Zero Punctuation: Fallout 3
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
well i havent read all the posts here so maybe this was addressed...
but someone had asked why fallout 3 is not equal to the originals.
so i thought id clarify that a bit.
to start. i enjoyed fallout 3. i was very dissapointed... but i did think it a good game... if i pretended it wasnt named fallout 3. i recall the review on escapist saying you cant compare fallout 3 to fallout 1 and 2. however. as it it named fallout 3... you can indeed compare it. just like you can compare star wars 1-3 with 4-6...
now then.
fallout 3 though entertaining is far less thought out than the originals. despite being 200 years after the nuclear war... the communities seem to be in the "holy shit the world just ended" stage and are barely holding together, and you wouldnt expect any of the settlements to still exsist within a year of fallout 3 taking place. im pretty sure there 20 raiders 10 super mutants 5 feral ghouls 5 robots 5 talon company mercs and about 50 various hostile animals... to every 1 decent person living in a settlement. and seeing as the settlements are almost all poorly defended and have no sustainable food sources... id expect them to be gone very soon.
so thats one thing. the game is less thought out. it feel likes the bombs dropped a couple days ago not 200 years.
the character creation has far less baring on the game now. you can make a character with 1 inteligence and you arent punished for it what-so-ever.
you get 11 skill points instead of 20 for having 10 inteligence. and you miss out on a couple of perks and dialogue options...
in the originals... if you made a character with below 3 inteligence... youd have very few skill points and you would indeed be mentally challenged. with dialogue options such as "urgh huk?"
so overall... the game is far more forgiving and simplistic.
the combat on the other hand... i didnt mind vats. i do think it would be improved with not going slow motion every single time however. and it does kinda feel like cheating. on the other hand. the real time combat is just bad. the enemies usually move in such jerky fashion that its difficult to hit them unless they are standing still.
as for the overall tone of the wasteland... the detail in fallout 3 is amazing. but after exploring your 10th random building with nothing but enemies and a bit of loot... it loses some appeal. same with the subways.
a big difference between the originals and fallout 3 is the humour. the originals managed to have a gritty serious game, with awesome humour. it was hilarious. and yet grim... very impressive.
fallout 3 focuses almost entirely on the gritty and grim, and has just a bit of humour here and there, most of which isnt all the funny. i do understand their thought process on this, since the originals might be considered a bit cheesey with their pop culture references and such... but i thought that was a big part of the charm.
i was also suprised that they took almost all the sex out of the game.
oh and the main quest... is very frusterating. it was possible to fail in fallout 1 and 2 by killing off some of the main npcs in your start location... but you could at least kill them.
fallout 3 you just spend all your time knocking people out... and then they act like you didnt just shoot them in the face. very odd. and invincible children... that offended me a lot. i generally avioded the "child killer" karma title in fallout 2... but at least it was there if i ever wanted to be that evil.
i guess the main thing is... fallout 1 and 2 focused on plot and letting you tell your own story. the graphics sure arent impressive compared to nowadays. but the awesome dialogue, freedom, setting, comedy, and character creation make it an amazing game.
fallout 3 looks extremely impressive (well the models are kinda bland and lifeless... but maybe thats my medium settings...?) it focuses more on action (which it does so-so) and just rips off points from the originals for a plot... (getting water is your first objective in fallout 1... and a GECK is the first objective in fallout 2). and executes said plot poorly. the ending was extremely dissapointing... i heard they had 500ish variations of the ending... i just cant believe that... if they did it like the originals then it would make sense... the originals endings would tell you about the places youve been and some of the people youve met. basically it reflect your actions and show you just how much of an impact you had on the wastes.
if you compare fallout 3 to oblivion it comes out favourably indeed.
but sinces its named fallout 3... you have to compare it with its predessors... which it falls way short of...
id give it a nice 70% rating... but it would need 90% to be a worthy sequel.
but someone had asked why fallout 3 is not equal to the originals.
so i thought id clarify that a bit.
to start. i enjoyed fallout 3. i was very dissapointed... but i did think it a good game... if i pretended it wasnt named fallout 3. i recall the review on escapist saying you cant compare fallout 3 to fallout 1 and 2. however. as it it named fallout 3... you can indeed compare it. just like you can compare star wars 1-3 with 4-6...
