the minority who thought it was terrible. A story I didn't give a damn about (being told I should give a damn doesn't work with me), clunky and boring gameplay and ridiculously easy for an experienced post-apocalyptic scavenger. The "first" boss fight was about as anticlimactic as I have ever experienced in gaming; I had a minigun with a shit ton of ammo and explosives by then. I felt it took a piss on everything the classic Fallout was. I guess I wasn't in the target audience.

 

[bfgmetalhead]

Simply put

Newcomers to Fallout - Fallout 3. New lore so no need to understand the fallout universe outside of side quests and main story, easy compared to old games and is considerably easier than F:NV. Despite that still a great game that revitalized the fallout series, and for that it will be awesome.

Old guard/veterans/lore enthusiast - Fallout: New Vegas. A richer, more well built, believable and generally more falloutish world that actually treads new ground despite being in a desert (again) with a not quite so nuked landscape as opposed to a completely nuked one (F3, F2 and F1). The story is stronger, more well rounded and generally just better thought out than the Liam Neeson fetch-quest spectacular (not to say is bad just meh) the lore that the Fallout series has is routinely used to build up the world, characters and factions that makes some F2 enthusiasts like me squee (FOR THE REPUBLIC!).

BONUS ROUND: DLC!

FALLOUT: 3

- OP: ANCHORAGE - MEH
- THE PITT - MEH to 'GOOD'
- BROKEN STEEL - 'GOOD' to 'GREAT!'
- POINT LOOKOUT - 'GREAT!'
- MOTHERSHIT FAILURE - 'NO'

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FALLOUT: NEW VEGAS

-DEAD MONEY - MEH to'GOOD'
-HONEST HEARTS - MEH (can be 'GOOD' depending on if you like the greenish setting or not)
-OLD WORLD BLUES- 'GREAT!' to 'AMAZING!!'
-LONESOME ROAD - 'BAD :c' to 'GOOD' (mixed bag supreme this one really)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DLC STORYLINE

FALLOUT: 3 - *NONE*

FALLOUT: NEW VEGAS - THE QUEST TO DICKSLAP ULYSSES AND STUFF - its alright

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FINAL SCORE

FALOUT: 3 - 8/8 M8

FALLOUT: NEW VEGAS - 10/10 -"It's alright" - IGN

 

[TallanKhan]

I liked Fallout 3 alot, had hours of fun playing it. But I will admit it had it's flaws, the world itself was rather sparsely populated, having to use the damn metro tunnels to get around DC was a pain, and like everything developed by Bethesda was full of bugs.

Overall I would say good but not quite great.