My Fallout 3 impressions.

[JarlFrank]

For those of you who think Fallout 3 sucks, but The Witcher is the shit:

Do you get someone to tie you down and whip you at night for pleasure? Cause honestly, what is that about?

As a matter of fact, I do kinda like BDSM, but how does that relate to the fact that Witcher is a better RPG than Fallout 3? I do like Fallout 3, but saying that it's better than the Witcher is a huge exaggeration. Witcher has better C&C, better writing, better story... what are you trying to get at?

 

[Micmu]

He's not trying to get anything more than replies to his (obvious) trolling from you dumbfucks. From time to time, he just leaves short, "witty" statement like "Fallout 3's combat system is the best in any game I have ever played" (!).

 

[fizzelopeguss]

Fallout 3 is a more worthy sequel to fallout 1 and 2 than gothic 3 was to the originals, yet that POS is treated with kid gloves by VD.

My review explains what I liked. Disagree? Argue.

Anyway, when did Gothic 3 rape your dog? I seem to recall very favorable impressions:[/color]"

Funnily enough right at that point. I reached lee, the king and all the other characters from past games that barely had a word to say.

Gotha was a bad ass zone though, There's still hope for PB.

 

[Andyman Messiah]

He's not trying to get anything more than replies to his (obvious) trolling from you dumbfucks. From time to time, he just leaves short, "witty" statement like "Fallout 3's combat system is the best in any game I have ever played" (!).

Well, Fallout 3's combat system is the best in any game I have ever played too. Really. Just click "v", choose the head and click "e". Easy as pie. It's difficult to beat such comfort.

 

[Vault Dweller]

@ fizzelopeguss:

My memory is probably playing tricks on me, but I don't recall Gothic characters being overly chatty in the first two games.

Anyway, I understand that G3 was a very different game than the first two. It was no longer story- and chapter-driven, and I agree that the overall design of Gothic 2 was superb. However, I don't think that your disappointment with the old characters not having a lot to say (after you were having a lot of fun playing through a big chunk of the game) is enough to call the game a piece of shit.

 

[Darth Roxor]

Right, my final words on the matter:

There's all this talking that the "Fallout setting has been butchered". It must have been the Fallout setting in the first place to get butchered then.

It was. In Fallout. In Fallout 3 it's something else.

Well, how can something that was "terribly butchered and changed" still be the "same" thing? It's a legitimate question.

It's also here, that the 'west coast' thing that comes to action. The west coast was not presented in the previous Fallouts, and wasn't established in the lore, so if it's presented here for the first time...

Sure. That was Bethesda's chance to make a Fallout game. To work within the setting, but do different things, come up with different problems, different factions, different ways of dealing with PA shit.

Instead we get a recycled Fallout plot, familiar conflicts (the sheriff and Burke are pale, less interesting, depth lacking versions of Killian and Gizmo), familar, but poorly executed groups: super mutants, bos, enclave, ghouls.

And here is the exposition of our difference of looking at things.

If the listed things would be 'improved' when compared to the previous Fallout games, you probably wouldn't have any objections in calling it a Fallout sequel. BUT, they have been dumbed down/downgraded, and you that's why you don't want to call it a sequel, while I think it's the same 'kind' of operation on the Fallout setting, but in the 'other (bad) direction'.

Allow me to illustrate,

-(-5)----0----5-> - let's assume that "0" stands for the Fallout quality, if FO3 would be > 0, you would probably deem it worthy of the title of a sequel, but it's on the < 0 side of the graph, so you don't want it to have anything in common with Fallout, while I take the whole graph into account, and even though the universe is worse, butchered and whatever adjective comes to mind when compared to the prequels, it's still the same universe just, well... worse.

Well, if you know that it sounds dumb...

Dumb but true, unfortunately.

 

[Drakron]

But the issue is if things were improved or not, I read people saying F3 inventory system is worst that the previous Fallouts and even if my recollections on how it worked on Tactics are not that great, I certainly remember how painful it was to use in F1 and F2.

