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

Reincarnatedwolfgod

New member
Jan 17, 2011
1,002
0
0
Neronium said:
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

New member
Nov 10, 2007
4,544
0
0
Johnisback said:
GloatingSwine said:
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

Burn, Burn it All!
Aug 8, 2009
33,758
1
0
Reincarnatedwolfgod said:
Neronium said:
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

New member
Jul 19, 2014
211
0
0
Johnisback said:
GloatingSwine said:
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.

TheArcaneThinker said:
No game is perfect . Each has its own flaws.
Some are less perfect than others.

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

TheArcaneThinker said:
Fallout 3 did give you a mutant as a companion...
You think my usage of the name Fawkes was a coincidence?

TheArcaneThinker said:
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.

TheArcaneThinker said:
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

Mad Max 2019
Feb 18, 2013
4,931
0
0
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

New member
Jan 9, 2010
1,227
0
0
Fallout 3 was good but I find it pointless to go back and play it, since New Vegas does everything better.
 

bringmeahorse

New member
Oct 23, 2014
3
0
0
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

New member
Nov 28, 2007
502
0
0
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

New member
Aug 4, 2010
526
0
0
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

New member
Aug 13, 2009
790
0
0
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.
 

Do4600

New member
Oct 16, 2007
934
0
0
I thought it was a good game, but it just didn't feel like a Fallout game to me. The tone was wrong, the main story was bad, and many of the side quests were bad. It was just hokey. They really poured on the sentimentality. Even from the start: "Oh my Catherine look at our beautiful child, OH DEAR GOD NO CATHERINE! MY WIFE IS DEAD!!!! Bible passages to describe hope!! THIS IS THREE DOG HERE TO TELL YOU HEARTWARMING STORIES! A widowed old woman in a cabin longing to play her long lost violin and finally, regrettably, Little-fucking-Lamplight. Hokey, hokey, hokey.

I'm too cynical to take that at face value, it felt soooo contrived and weak and because that was the only positive emotion in the game it felt like everybody was walking into a gas chamber singing row row row your boat and trying to keep a smile on their face and failing miserably. That got dark fast.
 

Kathinka

New member
Jan 17, 2010
1,141
0
0
It was allright. Good even. But it just wasn't Fallout. As a huge fangirl of the originals, it left me somewhat disappointed, lacking the dark humour and brilliant wit of the originals.
 

pandorum

New member
Mar 22, 2011
249
0
0
Johnisback said:
pandorum said:
You are aware that your voicing your OPINION as fact right?
I am voicing some facts and some opinion. The opinions I voice are explained through certain critical standards.

pandorum said:
New Vegas was a good attempt but the story is nothing more than flat
How do you describe flat here?

pandorum said:
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.
But there was a definitive ending to the game. The lands that had been warred over by the different factions were brought peace by one of the factions defeating the others definitively with the player's help. That's certainly more definitive than Fallout 3's "the maguffin has been used - end of game."
And let's not forget that Fallout 3 had slides at the end as well, it's just the slides in Fallout 3 were pointless and only changed depending on two factors, your karma level and your final choice (sacrifice yourself or your companion).
The slides in New Vegas told you how your actions had influenced almost every single prominent NPC, faction and sub-faction within the game. To say the story didn't go anywhere is completely untrue.

And like I said to the other guy, the "death of the post apocalyptic old west" is a more nuanced and complicated premise than "things are bad, use Liam Neeson's magical artifact to fix them

If you think that makes it shit that's your business.

pandorum said:
Nothing you do matters as you dont get to experience the choices made.
If by "you don't get to experience" you mean you don't get to keep playing after the credits then yeah. But bear in mind you don't get to experience the choices made in Fallout 3 because even if you can keep playing after the end, they literally don't have an effect (bear in mind also that you have to pay for the privilege to keep playing after the end). What you do does matter because even though you don't get to experience the effects first hand you are informed of the consequences of your actions.
No consequences to your actions is not superior to there being consequences that you are informed of second hand.

pandorum said:
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.
If by "fake promise" you mean this
http://archive.news.softpedia.com/news/Fallout-New-Vegas-Has-A-Definitive-Ending-153219.shtml
Then they absolutely did deliver.
DOUBLE POST
 

pandorum

New member
Mar 22, 2011
249
0
0
Johnisback said:
pandorum said:
You are aware that your voicing your OPINION as fact right?
I am voicing some facts and some opinion. The opinions I voice are explained through certain critical standards.

