Oblivion is epic and has lots of dungeon crawling n exploration and a decent story but it's no fo3 :tops: i'd personally rank it almost as good as fonv.

I paid for a game that works. Where's what I paid for?


I would have rather they delay the game three months to make sure it actually works than spew out a bug-ridden pile of glitches. I feel like I wasted my money on it. It would be inexcusable for Ford to release a car even half as broken and not honor the warranty, so why does Obsidian get off scot-free for the same exact stunt?

Oh wow, maybe because they didn't get a choice? Bethesda MADE them release it early, damn. Also, Bethesda was responsible for QA (Quality Assurance), and look how well they did their job.

A game that has bugs isn't going to kill you, unlike a faulty car.

Fact is, games will always have bugs and the bigger and more complex a game is, the harder it becomes to track them all down. Add to that the enormous pressure publishers put on developers to get a game out within a certain financial quarter and you're looking at a product that will likely have a few problems on release.

Which is why I never play a brand new game. Whilst I may occassionally buy a new game (if I'm after a pre-order bonus or somesuch), I generally won't pick it up until a month or two post-release. By that point, the worst problems have been patched (and if I haven't bought the game yet, you can bet it'll be a fair bit cheaper). I also expect CTDs and make sure I make liberal use of quicksave. That way, I'm less inconvenienced when they happen.

Having said that, I do have an obsessive-compulsive completionist mentality to most games - I can spend a couple of months on a single game mining content, so leaving a new game on the shelf for a while doesn't test my willpower like, say, chocolate in the fridge, because chances are I'll be busy with something else.

Please tell me about them. Tell me why I couldn't join the Talon Company, or the Enclave. Why I was *always* forced to join the goody good King Arthur Owyn Lyons in his glorious quest.
Tell me *what* choice even matters in F3. I can blow up Megaton, and half of the wasteland wouldn't care. With a few water beggars, I could fix my karma and become a jesus again.
The only particular choice & consequence I remember, was the Tenpenny Tower and Ghouls. Sadly, that's pretty much all!

Hell, in NV I shot a rat, and then had a bunch of kids thanking me for it? This alone wipes the floor with F3 and its faux choices.

Even Oblivion did a better job with citizens commenting on your fame or status.


exmachinax has an opinion and I agree with him. Deal with it. :disguise:

The multiple endings in the game are fantastic, fair play but the story wasnt as thrilling. Ive got to give it to them they did alot in 2 years. I hope that FO4 will have multiple endings like in FONV but have the same emotion as FO3. The finished product would surley be one of the best games ever released. FO3 felt like a film when you played it, It felt awsome! Where as FONV just felt like another game...

IDK Smert Im getting kind of tired of discussing the same stuff with the same people. I ve said before Talon comp would have been cool.

You could choose to join slavers and f up big town. You different ways to deal with the irradiated water ghouls in broken steel, harold was a choice. The Pitt gave you a choice that leaves us with no idea what is going on there. We won t ever agree, but to me choices that don t mean anything are 4 endings that u can make everyone win. They r fools gold (again not calling you a fool)........ I will never feel in the game once I know there are multiple endings where u can make everyone win and I walk away knowing nothing.

We will speak no more of this we will agree to disagree

I was all set out to type a long-arsed reply meticulously detailing all the choices available to the player in Fallout 3, from the small (e.g. helping Leo Stahl quit drugs or blackmailing him into becoming your dealer) to the large (e.g. teaming up wit the slavers at Paradise Falls or wiping them off the map), when all of a sudden I was struck with a massive sense of deja vu. I'm seeing arguments -- often involving the same people -- that I saw six months ago when NV came out, and they haven't progressed one jot. I just can't be bothered, it's a futile exercise. People see what they want to see in the games, factual accuracy lies crushed and broken by the wayside.

Boo-urns.

I am however, seeing the same old crap from the other barricade too.
It starts with "OMG why no freeplay, factions are boring, this sacks" ranges to "OMG too much talking, I want to shoot things.", which is followed by an endless discussion how Fallout should be about exploration only and ends up with "it's no Fallout 3! Why it's no Fallout3?!".
No. Bloody. Progress. Since. The. Relase.

But all of this(yes even my comments), is a nebulous subjective matter. I consider NV as a superior Fallout game, and yes, I am willing to discuss it(even though my tone could have said it otherwise, sorry for that). Call it whatever you want, elitism, placing-on-a-pedestal, fan-boyism, I couldn't possibly care less.

Also, please do tell *what* exactly are those indisputable facts then, which are broken by the wayside. I am VERY interested to hear them.

BTW: I still stand by my opinion about the choices and consequences being petty and meaningless. Blackmailing Stahl doesn't exactly bite you in the [censored], same for the Slavers and other 'choices'.



Fair enough. Don't get me wrong though, I thought that F3 was a brilliant game on its own, which perfectly combined exploration with a 3D postapocalyptia. But Fallout is Fallout IMO if you catch my drift. :fallout:

That's an unfortunate way of putting it, but frankly, yes, that's the problem I have with NV. Although NV more approaches the traditional Fallouts. I still prefer FO3 because of the wandering around and exploration. I've completed NV twice now, and I have no desire to ever run the quest line again. I've had to heavily modify NV to make wandering around more interesting, and i still find myself going back to FO3, even considering that I've been on every square inch of that game. So, it's a couple hundred hours for NV, and a couple thousand hours for FO3, just as it was a couple thousand hours for both Oblivion and Morrowind.

