and talonfire's post is how i feel about Fallout 3.

Well the problem with your point is that Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel was a pretty bad game all around, plus it didn't pay any respect towards the setting. Interplay wanted a quick buck so they canceled Van Buren and developed BoS.

Fallout 3 isn't even nearly as bad as BoS. If Fallout 3 were Fallout: D.C. I would have still bought it, and I would have liked it more. Sure the folks at NMA and the Codex may have picked it apart, but those folks seem to be incapable of being positive towards anything. They probably would have hated Van Buren too. :shrug:

The thing is though, nobody intends for their game to play like garbage, I'm not talking about just the combat tactics, I think being able to crouch and flank would have been polishing a turd, it felt like a much lower quality Dungeon Siege with guns than a Fallout game, it didn't fit.



My argument is that there are only 3-4 true RPGs, not even the original developers of Fallout and Planescape are making true RPGs anymore, Fallout 3 is a better game and RPG than Bloodlines, Masquerade Redemption was a better game and RPG than Bloodlines, so why does anyone think the original developers of Fallout or anyone else would have made a truer sequel? If Fallout 3 was just a little more RPG focused, it would have been an ideal sequel that would have matched the first two games, more than Van Buren would have

Sure, I would love a game that was as deep as Torment, as slick as any next gen game, as successful as GTA, and as atmospheric as Fallout, but then, that would be the greatest game ever made, we're not talking about The Godfather vs a Uwe Boll movie, we're talking about Citizen Kane vs The Dark Knight, it would have been great if The Dark Knight lived up to what Citizen Kane was, but only 2-3 movies have ever done that, I still thought it was a worthy Batman movie

I just want to know what your solution is, we need more solutions than problems, how is any game going to make use of the cutting edge technology of today while also becoming a deep cult-worthy RPG? I agree that the publishers are dumbing down games for profit, but that's the gaming industry today, how is Fallout 3 not a step in the right direction?

Hmm, I don't think so. Bloodlines really svcked me in, it balanced between stats and first person combat (however clunky at times), and there were usually multiple ways to deal with a situation. Not to mention the storyline, characters, and atmosphere were leagues above Fallout 3's. Bloodlines was linear at times, but I think that overall it's both a better RPG, and game than Fallout 3.

If Fallout 3 were made as well as Bloodlines(yes I'd even take the rather clunky combat system), I wouldn't have nearly as many complaints about the game as I do now.

Nope. Redguard and Battlespire's gameplay was drastically different from that in Arena and Daggerfall. One of the two featured an experience system! Not to mention in Redguard, you're FORCED to play as a specifically-created character, unlike with the previous games. And what did both games get from that deviance? Crap-bottom ratings. It wasn't until Morrowind did TES get back into popularity.

Hmm... All of a sudden, I understand where these people saying that FO3 is better as a spinoff rather than a sequel are coming from...

I don't think Bloodlines was even half the RPG Fallout 3 is, and that's saying something

There was no choice really, the way you solved quests either resulted in more or less experience, so the goal was to always solve the quest in the way that gave you the most experience, that was serious design flaw, Fallout 3 was lacking in this area too, but your choices had way more effect than Bloodlines, **SPOILER** there was nothing like when you saved the girl in the hospital and she just appears in your apartment with absolutely no affect on gameplay whatsoever and then randomly dies in one of the most awkwardly bad moments I have ever experience in a video game **END SPOILER**

The gameworld was 100% lifeless, and I'm not talking about vampires, there was no depth at all

Bloodlines was completely linear, besides the multiple endings, you couldn't skip any of the main quests, and that was all there was to do in the whole game, just progress through the main plot, Fallout 3 at least let you level up outside of quests

The story and atmosphere were a big step backward from Redemption, Redemption was pretty cliche, but Bloodlines took the emo to a whole new level, I know that's what the series is about, but Redemption did it in a much more meaningful way instead of the typical Blade and Bloodrayne gothic vampire cliches

I will say that the characters and dialogue were a lot better than in Fallout 3, I really thought that was the game's strength

All this stuff is on top of the mechanical gameplay and awful programming, this is where Fallout 3 really excelled

I have Fallout 3 ahead on RPG points and way ahead on overall game points.

She doesn't just appear in your apartment, she approaches you outside of Venture tower.




