Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

My Fallout 3 impressions.

Barrow_Bug

Cipher
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
1,821
Location
Australia
Soooo I finally picked it up. Man, I'm kinda liking it.

Yeah I know, Johnny come lately amirite?

Is it Fallout? Nah, but I am enjoying it. A lot.
 

Unradscorpion

Arbiter
Joined
May 19, 2008
Messages
1,488
What I would like to see is Bethesda creating something original in this game.
They just used whatever was in the FO and FO2 to make FO3, just like in Oblivion they just took the old setting and made it more European.

I think they actually tried to pleasure the fans with this one. Few more games and they should get better in C&C and in-dialogue skillchecks.
 

Barrow_Bug

Cipher
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
1,821
Location
Australia
Yeah, I have to admit I am coming across a lot of Fan service which is okay, I guess. I'm not having any problems with the whole FPS crap because I'm playing it in third person OTS. Sometimes I imagine I'm playing Gears of War...but I digress. I'm only really early in, I'm actually really liking taking out Raiders...for now.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Messages
3,585
Location
Motherfuckerville
Vault Dweller said:
The writing is ok. See above. The early areas do create a very negative impression, but they don't represent the overall quality.

Based on the "Brother None Spoils It All" type of thread over at NMA, you probably haven't yet hit the end of the game. I'm seriously thinking it could be an NMA conspiracy to slander the game because even Oblivion's main quest wasn't that dumb. I hope you have fun with it somehow, but I don't know if I could even while drunk find it anything but...well....dumb.

I guess what Twinfalls is saying that as an action game this game is more fun than most action games on account of the RPG elements.

But that's essentially a reverse of the argument gaming journo's use to make Oblivion or whatever kind of action-RPG that's new seem like the next coming of RPG-dom.

"It's the best RPG yet because it has action combat! It's got real-time and first-person. It's not your grand-dad's RPG!"

Seems like the same flawed type of flawed logic to me. Saying something is good at X because it has a lot of qualities from Y when X and Y, while not mutually exclusive, don't exactly overlap a whole lot.

it's more fun to play an action game where you have skills, manage (find, repair, make) equipment, explore freely and find new cool things, including logs and audio files, and have goals more interesting than "just kill everyone".

I don't necessarily agree, especially with action games. Take Oblivion versus Ninja Gaiden. Oblivion has tons more options, dialogues, skills, micromanagement, and exploration while Ninja Gaiden is a linear as-can-be kill-festival. Under Twinfall's logic, Oblivion is the better action game, even though anyone with any taste in action games can tell that Ninja Gaiden is clearly a superior action game, because it has a focus on visceral fundamentals that are fun in repetition whereas Oblivion is lacking in that with it's pitifully boring combat.

Twinfalls said:
No. HL2 suffers from excessive railroading. The action in FO3 plays out better as a consequence.

This doesn't make sense. At all. You're using a quality of another genre as the barometer for a good action game. It doesn't work too well. You could make a non-linear as hell game, but have sloppy shooting mechanics, generic and undifferentiated weaponry, and idiotic enemy AI, combined with awful encounter design seem like a good action game if we went under your way of thinking.

Nobody is allowed to compare HL2 with Boiling Point on your planet either I suppose?

Where'd you get that idea? I'm saying it's goofy to judge a game in the view of one genre by pointing out how well it does in another genre or genre's field. To use your example, Boiling Point may not b as good an action game as Half-Life 2, depending on your tastes, because it lacks in the fundamentals like enemy design, weapon selection, visceral and fluid shooting and such, but it most certainly is a better free-roaming shooter.

And this is coming from somebody who hasn't even played FO3 at all. How about you go away, play the fucking game for 20 hours, then come back and post in a thread entitled 'My Fallout 3 impressions', hmm? Perhaps you will then appreciate what I'm getting at.

