Forum:What is wrong with FO3

Why are you mad at bethesda? They didn't sell out they saved a dead franchise, whats wrong with it? Is it the fact that its not turn based is it the next gen graphics is it the fact it fact it got a number of awards or maybe the fact that its open ended? now you all have to remember before you storm in with your pimply fanboy nerd rage this was the first time bethesda worked with a game like fallout well flame on i guess--Meca-dope 23:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely. I was raised playing fallout2 and I have practically studied up on the first fallout game to the letter, so it's not like I don't know what I am talking about. Bethesda has done great things with this game, (Albeit the numerous bugs), and they are continuing to experiment with many more ideas using there DLC. So why don't you actually play the game through, instead of 20 minutes of it and give up because it doesn't live up to your impossable standards.

i love bethesda for whats it done to the fallout games its made it a playable game for those of us that dont play turn based games. i just hope that they keep up the good work!Maccy Man the man with no plan. 06:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I've finished Fallout 3 twice. It's a poor imitation of a Fallout game. Oh yeah, any more of that insulting behaviour from you and you're out of here for a month - this Wiki existed before Bethesda excreted their poorly crafted shooter, and is first and foremost dedicated to Fallout and Fallout 2, not the jizz stain Fo3 is. That Furry Bastard 07:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The wiki is about all Fallout games, no matter what your personal preference is. -- Porter21 (talk) 08:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You only played Fallout 3, it's kind of ironic that you'd say that. That Furry Bastard 22:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is it ironic when it clearly says the same thing on the front page? Nice attempt at an ad hominem though. -- Porter21 (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Dude, I have played every fallout game. They are all fantastic, and it would be impossible for me to rank them. Meanwhile, you seem to be unable to accept that Bethesda is breathing new life into the series by changing the gameplay. My point is, if all you want to do is flame Fallout 3, then why are you on THE FALLOUT 3 FORUM? And also, why are you threatening to kick people out if all they are trying to do is voice their opinion? Broeman 02:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I feel that F3 is lacking in depth and gameplay possibilities when compared to F1 and especially F2 - it doesn't seem finished to me. But this really isn't something I'd blame Bethesda for, F3 still is a very good game. Golan2781 10:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

What none of you are grasping is the work it takes to make a game like FO3 they had no idea if it would sink or float now they know they can get it up and running they will put more and more time into it im not insulting anyone, and banning me for my opinions is juvenile. Now we all think different individuals capable of abstract thought and reasoning that's what makes us human Fo3 was them "testing" the waters i guess you could say. Now if its that bad do something write a letter give them pointers or if you hate them that much make your own game then see how simple it is just just pick up some dead game title with no guidance and make it perfect to every fan.--Meca-dope 13:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Bethesda is known for shitting on and ignoring their fanbase. And the low quality of Fallout 3 is inexcusable - they had four years, an engine they've been working with for the past five, all the documentation for Fallout 1 and 2 and the best they could come up with is a fundamentally broken, half-arsed FPS/RPG hybrid. That Furry Bastard 22:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Bethesda aren't some modders that are making a game just for fun. F3 is a regular, normal game so one can expect that it's complete in the sense that whatever they thought it is that has to be in it in fact is in it. Even if you argue that F3 was meant to be a test, it still has to include all essential elements, otherwise such a test is void. Golan2781 17:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

its a game get used to people being asses about them look at that bastard keeps going to the f3 forums to talk about how bad it is. Maccy Man the man with no plan. 19:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