Even combat that is easily arguable as bad in F3 still presents the improvement of the turn base hell of F2 in the case we end up in combat in certain towns.

 

[Mech]

He's not trying to get anything more than replies to his (obvious) trolling from you dumbfucks. From time to time, he just leaves short, "witty" statement like "Fallout 3's combat system is the best in any game I have ever played" (!).

Hey there, I was wondering where my clone disappeared to.

P.S. On a more serious note. The Witcher is a piece of garbage that I am pretty sure missed the idea that games are supposed to be fun and not work.

 

[Vault Dweller]

If the listed things would be 'improved' when compared to the previous Fallout games, you probably wouldn't have any objections in calling it a Fallout sequel. BUT, they have been dumbed down/downgraded, and you that's why you don't want to call it a sequel, while I think it's the same 'kind' of operation on the Fallout setting, but in the 'other (bad) direction'.

No. I'm not complaining because they didn't make FO3 as good as we all wanted. I'm not saying "It's not good enough, so I won't call it a sequel". I'm saying that the setting is almost completely off and the style (sandbox) is very different from that of the first two games. They didn't dumb Fallout down. They made a different game.

Why the Fallout license then? Because neo-Bethesda isn't very creative. FO3 clearly shows that lack of creativity and imagination. They recycled everything they could, including the ship. The Fallout license provided the building blocks, but they couldn't understand the instructions and couldn't build a model that was shown on the box.

-(-5)----0----5-> - let's assume that "0" stands for the Fallout quality, if FO3 would be > 0, you would probably deem it worthy of the title of a sequel, but it's on the < 0 side of the graph, so you don't want it to have anything in common with Fallout

It got nothing to do with quality. The game is actually pretty good, and it would have been even better had they gotten the setting right.

 

[MetalCraze]

I'm sorry Twinfalls and whoever else is claiming this shit is terrific but Fallout 3 is a downright terrible action game/shooter.

Shitty shooter? Sure. That's all the game is?

He forgot to wrote about such great things like shitty dialogues, dumb writing, stupid AI, unneeded stat system, boring mini-games, cliche characters and boring boring boring overcrowded wasteland. Just because unlike Oblivion Fallout 3 has dialogues written in 3 minutes it is a very good game fo sho.

Personally I would've wanted Oblivion-style "megaton/rumours" "dialogues". At least they didn't make my character sound like a stupid teen.

But I fail to see how a game where everything ranges from mediocre to bad is a "pretty good game"

 

[Drakron]

Why the Fallout license then? Because neo-Bethesda isn't very creative.

Just like Hollywood started to make movies out of TV series from the 70s

Then again we already seen that in the gaming industry, Bethsoft acquired the Star Trek license and published another yet space RTS ... Vivaldi is doing another Leisure Suit Larry game (that I doubt can beat the previous one in terms of "being utter shit") ...

FO3 clearly shows that lack of creativity and imagination. They recycled everything they could, including the ship. The Fallout license provided the building blocks, but they couldn't understand the instructions and couldn't build a model that was shown on the box.

Well that is the problem, they could done their own thing and yet they come back to Super Mutants, FEV, the Enclave, etc ... when such elements already been played beyond their usefulness and seem to be on the game because "they are Fallout" and so must be included.

Maybe it was fearing that not adding then would create some backlash, that is amusing in the sense they added some things the Bethsoft fans certainly dislike, as the level cap and the fact the game ends after the Main Quest.

 

[Chefe]

Why the Fallout license then? Because neo-Bethesda isn't very creative. FO3 clearly shows that lack of creativity and imagination. They recycled everything they could, including the ship. The Fallout license provided the building blocks, but they couldn't understand the instructions and couldn't build a model that was shown on the box.

