On the issue of ghouls in FO3.
The intelligent ghouls are estimated to be about or over 200 years old.
The ferals are the ghouls who have 'spoiled', ie, suffered brain rot to the point of losing all intelligence.

Now lets take a US population in the 50's, say 1959 so 177,829,628 people.
Lets kill 50 percent of them in Atomic fireballs leaving us 88,914,814 survivors.
Lets say 10% of them survive the radiation thanks to science and chemistry: 8,891,481
Lets say 10% of them survive the next 200 years as ghouls: 889,148
Now 10% of them go feral: 88,914
If we divided this number by 50 states we end up with 1778 ferals per state.

Now exactly how many Ferals have you counted in Point Lookout and DC Wasteland?
Less than their statistical probability I bet.

Also note that during the past 200 years people are born, like the lone wander, Moira, James, Dr. Li, etc.
These people after radiation exposure, and exposure to such fine drugs as Radaway, also
turn into your average wastelander/pitt person and go ghoul (or trog) eventually.
These ghoulified people will go feral one day, brain damaged persons like drug addled raiders probably sooner than others.

I played each Fallout game as it was originally released .... I loved Fallout 1 but, then again, it was the first and has a special place in my heart b/c of that .... I didn't really care for Fallout 2 that much and felt it threw a lot of disparate elements together (Wild West, Mobsters, San Fran being.... strange etc.) and not very well - sort of a developers' lark in lots of places imho. Fallout 3 I've enjoyed (on my 4th playthrough as we type) although it definitely has a much shallower level of quests and storyline in many ways compared to Fallout 1 (and sort of to Fallout 2... although the story imho was pretty basic ... what fleshed out FO2 was the number of side quests that were deep and long - a huge number)....

Many were displeased by the decision to go First Person and with a level of "shooter" dynamic - but I personally have enjoyed it immensely, although I would gladly play something with the combat system of Fallout Tactics if less "eye candy" meant much deeper and many, many more quests (like Arcanum, Fallout 1 & 2)...

One "side" thought, I would love to see more serious, world affecting quests in FO4. For example, blowing up Megaton could have been well-written and poignant, a major story/plot device ... instead it was "this old man doesn't like it so nuke it" which, after all that technical effort, seemed a waste....

You don't by chance sell insurance do you?

I always took the necropolis ghoulification to be a "creepshow/heavy metal~esque" singular event. This may well not be the intention of the Fallout 1 developers (but I'd be interested in finding out).

The reason I mention this is because I'd happily accept a Fallout 3 or 4 with no ghouls at all (except possibly a few originals from necropolis). 200 years is a long time, but even at their speed, a few could walk to DC.

Your starting figure uses a 1950s US population base, but the world blew more than 100 years later. If they were all having nuclear families all along (a wild speculation) we can expect a MUCH larger starting population come 2077. Even in the real-world USA, I've seen it projected to break 500 million before the mid-century.

That doesn't hurt your basic premise much, becasue even with 3 times the base population and everything else was essentially the same in your calculations you still only end up with less than 6000 ghouls per state. But that is an average dispersal over 50 very widely varied states in size and population density.

I simply think the title was misleading.

They could have called it "the post nuclear oblivion experience, with guns."

I was an avid Fallout 1 and 2 fan and when I first heard rumors Bethesda took over and would make Fallout 3 1st person I was a bit apprehensive.

I have since grown to love 1st person. There have been several moments where a loud boom or a surprise attack would make me scared and I literally jump in my chair. No way would this be possible using the 3rd person isometric view of Fallout 1 and 2.

I loved fallout 1 and 2, but after finishing them i couldn't brin myself to play through them again.

I've played fallout 3 for a few months and loved it to begin with (despite it's flaws), but the more i play it the more it feels like a FPS rather than an RPG.

I did not play fallout 1, just 2. I know in 2 you were the "chosen one", and you were on a quest to get the geck, that would help the village and had "mini quests" that could be done independent. This was set on the West coast and the Enclave was ran by a President Richards. I don't want to get into spoiler territory if there are people playing the game now, but I thought it was a fun game to play and you had to make choices in that game too, that at times were bizarre. (Prize fighter, a porm star) and you made currency in the game too. You also could get Dog meat too, but not like this dog meat.