Uh, you generally can't skip any main quests, not even in Fallout 3. Sure you can postpone the main quest in FO3, but you can do that in Bloodlines. No one is holding you at gun point and saying that you have to do the quest right at that moment, there's no time limit. And I don't know what game you played, but Bloodlines had a lot of side quests. Bloodlines also gave you the option of dealing with situations in multiple ways like Fallout and Fallout 2, something Fallout 3 is sorely lacking. Bloodlines actually wasn't any more linear than any other non-Bethesda RPG really, unless you consider the order in which you do things non-linearity. KotOR and Mass Effect were just as linear as Bloodlines from where I stand... the only real difference is that you could choose which planet you wanted to do before the other.

Sure you can do whatever you want in Fallout 3... but the problem is that there's nothing to do. I can spend hours wandering the wastes, but that's just a waste of time. The problem with free-form RPGs is that there's a whole lot of nothing between the content, and Fallout 3 is no exception. I'd take Bloodlines' "linearity" and quality over Fallout 3's hours of "nothingness" any day of the week. Yeah, Fallout 3 did have side quests, but there really weren't that many (which I'm grateful for, too many and we'd end up with mediocre side quests like in TES series), but I spent more time wandering aimlessly finding the quests than actually doing them.



I'm sorry, but what? Redemption was a joke, it was one of the most poorly written games I've ever had the misfortune of playing through. It was filled with cliches and "emo" as you put it, Bloodlines was actually the exact opposite. Your character didn't mope around feeling sorry for him or herself like Christof did, he or she actually did something and had the option of cracking jokes along the way. Sure the atmosphere was dark, but it was supposed to be... that's what the World of Darkness is. The only aspect that I found emo were the goths in the night clubs. Are you sure you're not confusing Bloodlines with Redemption? Redemption was a heck of a lot more linear than Bloodlines, and had no side quests... at all. I'm getting the implication that you haven't even played Bloodlines in all honesty, and if you have you just skimmed through it apparently ignoring all of the side quests.



I will respect your opinion, but I have to disagree. Bloodlines is closer to Fallout and Fallout 2 in design and quality than Fallout 3 will ever be. It had a decent story, decent characters, decent dialogue, multiple ways of dealing with situations, and more focus. You may not have liked it, and that's you're right, but I personally feel that Bloodlines is ten times the RPG and game that Fallout 3 can ever hope to be. :shrug:

I think it really comes down to nothing more complicated than one's own personal standards for a "good game." To take the "Citizen Kane/ Dark Knight" example - there are people who won't consider watching anything less Citizen Kane quality; or at the very least hold every movie in comparison to that high standard. On the videogame RPG front, I personally probably fall somewhat in line with that thinking. I have certain criteria for what I would consider a "successful" RPG, and hold market considerations and the like to be beside the point - in much the same way that I don't give "extra points" to a movie for trying to be primarily a Summer Blockbuster. Just because it's not going to make as much money doesn't, for me, justify not making an excellent indie film; as an example.

That a hypothetical Fallout 3 that had stayed more in-line with the original games in terms of gameplay mechanics wouldn't have sold near as well as Bethesda's incarnation, doesn't mean that I personally am not going to judge it as harshly.

On it's own merits, I think that while I do very much enjoy Fallout 3 (and enough so to have purchased all 3 DLCs, and plan on buying both of the next two,) that there are some aspects where the mechanics and ruleset don't do justice to the game they're trying to make. The system, while it has been much simplified, is not at the same time elegant. White Wolf's ruleset, or Dungeons and Dragons, even - are not as "deep" an RPG system as you'd find in GDW's Traveller games or the GURPS ruleset. But they are also very elegant systems - they work very well and it's more that making them more complicated wouldn't also make them "better" than it is that they are "dumbed down" systems. Fallout 3's system doesn't have that quality, I find.

For one, the Stats aren't equally viable - meaning that placing a point in one Attribute is not as useful as placing it somewhere else. (10 points in Perception, for example - does not make the characters as viable as placing those 10 points into Intelligence.) Not to mention all the problems they've had with being able to max out your skills so quickly or hit the level cap so early on - both of which are symptoms of a less-than-ideal system.

If I was making a game from the ground up with the gameplay to be found in Fallout 3 - this is not at all the system I would have come up with to complement that. Instead, it seems to be a sentimental holdover from the original games - and not so much a system that really does justice to the sort of game that Fallout 3 (and that's not to say that what Fallout 3 is trying to do, gameplay-wise, is a bad thing.)

My "solution" going forward, would be to completely revamp the ruleset and start from scratch. Decide what sort of game they really want to make, and come up with Stats and rules that complement that sort of game. As opposed to trying to jam a square peg into a round hole; which is what they tried to do with Fallout 3. I don't think an RPG has to be "deep" to be a good RPG, but it does need to have a ruleset that does justice to the game.

