Talk:Fallout 3/Archive 1

Game Time
ey wondering whats the longest someones savegame has got? i just finished the game after 120 hours, and had 51,000 bottlecaps. not saying thats a record or anything but wondering what other people have had? cheers guys i know its probably not the place to put this either but was curious?

i have 170 hours but only 35,000 caps.--That70sdude 03:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Spoilers
To what format should a pre-release plot synopsis adhere? Spoiler alerts? Keeping spoilers to a minimum? Or full speed ahead?

Should story precis be limited after release? Three months after? A year?

My vote is for the second of the three, as being least intrusive and most effective at being both discreet and informative. Additionally, as a middle road it remains most relevant, even after release.

For example, I would replace the paragraph in Story concerning "The mysterious Mister Burke and his employer, Allistair Tenpenny" with "(they) are noteworthy for sending the player on a mission of sabotage and destruction", in order to convey the flavor of Burke's assignment without mentioning exactly what is to be done and where. I hope to get a consensus for changing this and any similar things, though. VvAnarchangelvV

I think it is good the way it is. If you look up a quest you are most likely looking for help but we shouldn't give any lesser   quests "how to's" until a few days after the game comes out. User:Specter02147
 * In retrospect, there are so many things wrong with my wording of "pre-release plot synopsis". It is ludicrous to expect that text designed to impart the plot not contain parts of the plot that the reader might not want to see yet, sorry :o) I meant the main article anyway, and I shouldn't have limited myself to saying pre-release either. Bleh. More sensibly, I suggested a format, with an example, and mentioned "similar things". However, I didn't make that perfectly clear. It didn't mean, this example, and "similar things" on the page, it meant, this example and "similar things" that might be added to the page. There are numerous examples of spoilers already on the page, that, in the end, I am not concerned with, as they contain inextricable information that is relevant to the subject of this page. For example, revealing that the player's physiognomy reflects /is reflected by the father's facial features gives away at least three things: the father goes missing, the player is sent to search for the father, and the player finds the father. But these facts are integral to not only a plot precis, but the list of gameplay elements. What I was really after was a consensus that information be added with an eye to removing unnecessary spoilers, and I personally would like additional spoiler messages to be inserted in the main text, so that the rest of the text can be read by someone wanting to avoid spoilers. VvAnarchangelvV 22:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think maybe we should limit the spoilers on this general Fallout 3 page, but there's no point in limiting spoilers in e.g. the articles on quest - they all have spoiler warnings anyway and if someone looks up a quest, even a minor one, he's probably looking for a walkthrough anyway. Ausir 17:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for restoring this discussion. You're right about there being a spoiler warning. I didn't know of a quest page; I will get right on that. I will add my proposed change, as it removes no information helpful to completing the quest, or to starting it for that matter, and removes a spoiler as pursuant to the spirit of having a spoiler alert on the page. However, I will revise my edit to include, "in the town of Megaton", as it gives flavor and information. VvAnarchangelvV 22:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

List of clothing/ armor
Should we start a list yet or just wait for the game.
 * For now information like that would go in the FAQ page, when the game is released an apparel or armor page might be created. --voluntas 02:47, 29 July 2008

Achievements
Do you want someone to start a page for them? Several have been shown in the new videos.

New Layout
Just checking that there aren't any persuasive arguments against the new layout (moved Story and Settings to the top, and Gameplay below it). My reasoning follows.
 * I appreciate that Fallout news has been an epic saga, and that it was right for Development to be the opening section. As the game moves closer to release, it seems inevitable that this article will become more about the game that people are playing, rather than the making of the game.
 * All the other game wikis I have seen have a Story or Plot or somesuch section at the top. Just like the lead in a feature article, the story engages the attention of the reader. It is the content that consumers of RPGs favor.
 * Sure is a beautiful bit of scenery accompanying the Story section, eh? Nice for that to go right up front, if not center :o) VvAnarchangelvV 22:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The new layout is simple, well organized, and much needed. Great work. --voluntas 04:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm having trouble reading the black text over the grayish/black background. The layout is great, but I think the color scheme may need work. -- (Middle Man 17:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

Negative tone
What's with the overtly negative tone and the assumption that a few people somehow speak for fallout fans as a whole? Please try and remain objective if you're going to host a wiki on this.


