Zero Punctuation: Fallout 3
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
First bit made me laugh harder than I have since the Big Daddy bit all the way back in Bioshock. Subverting expectations. Clever Yahtzee.
Considering it would be impossible to lambast Fallout 3 as much as it deserves in a 12 volume leather-bound set of books as big as tables, I wasn't surprised to hear it get only a mild jabbing in 5 minutes.
Back to no adverts = happy me.
Considering it would be impossible to lambast Fallout 3 as much as it deserves in a 12 volume leather-bound set of books as big as tables, I wasn't surprised to hear it get only a mild jabbing in 5 minutes.
Back to no adverts = happy me.
Well FO3 improved a lot of what Oblivion had. I think Yahtzee main criticism of Obliovion was the lack of immersion. FO3 corrected it quite a bit.Rossmallo said:
BTW: Darkman Rulez
Branston is not Australian (note correct spelling), it's British. And it's available in most major supermarket chains, such as Wegman's and Genuardi's/Safeway and Giant Foods I believe. Full disclosure: I was unaware of it's wide availability as well, which caused some raised eyebrows when I returned from my first UK jaunt this summer with a "vegetable product" in my baggage.Not Good said:
You may not have said that your opinion is law, but judging on some of your comments, you certainly implied it.derpa said:
And no I have no such source, but I was not trying to say that all the fans didn't like it.
All I was trying to say was that you need to back up your opinions with examples, or you are just raving. Spinning of one liners from a persons judgements (my quote was an example of one), without any attempt at reasoning as to why they are wrong, or why you are right, is moaning. It does not matter wether you are right or wrong in your views, if you just do that then you are simply complaining that their opinion is different from yours.
X-COM Apocalypse featured both real-time and turn-based combat, although most fans of the earlier X-COMs seem to hate it like fans of Fallout 1/2 hate 3... (Oh, topical!)
I beg to differ (And I think I have precedenceanti_strunt said:
), the reason Apocalypse got so much stick is because the game was unfinished and those damn poppers.As a fan of the original Fallout games I have to say that Bethesda did a very good job with the franchise. They brought this game to a new generation (and consoles) while capturing the atmosphere of the first two games and adding their own flavor. I'm having a blast with this game, and I don't remember being as addicted to the originals as I am with this one (which makes me conclude the F.O. 3 is a better game), and it's so cool to see the fallout universe come to life in 3D with such a vast waistland to explore and interesting characters to meet. I LOVE the sidequests here, they are VERY REWARDING, as is exploring and scavaging the waistland because whatever junk you find can be used for something eventually. I also like the fact that there are TONS of locations to visit, keeping you're curiosity stimulated throughout the game.
Ok to thsoe who still dislike Oblivion and Fallout 3 may I ask just what DID you want? It seems like you guys are basing this negative opinion on the standard of some imaginary game where everything is just like real life only five thousand times better and the story is like an epic one year long D&D game your best friend has been cooking up for years, yet not too long. A game where things are open ended, but not too open ended and are that way for absolutely everyone who would play it.
I played Fallout 2, Recently, and while I love it to death Its not this uber god game that people keep saying it is. I also played Fallout 3 and its a pretty good game overall. Sure I can accept the 'main story needs work' complaint a bit, but honestly when you get down to things like 'improper skins' and 'lack of movement when talking to you'. I would like to see anyone on here try to keep up when designing with the Bathesda team.
Let me ask you guys something. If they made a System shock 3... No I don't mean Bioshock but a real System shock 3 with the same team and the same mechancis and everything, how many of you think that you would judge it fairly? Please people Stop transferring your strange hate of Oblivion onto Fallout 3 and stop comparing it to your fond youth of over the shoulder tabletop inspired bliss. No game is ever going to hit that mystical 'sweet spot for everyone' and if you spend your whole life ripping apart every video game you come across because its not like the ones you grew up with your never going to have any fun with the good new games that come out.
I only wish you people understood the Irony of me being the one to say this.
I played Fallout 2, Recently, and while I love it to death Its not this uber god game that people keep saying it is. I also played Fallout 3 and its a pretty good game overall. Sure I can accept the 'main story needs work' complaint a bit, but honestly when you get down to things like 'improper skins' and 'lack of movement when talking to you'. I would like to see anyone on here try to keep up when designing with the Bathesda team.
Let me ask you guys something. If they made a System shock 3... No I don't mean Bioshock but a real System shock 3 with the same team and the same mechancis and everything, how many of you think that you would judge it fairly? Please people Stop transferring your strange hate of Oblivion onto Fallout 3 and stop comparing it to your fond youth of over the shoulder tabletop inspired bliss. No game is ever going to hit that mystical 'sweet spot for everyone' and if you spend your whole life ripping apart every video game you come across because its not like the ones you grew up with your never going to have any fun with the good new games that come out.
I only wish you people understood the Irony of me being the one to say this.
I'm level 25 now (cap was too small so I raised it to 55) and I've just realised that my character looks fucking identical to Yahtzee. Or is it just me?
http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m142/gafin666/ScreenShot9.jpg
http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m142/gafin666/ScreenShot9.jpg
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.