Personally, I'd like to see Fallout 4 return to the series' roots, and save the "free form RPG" style for spin offs. That way we could just call Fallout 3 the odd child out of the bunch, and move on while we can play the spin offs if we want the free form style from 3. I don't mind free form TES games, I just don't like how Fallout 3 is a free form TES RPG while the first two were not.

In a perfect world Bethesda would rename Fallout 3 and create a new Fallout 3 that is closer to the originals, but it'd be silly to expect that to happen as they've done the damage, and they don't really seem to care what series veterans think.

Yeah some kind of system where shooting a lot increases your small guns skill and jumping around a lot increases... let's say, "acrobatics".

Take away SPECIAL and you've got even less of a Fallout game. Instead of swapping out for a round peg, they should be changing the hole to fit the peg. You'd think Bethesda would jump at the chance to make something that isn't elder scrolls for once, but what would I know.

Why would gamesas feel the need to "solve" anything? The game sold enough, won Game of the year even. Why would they risk killing their cashcow because of the complaints of a handful of forumers?

After all if there are any large changes in an eventual future Fallout release, the Casual Gamers? might take offense and buy something else.

That's not what I meant. Going back to bases and changing around the system doesn't inherently mean "let's make it exactly like Elder Scrolls."

It's already essentially a "spin-off." What we have in Fallout 3 is "SPECIAL" in name only to begin with. There's more to a system than simply being able to cleverly arrange the attributes in such a way as to spell something, after all. Even the Attributes no longer do what their name implies - Agility could just as easily be called "Aiming" or "Bullet Time" for all it has to do with how acrobatic or lithe your character is.

They may call it "SPECIAL," but it's really something else entirely. If they're not going to carry on with the system as it was laid out in the original games, then I'd have more respect for them if they would just admit it and come up with something else that at least works better.

I'm not saying they do.

I came across this thread, which asked for my opinion. And I said what that was, and even went further to lay down some of the things that Bethesda could do to make me like the game better. Whether or not any of that is likely to happen has nothing to do with the fact that it's still something I'd like to see. I'd be very suprised if Bethesda put into play anything I've suggested on this forum. And if it did happen it would likely be mere coincidence.

Even if I have unrealistic expectations about what improvements I'd like to see for the game - those are still my expectations. These are the things I think would make the game better. Regardless of whether or not any of it is going to happen - it will remain my opinion. Let's say a tree crashes through the wall of my house, and I can't afford to have anyone come and fix it. Regardless of whether or not I'm going to be able to fix the gaping hole in my wall; I'm still going to be thinking "gee, I wish there wasn't a gaping hole in my wall."

Yeah yeah, I know. They're so successful and have so much money and such a large fanbase that they can't afford to take any risks. That's best left to the little destitute nobodies operating on personal integrity. This industry stinks.

Well what I mean is, that's the system the game mechanics were built for. What they did was try to sandwich Fallout into a place it doesn't belong.



SPECIAL doesn't just mean it's name, though. It's sort of like, Baldur's Gate didn't use Dungeons and Dragons EXACTLY but you could still say it was a dungeons and dragons game. Fallout 3 massacred SPECIAL, but it's still about attributes, skill points, and perks. The basic principals and attributes are there. You can't just change it to something else entirely and still call it SPECIAL.

This is a big mischaracterization. You can skip parts of the main quest in Fallout 3. You can find your father without doing any of the main quests that lead to it. You can skip some quests with dialog (like the Little Lamplight quest). You can access almost all of the other quests while ignoring the main quest. In Bloodlines you were forced through hubs, which only opened when you completed parts of the main quest. For example, you couldn't pick Bertram's lock regardless of how skilled you were in lockpicking, and until you completed the main quest for the hub you were stuck with a very limited number of side quests. I like Bloodlines, but it had a ridiculous amount of railroading and the multiple quest solutions seemed to be evaporate 50% of the time. I'm left wondering what game you played. It definitely had some advantages over Fallout 3 (facial animations and dialog quality), but few had anything to do with gameplay.

I tend to agree. I don't think they need to totally scrap it, but they need to think more about how to incorporate the skills and stats into gameplay. I've seen some decent examples in the mods, like tying kiting to pistols in XFO.

Reopened for constructive and substantive discussion only. Do not flame other members over their opinions; the moderators will use any means available to exclude you from the thread if you do so.