And you're whining about "decline of the Codex"? This is kind of a dumb argument, no? Representative of GameFAQS or the ESF, methinks. So essentially, to argue with your logic I need to buy (because you will just ad hominem me to death if I pirate it) a game a have no interest in and force myself to play it for 20 hours of my life? I can't use the myriad second hand information that exists, and I can't argue points of logic? I'm sorry, but would you please go bugger off? That's bonkers and I think you're trying way too hard to earn Codex-Counter-Hivemind points by defending Fallout 3 like this.
 

uhjghvt

Scholar
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Messages
463
I'm seriously thinking it could be an NMA conspiracy to slander the game because even Oblivion's main quest wasn't that dumb
talk about rose-tinted glasses, the main quest in FO3 sucks no doubt but there's nothing nearly as bad as the oblivion gates
 

xuerebx

Erudite
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Messages
1,001
Interplay and Troika were freaking philanthropists and would turn down billions just to make you happy.

laugh.gif
 

Twinfalls

Erudite
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Messages
3,903
Edward_R_Murrow said:
Oblivion has tons more options, dialogues, skills, micromanagement, and exploration while Ninja Gaiden is a linear as-can-be kill-festival. Under Twinfall's logic, Oblivion is the better action game

Wrong. My point is that FO3 has RPG elements, some choices, and open play areas, in addition to all the basic requirements of an action title (which should have been obvious). It has the varied arsenal, enemies and environments, good level design, consistent and challenging level of difficulty, and excellent atmosphere that one would expect. VATS is a fine and novel addition (before you go off again on your predictable way-out-of-a-corner-seeking, VATS is not something which makes this an RPG and therefore outside comparison) . AI is not the greatest ever but it functions well enough. The game is superior to HL2 and Bioshock as a result, two of the most highly regarded action games of recent years. And the game is miles and miles ahead of Oblivion in these elements too.

As I stated before, I don't consider this a great action game. It is no System Shock 1, it is no Terra Nova. But it's better than Bioshock and HL2 for example.

Edit: OK, it's up there with HL2, perhaps not superior. Thinking back to HL2 there was much that was quite fantastic which FO3 does not reach. Bioshock on the other hand really left me cold. That forced, overwhelming art-deco fetishism, the forced 'woah creepy' of big daddies/little sisters etc etc.

Twinfalls said:
No. HL2 suffers from excessive railroading. The action in FO3 plays out better as a consequence.

This doesn't make sense. At all.

Sure. The railroading in HL2 is beyond criticism. OK.

Nobody is allowed to compare HL2 with Boiling Point on your planet either I suppose?

Where'd you get that idea? I'm saying it's goofy to judge a game in the view of one genre by pointing out how well it does in another genre or genre's field. To use your example, Boiling Point may not b as good an action game as Half-Life 2, depending on your tastes, because it lacks in the fundamentals like enemy design, weapon selection, visceral and fluid shooting and such, but it most certainly is a better free-roaming shooter.

In other words, one cannot say that HL2 is too railroaded, and use BP as an example - because BP is in a 'different genre', being a 'free-roaming shooter'. To take your ridiculous logic further, I might just as well say that you cannot compare BP's 'visceral and fluid shooting' with HL2, because HL2 is a 'visceral and fluid shooter' and that would be unfair. It's a different genre!! How much more bullshit and excuses are you prepared to make to try to leap out of the corner you've painted yourself into?

It also begs the question - why are you so determined and willing to expend so much energy in order to establish that FO3 is a terrible game, when you have neither played it, nor intend to? I think the answer to that question is coming up.

And you're whining about "decline of the Codex"? This is kind of a dumb argument, no? Representative of GameFAQS or the ESF, methinks.

Let's just remind ourselves of your previous post:

Edward_R_Murrow said:
Also in before Codex old-guard circle-jerk committee likely comes in to your defense.

Real sophisticated, non GameFaqs-like material right there.

I think you're trying way too hard to earn Codex-Counter-Hivemind points by defending Fallout 3 like this.

Hmmm. Well somebody sure is trying hard. Once again, let's see what you wrote earlier:

Edward_R_Murrow said:
I can believe that Fallout 3 could be a moderately entertaining sandbox romp with some light RPG elements and a deep coating of Bethesda's idiotic writing and moronic design choices based on stuff from VD and others. Maybe worth my time if my insider connection can get me a free 360 copy (so I can blow the rest on booze..

