Review Fallout 3 Stories and Reviews

[Relayer71]

From a Gamebanshee collection of various reviews (this one from a site called Giantrealm):

[b]If it feels like I'm not getting anywhere with this review, it's because I'm taking great pains to not ruin the world for explorers. I can't stress it enough, the world should be what you're after here. if you're looking for amazing story, memorable personality, NPCs you really, really want to kill (or save, I guess, if that's your style), or anything else, I'd honestly suggest you look elsewhere. Just to give you an idea, here's all my gripes, in bulletpoint form.

1. I did not care about the NPCs.
2. I did not care about the story.
3. The writing is a cheap imitation of the previous Fallout titles.
4. The NPCs are pretty stupid and the AI is completely wonk.
5. Mobs can get caught on the smallest bit of geometry.
6. The quests are binary, as mentioned, and that's annoying.
7. I didn't really care about finding my father.
8. There's too much "junk" in the world.
9. Some of the support systems (engineering and lockpicking for example) aren't really support. They're necessary and core for the development of your character and totally key in succeeding.
10. The inventory is clunky and over-designed. Hell, the pip boy itself was left in the oven way too long (which is somewhat ironic considering how quickly this game came together).
11. Perhaps the greatest fault of the title (as a Fallout game), I felt no great connection to the people in the world or my actions.
12. The VATS system makes the entire game, assuming you haven't specced yourself into gimpville, way too easy.[/b]

This reads (eerily) like an Oblivion review (written by an honest gamer).

 

[Gay-Lussac]

The only part that pisses me off is getting suspended when I couldn't avoid the fight...

I guess my english sucks - you don't mean you were actually kicked out of the school for that, do you?

No, suspension is only 1 day - 1 week maximum.

same thing happened to me once, this guy slapped me, so we traded blows and i got suspended as well.

Lol the guy SLAPPED you? Where the fuck do you live? Canada?

EDIT I spent a few hours with Fallout 3. It was pretty damn fun despite all the things already mentioned here and elsewhere.

 

[Chefe]

I do not understand this attitude that Bethesda's story and characters are not anything to care about, while Interplay's stuff was. No doubt Fallout had some good characters, but they played their part and left. I certainly didn't care what Aradesh was up to, or whether Gizmo had built a new casino. I cared about finding the waterchip, but didn't care about the supermutants. I was more interested in exploring the attitudes of the post-apocalyptic citizens and the history of what happened to the world.

Killian and Simms are the same for me. Gizmo and Tenpenny. Tandi and Lucy. Jericho and Ian. The only person I really cared about in Fallout was Harold (oh, and the Overseer, but only out of hatred). In Fallout 3, I actually do care about the Overseer's daughter and the head bully, whom I both left behind (I spared the Overseer's life, and saved the bully's mother).

Go ahead and make a valid case on the NPCs you don't care about and the weak story, but don't try to use Fallout 1 as backup. Before anyone says anything, just remember that environment and story are not the same things. Fallout 1 had a great environment and atmosphere, and so did Fallout 3. Neither one has that great of a story (honestly though, I am actually pressed to follow Fallout 3's story more than I was in Fallout 1, I think it's because of the kid part).

As for NPC stupidity, it depends on who you fight. For example, the guards in Tenpenny tower take cover and support each other, while the outdoor raiders charge you head on, and the school raiders take cover and have a tendency to wuss out.

I didn't care much for the PipBoy until I discovered that it started short circuting and messing up when you had little health left. That's a nice touch (and for all you idiots ready to make a stupid comment, you still have all functionality and can easily use your inventory).

VD, are you doing a review? I'm putting one together, and judging by your comments at Iron Tower, it would be interesting to see the differences if you did as well.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

(not sure if this could be avoided with an high outdoorsman)

Yes, outdoorsman allows you to avoid random encounters.

But yes, if they designed the game right, it should be possible to avoid combat. That's what Sneak and Speech skills are for. If they were smart, part of Sneak would be a passive skill where raiders and such see you, but you're very unassuming. Kind of a "hiding in plain sight" type side effect of the skill. You're there, but you're just interesting enough of a target to be worth the effort.