In my mind - what he have in Fallout 3 really isn't the "SPECIAL system" either. Sure, it's got perks - but just about every RPG has Attributes and Skills (and often the same ones, too.) SPECIAL is based off of GURPS (which was originally what Fallout was going to be) but that doesn't mean it is a GURPS system. Anyway, I think you concievably could come up with something that both stayed true enough to some of the characteristics of a Fallout game (perks and the like) without making it a rip-off of Elder Scrolls at the same time. (That said - I actually don't have any real problems with the Elder Scrolls system - it might not be such a terrible thing.)

Agreed.

I'm still partial to an idea I came up with a while back (probably to a large extent because it's my idea, admittedly... ) Basically it would based almost entirely on Perks and Traits. At character creation, you'd start off with a blank slate with the character having a baseline ability in all possible actions. (Able to fire a gun, hack a basic terminal - whatever.) Maybe re-introduce Traits at character creation to individualize your character a bit. This would be optional, as always - so if you wanted a generalist type of character you could forego this step, and those wanted a bit more pro/con to their characters could pick some Traits - all of which would have corresponding advantages and disadvantages to certain tasks. (Like a Trait that would make you faster, but also drop your HP; or one that increases your Unarmed/Melee damage but dropped your reaction time or something.)

Basically, just do away with Attributes and Skills and just replace them with Perks. Instead of XP points, you get points to spend on Perks - all of which have different costs and prerequisites. (I think in the thread I originally brought this up, it was deciding that still having levels in the game where you are prompted to spend your points would make things quite a bit easier.) So, if you wanted your character to be stronger, you'd get the "Strength" perk (or it's equivalent.) There'd be some difficulty in presenting all this information intuitively (since to do this right you'd need to be able to have tons of Perks to choose from.) But I don't think it would be impossible.

Anyway, it would play quite a bit like Fallout 3 already does - only you wouldn't have thos pesky Attributes and other stuff for us "nay-sayers" to complain about. Want to be better at something, buy the perk for it (and most of them would have different levels, of course.) If you could come up with enough Perks to provide interesting bonuses (like alongside the Small Guns skill Perks, you could have things like increased rate of fire, faster loading, etc,) then you wouldn't run into the same problem where you eventually run out of skill points to spend because you've maxed everything out.

That's my idea, at least.

Well I absolutely despise turn-based combat, its just not fun in the least bit, and its horribly unrealistic as far as combat goes. But I have played both F1 and F2 and they were great games, despite graphics and whatnot but its fairly easy to get past. I will admit that both of them were very rich with RPG content and thats why I loved them so much. However, I will say that although F3 has its many shortcomings, its my personal favorite and by far the best game I've played in a couple years.

You're not supposed to be able to, though. Your father's not in Vault 112 the moment you leave Vault 101, and it makes absolutely no sense from a storyline perspective. Does your character have some sort of telepathic link to his or her father letting him or her know where he is? :rolleyes: I'd call that a mistake on Bethesda's part, if anything.



Your point being what? I've said in my previous posts that Bloodlines is linear to a degree, but it's really no more linear than other hyped RPGs like KotOR. Sure you can choose what order to do the planets in, but you still have to do all of them and usually in a certain way. Bloodlines and KotOR are story-focused, they have little in the way of exploration. Fallout 3 is a free form RPG so it obviously doesn't have the same constraints as storyline based RPGs like Bloodlines and KotOR, but on the other hand it has less focus and feels very empty. Personally, I'd take Bloodlines' linearity over a big, empty, soulless game world like FO 3's. :shrug:

Make no mistake about it, though; Fallout 3's main quest is as linear as any other mainstream RPG main quest.



Bloodlines of course. And there's way more advantages than that, a stat system that actually matters, multiple ways of dealing with situations, etc. Bloodlines isn't perfect, but I do believe that it's a much better game than Fallout 3 due to its focus and yes, its gameplay.


I'm not saying Fallout 3 is a bad game, but I don't think it's the greatest RPG ever, and I don't think it's a good Fallout sequel. Fallout 3 is a good Fallout game sure, but so is Fallout Tactics if you take away the blatant inconsistencies. Would I have wanted Fallout Tactics to have been called Fallout 3 just because it's a good Fallout game? Certainly not, and Fallout Tactics did a better job at capturing Fallout and Fallout 2's gameplay than Fallout 3 did.

whats more realistic about FO3 combat then the originals TB ones? I'd say the originals combat was much more realistic because of the superior criticals tables and general combat mechanics. It tracked more damage types, had difering effects for both critical hits and failures, you have more states than just alive and dead and so forth.