You obviously missed the whole thing a while back about why they made Fallout 3. ZeniMax handed them the license and said "make us some post apocalyptic." Contrary to what you and your blinded buddies believe, Todd, Pete, and Emil didn't get together in a bunker somewhere and plot a massive assault on a dead IP.

Saying Fallout 3 is not creative is an absolute joke. You either like it or you don't, but citing a lack of creativity as one of the reasons you don't like it just proves ignorance, or outright lying so you can enjoy the pleasure of attacking it from all bases.

 

[Vault Dweller]

You obviously missed the whole thing a while back about why they made Fallout 3. ZeniMax handed them the license and said "make us some post apocalyptic." Contrary to what you and your blinded buddies believe, Todd, Pete, and Emil didn't get together in a bunker somewhere and plot a massive assault on a dead IP.

Really? Wow. You sure know lotsa stuff, Mister! I hope I'll be just like you when I grow up.

Saying Fallout 3 is not creative is an absolute joke.

I said Fallout 3 shows Bethesda's lack of creativity. Disagree? Explain.

You either like it or you don't, but citing a lack of creativity as one of the reasons you don't like it just proves ignorance, or outright lying so you can enjoy the pleasure of attacking it from all bases.

I'll take "outright lying". My positive impressions fooled everyone but you, it seems. Oh well, I'll try harder next time.

 

[Stevee Wonder]

You obviously missed the whole thing a while back about why they m

Saying Fallout 3 is not creative is an absolute joke.

I said Fallout 3 shows Bethesda's lack of creativity. Disagree? Explain.

Maybe you could explain how it shows that lack? I'll grant that it may not show they are creative but it doesn't necessarily show the lack of either.

I don't want to infer, but I have no choice since you just make a blanket statement with no basis.. but if you are implying this was just a moneygrab on a cashcow then I disagree. TES is one of the most commercially successful RPG franchises in recent history and they could have taken a much safer, less controversial and inexpensive 'non-creative' route to milking a cow. Even a full-priced expansion to Oblivion would sell millions, a new TES game would as well.

But then again, how do you 'show creativity' when you are dealing with an existing franchise that pretty much hinges on its canon? It would be like saying Rodenberry was uncreative for making Star Trek: The Next Generation.

Now, of course Bethesda could have shown creativity by making an all new franchise, but that is not the same as showing a lack of it for not doing so.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Maybe you could explain how is shows that lack? I'll grant that it may not show they are creative but it doesn't necessarily show the lack of either.

Sure. From my earlier post on the West Coast thing:

"That was Bethesda's chance to make a Fallout game. To work within the setting, but do different things, come up with different problems, different factions, different ways of dealing with PA shit.

Instead we get a recycled Fallout plot, familiar conflicts (the sheriff and Burke are pale, less interesting, depth lacking versions of Killian and Gizmo), familar, but poorly executed groups: super mutants, bos, enclave, ghouls."

Do you see anything new in FO3? Any sparks of creativity? Comparing the game to any "could have been" scenario shows that lack of creativity. It's a good game, but there is nothing original and new in it.

TES is one of the most commercially successful RPG franchises in recent history and they could have taken a much safer, less controversial and inexpensive 'non-creative' route to milking a cow. Even a full-priced expansion to Oblivion would sell millions, a new TES game would as well.

They needed another game. Fallout is very different (from TES), it was available, and it comes ready so no imagination is required. Now they have two major franchises. 2>1.

But then again, how do you 'show creativity' when you are dealing with an existing franchise that pretty much hinges on its canon?

Well, it's another coast. It could have had different shit to deal with. It could have developed differently. Hell, it's been 100 years since FO1 events. Even showing how the world changed since then (within the setting's framework) would have been interesting and creative. Unfortunately...

 

[Chefe]

You obviously missed the whole thing a while back about why they made Fallout 3. ZeniMax handed them the license and said "make us some post apocalyptic." Contrary to what you and your blinded buddies believe, Todd, Pete, and Emil didn't get together in a bunker somewhere and plot a massive assault on a dead IP.