To all the haters: FALLOUT 3 GAME OF THE YEAR BABY  IRISH OS1R1S

it truly is. Maccy Man the man with no plan. 19:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I personally love FO3, and I know that many people don't. But also I think that in almost all cases if you got a gamer who never played fallout games and introduced him to FO3 he/she would love it. FO3 has many annoying problems but is a very fun game to play for most people. I know some fallout veterans(or maybe many)don't like FO3, I don't blame them. It's their call not ours. The shooting in the game can be problematic, but Bethesda will keep in mind these complaints in mind when they start working on FO4. Since Bethesda did such a good job at getting people to like FO3 they shouldn't get so much critisism. I know we all have our own tastes and I'm sincerely sorry for any dissapointments caused to old Fallout 1+2 lovers. [User:kill the overseer!|kill the overseer!]] 13:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * For one, I think Fallout 3 is a great game. I don't understand the hate, but their voices are drowned out anyway. The game has gotten rave reviews from everyone. It has won Game Of The Year from most sites and magazines, even the G4 channel. A few haters who are sad, because it is not the turn based game the four of them were hoping for, are not going to make anyone else feel like the game isn't good. i guess the best ending for all of this would be for Bethesda to drop the franchise, and let it die for real this time while they work on making the next Elder Scrolls game. Gsmikem 21:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Wait just a damn minute. There are people who don't like this game? There are people who are really that butthurt about the change in the series? There are people there who really don't have any form of way to accept change in something they once loved?--71.162.21.30 21:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Change is good. Mindless destruction of the setting and lore is not. That Furry Bastard 22:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you thought of the possibility that Bethesda wasn't making it to meet specifically the old school fans' needs? That they clearly realized that it wasn't a real Fallout sequel but knew that people would like it and made it anyway?--71.162.21.30 22:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a real sequal, and the people who are unhappy are outnumbered, so it looks like this is how things will be from now on in Fallout until the next huge change. Turn based RPGs just can't compete anymore. Gsmikem 22:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, now, I wouldn't go that far, turn based RPG are still very popular, but I will say this: Fallout 3 is a great game nonetheless, even though every gamer knows that it isn't really a true sequel. Hey, everyone's got their own opinions.--71.162.21.30 22:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

i cant play turn based games just aren't fun to me at all. i like fps games or games like gta. san andreas was a great game beth should look at what they did with it. Maccy Man the man with no plan. 23:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Bethesda's Fallout 3 is not a good sequel. It would be better if they released it as a spin-off (Fallout: Something) than as "Fallout 3". It simply doesn't have much in common with the original games in terms of gameplay, and that's what defines a game first and foremost. And refrain from personal attacks everyone. Ausir 23:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

they left the west coast and went to the east coast were it shouldn't be.Maccy Man the man with no plan. 23:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with them going to the East Coast, but I'd prefer if they used it to focus on new factions that originated on the East Coast instead of focusing the main plot on the Brotherhood of Steel and the Enclave again at nauseum. Ausir 23:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Finally, a good amount of civility.--72.65.230.106 23:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, my main gripe with FO3 (save for the at best mediocre dialogue and the unrealistic environment considering the amount of time which has passed since the War) is the unnecessary alteration of some of the "old" factions, most evident with the BoS. I don't understand why they had to turn them into "good knights in a castle", it doesn't seem to serve a purpose other than to satisfy a medieval RPG archetype. I'd also agree about the Enclave, they shouldn't have reappeared at all - especially considering they're a pretty generic bad guy faction in FO3, you could have replaced them easily. -- Porter21 (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

i wouldn't say that the bos are different they just got back to their roots. they did after all desert after they found out about what the enclave did to people at mariposa.Maccy Man the man with no plan. 23:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The original Brotherhood is more like the Outcasts than like the main Capital Wasteland Brotherhood. They're not really bad guys, but they are also not altruistic, and help others only if it benefits them too. I think it would be better if the Brotherhood was replaced by another power-armored faction descended from the US military. After all, there are bound to be many such factions around the former US. Ausir 00:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, either replace them or - if you have to keep them - simply switch places between the two BoS factions. It'd require next to no change at all to have Casdin and his men be the real BoS in the Citadel, only caring about repairing the robot, and Lyons' followers be the exiled ones which left because they wanted to help people. It'd also make their difficulties with freeing the Wasteland from mutants more plausible if they were the small, badly-equipped splinter faction. The BoS then would only lend you the robot for the final assault if you did something for them (say, get an energy source for it). -- Porter21 (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I never played Fallout or Fallout 2. I started out playing Oblivion and found myself craving something similar, but new. Enter Fallout 3. EXACTLY what I wanted. I have no idea how different it is from its roots, but unfortunately for some, everything evolves. I have played turn-based RPG's and I can say that I truly prefer the quasi-FPS/RPG system. I always found turn-based systems lacking, and felt they were only implemented because the hardware and software couldn't support the type of system we have now. I've played Baldur's Gate and some Final Fantasy, and though they were excellent games, I much prefer Oblivion and FO3.

My only gripe with FO3 is the ending. I finished it once, and I'll never bother to finish it again. I'm on my 3rd play, and almost ready for a 4th. LVTDUDE 00:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thing is, in terms of gameplay, Fallout 3 is more similar to The Elder Scrolls than to Fallout, so while it's perfectly understandable that fans of Oblivion love it, it's also understandable that the fans of the original gameplay style might not.
 * And no, turn-based combat was not implemented because of hardware and software limitations, there were plenty of real time games back then as well, and there are still turn-based games now. It's simply a matter of preferred gameplay style, of not wanting to be limited by your reflexes instead of character's reflexes, being able to plan your actions more tactically, and also of simulating the PnP RPG gameplay, which was one of Fallout's goals (originally being based on GURPS).


 * My gripe with the ending is not that the game ends, but that the ending narration takes only your actions during the main quest into consideration, and not all the actions in all towns and sidequests, like Fallout 1 and 2 did (and Van Buren was going to). While Fallout 1 and 2 had hundreds or thousands permutations of the ending narration, Fallout 3 only has 12 (and the "500 endings" that were advertised amount to changes of brief slides shown during the ending sequence. Ausir 00:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Its costly to make a game and they went out on a limb making this game it was a whole new game to them and come on and during this point in time if this game bombed it would have killed them--Meca-dope 02:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

just hope they dont make it a habit of killing of the main character. Maccy Man the man with no plan. 00:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

i wish what you do in the game actually showed up in the game it seems like it just stays the same. Maccy Man the man with no plan. 00:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point, Maccy Man. But by what you say, do you mean like, if you apply Leaf Mother Laurel's Liniment to Harold's heart, you will actually see the area around Oasis growing greener, or some shit like that? Or am I way off?--72.65.230.106 01:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

never saw that. wish the game changed. Maccy Man the man with no plan. 04:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

--

Well, It's definitely not linear...But one would expect that a sandbox RPG would at least be open-ended. =[ Xdarkdragonx 08:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * But one would be correct...at least they will be correct after the third DLC comes out in April. Until then, you have a reason to play through multiple times instead of just playing through once and reloading saves to get the achievements for being good, neutral, or evil at the different levels. Just be patient, and you will have your open ended sandbox game soon enough. Gsmikem 17:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

-

I like F3 but it's not as gritty as 2... never played 1. Main "what's wrong" with it imo = it's far too easy. - It seems that the first 10 player levels are well thought out. After level 10, the game relies on "more and faster" enemies to make the game challenging. So, the game devolves into Super Mario Brothers as you progress. Also, it seems to me that "sleep" should cure only so much damage rather than curing everything.

wish the enemies got better weapons as you get past level 10. cant wait for the 3rd dlc. just hope that its got new energy weapons. so hope that there is a lot of guns to get to. Maccy Man the man with no plan. 01:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that probably won't happen. One of the common complaints of Oblivion was that when you got to higher levels, the average bandit would have rare and powerful items and weapons. User:Nichos354