You're such a cool kid!
 

Kingston

Arcane
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
4,392
Location
I lack the wit to put something hilarious here
Define "pom-pom".

it has the varied arsenal,
You've got basic guns, which shoot bullets. Then you've got melee weapons, with which you hit stuff. You've got laser weapons which function a lot like the basic guns, except they are more accurate perhaps. Then you've got grenades. There's also a freezegun and a mind control gun but I didn't find them before I stopped playing. Then you've also got a gravity gun and rocket launchers.

The problem is, all of them function basically the same (except perhaps for the freezegun and mesmetron). Pretty much all the time I was using the same gun, because I saw no reason to change the weapons. They aren't radically different. In HL2, you've only got a few weapons, but they all have their own roles. You've got the crowbar, useful against headcrabs which jump at you. The pistol is a good fallback weapon when you run out of bullets, it has a good aim, its easy to pull off headshots with it etc. The SMG is an all-purpose gun, the spray is pretty big so its not very useful in longer distances. However, in closer combat its quite useful, especially due to the secondary attack, which launches a grenade. The shotty is great indoors and when very close to enemies. The rocket launcher is obviously useful against arial units due to the tracking mechanism, but also against a packed group of units as well as bosses (e.g. antlion queen). The sniper is great for long-range, but you must take into account gravity. At any distance its useful for taking out single units. The gravity gun is great because each item you pick up can be used in different ways - a saw for cutting a line of enemies, a large table to take out a tightly packed group. Oh and there's the AR32 or whatever its called, which is very powerful but runs out of bullets quickly, and its secondary attack is great, and can be bounced around walls into different rooms for maximum effect. Oh and you can command an antlion squadron.

Whereas in Fallout3 it doesn't matter what gun I pick up, the only time its necessary to change weapons is when you run out of bullets for your current gun or there's an enemy far away that you can only hit with the sniper rifle.

And if you think it beats Bioshock's plasmid army then you are being ridiculous.



Varied enemies? Sure, they look different, but they all work in the same way. Either they run towards you to hit you (all the monsters, melee-equipped humans/mutants) or they shoot/spit at you while stumbling around. They don't have any different tactics as far as I know. In HL2 you have a flying robot that can blind you but can do nothing else, those flying sawblades that are dangerous when they surround you, basic combine, different variants of headcrabs and zombies - fast zombies can climb buildings, those bloated zombies can chuck other headcrabs at you. Antlions do a jumping attack, the flying things fly around and shoot (and shoot down your rockets too), the striders have that ubercannon. They all act, look and feel different (and you have to kill them different too). Fallout 3's enemies are all inherently the same, they just have different models.

Bioshock had some variety with the splicers. Some climbed walls, there was one that could teleport around, then there were big daddies and stuff.


and environments,

I didn't play far enough to fully comment on this. HL2 had quite a lot of variety with the environments, the city, canals, ravenholm, coast, prison, citadel etc.. Bioshock had different areas of the city (shopping centre, gardens etc.) but ended up feeling pretty same-y.

good level design,

Err, no, I don't think so. The vault was a linear series of tubes, it felt pretty small. All the ruined buildings are just a series of rooms. I don't know, its certainly not on par with HL2's level design.

consistent and challenging level of difficulty,

Killed four supermutants + a centaur at level 2 with the 10mm pistol.

and excellent atmosphere that one would expect.

The atmosphere is ruined by the horrible dialogue and the closeness of encounters. It certainly doesn't feel like a desolate wasteland. STALKER wins in atmosphere even with the respawning.

AI is not the greatest ever but it functions well enough.

Again, the AI makes the enemies either a) run towards you or b) shoot at you while moving one direction or another. The combine/rebel AI was pretty crummy in HL2, but it was more reactive than Fallout 3's. However, all the enemy types had a different type of AI, which Fallout 3 doesn't have as far as I know.