 * Dear 207.216.182.160
 * You have indicated two problems:
 * overtly negative tone
 * a few people somehow speak for fallout fans as a whole
 * ad 1 We (you and I) can discuss this problem here, if you accurately quote questionable parts of the text. I suspect the problem is probably "Reception" chapter containt, however you should very carfully explain what is false, wrong, unfair, illegal, unobjective etc, etc. (English is not my native language). As far as I can understant this part of the article, it is only third parties opinions description. Probably the autor of questionable chapter didn't trust some other third parties opinions (off course you can try to ask him why). We can try to divide facts (again, reception description have to be based on some opinions) and author's private opinions, if there are present any.
 * ad 2 Problem could be "Fallout fan"/"market target" definitions, so if you are interested I can create some article, especially useful for Bethesda PR division employees. As you know everybody is allowed to wright here, so rethoric question is why "silent majority" is not interested in creating the gamers' guide to the Fallout (that is the mission of this wiki; because question is described as rethoric I don't give you malicious answers).dotz 10:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I really cannot agree with the removal, on Jul 15, from the Reception section, of 2 positive views, while leaving one negative one. I had begun to think this 'negative' section in Discussion was unnecessary but this edit definitely appears to fall under that category. Am restoring, pending explanation. Anticipating discussion of total removal of Reception, I believe it is not certain yet that it will even be necessary after game release to remove that category.VvAnarchangelvV 10:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the Reception section altogether, because I think it's not necessary at this point. There's no need to discuss the press reaction in detail aside from stating that "the reaction from the press was largely positive." (I forgot to add it) - the article used to devote too much space to the very first preview, which is not really needed after so many previews from various sources. Nor is it needed to devote a paragraph to how Bethesda is reassuring the fans that they're staying faithful to the originals, since that's pretty much the default thing any developer would do. The only notable thing there is Boyarsky's reacion, plus a sentence about concerns from fans and about press reaction. Note that I initially copied the Reception section from Wikipedia, where it has also been trimmed. Ausir 10:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Better now? I left only Boyarsky's reaction (notable as one of the original makers of Fallout), I don't think any of the others talked about Fallout 3 in public at all, one sentence about fan concerns and one sentence about positive reaction from the press. Ausir 10:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The reaction of a contributor to Fallout 1 is indeed more notable than a comment by a contributor to Fallout 3 - on a Fallout 1 page. It would be ironic and worse to place Boyarsky's comment under the category of Bethesda in any case. I restored the version before I saw your comments here, but then, I really haven't been convinced that a restoration was a bad idea. This article is none too long. The more content the better at this point. The Bethesda comments are what you might expect from publicity interviews, but they balance the extreme Point of View of Boyarsky. Same for the somewhat banal account of the press releases. I really don't care much for either of them, but Boyarsky's comment -has- to be balanced, he was irresponsible to insert such an emotionally loaded metaphor into the Black Isle aftermath in the first place, and we should be responsible in considering how it is presented here. VvAnarchangelvV 12:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still not convinced to your arguments. The reception section is for how the game is received externally, not how it is received by the people who work on it. And I don't see Boyarsky's POV as extreme - it's pretty understandable. But anyway, Bethesda's own opinions are irrelevant to the reception section. Ausir 12:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not Boyarsky's comments were appropriate is completely irrelevant. He said what he said. If any other past devs chose to comment in a more optimistic manner their views would be posted just the same. --Killzig 19:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for removing the information about the halted Australian release; that was not intentional. I agree that Bethesda's comments on the subject of their approach to the game, in a section called Reception, is not relevant. I could retitle it Press, and it would be, and that would solve the balance problem, but I have another proposition. Quotes and/or citations are needed to back up the assertion that the press was favorable to first person, and RT, and similarity to Oblivion. VvAnarchangelvV 21:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe copy the "Marketing" section from the Wikipedia article? Ausir 21:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
"The game will suck."

Oh c'mon! This is negative AND ridiculous! (141.5.11.5 14:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC))

It's removed, btw I would take care of this article because of vandalism... (217.235.69.237 20:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC))

The "Fallout 3 official site" external link doesn't link to the proper page. Please fix it

There are 3 ads for google "work from home" which are clearly vandalism, can someone please remove them?

Xbox or PS3 image?
I propose changing the image of the X-box cover, with the name of that company displayed prominently at the top of the image, with that of the PS3 version |Image=Fallout_3_PlayStation_3.jpg, upon which the name of the company is more subtly displayed, along the left side. This image, more appropriate in that the subject of the article is Fallout 3 and neither PS3 nor XBox, can be seen on the wiki version for 8th of April at http://www.falloutwiki.com/index.php?title=Fallout_3&oldid=26414. For the record, I own neither an X-Box nor a Playstation 3; I am a PC user. The comment upon reversion of the PS3 image to the X-Box one was "Fanboys are asked to go away". However pointed, or possibly witty this comment, it is neither relevant nor acceptable discourse for a wiki, and most importantly, no argument at all in favor of reversion. Perhaps, to maintain the most scrupulous lack of bias, an image of the Collector's Edition for XBox and the Survival Edition for PC might be used at those sections, or vice versa. Changes Sat 5th July
 * Gameplay: unnecessary spoilers removed
 * Only the ESRB can determine the rating; hence the game 'is targetted' to be M.
 * Depravity is an excessively strong term and displays a strong Point of View, although it is possible that none such was intended.
 * Reception: somewhat confused; the point that a leak is not a press release is not necessary to make, hence it is only mentioned that it was a leak, and mentioned separately from legitimate press releases. Game Informer can not have been first to make a press release, as its leak was not one. Its leak is mentioned first, in chronological order.
 * Gore level was customizable in Fallout 2
 * Changes: more succinct, repetition of Stealth-, Combat-, and Charisma-Boy removed. potential bias removed

A wise man may differentiate between the unfortunate circumstances surrounding the cancellation of previous Fallout projects and the considerably distinct fortune of Bethesda in obtaining the rights to Fallout 3. There has been a certain quality in their products that belongs to no other, and I expect the same. There has been a great deal of vandalism to this page; further of the same will be reported with all speed and the harshest penalties recommended. VvAnarchangelvV 04:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Both covers are just as valid, and I don't see a need to change it to either, and I'm not a console gamer too. And X360 is the primary development platform of Fallout 3, on which all their press demos were shown, so it does make sense. The PS3 cover can be added to some other section of the article. Ausir 10:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

There is some irony in me worrying about product placement, seeing as this is a product we are discussing. But that is how it felt to me. However, your point about the development platform is a defining one.VvAnarchangelvV 22:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there not a PC cover or box since this did orginally arrive on a win95 computer?--ZasZ 23:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Arafu
Do you think we should list it in the settlements list or no.
 * The correct spelling is actually Arefu. Ausir 13:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

oops, sorry
 * No problem, it was misspelt in some previews, but is spelt "Arefu" on the map. I added it to the list of settlements. Ausir 13:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Combat and VATS
Is the section about Combat more than just wishfull thinking? According to a german game magazine enemies will practically always hit you while in VATS mode, because you are standing still. In the action mode, I fear that just like Oblivion, your characters abilities and weapon skills don´t really matter.


 * They have stated in a video awhile back, that during VATS mode you will get hit, but the damage is lowered so that the risk of you dying in VATS mode is reduced.


 * When NOT in VATS mode if you have a sniper rifle and zoom in on a raider's head and virtually no skills invested in small guns, than you WILL miss. They still use the skills as a basis for your actions. -- (Middle Man 16:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC))

Uh...copy Paste Idea?
I just got done watching "The Simpsons" Season 18, Episode 4, which was made before this game. watch the last few minutes of the episode and you'll know what i mean.--72.189.85.14 19:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Reception
Just suprised by the "reaction", as it is not consistent with the press coverage in all countries. in france Joystick (main game magasine) and canard PC (main independant game magasine) both stated basically best ever bethesda game, very good game, worst Fallout ever. one of the testers actually wrote that he envied persons who never played fallout before as they would find the game great, but all those who likes the series can only find it a bad fallout due to the the scenario (and a few discrepancies / mistakes in the world, but it is not what they insist on). with some time to see it, this opinion seems to be in lmine with most players (new and old ones). Maybe the reception paragraph should encompass something along those lines.

Here's a question; should we get rid of the lines "Many fans feel...", in regards to the "inconsistencies" listed? Any inconsistencies could simply be revisions on the part of Bethesda, or additions/clarifications to the world. Failing that, could we actually list the grievances instead of using the clarification "many"? It's loaded and biased. In journalism school, we'd call that lousy reporting that conveyed the view of the writer rather than the actual story. And we'd be correct.--Nprice 20:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a neutral magazine, this is a fan run wiki, with some of the major contributors being Fallout fans that stood with the series since 1996. So please shove your journalistic "degree" where the sun don't shine and suck it up. That Furry Bastard 22:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Always the silver tounged one, arn't you?-DragonJTSLeave me a message 23:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm just tired of other people's bullshit, so I go straight to the point. I could make a dissertation, but that'd be wasted effort. In a nutshell, these kind of people want The Vault to be like any of the n+1 reviewers that collectively creamed their pants over Fallout 3 and reflect only the viewpoint of Fallout 3 reviewers and fans, which is only the newest development. The Fallout community is far older and the sentiments are far more complex. That Furry Bastard 23:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that the wikis were supposed to present a neutral viewpoint! My mistake; I'll overlook steaming, biased piles of crap around the wiki from now on. However! If there's a bit of contention or actual disagreement over the reception of the game, how about you actually make a complex and nuanced argument, rather than bitch about how Bethesda changed your precious game away from an isometric view? How about listing criticism of the game rather than a generic "many people" argument?--Nprice 19:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Collector's Edition
My collector's edition (PC version) also came with a soundtrack CD (5 songs, packaged as a GNR EP) and a mini-poster (same as cover art). I'm not sure if this is the case with all PC collector's versions or was some kind of pre-order promotion... Duncanxxxx 23:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I have a question
Would a NVIDIA GeForce3 Ti 500 work with Fallout 3. It's kind of an old graphics card since I have an XP and I can't use our Vista. Would this graphic card work? Thanks for your help.

Who likes Fallout 3 better than other fallout games?(Please answer!!)
I love all Fallout games, but i like Fallout 3 better than others, its cause Fallout 3 has better fighting program than other games.My answer: I LOVE FALLOUT 3!!--SURVIOR OF HOLOCAUST 18:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No. That Furry Bastard 19:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

i played and love all fallout games (expect the one on the xbox, i think its called brotherhood of steal) but FO3 is my faviorte. the combat, quest and the overall gameplay is well done. expect the thousands of bugs.--That70sdude 03:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Reception Section
I don't have the information myself to edit, but two quick issues with the reception section.


 * Leonard Boyarsky's comment has more to do with Interplay selling the rights to Fallout than the actual game. The comment's fine ( although maybe the reception section isn't the best place for it ), but does he have any comments on the game itself?


 * The sentence on the fan reaction is fairly negative, and mentions things like plot holes and story errors, could we maybe mention some examples of what those are?

75.139.197.15 00:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Oblivion-esque loading time problem.
Seems the 360 version, for me at least, is having the same problems Oblivion did, with loading, and such. I've noticed, after a few days of nonstop Fallout 3'ing, that objects in the distance tend to freeze up for a split second, then load. And also, I've noticed the sky flash black very quickly. Is there not a cache-clearing code, like in Oblivion, to clear the cache and speed the game back up?

I should note that I never could really tell when the cache-clearing worked in Oblivion.  λ T 13:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

puppies perk?
So I was reading this article and I noticed in the followers section it mentions dogmeat specifically, and it explains how he can die and so forth, but it says that the only way to get him back is via console command, however if you have the Puppies! perk another dog named "dogmeat's puppy" with the exact same functions and look of dogmeat after a few days. Although it is not exactly dogmeat saying you can never get dogmeat again is not entirely true, in fact the perk makes him almost expendable. I'm not saying someone should put this much detail into it, just kind of mention it, (ex. "once dogmeat dies the only way to get him back is via console command on the pc or with the puppies! perk from the broken steel DLC). Although I understand you don't want to clutter up your articles with stupid crap like this you should still edit the followers section at least a little bit to make it a bit less misleading. --68.164.110.165 05:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)