I actually liked Fallout 3. I don't totally approve of some of the changes to the story, like the ghouls and super mutants. They were much different in 1&2 than in 3. i.e. the Mutants were broken into different groups, Mutants and Supermutants. Super Mutants were infected with the pure FEV, and were smarter, faster and stronger than Mutants, who were infected with an irradiated FEV and were much dumber. The Super Mutants could have an intelligent conversation, like Markus in FO2, or the Super Mutant Lieutenant in FO1.
The Ghouls were also explained as being irradiated FEV victims as well. Harrold, the one ghoul you really have a good indepth conversation with, was at Mariposa (Home of the FEV) with Richard Grey (The Master). Only after that did he begin to change.
The Brotherhood of Steel was also slightly different. They cared about preserving their tech, but more about killing mutants. Lyons in 3 seems this way, but if the entire BOS was like this, there would have been no Outcasts. The Vaults were also different. In 1&2, there were some surviving vaults. (13 and 8). In 3, only 101. You'd figure the major population hub of the country would have more than the west coast.

Well... it's pretty well known that only 13 of the 120+ vaults were supposed to operate "normally." It could be just blind luck that most of the 13 "true" vaults ended up on the West Coast and the others on the east coast.

True. I imagine more "true" vaults could be found in NYC or the south.

I didn't play the original Fallouts. But playing FO3 for the first time, I found the Vault opening sequences quite jarring in a really good way. It was like, pants, but good at the same time. As soon my character stepped out of the Vault for the first time and the light adjusted on the screen, and the Pip-Boy picked up a radio signal and I walked into the devestated town and watched the enclave bot float by spouting Eden jargon... I was hooked. Entering the school and fighting Raiders, seeing bodies hanging from ceilings, reading what they were up to on the terminal, killing a few giant ants and looting the corpses of the Wastelanders the Raiders had put to work digging in the tunnels... memorable.

The massive dishes in the North and that whole area swarming with Yao Guai, and Protectrons. Discovering some Ghoul woman who'd lived for two hundred years and who was trying to communicate and allign satellites in orbit. Standing on the top of those dishes and looking out over the Wasteland. Memorable. Sneaking around Old Olney cacking in my pants. Memorable. The first time I entered a subway and had a Feral running at me. Memorable. Nuking Megaton, seeing Liberty Prime for the first time, watching Liberty Prime do his thing. Exploring the many Vaults in DC. Memorable. Gaaaarrrryyyy! The Dunwich building complete with holotapes. Memorable...

There are so many memorable moments in this game it's unreal... and some of them afford a player a totally unique experience because with a glitch here or there, or coming across a trader like Crazy Wolfgang on one of his routes under circumstances that can't be forced by other players, helping him and his guard kill two Yao Guai that unexpectedly came together and charged down the caravan at the same time... memorable.

My favourite RPG's that I consider classics are Icewind Dale, KotOR, and probably Dungeon Siege 2. So maybe I'm just easily pleased because admittedly that's not a great top three. But all three had moments that are ingrained in my brain for all time. Fallout 3 quickly became one game that I would recommend to anyone, and the feedback for those who bought it on my say-so has been really mixed. You either love it, are indifferent about it, or you hate it. I have one or two mates who just couldn't get into it. But if they had, I don't think they could cite 'not really memorable' if they gave it a solid chance. It does seem that those who did play Fallout 1 & 2 are more critical of Fallout 3. But that it exists at all in the shape and form it does, those players have room to be grateful, if they profess to love the originals so much. At least the franchise is kicking and screaming with a vengeance.

What is memorable for one person isn't necessarily memorable for another. I've played Fallout 3 for dozens of hours, and I didn't find any aspect of it to be memorable. I thought it was a pretty forgettable experience because everything felt so shallow and soulless to me. This isn't even in comparison to Fallout 1/2; I have the exact same problem with all Bethesda games. They create these large worlds, but in the end they tend to be soulless shells. The only Bethesda game I ever found memorable was Morrowind, and it wasn't even Bethesda's content that I found to be memorable it was player made mods.

Same for me Talon, it's that they try to do too much at the same time and everything is spread too thin. Nothing is deep.

Doesn't ring true if you dedicate dozens of hours to something shallow. There must have been some appeal to keep you playing. How can you reconcile a comment like that after playing it for so long? You can't go that long and not enjoy some of the experiences, maybe you're just not recollecting your time on the game quite as well you could be, or perhaps you've over-played it and have stripped away your own ability to get lost in the world Beth created for you. Seeing a simple map populated by simple NPCs, rather than seeing the Wasteland populated by Wastelanders?

As I said some of my friends couldnt get into it, but they barely made it out of the Vault before they stopped playing. That's what happens when you don't like a game and it has no appeal for you. Me thinks there are only a few who would agree with you that there are no memorable moments in the base game. A small, small minority. Add the DLC/EPs and IMO... it's difficult to qualify 'shallow and souless'. IMHO, though, we'll never agree me thinks and I'm not trying to change your opinion. Heh. :shrug:

I played FO3 for a fair while too - maybe even more than I've spent in FO1 (which was unusually short for an RPG) and I definitely found FO3 to be the least memorable of the two. I kept playing because all the shooting and exploring combined with the RPG elements was pretty fun - it doesn't need to be memorable to be fun enough to keep you playing!...

You know what I spend 180 hours plays FO3 doing? try out mods and screenshooting how long did it take me to find and do everything with the "normal" game? about 30 hours. I've basicly stopped playing FO3 whatso ever now as screenshooting ideas have dried up.

All three games are easy once you know how to play. I probably died more in fallout 3 from things sneaking up on me when I wasn't paying attention.

Someone pointed out exp points and how it harder to level up and how needed more points per level in 3 and I disagree because exp is much greater in fo2 for quests and enemies. I just got out of a random encounter battle and got 2K exp. That would be like fighting 40 albino radscorps in fo3.

It is tons easier to steal in fo1 and 2. Once you hit vault city and ncr you never have to worry about ammo again.

Fo2 can be beaten in 30 minutes once you know what your doing.

It would be impossible to beat fo3 in 30 minutes.

Hmm leave vault. Run megaton. Run rivet city. Steal rivet city dry for weapons. Run to dad... Don't want to reveal spoilers but it would be impossible to do under an hour.

I guess my point is they all good. Like any game they are not hard. If a game is easy or hard does not mean it isn't a great game. Wasteland is great too, so let's hear it for fallout 0.5!

why not there is plenty of short cuts the only thing slowing you down is having to walk to places in real time....

Yes there are shortcuts and even with them I don't see how one could beat fo3 in 30 minutes.

I can't even remember the difficulty some comp terminals or locks are. For example if you bypass murder pass.

There are off the top of my head 4 areas you have to fight through.

It could be done in a few hours but 30 minutes? I'd have to vote no. Heck would prolly take 30 min to get out of the vault.

that's true, and FO1 can be beaten in less than 10 minutes.
Still I don't understand why people consider that a sign of low quality...
(the game that I have finished in the shortest time was Myst in less than 30 seconds iirc!! All you needed to do is use a code in one of the starting locations and that was it... Once you knew the code and where to use it, you could just do it in mere seconds. But the whole point was that you had to play through the entire game at least once and solve dozens of puzzles before you knew what that code was)

So, if you so wish, anyone who has finished FO1 in 10 minutes (well... I'll be a bit more generous say a couple of hours instead) in the first playthrough and without any external help, such as reading a walkthrough, raise your hand, and I, for one, will happily admit that that game svcks big time.


But even that wouldn't make any difference. Even if you did finish it that fast the first time, then you would have just thrown away 99% of the game, which would mean that you wouldn't have really played it - you would have just quickly done away with it as if it was a sprint race instead of an RPG.

I think you are missing my point. Imo all games become easy. However that doesn't mean a game svcks.

All three games are great and I don't think either one is harder or more challenging than the other, just great fun.

That's exactly the problem with F3. You could finish F1 in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzSOKi_t5fg&feature=fvst, but that was only because you were offered so many ways to approach everything. F3 n the other hand, ultimately only gives you one way -- fighting. Strip F3 from from it's combat parts, and you could beat it easily and quickly.

Eh? If you wanted to you can avoid combat in fo3 just like fo1 and 2. Run and sneak. Most npc can be talked out of doing something. Some side quests require combat but if you are going for speed play you don't do those.

Meh they all fun and all I saying is they not hard. Urp

A game doesn't have to be memorable for a person to like it; I've liked tons of relatively shallow and forgettable games.