 

[Balor]

Hah! Fired a game right now, look what I've noticed:
What do you think kids cannot do in Fallout 3? (Beside having hawt secks and drinking vodka?)

Sit on stools. The game clearly said so when you tried to do it. And it's not even owned - it's a public chair.
That cracked me up for some reason. Yea, and dialogue is really nothing stellar so far, but that's very old news.

 

[kris]

One time back in high school, at the end of study hall I started to stand up. I was interrupted in the process by the kid sitting in front of me, who had decided to turn around and grab me by the hair. This was followed by various punches to my face, which I couldn't do shit about because he was holding me down by my hair...

Look, you are in serious need of some perspective here. This one strange incident that happened to you is hardly proof that you can't avoid violence in life. Especially with this perspective as in comparison to a game where you can't walk two meters without being violently attacked.

also, I am sure this would never have happened to you if... you where different. I doubt this punk done the same thing to everyone. This is not talking you down, it is reflecting upon reality of things.

also2, yes, obviously there will be more violence in a war zone like Iraq. Nontheless, majority of the population is not faced with it personally.

Realistically, in an environment like Fallout the way you'd avoid fights is by not leaving towns. Bandits don't care about your charisma, how imposing you look or anything else. They only thing they'd likely evaluate is numbers, and maybe how well armed you are.

In a envoriment like that you know which areas to avoid. Although the problem is more that in fallout 3 the wilderness is shock full of people that attack on sight. They out-populate the non-violent characters by a large margin. That is neither realisitic or what I like. Moreso that they just open fire. What kind of "raider/bandit" does just shoot on sight on whatever human passing through?

 

[kris]

I do not understand this attitude that Bethesda's story and characters are not anything to care about, while Interplay's stuff was. No doubt Fallout had some good characters, but they played their part and left. I certainly didn't care what Aradesh was up to, or whether Gizmo had built a new casino. I cared about finding the waterchip, but didn't care about the supermutants. I was more interested in exploring the attitudes of the post-apocalyptic citizens and the history of what happened to the world.

Killian and Simms are the same for me. Gizmo and Tenpenny. Tandi and Lucy. Jericho and Ian. The only person I really cared about in Fallout was Harold (oh, and the Overseer, but only out of hatred). In Fallout 3, I actually do care about the Overseer's daughter and the head bully, whom I both left behind (I spared the Overseer's life, and saved the bully's mother).

The characters in fallout 3 is mostly flat because of overall awful writing. They are silly and say silly things. Not always, but mostly. I do actually like the game, even if I find so many things in it silly.

What irritates me more than the so flat characters is how often the things you can tell them either makes no sense or is incredible dumb. Often I am forced to ask questions that both my characters and myself already knew the answer to.

 

[Shannow]

The point is, there is random violence even in real life.

I agree. And there should be random violence in RPGs, but sentient beings should usually have reasons for attacking and in most cases there should be a possibility to talk them out of it. As it is it is the other way around right now (not only in FO3 but in most "RPGs"). Especially if the games don't feature surrender or k.o. as fight-ending mechanics.
If every fight ends with the death of one side people should be a lot less likely to fight, even in a harsh PA setting.
I also disagree with raiders being "kill now, never talk" types. They should prey on the weak. If you look too tough they shouldn't attack on sight.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Intimidate is a god-skill in terms of avoiding fights IRL.

Or getting them started...

Having a powerfully built body, right kinda clothes, confident demeanour and the right movements really helps to give cretins second thoughts. In case of a gang-up and actual attack, just inflict brutal violence on the first one to come too close (the OHKO or lift over head kinda). Point is that people don't mess with people who obviously know what they're doing or are evidently dangerous.

EDIT: I also want an RPG where the good characters can only use non-lethal methods in combat.

 

[Volourn]

"I also want an RPG where the good characters can only use non-lethal methods in combat."