now then.
fallout 3 though entertaining is far less thought out than the originals. despite being 200 years after the nuclear war... the communities seem to be in the "holy shit the world just ended" stage and are barely holding together, and you wouldnt expect any of the settlements to still exsist within a year of fallout 3 taking place. im pretty sure there 20 raiders 10 super mutants 5 feral ghouls 5 robots 5 talon company mercs and about 50 various hostile animals... to every 1 decent person living in a settlement. and seeing as the settlements are almost all poorly defended and have no sustainable food sources... id expect them to be gone very soon.
so thats one thing. the game is less thought out. it feel likes the bombs dropped a couple days ago not 200 years.
the character creation has far less baring on the game now. you can make a character with 1 inteligence and you arent punished for it what-so-ever.
you get 11 skill points instead of 20 for having 10 inteligence. and you miss out on a couple of perks and dialogue options...
in the originals... if you made a character with below 3 inteligence... youd have very few skill points and you would indeed be mentally challenged. with dialogue options such as "urgh huk?"
so overall... the game is far more forgiving and simplistic.
the combat on the other hand... i didnt mind vats. i do think it would be improved with not going slow motion every single time however. and it does kinda feel like cheating. on the other hand. the real time combat is just bad. the enemies usually move in such jerky fashion that its difficult to hit them unless they are standing still.
as for the overall tone of the wasteland... the detail in fallout 3 is amazing. but after exploring your 10th random building with nothing but enemies and a bit of loot... it loses some appeal. same with the subways.
a big difference between the originals and fallout 3 is the humour. the originals managed to have a gritty serious game, with awesome humour. it was hilarious. and yet grim... very impressive.
fallout 3 focuses almost entirely on the gritty and grim, and has just a bit of humour here and there, most of which isnt all the funny. i do understand their thought process on this, since the originals might be considered a bit cheesey with their pop culture references and such... but i thought that was a big part of the charm.
i was also suprised that they took almost all the sex out of the game.
oh and the main quest... is very frusterating. it was possible to fail in fallout 1 and 2 by killing off some of the main npcs in your start location... but you could at least kill them.
fallout 3 you just spend all your time knocking people out... and then they act like you didnt just shoot them in the face. very odd. and invincible children... that offended me a lot. i generally avioded the "child killer" karma title in fallout 2... but at least it was there if i ever wanted to be that evil.
i guess the main thing is... fallout 1 and 2 focused on plot and letting you tell your own story. the graphics sure arent impressive compared to nowadays. but the awesome dialogue, freedom, setting, comedy, and character creation make it an amazing game.
fallout 3 looks extremely impressive (well the models are kinda bland and lifeless... but maybe thats my medium settings...?) it focuses more on action (which it does so-so) and just rips off points from the originals for a plot... (getting water is your first objective in fallout 1... and a GECK is the first objective in fallout 2). and executes said plot poorly. the ending was extremely dissapointing... i heard they had 500ish variations of the ending... i just cant believe that... if they did it like the originals then it would make sense... the originals endings would tell you about the places youve been and some of the people youve met. basically it reflect your actions and show you just how much of an impact you had on the wastes.
if you compare fallout 3 to oblivion it comes out favourably indeed.
but sinces its named fallout 3... you have to compare it with its predessors... which it falls way short of...
id give it a nice 70% rating... but it would need 90% to be a worthy sequel.
Like before, I haven't watched yet, but from what people people have been saying about his review, he likes it. I'm glad it's that way, because my friend bought it for his laptop, and we thought it was pretty cool. So now I'm definetely buying this game.
gunna take that as a good game review 
Gratz fall out 3 u have achieved the near impossible! impressing yahtzee!
Gratz fall out 3 u have achieved the near impossible! impressing yahtzee!
I personally like the game, and played it more than I should have... 20 hours plus. I'd like to see Yahtzee play Left 4 Dead... I love that game... so much it hurts my arms playing it.
I was really, really wary of Fallout 3 being that I am somewhat of a fanboy of the first two plus I hated Oblivion. After playing a bit of the game so far, I have to say Bethesda may be heading in the right direction. There are alot of things that could be improved, a few things that NEED to be improved, but overall I think the "Pros" outweigh the "Cons".