The game is superior to HL2 and Bioshock as a result, two of the most highly regarded action games of recent years.

No... It might be better than Bioshock, as I got bored with it half-way through, but I'd say HL2 is a much more enjoyable experience.

Also, I cared more for HL2 characters than for anyone in Fallout 3. Dog is fucking annoying though, they need to kill him off. HL2's graphics are also better - there is a four year difference between HL2's release and F3's release.
 

Mamon

Scholar
Joined
Jul 19, 2007
Messages
160
Not willing to read a convoluted thread like this but I have a few questions:

* How is the distribution of locales handed in this game? Oblivion has like ruins, caves, towns etc. a few metters from each other. Now I know this is a sandbox game and the game is probably structured like this but is there more variety in this?

* Is the game better balanced (stats wise) than the previews games? Are the skills used more?

* How many towns?
 

RK47

collides like two planets pulled by gravity
Patron
Joined
Feb 23, 2006
Messages
28,396
Location
Not Here
Dead State Divinity: Original Sin
the towns felt a little small for my tastes, but overall it's OK. The ruins had a wide variety. Deserted supermarkets and bunkers are good to explore.

stat balance is out of whack. Melee gameplay is crap in this game, hence the onus is to milk all the stats that actually improve your shooting and since INT determines ALL Skill gains, you're handicapping your character by not investing in it.

END does not really confer much bonus since Armour is decent in this game and stimpaks are plentiful. You start with more than a hundred HP. It'll take a critical rocket or grenade to kill you early game, most small arms at most took out one-third to half of your life. Stimpak and you're good to go.

STR only helps with melee and carrying of loot. It does not determine whether you can wield a weapon effectively or not, they should've at least placed a STR requirement for heavier weapons like mini guns and rocket launcher.

skill wise: not bad at all. Most skills are used. The most crappy implementation i feel is Science.
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
7,269
Oh, and there is no meaningful C&C, the dialogue ranges from mediocre to downright horrible, and most of the characters are either ridiculous caricatures or cardboard cutouts.

But hey, nice to see the Codex fully embracing mediocrity.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Messages
3,585
Location
Motherfuckerville
Because I am one petty motherfucker.....and somebody let me borrow it, I did a bit of a session with it. It's not awful, it had amusing parts....but holy shit is it anything but a good action game.

Twinfalls said:
Wrong. My point is that FO3 has RPG elements, some choices, and open play areas, in addition to all the basic requirements of an action title (which should have been obvious).

No it doesn't have the basic elements or requirements.

It has the varied arsenal

Not at all. Guns are merely damage potential and ammo type, with range only mattering on the scoped guns and only outside of VATS. Boy was it funny when my scoped magnum had the same percent chances to hit as my hunting rifle and my sawn-off shotgun against some raiders from pretty much equivalent distances. Fundamentally, everything is pretty much the same, with little unique feel.


Well...no. Pretty much enemies are divided into things that shoot you, and things that run at you and try to hit you. Not very exciting. With the shooting enemies, go for multiple arm shots in VATS or shoot their weapon and it's game over for them after you take advantage of their helpless selves with a few clips of the oh-so abundant ammo. With the running enemies, go into VATS, unload, run back while shooting to get more VATS points, and then repeat until the enemy dies. Go for leg shots in VATS to make it even more fair, though most enemies (even on Very Hard) can't survive more than one burst from a combat shotty, the 44 repeater, or a plasma rifle.

The enemies are dull and boring, there's no interesting mechanics, no enemy synthesis, no interesting AI routines, they're just generic.

environments

So because it looks good, it makes it better? Because there weren't any environmental factors that made things interesting. Radiation, while better implemented than in previous Fallouts, still poses no threat thanks to the abundance of chems in every nook and cranny, and even with advanced or severe radiation poisoning, it only hits your stats, which Bethesda pretty much destroyed, sans Intelligence.

good level design

Are you kidding me? The dungeons in Fallout 3 are terrible, whether it be the identical metro stations dotting urban DC, the boring offices, or any of the loot-ridden monster holes. Case in point, Vault 106. Here Bethesda could have made something amazing, like a cross between Bloodlines' haunted hotel and all the Malkavian stuff. Instead, all we got was two hallucinations of the Vault looking new and pristine, a terminal with some goofy "dialogue", and a hallucination "boss battle" where all you did was just shoot more and more. Oh, and couple it with a bunch of survivors who instead of doing something interesting, just run at you. Great job Bethesda!