That's fuckin' dumb.

 

[Sarvis]

One time back in high school, at the end of study hall I started to stand up. I was interrupted in the process by the kid sitting in front of me, who had decided to turn around and grab me by the hair. This was followed by various punches to my face, which I couldn't do shit about because he was holding me down by my hair...

Look, you are in serious need of some perspective here. This one strange incident that happened to you is hardly proof that you can't avoid violence in life. Especially with this perspective as in comparison to a game where you can't walk two meters without being violently attacked.

You're right, it's an anecdote. It's still evidence that RANDOM FUCKING SHIT happens. Most of us can avoid being hit by a car our entire lives, for instance. Yet three weeks ago I actually saw someone get hit by a car. I guess he fucking chose that?

Shit happens. You can't control everything that happens around you, or to you.

If you think otherwise, you need to leave your basement.

In a envoriment like that you know which areas to avoid

You lived in a cave your entire life and walk outside automatically knowing what to avoid?

Right.

. Although the problem is more that in fallout 3 the wilderness is shock full of people that attack on sight. They out-populate the non-violent characters by a large margin. That is neither realisitic or what I like.

Hey, it's a game. There's going to be combat, and lots of it. That's how it works. I'm pretty sure the violent population of Fallout outnumbered the non-violent population too.

Moreso that they just open fire. What kind of "raider/bandit" does just shoot on sight on whatever human passing through?

Pirates?

Wait, wait... " I am sure this would never have happened to you if... you where different. I doubt these punks do the same thing to everyone."

 

[Sarvis]

"I also want an RPG where the good characters can only use non-lethal methods in combat."

That's fuckin' dumb.

CAN is not the same as MUST. I've often wanted that option as well, at least in certain circumstances.

 

[Sarvis]

The point is, there is random violence even in real life.

I agree. And there should be random violence in RPGs, but sentient beings should usually have reasons for attacking and in most cases there should be a possibility to talk them out of it. As it is it is the other way around right now (not only in FO3 but in most "RPGs"). Especially if the games don't feature surrender or k.o. as fight-ending mechanics.
If every fight ends with the death of one side people should be a lot less likely to fight, even in a harsh PA setting.
I also disagree with raiders being "kill now, never talk" types. They should prey on the weak. If you look too tough they shouldn't attack on sight.

I haven't played beyond the first town, but at least early on in the game you ARE the weak right? You almost certainly look it as well, having lived a literally sheltered life.

I would expect bandit attacks to start dropping off as you get better equipment, and become more hardened and used to living outside the vault... but definitely not towards the beginning of the game.

 

[kris]

You're right, it's an anecdote. It's still evidence that RANDOM FUCKING SHIT happens. Most of us can avoid being hit by a car our entire lives, for instance. Yet three weeks ago I actually saw someone get hit by a car. I guess he fucking chose that?

Shit happens. You can't control everything that happens around you, or to you.

If you think otherwise, you need to leave your basement.

See, now you need that perspective again. The thing that happens to the minority isn't the norm. The random thing that happens maybe once in your life isn't the norm. It is just a incident. my reply was that you could avoid violence in this life and that most certainly is possible. Especially if you are talking about a shorter part of your life.

You lived in a cave your entire life and walk outside automatically knowing what to avoid?

Right.

Apparently half the people was violent in that cave to! Many attacking on sight without asking questions.

Anyway, apart from a critter that first thing I came to was a city. Somehow the ones there should be able to tell me. Unfortunately they probably only could tell me to never go outside.

Hey, it's a game. There's going to be combat, and lots of it. That's how it works. I'm pretty sure the violent population of Fallout outnumbered the non-violent population too.

That is how it works now. It is their decision and I don't agree with it. This game though is a simulation of a fictional world and I don't find it simulated in a realistic way when it comes to this. The people in fallout that attacked you on sight without provocation was not that numerous and the majority of them was in random encounters. Random encounters there not being 20 meters apart.

Pirates?