I've never played f1 or f2 but i think they look pretty good i have f3 it's a great game not only because of the story/missions i go beyond and screw around with mines and elaborate stuff like the rube goldberg thing in jury street. mind you i'm playing with no dlcs just basic and its good. I think theres a few things that should be in the game but you have to think 'could i make a game like this keeping to the rules of a mid 90's game with no bugs and have to be perfect' bethesda is doing what they can. even if you made a game 'perfect' by your standards someone out there still wouldnt like it. face it nothings perfect. so what if theres bugs, glitches, differences, inconsistencies, etc. get over it Mr snip 22:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, if it was more like Fallout, many Fallout fans would have liked it more. Thing is, it is more similar to another mid-90s game - Bethesda's Daggerfall, than it is to Fallout. I'm pretty sure many fans of Fallout would have liked a Fallout-style (top-down, turn-based) Elder Scrolls game while many Elder Scrolls fans would have disliked it. I like both Civilization and StarCraft, but wouldn't want Blizzard to buy the rights to Civ and make an RTS sequel. Ausir 22:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

dont think beth will make it turn based after the success of f3. after it got so many nominations and awards. Maccy Man the man with no plan. 23:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The Spammer has a point. Bethesda has no motivation to change their style now that the game has sold so many copies and most of the people playing it love it. Having a few haters from the past won't push them to change a game that can sell as many copies and get as many awards as Fallout 3. Gsmikem 00:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I've played all games in the series and FO3 is good. It's not perfect of course. Not being able to kill children. Weak dialogue. Not seedy enough (although cannibalism was a nice touch.) There should be more sexual interaction and references. I mean it's a nuclear wasteland, there should be hundreds of whores and slaves everywhere. Remember in Fallout 2 when you go to New Reno, theres like 100 jet whores in the street and beggars and thieves everywhere. By comparison FO3 was like Mr Rogers Neighborhood. Friendly people everywhere. Moira on happy pills. Even Mr Burke and Mr Tenpenny are pleasant fellows. Android Liberation Movement!?!? Anti-Slavery Movement??? Take your liberal crap out of my armageddon fantasy please. There should be more people on drugs, in fact everyone should be on drugs, half the neighborhoods in RL are crack infested, but post-nuclear DC has 2 drug addicts. The upsides : Killing is fun. Explosives. Sniper rifle. Grenades and mines out the wazoo. I love it. Guns guns guns. (although next time, maybe give us a choice between using Assault Rifle and Chinese Assault Rifle, like one is more powerful, the other is more accurate, I liked the look and feel of Assault Rifle better but there was no reason to ever use it.) Overall I give FO3 a 7/10 score. (subtracted 1 for the bugs.)

ive heard about what they are going to put into the dlcs cant wait wish the put the musket and space suit from the museum of tech in the game it would be nice to be able to jump real high with the space suit as one of its special things.Maccy Man the man with no plan. 23:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * While I've never played the earlier Fallout games nor Elder Scrolls, so therefore I am a fag who doesn't know anything. Oh, also I think call of duty 4 is better than every RGP on earth, including the KOTOR games and Earthbound. --Odie5533 00:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

true it seems like f3 should have been held back for a little while to make it have less glitches bugs and problems but its still a good game just wish that they had put more places in it.Maccy Man the man with no plan. 00:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I got fallout 3 and thought HOLY SHIT!! THIS IS THE BEST GAME EVER MADE!!! I am still addicted to it to this day,so about a month ago, i thought 2 myself, why not try 1 and 2. so i bought this collection with 1,2 and tactics off of ebay. when it came i was really excited till i played fallout 1. when i played F1, i thought 2 myself, THIS IS ABSOULUTELY SHITHOUSE! same thing with fallout 2 and tactics was OK. i know i will probably get pwned by people who like the 1st 2 but i really think the first 2 suck and 3 is WAY!!! better. i am glad van buren didn't happen. oh and BTW i know the 1st 2 fallouts were made in 98 and 99.Silent.Killa78 >:) 10:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