pandorum said:
New Vegas was a good attempt but the story is nothing more than flat
How do you describe flat here?

pandorum said:
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.
But there was a definitive ending to the game. The lands that had been warred over by the different factions were brought peace by one of the factions defeating the others definitively with the player's help. That's certainly more definitive than Fallout 3's "the maguffin has been used - end of game."
And let's not forget that Fallout 3 had slides at the end as well, it's just the slides in Fallout 3 were pointless and only changed depending on two factors, your karma level and your final choice (sacrifice yourself or your companion).
The slides in New Vegas told you how your actions had influenced almost every single prominent NPC, faction and sub-faction within the game. To say the story didn't go anywhere is completely untrue.

And like I said to the other guy, the "death of the post apocalyptic old west" is a more nuanced and complicated premise than "things are bad, use Liam Neeson's magical artifact to fix them."

If you think that makes it shit that's your business.

pandorum said:
Nothing you do matters as you dont get to experience the choices made.
If by "you don't get to experience" you mean you don't get to keep playing after the credits then yeah. But bear in mind you don't get to experience the choices made in Fallout 3 because even if you can keep playing after the end, they literally don't have an effect (bear in mind also that you have to pay for the privilege to keep playing after the end). What you do does matter because even though you don't get to experience the effects first hand you are informed of the consequences of your actions.
No consequences to your actions is not superior to there being consequences that you are informed of second hand.

pandorum said:
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.
If by "fake promise" you mean this
http://archive.news.softpedia.com/news/Fallout-New-Vegas-Has-A-Definitive-Ending-153219.shtml
Then they absolutely did deliver.
I appreciate your opinion on the matter, but where as Fallout 3 was a New start for the franchise, brining it to the main stream of gamers that never heard of it and did a lot right, it really messed up with the slides for an ending, I mean massive robot killing everything endgame was amazing. Fallout New Vegas had an amazing premise but had a really shocking lacklustre start, middle and end no matter which side you chose as the sliders which I might add pissed off a lot of people were back, the fact that you were a lonely Courier who gets shot in the head and then becomes a killing machine bad ass through magical plot device. Now I never mentioned the magufffin of the water as a positive in Fallout 3. You cannot surly think that being born to become the Badass Saviour/asshole is worse then now you are because of revenge, when you could not stop them from capturing you at the start, I mean 3 guys really? You kill thousands and lets not start with the bullshit oh now he wares different clothes he is an enemy even though you are famous. Fallout 3 was by no means perfect but was an epic try, New Vegas had the opportunity to be amazing and really develop on the strengths of the first, it failed to deliver the same WOW factor that 3 did, the fact that we still have these debates proves it did not do as well as it should of in making the sequel, now I am aware that you can never please everybody and there are those that will defend their favourite no matter what. As someone who has played both more times that I can count 3 is the better package overall the Capitol wasteland is an amazing setting with great atmosphere and the random encounters and little worlds like the blood drinking cannibals and the Republic of Dave are great gems to name a few, did the story fall flat at the end? Yes it did, but NV was flat from the start and only picked up midway for a short time before being flat again, it did however have a more fleshed out companions then 3 but it was a sequel thus so it should of, that is a plus but it failed to deliver the impact of 3, the journey of 3 is better. DISCLAIMER: this is a discussion using opinions with facts, fanboys/girs not welcome.
 

Doom972

New member
Dec 25, 2008
2,312
0
0
This game blew my mind. Seeing the world of Fallout coming to life this way was something I thought I'll never get to experience.
 

bluepotatosack

New member
Mar 17, 2011
499
0
0
It was what made me go out and get a PS3 (didn't have a PC at the time) because I was a huge fan of the first 2. It's a pretty good game, but hugely disappointing as a Fallout game. NV was the true successor in my eyes. There were just far too many things about the narrative that made little to no sense. I mean, people had already formed settlements ranging from small towns to cities and were growing their own food in the first game. 100 years later than that and the characters in 3 don't have their shit together anywhere near that well.
 

Czann

New member
Jan 22, 2014
317
0
0
Great game. Being able to walk around the wastes in 3D is still amazing and with mods to correct bugs and implement new stuff it gets even better.
 

WhiteTigerShiro

New member
Sep 26, 2008
2,366
0
0
Maybe Fallout 3 is better, maybe New Vegas is better. Either way, I put over 200 hours into both games (each), and could easily see myself putting-in more.