Wait, wait... " I am sure this would never have happened to you if... you where different. I doubt these punks do the same thing to everyone."

Of course they don't, unless they are about as stupid as the one that wrote some of the dialogue in F3. They only attack someone that they think are worth it. If they just defend their territory then they will warn before shooting. etc.

Talon company being the strangest of them all. apparently they attack me "because I am good". Seemingly they knew that about me the moment I left the vault.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

"I also want an RPG where the good characters can only use non-lethal methods in combat."

That's fuckin' dumb.

CAN is not the same as MUST. I've often wanted that option as well, at least in certain circumstances.

Yea, since I like it how actual NWoD system necessitates a roll to prevent Morality degeneration if you kill. It would take away the whole silly "self-defence and killing evil stuff doesn't count" non-sense away. Killing is still killing, and your character should be treading on thin ice if his solution to seeing a gangster is to blow heads off.

Though it could be said that games like Promethean support passivity to being fired at a lot better than most systems, since you function without penalties twice as long as anything else and can regenerate with electricity...

 

[Anaglyph]

CAN is not the same as MUST.

It is when the next word is "only".

 

[StraitLacedDeviant]

It's not a bad game. All the shit about it that's been said applies, and its still better than 90% of the shit out there. I'm 20 hours in and still enjoying it. It pisses all over Oblivion and Morrowind.

You can't survive completely without combat, but you can reduce combat significantly , and solve quests without firing a shot, if your speech skills are up to it. We're deep in the dark ages of PCRPGS, and for a triple A title FO3 does not stroke my Fallout gland but its still a good game for the times. Not worth cutting off your nose to spite your face and missing out on something worth playing.

 

[The Rambling Sage]

Bandits don't care about your charisma, how imposing you look or anything else. They only thing they'd likely evaluate is numbers, and maybe how well armed you are.

Is that your great deal of experience with bandits, criminals, and thugs talking? Maybe you have been in prison and survived unraped because of how manly you look, how muscular you arms are, and how made of titanium your skeleton is? Right. Maybe you do. I don't. I am not manly, i am not dangerous, i am not muscular, and i am sure as hell i am not charming - But i lived in some pretty awful places for almost all of my night living, too cool for school, let's get drunk and go to the slums like the cool, though guys do youth and came along some pretty dangerous situations, got chosen along with some friends as "gang target" more than once, looked down the wrong side of a gun held by some intoxicated, thieving, or just wrongly righteous moron more times i like to remember, got thrown in some pretty awful third-world country jails once or twice and shit like that... And i got out alive, unraped, and i hope wiser of those situations not because of my great skill with guns or bladed weapons, my thoughness, a liberal application of martial arts, my ninja-like stealth, or the size of my manhood. I got out because of being reasonable, talking carefully, and not trying to be a fucking hero nor trying to look like i was a hard, alpha male to the wrong people. You know... being nice, polite, and friendly? That's it.

So you can evade violence by being "diplomatic" (more like "reasonable", "friendly", and "hey, he is a cool guy to have around and go for some drinks every now and then, so let's not blow his brain off") in real life, even when the seven guys are armed, angry, and dangerous as hell, and the police is not going to dare enter the district even to recover your body. And if you are nice and harmless enough the guys who were trying to kick your head and take your money go for a beer with you and everyone ends being nice and friendly and maybe saves your ass when you tick off the wrong guys some other time (like in "Hey, leave him alone, he is my friend and knows this guy and this other guy", not like in kicking the door down and saving you in a hail of gunfire).

And before you start again about how you were hit in your pretty, precious face while someone held your hair... Man, that is VIOLENCE to you? Some random guy hiting you? That's west-like lawlessness? Man, go out more. Get your fat ass to some cheap pub in the not-even-the-police-goes-there area of town, where knifes come out and people goes to intensive care because of some random disagreement or looking the wrong girl in a weekly basis and everyone keeps being friends afterward because, hey, you never know who is the fucker you are messing with and whose are his friends and pack. And, in the end, is all in good fun.