See, the thing is, I don't think you get what good level design is. Good level design is keeping things fresh, exciting, and weaving in the environments with game mechanics. Good level design is something like Devil May Cry, where they make every mission vary the enemies up, they make the environment sometimes a hindrance, sometimes something to be taken advantage of, and they make it look pretty to boot. Bethesda just makes template dungeons, fills them with one enemy and a little backstory and leaves it at that. Almost every dungeon I visited follows the same formulas from Morrowind and Oblivion. Bethesda just half-asses it on this.

consistent and challenging level of difficulty

I'll give you consistent, but not challenging. Maybe I just play a lot more action games and pick up on how to best exploit them, but even on Very Hard, it was a cakewalk once I figured things out.

and excellent atmosphere that one would expect.

What. The. Hell? Excellent atmosphere? Like what? One time I see my father get dunked by radiation, and the next some woman is asking me to go out and voluntarily get advanced radiation poison while spouting out dialogue that seems written by Sarah Palin. Is that excellent atmosphere? Or how about stuff like the AntAgonizer and the Mechanist?

VATS is a fine and novel addition

Not in terms of an action game it isn't. The whole point of an action game is to get some good visceral thrills, not have the computer shoot for you. It's okay at first, but damnit does it get boring waiting 30 seconds because Todd liked slow motion gore so very much.

AI is not the greatest ever but it functions well enough

Oh this is just bull. Enemies get caught on walls, stuck on rocks, and do stupid things all the time. The AI barely functions at all. Compare to games that came out years ago,like Ninja Gaiden, Halo, Far Cry, even a contemporary like Mass Effect or STALKER to see how terrible Bethesda does.

I mean, you also missed the fact that the animations are terrible, and that good animations are one of the fundamental properties of good flow in an action game. That's why I had my doubts at first, and my doubts were correct. Bethesda's terrible animations make the "action" clunky, jerky, and a bit of a chore. Point o all the previous stuff...you're wrong....it doesn't do the fundamentals right.

As I stated before, I don't consider this a great action game.

No..."fantastic" was the word.

It is no System Shock 1, it is no Terra Nova. But it's better than Bioshock and HL2 for example.

So it's better than two mainstream, watered down pieces of crap that took themselves far too seriously and is good because of that? That would be like saying that Mass Effect was anything more than mediocre because it was better than KOTOR and Morrowind, two highly acclaimed RPGs.

Sure. The railroading in HL2 is beyond criticism. OK.

And Fallout 3's isn't at times? How about "Taking it Back"? That's just like Dog and the big aliens in Half-Life 2. Or the whole Raven Rock thing?

It also begs the question - why are you so determined and willing to expend so much energy in order to establish that FO3 is a terrible game, when you have neither played it, nor intend to?

Well you made a false assumption there, and I could ask why you are white-knighting for a game that owes you jack.

Real sophisticated, non GameFaqs-like material right there.

Your argument silly. But feel free to mudsling.

You're such a cool kid!

Just making a joke. Though feel free to use it as more mudslinging material. Don't rightly care either way.

Summing things up, I just don't get how you think this is some "fantastic" action game and feel justified in thinking it. It's obviously not. It lacks the fundamentals and attempts to compensate with half-assed RPG elements. Maybe you could call it a "great sandbox RPG", but it's most certainly a shitty action game, and a mediocre RPG at best. Maybe you enjoy it because it pushes the right buttons, or because you really aren't into action games and wanted a "Morrowind with Guns and a set of Fallout paint" and it scratched the itch. I don't know.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom