The combat was realistic, but quite anti-user. Fallout 2 for example had a huge variety of armor and guns, but only a select few could deal even a bit damage.
Miniguns don't deal damage to Metal Armor or Combat Leather Jacker, yet SMG burst fire can cut down Cassidy and Sulik with Leather Armors.

Miniguns were horribly implemented IMO. They relied too much on the critical hit system. Most of normal minigun hits deal no damage, but when a critical comes it cuts down everything. That's not really nice. It'd rather see a minigun that always hits something. I think this is related to the ammo they use.

The critical hit was bad overall. They dealt too much damage with some weapons. Critical hit usually means death which makes battles only a race on who gets the first critical. Realistic, yes, but in a game it's really frustrating.
I'm playing a FO2 game now as Unarmed with Power Fist and Combat Leather Jacket, and I'm taking good amounts of damage but my companions (Sulik, Cassidy, Marcus) get wasted once a while due to their poor AI. They wear the same clothing as me (with exception of Marcus).
The burst AI that NPCs use is bad. They don't shoot me if I tell them (companions) not to, but they are eager to shoot anything that is not me. And if they decide not to burst, they dump the gun and go fist-fighting instead of using single shot (if available).
Being a NCR-Redding Caravan Guard is silly because the enemy is the only one not killing the Brahmin. All the guards and my companions waste the Brahmin with burst fire.


There are more conditions than alive/dead in FO3. Radiated, Chem effects, crippled limbs and equipment in poor condition.

The biggest reason why Fallout 3 is linear is because you're always told where to go. There's really no investigation on where to go next, compared to Fallout 1, where after they told you to go to Vault 15 you were on your own. You were in a wasteland where doing favors and helping others led to clues that you gradually put together until you made it to , and the same thing with the supermutants.

To a lot of people, Fallout is about setting & atmosphere, not gameplay. That's why many people, even Fallout veterans, consider it a worthy sequel. :shrug:

Is GTA III not a good sequel to the original DOS games because Rockstar turned it into a third-person shooter/racer?

I'm convinced that regardless of what everyone thinks FO3 is the Fallout of the 00s. Big games today only have a chance to succeed if they're made by big companies that can achieve big sales. I honestly think that if FO3 was made by a smaller company it would pass mostly unnoticed and it would have generated more negative views - since it would not attract a 'younger audience' but only the old fans of the originals who are often a lot more demanding.

Nevertheless, the recent trends in crpgs leave me rather disappointed... Parties and turn based gameplay becomes increasingly rarer. Rpgs are constantly morphing in FPSs where everything is pretty much pre-defined, and of course people love it that way because, they say, it's more 'realistic'.... hold on... super mutants and chinese ghouls and peruvian fire spitting war frogs or whatever are realistic, but turn based tactical combat isn't? It doesn't matter really... all that seem to me as excuses to attract the thrill-seeking console crowd with fast-food-graphic-fun-from-the-first-second games.... God forbid that the new fallout would not have a journal entry spelling out clearly where the water chip is to be found. See for me Fallout was not just about setting, combat, dialogue etc. it was the "go bring us a water chip" - "ok where could i possibly get one?" - "no idea, go search, bye"

I was always against elitism but 'the mainstream' seems to take too much away from contemporary crpgs. I'm starting to hope that pcs will suffer a final bitter defeat in the 'console wars', so that all the Bethesdas of the industry will stop bothering with them altogether. Hopefully that will allow for games with smaller budgets and more guts to come forward for the few people that will stay behind looking for the kind of complex and challenging game that you can't find on the Xbox - like it was back in the 90s when the first Fallout was made.

That's what you could do in the originals, you could go wherever you wanted at any point in the game and know exactly what to do and say,



It captured the combat better, but Fallout 3 is an RPG like the originals, that's what defined the first two games, nobody played Fallout for the combat and the 2D graphics, being able to explore a world full of easter eggs, random encounters, holodisks, thousands of quests, and leveling up, achieving perks, freedom, choices and consequences, post-apocalyptic atmosphere, killing whoever you want, drugs, and that stuff

Fallout 3 did all these things better than Bloodlines, KOTOR, or any other RPG made in the last ten years.



You are giving Bloodlines way too much credit, the story was; "Find the sarcophagus... it's over here now... now they have it... okay, we have it now and it wasn't such a big deal after all!" In Redemption they at least had an interesting twist by continuing from one period of time to another, that was cool, Fallout 3 had the same basic story but with a dad instead of a sarcophagus

Your choices in Bloodlines had no affect on gameplay, if you saved Heather you just got more experience, that was the only incentive to save her, she had no affect on the game whatsoever, so you had no choice at all, if you choose whatever you want you end up with less experience, so why would I? If you shot up the hospital you couldn't get blood from there anymore, that's the only affect it had, and you most certainly had to leave characters alive, try to kill Nines or any of the main characters, you couldn't, Fallout 3 had many more important people to kill than Bloodlines, that's a fact

In Bloodlines you could help one side for the entire game and it didn't matter until the ending sequence, you could tell LaCroix you weren't going to help him, you had to do it anyway, I haven't played Bloodlines in at least a year, but from what I remember you could side with LaCroix the whole time and still get the same ending if you would have sided with the Anarchs, you just screw him over in the very end like you would have if you sided with the Anarchs the entire game, there was no choice there, you get the same options regardless of what choices you make

Fallout 3 did a much better job of creating consequences for killing people, it affected karma and your standing with that town, Bloodlines didn't have anything like that.