NV does provide more choices and more quests, but it suffers the same issues (for me) that the first two Fallouts had...namely that after playing it couple of times, there's nothing else to see. For better or worse, NV is an Obsidian game, with all the typical obsidian features and vices. Nothing wrong with that at all...I understand the wants of the choice/consequences/story game play folks, but I like Bethesda games better, with all the features and vices of sandbox/exploration games.

In the end, NV was about what i expected...long in story, short on exploration. While looking forward to the next Fallout, however, i would purchase either a Bethesda or Obsidian Fallout, but i would much prefer the Bethesda verity.

I really enjoy this game but no, it didn't live up to my expectations. Bugs, constant freezing etc.

When I first made it to the strip I was disappointed to be honest. The casino's look and feel dead. If you win between 5-10k caps BAM you're banned from gambling. What else is there to do besides gamble and when you can't do that, no use going back. Every faction (House, NCR, Yes man, Legion) quests are basically the same quests. My 3rd play-though felt like my first only given by a different person.

And why can't you join a faction? Like the NCR, start out as a Private and work your way up in ranks? It just feels you're a gopher and nothing more.

The technical problems really scar the otherwise fun experience. I was also disappointed to see the random encounters gone, and how empty the map got (not to mention small). With the extra features added in, combined with the nice story and a lot of content, I would say it met my expectations (but didn't surpass them like Oblivion and FO3)

Heh, I would actually prefer if they joined forces. Or at least, have some of the writers do the dialogue and story, while Beth handles the gameworld. :vaultboy:

Yip they had no choice they were tied to a chair and gagged and whiped until they released the buggiest game ever which they made (ohh yeah anyone remember alpha protocol that was insanely buggy aswell which obsidian made ) no wonder bug's get through when Obsidian hands them a crippled game like that and you have the ignorance to make out like obsidian did no wrong you fool.THEY BOTH FUDGED UP GAGHHHHHHH!!!! :angry: .

Lol yah really Alpha protocal was absolute junk. It was also buggy mmmm what a coincidence.

How so? I thought it was quite good and managed to do what it was set out ot do pretty well. :shrug:


My Alpha Protocol also wasn't all that buggy, nor was New Vegas for that matter. Guess I'm lucky.

Yes you are.

I'm not a fonv hater i love it and mine generally isn't that buggy but still there is no excuse for the majority of peeps and then Mako Vlazkov makes out like Obsidian is a re carnation of Jesus and couldn't do wrong if they molested hobo's theres times when people fudge up jeez louise .

@Smert:

Ah, don't mind me, I didn't mean to single you out or anything. More just having a general lament at the circular nature of these discussions, and the way they degenerate into argument-by-rote from both sides. "There aren't enough interesting places to explore in NV" becomes "there's nowhere interesting to explore in NV", for instance, or "Fo3's story is too linear" becomes "Fo3's completely linear", and this irks me. But then that's probably my fault for being a pedant, and anyway I'm probably just of guilty of this as anyone else, making me a hypocrite too. Oh well. I actually agree with much of what you write.



Particularly this. :fallout:

edit on the more interesting subject of Alpha Protocol:




If I may...

My biggest problem with AP was the laughably bad stealth, which rewarded investment in the sneak skill with an invisibility spell (lol) that made the game trivially easy, any vestiges of stealth-based gameplay disappearing as you charged around karate chopping whole unable-to-fight-back goon squads into submission under your magical and unexplained cloak of shadows. Investing in the sneak skill ruined sneaking and made it incredibly boring, which is something of an own goal, surely. One of the most extreme and problematic examples I've come across of the RPG-reverse-difficulty-curve phenomenon.

I also loathed the dismal boss battles against nonsensically-bulletproof Russian gangsters and whatnot, and found the story to be underwhelming sub-Tom Clancy hokum with a deeply unlikeable main character. But it's the stealth I take biggest issue with, I expect a game billed as an espionage RPG to at least be half-decent in this regard.

This has become a typical F3 vs FNV thread. Ok, while there is nothing wrong with that in itself I do feel that the arguments for each have been well covered by now. Everyone here has their favourite and is unlikely to ever be convinced of the merits of the other. That's fine too, since we all look for different things in a game, and F3 and FNV, for all their visual similarities, are quite different.

I do hope that the game designers are reading all of these posts, as repetitive as they are, since Fallout 4 will most likely be heavily influenced by them. I also hope, quite sincerely, that F4 does not divide between 'true Fallout fans' and 'those who liked Fallout 3', as this seems to be the general way these threads seem to go.

Just remember, we are all on the same side. We all love Fallout, whichever version of the game it happens to be. We are also lucky that these games are so well designed that it's possible to see different things in them, rather than being linear, with no variation.

hahahahahahahahahahah lolz :celebration:

same fallout 4 multiple endings fine with me :celebration:

I expected more Fallout 3 so it exceeded my expectations and then some.

I am getting really sick and tired of you trying to incorrectly label me in a manner to make my opinion of less worth, if you don't agree with my position, please refute it, don't mock it. Also, "majority of peeps", you have no way of confirming that the majority of people have any certain experience.

NV failed in a way for me because of one thing: multiple endings

these made the game too much like Never-Winter Nights2 (NWN2) series, too many choices and not enough epic. This is also the reason i think that there is not gonna be any post-game DLC, that and there really is not any need for one by the time Hoover dam fight begins, with most if not all of the quests done by the time.