I think too much emphasis goes into names and numbers. F3 isn't exactly a true sequel to begin with, the events and characters that appear in it are not continuing the stories set in F1-2, they only use them for historical reference or a tied background. The events in pre and post NCR have no direct bearing on the narrative of F3; F3 is its own story, so in a way it is in fact a spinoff much like those Star Trek shows had a bunch of different crews set in the exatc same timeframe and events but where their own stories with their own characters.

Frankly I think people are making too much of a big deal about it being called F3 vs F: DC. I also believe that any of you that expect future games to become a throwback to the style of the originals are also setting yourselves up for disappointment; I find it extremely unlikely that future Fallout games will be anything like Fallout 1 and 2.

I am in complete agreement that devs should take special care to adhere to previously established canon (Such as the whole FEV vault in DC which shouldn't exist) or if canon is being changed that it should have a proper explanation for why things are different now. This is something that F3 sorely lacked, the Brotherhood is different here but why exactly is that? There is a vault with FEV in DC but why is there one there when F1 explained there was only Mariposa? I think with a little effort those explanations could have been reasonably given and perhaps not have the resounding hollow holes which naysayers indulge in picking apart. I already viewed my own possible theory as to why the BoS is like that in F3 and I think it works given a look at both F1 and F3, but since it is never properly explained why it's only my own unfounded theory which others will disagree with. Why is there a Vault in DC with FEV? A more believable explanation might have been an FEV sample was taken from Mariposa before the Vault Dweller blew it up, but instead the given vague explanation doesn't work and contradicts what it said in F1, F Bible, etc.

I think devs should also follow the design of RPGs more closely, make the whole attribute/perk thing more relevant to gameplay. Follow the traditional ruleset of RPGs as a guide, though not necessarily make a clone of the ruleset used before or having to make the game exactly like the previous installment.

I think they should have balanced their efforts of narrative and gameplay, instead of focusing so much in their style of gameplay and making narrative less important. Story is imo the most important aspect of an RPG, even more than the ruleset used, and frankly I wish there was more to it in F3. And of course I also add the importance of diversity in choices/consequences within the narrative (The different ways quests can turn out given your decisions) which I wish there was a focus on. As well I wish that there would have been different ways a PC can deal with a quest given the stats and character that has been built.

These are the predominant issues I personally have with F3. I'm not going to bother listing the laundry list of issues and problems I have with Fallout 1 and 2 (I'm currently playing 2 while the DLCs come out) because it would be a moot point in this discussion. I strongly disagree however that in spite of all my problems with F3, that it is neither a worthy Fallout game or a worthy named sequel for Fallout 1-2.

However another game which changed the gameplay, almost entirely, to the previous games of the series was Resident Evil 4 (And now 5 which is in the same format as 4). The game is a true sequel to Resident Evil 1-2-3 and even though it was wildly different in its mechanic, is still a worthy and imo much superior game to the previous entries. I know, many will disagree with this anology or state RE4-5 svck or whatever; I use this simply as an example to illustrate how a sequel can successfully change the gameplay mechanic previously used by its predecessors and still be a true sequel. I view F3 in this manner when comparing it to F1-2.

While the combat system for Bloodlines (Which is a game I LOVE) would be more true to an RPG mechanic, it was extremely flawed in its execution. I understand that turning combat into FPS rubs RPG purists the wrong way and that they prefer character skill over player skill; but honestly in First Person Perspective games I think the system is too difficult to be realistically pulled off and Shooter is just easier. I think that it should be harder to effectively aim if a lower level of that skill but it is ridiculous and unrealistic to aim a pistol at a super mutant in point blank range and miss because of my I have a low small arms skill (Using Bloodlines combat mechanic it would have been this way). Skill in something like small arms should imo control what weapons I can use (Pistols first, then rifles, then shotguns, then assault rifles or medium machineguns), the spread of the weapon at medium-far distance, steady aim, and things like this. Neverthless I think it's very hard to convincingly adjust skill points to weapon usage in First Person/Third Person in real time combat.