If you consider setting and atmosphere all there is to Fallout, then Fallout: Tactics or Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel might as well have been Fallout 3 and 4 even if they got some things wrong because guess what, so did Fallout 2 and 3. :shrug:

And I don't like the GTA series, so I can't comment on it.



I'm certainly not expecting it, I just think it would have shown that Bethesda actually respects the series. Instead it feels like they bought Fallout because they wanted to create a Post Apocalyptic TES and were too lazy to create their own setting.



Which is considered cheating I believe, once again you're not supposed to do that but it's very hard to restrict the user in games like this.



Redemption was essentially Christof obsessing over Anezka, that's it. Sorry, but over-simplification can go both ways.



I guess all of those cops and vampire hunters, and the Masquerade mechanic were figments of my imagination then. Also in Fallout 3 you couldn't kill very many important people, as most of them were "essential".

I find it hard to believe that you defend Redemption considering that it had no choices and consequences at all, you could flash your powers and fight in the streets of New York without any negative impact.



And this is different from Fallout 3 how? In Fallout 3 you always end up aiding the Brotherhood, always, even if you spike the water supply you're still a member of the Brotherhood if you boot up Broken Steel. At least in Bloodlines you actually have a decision, the only time you really have a faction based decision in Fallout 3 is whether or not you want to betray the Brotherhood of Steel at the end, and even then you can't join anyone else.

No, it's not a mistake. It's good nonlinear game design. If the player manages to find Galaxy News Radio, Rivet City, The Jefferson Memorial, or Vault 112 on his own, then he can continue the story from there. There's absolutely no reason to force the player to jump through hoops if he finds a legitimate shortcut. This is one of the strengths of the Fallout games. In contrast, contrived stuff like Bertram's unpickable lock is bad design for a game that boasts of multiple quest solutions. One of the supposed strengths of the game is taken away for the sake of forcing the player through a lame and unnecessary narrative.

What? If you can skip big parts of the main quest, then the game is less linear. If you can do things in different orders, then the game is less linear. Linearity refers to the extent to which you are forced to do things in a specific preset sequence. Bloodlines isn't the most linear game I've played, but yes, it is much more linear than Fallout 3, and even more linear than KotOR in this way.

Fallout 3 also has multiple quest solutions, and it commits fewer sins of restricting player freedom. In fact, it does multiple quest solutions in a way that I sometimes take for granted until I play a game like Bloodlines. In Bloodlines, I was regularly locked in rooms with unpickable locks that I could only escape by murdering everything (at which point the locks would magically disappear). The ultimate goal of a mission frequently was to kill something or someone, and my multiple solutions were limited to what weapon I chose to do the deed. It did some good things, but when it was bad, it was much worse than Fallout 3.

And did the stats matter any more in Bloodlines than in Fallout 3? I beat one of the final bosses with ranged weapons even though I never put a point in firearms. I was able to sneak through the endgame levels with 5/10 in sneaking. I even finished with ~100 unused skill points. Bloodlines did have two interesting character classes, but that's really the only advantage here.

This "Bloodlines vs. Redemption vs. Fallout 3" debate is just going to keep going in circles and go nowhere so I'm dropping it, sorry folks.

Nonsense. If they really wanted to, they could have put in a script that prevented you from entering Vault 112 before you learned dad was there, or better yet, make it so that you couldn't climb into one of the pods at 112 UNTIL you knew your dad was there. There are plenty of examples in-game where things will appear after a certain quest is completed (the enclave's appreance being one of these.)

That would be awful. Why would anyone insist on nonsensical railroading?

Yes, the non-linearity of early parts of Fallout 3 is a good thing. Too bad the dialogues were badly written and the characters assume that you went through the "default" sequence of quests. And too bad that after you find Dad, the main quest becomes entirely linear.

Both FO3 and Bloodlines are much more linear than Fallout 1 and 2.

Well, sure, but that's based around player-knowledge. There is a difference between FO1/2 and FO3 though. While in Fallout 3 you can go wherever you like based on knowledge you yourself gained during other playthroughs and can respond to NPC's and situations however you like, always having the same options, in FO1/2 it is actually restricted. For example, you can get out of Arroyo in FO2 and head straight south to Navarro, to get PA early on. Difficult nonetheless, a big chance you'll be killed in a random encounter. But when you arrive, you know you have some ways in, your character does not, so the only option you have left is to kill the guard in the robes at the gas station and use the underground passage to gain entrance (which could prove difficult again if you're only level 1 or 2 and have a spear and no armor). If you would go around the normal ways of finding Navarro, you would have more options to enter the base (of course, those options you have would be based around your stats as well).