Biggest gripes:
- I like VATS (reminds me of old Fallout), but whats with no Eyes or Groin to aim at? Plus seems like something is wrong with Real Time shooting as you spend probably 5x the ammo.
- Karma system needs improvement.
- Seems like everyone starts with the "Blood Mess" perk, but later you get the "Extremely Bloody Mess" perk where nearly everyone explodes off all their limbs. I think there are waaaay to many dismemberments without the perk while using weapons that this shouldnt be capable of happening (unless due to radiation, human bones tend to explode when struck hard enuff).
Edited to add:
As for serious Fallout fanboys. I understand their woes; however I think they dont even try to get over the move to non-isometric and realtime. I agree that I wouldve like to see another Fallout done up old skool Iso- and Turn-based in glorious 3D, but as far as sequels go from another company over a decade after the last "true" sequel... this isnt that bad.
I think one HUGE difference I miss is that in 1 & 2, SPECIAL really defined your character and it forced you to think, act, play as this character you made since your abilities are so limited and diverse.
Biggest gripes:
- I like VATS (reminds me of old Fallout), but whats with no Eyes or Groin to aim at? Plus seems like something is wrong with Real Time shooting as you spend probably 5x the ammo.
- Karma system needs improvement.
- Seems like everyone starts with the "Blood Mess" perk, but later you get the "Extremely Bloody Mess" perk where nearly everyone explodes off all their limbs. I think there are waaaay to many dismemberments without the perk while using weapons that this shouldnt be capable of happening (unless due to radiation, human bones tend to explode when struck hard enuff).
Edited to add:
As for serious Fallout fanboys. I understand their woes; however I think they dont even try to get over the move to non-isometric and realtime. I agree that I wouldve like to see another Fallout done up old skool Iso- and Turn-based in glorious 3D, but as far as sequels go from another company over a decade after the last "true" sequel... this isnt that bad.
I think one HUGE difference I miss is that in 1 & 2, SPECIAL really defined your character and it forced you to think, act, play as this character you made since your abilities are so limited and diverse.
Hey fellow Zero Punctuation fans (and Yathzee, who knows),
I'd like to simply point-out that...well..the review was sort of off target. What I mean is that he didn't play the game right. Before getting all offended and replying my comment, let me explain.
Yathzee's supposed to do a review, meaning playing the game as it is and giving-out his opinion of it. Therefore, with how the difficulties are set, the only way to fully appreciate the essence of the game (meaning VERY LIMITED ressources, attacks needing a minimal use of strategy and enemies quite harder to dispose of (making the V.A.T.S a almost indispensable tool and the gamer able to actualy appreciate it)) is at very hard (being the most difficult setting). With the content of the video, I can guess that Yathzee played Fallout3 on normal or eaven easy difficulty setting (I really hope he wasen't noobish enough to go on very easy).
Point is, I was rather deceived when, eaventho the review was intertaining, I found myself watching a comment video about a game that's hardly been played for what it is. So Yathzee, how about changing the difficulty level (if possible in-game, good thing about Fallout3) when things seems rather too easy, to the point where you normaly should feel like you're missing-out on something?
I'd like to simply point-out that...well..the review was sort of off target. What I mean is that he didn't play the game right. Before getting all offended and replying my comment, let me explain.
Yathzee's supposed to do a review, meaning playing the game as it is and giving-out his opinion of it. Therefore, with how the difficulties are set, the only way to fully appreciate the essence of the game (meaning VERY LIMITED ressources, attacks needing a minimal use of strategy and enemies quite harder to dispose of (making the V.A.T.S a almost indispensable tool and the gamer able to actualy appreciate it)) is at very hard (being the most difficult setting). With the content of the video, I can guess that Yathzee played Fallout3 on normal or eaven easy difficulty setting (I really hope he wasen't noobish enough to go on very easy).
Point is, I was rather deceived when, eaventho the review was intertaining, I found myself watching a comment video about a game that's hardly been played for what it is. So Yathzee, how about changing the difficulty level (if possible in-game, good thing about Fallout3) when things seems rather too easy, to the point where you normaly should feel like you're missing-out on something?