Andaius I think realism is relative to your own definition of what is more real and what isn't. It's more realistic to have player skill govern to some degree the tohit chance in a First/Third person perspective real combat game then to magically freeze time and have an invisible roll die determine whether I hit or not an opponent and the damage caused given things such as distance, firepower, armor, and skill. As a true RPGer I generally agree with you, in table top RPGs it is the only way to determine the outcome of combat, but in a video game the translation is not as effective in the type of game F3 is. To have a roll die determine if I hit and how hard I hit based on solely my character skill/attributes is just not carried over very well in translation for a FP/TP game, this is the reason combat in Bloodlines was pretty weakly implemented; even if you consider it better because it was truer to RPG combat mechanics, it is not a practical translation for real time FP combat. Again though I repeat that I think it should be a balance between what Bloodlines did and player skill, not exclusively one or the other. This is all imo naturally, I understand your preferences are totally different.

My two Nuka Cola caps :hehe:

True, I think it's safe to say that Fallout 4 is going to be closer to Fallout 3 than anything else. Still, I can hope for some improvements in the type of RPG they are making. That sort of goes without saying, though, considering this is their first outing with what in many ways is a totally new game. It takes a lot of RPG videogames a couple installments to really get as refined as it can - I don't think Fallout 3 is any exception in that regard.

That actually is explained in the game. Lyons was in command of the detachment sent out to see what was worth saluaging from the wreckage of DC. Some time after he got there, he had a change of heart and went "native," changing his priorities from saluaging the remnants of technology to trying to pacify the area and help out those trying to make a go of rebuilding civilization in the area. There were those who, of course, were upset with what really amounts to a dereliction of duty if not outright mutiny. They left Lyons' "Brotherhood" and adopted the title of "Outcast" as a badge of honor for staying true to their initial orders.

The FEV thing, I'm agreement with you. I don't have a problem that they changed the lore around to fit what they wanted in the game. But they also didn't exactly go out of their way to explain the new set of events or anything.

Honestly, I don't think Res 4 was all that much of a departure from the previous titles in the series. More of a linear progression. Sure, the view changed a little bit to make the combat a little bit easier to deal with, so that now you were fighting in a more traditional 3rd person shooter format. But that was a long-time complaint for the series anyway. A Resident Evil 4 that didn't have modern shooter mechanics would have come across as hopelessly dated. It wasn't all that big of a change, other than that. Very nice graphics upgrades, some other considerations like shooting limbs and such. But you still couldn't move and fire at the same time... You still combined herbs to make better ones, and had to manage a limited inventory. There was still the puzzle element.

If you were used to playing the old Resident Evil games, you could pretty much jump right into RE4 with little problem. None of the changes came across (to me at least) as anything close to the level of change you saw going from FO2 to FO3. Resident Evil 3 was a Survival Horror game where you ran around and killed zombies and monsters and solved puzzles. Resident Evil 4 was a Survival Horror game with a graphics facelift where you ran around killing zombies and monsters and solved puzzles. What was so completely different that Resident Evil 4 did?

Another good example is Broken Sword 3 (went from 2D cartoony DOS game to full 3D modeled). In fact, fans riled so much about the lack of point-and-click that the developer introduced point-and-click again in Broken Sword 4. They were practically forced to do so as a small developer of adventure games relying on a very limited fanbase - they wouldn't "get away with it" as gamesas did, to put it bluntly.

The great thing about Bloodlines, aside from some aspects of it being linear, was that at least you felt connected to the story. When it comes to Fallout 3, following the death of your father, what if any is your motivation to start the purifier? I mean to be honest, it's not as if your character really had any involvement in the project, outside of his requirement to clear out the Jefferson Memorial(which I thought was just a poor excuse to have a Hollywood style shoot out....and talk about linear....after all it wasn't as if you could have had dear ol dad do it for you). Secondly, other than the buildings belonging to the other very powerful vampires, when it comes to Bloodlines, you basically had the ability to do whatever you liked...whether it be shoot up the blood bank, or save Heather...or just entirely ignore the place all together...while on the other hand, Fallout 3 had the extreme limitation of forcing the player to leave so many characters alive, that it basically took one of the major elements out of the story...(I mean to be honest, it would have been more exciting, had potentially Sarah Lyons and her squad been killed by the Behemoth during the battle outside GNR). Also, by the end of the game, Bloodlines never railroaded you into helping one side, but instead gave you the choice to set your own destiny. Last but not least, in Bloodlines if you decided to act like a total maniac there were consequences for your actions...(ie: the LAPD on the lookout for you...and the fact that you couldn't just slaughter 10,000 officers and walk away). Fallout 3 unlike either Bloodlines, or even Fallout 1 and Fallout 2, made combat incredibly simple, making things more like a spaghetti western, and that even killing off 1000's of people, there were no consequences what so ever.