I got Fallout 3 recently after hearing so many good things about it on other gaming forums I frequent. In fact I had never heard anything negative about this game until after I started playing it and visiting these forums. So I picked it up and started playing and I LOVE it! It's such a blast to play! But then I come to these forums and I keep seeing threads about how awful Fallout 3 is. Am I stupid for thinking that the quests are fun and well-written? I feel like I am after reading threads here. I mean sure there is a little thing here and there that could have been done better, but I haven't played a game that doesn't have some of that...even ones that are considered really well written like Dragon Age:Origins.

No you aren't crazy or stupid for Loving Fallout 3. Many of the people including myself that have problems with Fallout 3; have problems of how it compairs to Fallout and Fallout 2. Fallout 3 is a great game so you are not crazy for loving it. Some people including myself don't feel its a very good Fallout game but it still does not make you crazy.

I think something that a lot of people don't get at first is that you can hate something and still love it. A lot of people who complain bitterly about aspects of F3 still love the game - but they hate that it could be much better.

No, you are definitely not crazy.

Certainly not. There are many of us on these forums who love Fallout 3 and defend it any chance we get.

But we have to recognize that Fallout 3 was a significant change from the originals, for one, its focus is on its gameworld and not its story.



This.

I believe that most of the harshest criticism of Fallout 3 tends to come from some of the most die hard fans of the original Fallouts ( the ones that Black Isle Studios made) Some of the fans of the series also take a look at New Vegas (made by Obsidian; some of the same Devs that worked on the originals) and can see a clear difference in numerous ares (probably the biggest area being better writing.) For the most part, those folks are correct in that the originals as well as New Vegas are better written, but also seem to be lacking in other areas that Bethesda tend to do well in. I will not get into specifics on this, I will let someone else do that for me :yes:

I'm glad that you are enjoying Fallout 3, it has given me many hours of entertainment over the last couple years. I have even gone back to playing it after playing New Vegas for a few months.

Oh yeah, and one more thing...Don't feed the Yao Gaui, :nono:

Of course you're not crazy for loving Fallout 3. I don't think anyone has ever said that you shouldn't love a game, because beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Don't let anyone ever tell you what game you should or shouldn't love. Unless it's Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel. Then we need to talk.

No, you are not crazy, or if you are you aren't alone. There are a lot of players who love this game. It's fun. It may not have the best writing and there are holes in the MQ that you can walk through, but the gameworld is filled with interesting things to find and a lot of the characters are a joy to hate or love. Beth does a great job making it fun to run around and just BE and do stuff in its open gameworld.

If by "talk" you mean "burn at the stake" then yes.

I'll tell you what, they certainly wouldn't have expected the Fallout inquisition.

No no no, definitely not crazy or stupid. Fallout 3 is an amazing, wonderful, marvellous game, irrespective of the sometimes ropey dialogue and linear main quest, and I can only feel slightly sorry for those who didn't enjoy it.

But I have the animal friend perk.

I think my love of Fallout 3 is slowly driving me crazy. I think of little else nowadays!
There's a unique and odd situation with FO3, in that there are 3 other games before and after which are different, made by different people. I always think it's funny how people argue so vemenanly about little subtle differences between things. Noone ever argues about whether FO3 is better than Age of Empires II.
What will be interesting will be seeing where FO:NV come in best games polls in future years. This years (US) PC Gamer put FO3 at no 27 (oblivion was no 3). FO:NV didn't make the list but it was only released late 2010

Because Ages of Empires isn't part of what is called the Fallout series?



Fallout 1 actually placed pretty high if I remember right. Amazing how well the game has held for 13 years.

Edit: it placed #7. Damn that's amazing.


This actually surprised me. I really didn't have much fun with Oblivion. I mean, it's a pretty game, but combat was dull, dungeons were repetitive, and the mainquest repelled me. It's advertised as a RPG, but where is the roleplay? I guess there's some things I'll never understand.

No, you are not crazy at all. There is no pleasing everyone and no matter what the topic is, there is always going to be a debbie-downer about it. Personally, I found FO3 probably the most addictive game I've ever sat down to play, so if you are found to be "crazy," then I suppose we are in this together! :fallout:

It's a great game but not a good FALLOUT game. It's more focused on exploration than story or replay value. If you want to try a FALLOUT with a good story and lots of replayability try the newest fallout game Fallout: New Vegas. Personally I have recently tried to play Fallout 3 again and I just can't being myself to keep playing it's gotten so boring!

I am not trying to cause any sort of argument, so please don't take this the wrong way, but I find that FNV's story was just as 'developed' as FO3. In fact, it seems almost as if FNV is merely a continuation of FO3 in a roundabout way rather than a whole new game. However, I do agree with your statement about FNV being replayable. It has even been proven that, in order to do every quest in the game, you must play the game 3 1/2 different ways. Other than that however, FNV was kinda a let down, in my opinion. (Not to mention it had lots of glitches...)

That's a matter of opinion. IMO In New Vegas, the lack of enemies/combat plus the lack of meaningful exploration has left it's replayability sorely lacking. I would agree that in nearly every other category that it exceeds Fallout 3, but those two areas are pretty big drawbacks to it's replayability.

Perhaps if Obsidian had more time to develop the game and not use as many of Bethesda's Fallout 3 resources the game may have been much better than it turned out to be, but since that didn't happen, we'll never know what it could've been.

Fallout New Vegas was clearly a kind of sequel to Fallout 2 if anything.

I wouldn't know; I've only played FO3 and FNV :sadvaultboy:

Well it's on the west coast and shows the NCR forming. FO3 pretty much stole lots of things from the originals but that's off-topic and usually starts arguments do let's not get into that.

Since when has Nevada been on the [censored] coast?

And as I've said, I haven't played the Originals, so I wouldn't have much of an argument against you, so not getting into that? You have yourself a deal. :thumbsup:

Pedantic much?

It's just the way it is.

I played a tiny, little bit of New Vegas, but then I stopped because I wanted to play all of Fallout 3 first. I still haven't done all of the side-quests and DLCs yet, not to mention all of the exploring that can be done. There is just SO much to do in Fallout 3. One thing I will say about what I got to see of New Vegas is that I LOVED being able to make food, drinks, and medicine from stuff you find laying around. I REALLY wish that was in Fallout 3. In fact as much as I like fighting various enemies and doing quests, one of my favorite things to do in a game like this is collect all kinds of stuff and make things out of it.