I still don't understand all the hate. People are holding this game up to some huge standard it could never really meet no matter what. Its true that this is diffent than the last two games but that does not have to be a bad thing. Once you remove the rose tinted glasses Fallout 2 had alot of things fans complained about when compared to one anyways. Personally I think that most of the gripes with Fallout 3 and with bathesda's work in general are kind of too hard. After all they went though the work of picking up a series that most of the fans would hate them for no matter what they did, dusting it off, and putting alot of effort into making a really good game. It is good too. How many other companies put this level of overall detail into a game anymore, especially with all the cries for 'better graphics' and 'more content' from everywhere. How many companies still go above and beyond what will get them the money? Hell how many companies dare to survive by putting out such a relatively small number of high quality games?
The days of the Pen and Paper Iso are gone unless one of you guys wants to get tools and make one. It saddens me too but if you refuse to look past it then your crushing all the fun out of a wonderful game before you even touch the keyboard. I'm not even going to pretend to understand the hate towards the Elder scroll games, but it seems that most of the people who feel that way hated Fallout 3 for not being like the other two anyways. This is not an episode 1-3 situation people. They kept the continuity fairly well, kept the feel, did quite a bit to try and make old fans happy which frankly almost seems like a wasted effort for most fans.
I am sorry to say but the way I see it those who seem to have serious complaint about the game, well, I'm sorry to say that anything done by anyone but Black Isle was never going to be good enough and the game lost the ability to be fun for you when you heard about it it seems. You know this is a good reason though for people to homebrew Fallout into their favorite pen and paper system though as it would finally make those people happy.
The days of the Pen and Paper Iso are gone unless one of you guys wants to get tools and make one. It saddens me too but if you refuse to look past it then your crushing all the fun out of a wonderful game before you even touch the keyboard. I'm not even going to pretend to understand the hate towards the Elder scroll games, but it seems that most of the people who feel that way hated Fallout 3 for not being like the other two anyways. This is not an episode 1-3 situation people. They kept the continuity fairly well, kept the feel, did quite a bit to try and make old fans happy which frankly almost seems like a wasted effort for most fans.
I am sorry to say but the way I see it those who seem to have serious complaint about the game, well, I'm sorry to say that anything done by anyone but Black Isle was never going to be good enough and the game lost the ability to be fun for you when you heard about it it seems. You know this is a good reason though for people to homebrew Fallout into their favorite pen and paper system though as it would finally make those people happy.
All the important gripe can be summed in Beth going for a action/shooter rather then a good RPG.TerraMGP said:
Also big time ROFL at, "How many companies still go above and beyond what will get them the money? Hell how many companies dare to survive by putting out such a relatively small number of high quality games?"
Also no need for the excuse at the end, that only Black Isle could have only done it. Also think be better if they made released let Black Isle finished Van Buren or had Beth not got all uptight about the little project some small group of guys where making.
You know there is no point in arguing this. If you guys want to make yoruselves miserable by ripping apart the game bit by bit over small things and convincing yourselves that its not good then really your only hurting yourselves. Bethesda makes good games. I personally adore the large open ended world thing and the do it really well in real time. I love the old games, but Oblivion and Fallout 3 are great games.
I will say this though. If your capable of keeping your standards realistic and not projecting hatred onto a game for the 'indie reason to hate it' you may find that alot of those games are actually fun. In the end isn't that the point?
I will say this though. If your capable of keeping your standards realistic and not projecting hatred onto a game for the 'indie reason to hate it' you may find that alot of those games are actually fun. In the end isn't that the point?
You sir, have a way of putting things on paper that I can't be bothered pointing out to people. I couldn't agree any more with all of your statements so far, it just irks me to no end that people had this certain game in their minds and they're just pissed it didn't get done to what they thought it should be. I shall name it 'Fanboi Tunnel Vision'.TerraMGP said:
Bethesda doing what they have done with the game opened up their target market by shitloads. I've seen so many comments stating that people will now buy this game even though they weren't fans of the previous isometric view games.
Imagine if GTA kept its top down view?
Bli$$ard on the other hand has done exactly what the fans want and kept their game to the same viewpoint as the previous 2. I'm happy enough with that as they probably have the sales figures to back up keeping it that way.