@Silent.Killa78 I tried playing Fallout 1 and 2... YUCK, errgh it's so lame, but I liked Oblivion so thats probably why I like Fallout 3 so much. And I can really get into the storyline. Hell I read the damn Fallout Bible! DipCheese 13:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think you can compare the originals to Fallout 3 in any way besides story. After all, the gameplay is so different, it would be like comparing Tetris to GTA. And everybody bitching about how much Fallout 3 sucks because the gameplay is so different have to realize that game series need to evolve. After all, GTA III was completely different from 1 and 2. Ocarina of Time turned the Zelda series upside down. Mario 64 was the first truly great 3D game. And of course Fallout 3 has problems, but since Bethsoft is a company that listens to its fans, I imagine Fallout 4 will have the series evolve for the better. Broeman 21:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I like F2 the best as it's the most challenging of the three. Fallout 3 is so extremly simple, just get a couple of good small arms weapons like chinese assault rifle, combat shotgun and find lincons repeater and then max the skill and you're set for the rest of the game. In F2 I had the regular shotgun for a long time before I got something better. Also the story in F2 is way bigger and better than F3's storyline. Main and sidequest included. Also the towns are way more dark and intresting in F2 than F3. Every town in F3 seems like a go-happy attitude shit-hole. There were also alot of towns in F2 which was "clean" while every place in F3 is simply a shit-hole. There were also alot of futuristic weapons in F2 while F3's almost the only futuristic weapons are the energy one's. I still love F3 but it's in no way as good as F2 actually is, and I hope they take a better loot at how F2 looks like with everything and try to do the same with F4. And I didn't mention F1 becuse even though I like it, it's not my favorite.Gabriel77cortez 15:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm beginning to see what the few people that are mad are mad about. It's not that it's not a turn based RPG (not an unrealistic expectation, but you can't really expect a game in that genre to be a cash cow these days), it's mostly that Fallout3 isn't as dark and gritty as 1 and 2 were (if I understand correctly, correct me if I'm wrong here, those of you with torches and pitchforks so to speak).

I have to say I can completely agree with that. Though I play as a generally good character, I am a greedy SOB and if killing a kid would get me a bitchin' weapon I'd do without batting an eye. Not to mention killing annoying characters and just about anyone that treats me with disdain has always been tempting (Outcasts, all of Littlelamplight, all of Tenpenny Tower except Dashwood, etc) I also agree the lack of size of settlements given the passage of time doesn't make sense. Hell a lot of things don't make sense given it's 200 years after a nuclear war, the dingy color pallet for example, everywhere looks like shithole (nobody knows how to clean anymore?).

Hell the whole point of an open ended game is knowing that even if don't choose to do something you know the option is there (For example killing shopkeeper and taking everything, yeah it's a bad idea, but you can do it if you want to), so not killing kids is kinda lame.

Not to mention the whole sex issue. Nova just lays next to you? What kinda bullshit is that? I know having sex in video games is a touchy subject, especially after GTA's "Hot Coffee" incident, but many really successful games have much, much racier sexual content than Fallout3s crap like God of War and Mass Effect just to name a few.

I do have to disagree with the everyone on drugs thing though more druggies/drunks would be realistic. Having too many would be stupid though, you have to pay for your fix, and in order to do that you have to get money somehow, and there are limits on that.

I also agree with the not hard enough issue. Once you get past a certain level, even a Supermutant behemoth is a chump requiring minimal effort. There has to be some way around this issue.

The Brotherhood of Steel issue makes sense to me though, the Outcasts exist because the West Coast BOS have become "Knights in a castle". Honestly I think a DLC or a sequel should show what happens when the Outcasts do re-establish contact with the West Coast and fighting between the two break out. Perhaps you return to the West Coast to find out that the Brotherhood there has fractured similar to the East Coast Brotherhood, a Tech hoaders vs doogooders thing going on. (making the choosing Evil make more sense, and neutral you don't pick a side, you just go about your own business).Cavesloth 02:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Cavesloth