That's much more raider-like than fucking school, man. And they are not killing each other hourly or anything like that, not even if you are some wealking nobody out of nowhere. They still do not know who the fuck you hang out with, and the day the next nobody comes by, you decide to get Codex-points kicking his ass just because, and afterwards some gangers are pointing guns to your face because he was friends with them you learn nothing is so "lawless" in the world, nor violence so "free".

So ttop talking crap like you know shit about "lawless" people, guy. They are people just like everyone else, not rabid monsters with very limited A.I and a thirst for blood and slaughter. Seemingly chaotic systems tend to order themselves by what amounts to "frontier law" - And the ones who are still alive in such are the ones who either do not go around messing with random people or the ones who did it once, got the crap kicked out of them, and learned. Leave the first-world adolescent fantasies out the door.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

So stop talking crap like you know shit about "lawless" people, guy. They are people just like everyone else, not rabid monsters with very limited A.I and a thirst for blood and slaughter. Seemingly chaotic systems tend to order themselves by what amounts to "frontier law" - And the ones who are still alive in such are the ones who either do not go around messing with random people or the ones who did it once, got the crap kicked out of them, and learned. Leave the first-world adolescent fantasies out the door.

Amen.

 

[Sarvis]

CAN is not the same as MUST.

It is when the next word is "only".

Go have a conversation with an English teacher. You've failed at basic literacy.

 

[Sarvis]

And before you start again about how you were hit in your pretty, precious face while someone held your hair... Man, that is VIOLENCE to you? Some random guy hiting you? That's west-like lawlessness? Man, go out more. Get your fat ass to some cheap pub in the not-even-the-police-goes-there area of town, where knifes come out and people goes to intensive care because of some random disagreement or looking the wrong girl in a weekly basis and everyone keeps being friends afterward because, hey, you never know who is the fucker you are messing with and whose are his friends and pack. And, in the end, is all in good fun.

Wait, so violence is avoidable only if you raise the bar of "violence" to deadly force? Oh I get it! That's why you can get through your entire life without being in a fight... because fighting doesn't fucking count!

Now, I'm sure you've gone through all that shit. You, however, did NOT say anything about walking through a war zone where people are robbing you to SURVIVE. These are people who are robbing you so they can eat later, not to feel tough or get some kicks. They need your food to live. They have guns. Frankly, if I was one of them you'd never see the bullet coming. Seriously, if you needed to rob someone in order to eat dinner later are you going to start by walking up to them to start a conversation?

Are you retarded?

 

[Anaglyph]

Go have a conversation with an English teacher. You've failed at basic literacy.

Feeble. "Can only do X" effectively means the same thing as "must do X" in the context the phrase was used. Anyone not trying to prove how big their penis is on the internet would realise that.

 

[Volourn]

"Yea, since I like it how actual NWoD system necessitates a roll to prevent Morality degeneration if you kill. It would take away the whole silly "self-defence and killing evil stuff doesn't count" non-sense away. Killing is still killing, and your character should be treading on thin ice if his solution to seeing a gangster is to blow heads off."

Killing doesn't make you evil. Only a pansy retarded pacifist thinsk that.

 

[Sarvis]

Go have a conversation with an English teacher. You've failed at basic literacy.

Feeble. "Can only do X" effectively means the same thing as "must do X" in the context the phrase was used. Anyone not trying to prove how big their penis is on the internet would realise that.

No, it doesn't. Anyone who is literate would understand it means you have the choice to only use one method. You also have the choice to use one of the other methods.

 

[Chefe]

"Fallout 3 is quite possibly the greatest, most immersive, and most monumental RPG in existence. Beyond that, it is a literary masterpiece unlike anything this world has seen before. The genius of Bethesda's creation trumps the works of Plato and Shakespeare, offering deep philosophical thought and wonderful insights to the human condition around every corner. Fallout 3's magnificence will come to be known as one of the most pivotal points in human history."
- Excerpt from Chefe Reviews Fallout 3