Really? Wow. You sure know lotsa stuff, Mister! I hope I'll be just like you when I grow up.

So, should I take that as a yes for you missing the whole thing?

I said Fallout 3 shows Bethesda's lack of creativity. Disagree? Explain.

Why bother? You'll just respond by saying some other game did it first or that Fallout also had it, and completely ignore Bethesda's personal implementation. You can be creative without reinventing the wheel.

I'll take "outright lying". My positive impressions fooled everyone but you, it seems. Oh well, I'll try harder next time.

Now when did I say that? I said that citing a lack of creativity is attacking something that cannot be quantifiable just for the sake of attacking. I didn't miss your good impressions, but I didn't miss your bad ones either, or your pandering to the community hivemind.

 

[Andyman Messiah]

Alright, I just finished the game. Uninstalling right now. I'm not going to bother finding all the sidequests or exploring to the end of the world map.

 

[Chefe]

Good for you. Thanks for the update, AM!

 

[Darth Roxor]

Alright, I just finished the game. Uninstalling right now. I'm not going to bother finding all the sidequests or exploring to the end of the world map.

YOU MUST HAVE LIKED IT IF YOU FINISHED IT!!!!

 

[Stevee Wonder]

Do you see anything new in FO3? Any sparks of creativity? Comparing the game to any "could have been" scenario shows that lack of creativity. It's a good game, but there is nothing original and new in it..

One word: Gary.

But if you are only as far as your diary suggests I am not so sure you are in a position to make these claims. You wouldn't want people to think you were completely unprofessional based on a few posts, would you?


But as to the 'west coast new factions new everything' I am going to go out on a limb (albeit a very short and sturdy one) and say that the backlash from that would dwarf what we have seen already.

You, of all people, should well know that someone somewhere is always going to be displeased no matter what you do.

 

[Andyman Messiah]

Good for you. Thanks for the update, AM!

I finished the game wearing my armored jumpsuit and sunglasses, wielding my awesome gatling laser, throwing plasma grenades and rocking out to Rush's Permanent Waves record. It was fucking awesome.

Spoiler: huge communist crushing robot.

One word: Gary.

Why do people think Gary's so special? I'd understand if we were talking about Vampire: Bloodlines, but Gary in Fallout 3 isn't anything special. Meh.

 

[Chefe]

Shit, now that you mentioned Rush, I can't hate you anymore.

 

[Drakron]

Spoiler: huge communist crushing robot.

You know what? that robot might be cheesy, immature and completely out of Fallout but damn it, those lines were funny and even the whole "escort" was amusing seeing him simply DESTROY the enclave troops on its path.

 

[Andyman Messiah]

Why would you ever want to hate me?

 

[Andyman Messiah]

Spoiler: huge communist crushing robot.

You know what? that robot might be cheesy, immature and completely out of Fallout but damn it, those lines were funny and even the whole "escort" was amusing seeing him simply DESTROY the enclave troops on its path.

I agree. They really should have given him more face time. Best character in the game.

 

[Cuther]

I'm sorry Twinfalls and whoever else is claiming this shit is terrific but Fallout 3 is a downright terrible action game/shooter.

Shitty shooter? Sure. That's all the game is?

He forgot to wrote about such great things like shitty dialogues, dumb writing, stupid AI, unneeded stat system, boring mini-games, cliche characters and boring boring boring overcrowded wasteland. Just because unlike Oblivion Fallout 3 has dialogues written in 3 minutes it is a very good game fo sho.

Personally I would've wanted Oblivion-style "megaton/rumours" "dialogues". At least they didn't make my character sound like a stupid teen.

But I fail to see how a game where everything ranges from mediocre to bad is a "pretty good game"

well nobody seems to argue that this game if full of mediocre\bad elements and flaws. For some, the good in this game compensates the bad, for some it doesn't (I am one of them: this is a decent\good game at best. So I understand what you're saying)