Too true Ausir, I destroyed the military base waaaay before going to the Brotherhood or even Boneyard. Admittedly most games, even most RPGs, are fairly linear about how they play; most games simply let you fiddle around with the order you can do things within your current available locations or group of tasks. Still the implementation of how they recognized what I did in F1 what I did was a bit clunky, it went sort of like this:

Maxson: Now we must destroy the mutant base and the master.
Me: I already blew up the base
Maxson: Oh yes you did, good. But we still need to kill the master.

Naturally I'm not quoting directly here but that's kind off how the conversation went with both him and the Overseer at Vault 13. He should have known outright I had already destroyed the base but didn't, and he didn't even give me any exp for it because I hadn't activated it as a quest.

It was nice however to be able to do have freedom of linearity like that though and I agree that it is unfortunate that the characters in F3 assume you did everything in steps as opposed to recognizing what you actually achieved and did not do before getting there.

@Talonfire: I respect your opinion I really do, but I disagree with that stance. The reason I pointed out the Resident Evil series is because it is one example, out of others I can't think off currently, where a series began with one specific game mechanic and then altered that gaming mechanic while still being true sequels (And RE4-5 are very different in gameplay than RE1-3). I don't think that the changes Beth did in the mechanics disrespects any way the originals, I simply view it as a different style. I agree a lot with many a criticism that F3 should have delved deeper into the story and developing its characters, plus made a better mixing of real time combat player skill mixed with RPG character skill as well as adding more diversity into how to play the game. But quite frankly having played F1 this past week I also have to admit that while the writing in it is of course much wittier and better organized than F3's, it's level of quality is not as vastly superior as previously advertised, at least imo. Most characters in F1 had only a handul of lines in their entirety, mostly relating to one quest or another. Harold was excellent and I found Cpt. Maxson's journal of the events in Mariposa very intriguing, but many other characters were much more generic such as Aradesh, Tandi, Gizmo, Decker, I can go on with a huge list. The game also was extremely short, I played for about 2-3 hours for 4-5 days and completed it. It was nonetheless a fantastic game and I'm now plotting through the intial town of 2.

@rebet: That is a very bleak outlook; while I understand your feelings, I'm glad that RPGs have changed to some degree. It isn't just the eyecandy or the thrill seeking for me at least, is more about immersiveness and a combination of different gaming genres I enjoy. I do love shooters and I do love RPGs, so mixing them is kind off a great melting of two things I like when I game. I detest turn based combat and I detest 2D isometric views because they make me feel detached from the gameworld, it loses its immersiveness for me as opposed to FP perspective also I have to admit that turn based combat kind off bores me, there's no strategy to it; it is purely based on skill points and yes I know that's the point, but after a while combat in this manner feels a bit stale for me. I had this dislike well back in the old Diablo days also so I'm not just feeling this way about gaming now with the popcorn crowd that only knows about Halo and Gears of War. I certainly hope that for gamers like you some other crpg devs create what you are looking for, but I'm not opposed to the "general" direction modern RPGs are taking and certainly do not hope CRPGs continue their trend (See fall) into the abysmal MMO focus which I loathe; I just think CRPG devs need much more attention to detail in terms of narrative which is the main reason I go to RPGs in the first place.

@Callahan: Agreed

Not Your Parents' Fallout; "Fallout 3 represents Bethesda Softworks' first take of the legendary game franchise since they purchased the rights from the failing Interplay in 2004. So, how did Bethesda do? Forget all that pre-release apprehension. Nuts to those Internet nerds whining about shooter elements. Whether it's slap-stick humor, a splat of sticky brains, or a stab of HDR lighting in your eyes, Fallout 3 invigorates the series." This is essentially how I feel, kind of..

"Admittedly most games, even most RPGs, are fairly linear about how they play; most games simply let you fiddle around with the order you can do things within your current available locations or group of tasks. "

This is true with Fallout. The game lets players solve quests their way just like Fallout 3 in a good bunch of it's quests. The difference is better balance, better writing and memorable characters. I can't count many characters in Fallout 3 which inspire a strong personality but i can find a few that try too hard to be cool.

Being able to create a character and make use of that character strong points and skills is Fallout style which was inspired by GURPS. Fallout devs come with the experience and training that PnPs and GURPS in particular grant to game designers and this aloowed them to create a very good game. It's a shame that Bethesda doesn't seam interested in following this path and create their PnP books for the Fallout setting and the Elderscrolls setting.

They were approached about an official PnP RPG by a notable PnP RPG publisher, but the offer was turned down (not because of money, Bethesda outright said that they weren't interested at all).

The thing is I wouldn't have cared about the style change if the game weren't marketed as a sequel. I've never touched the Resident Evil games, so I can't comment on that.



Having played many, many RPGs I do agree with you. Some people place Fallout and Fallout 2's writing on too high of a pedestal. I actually think the basic storylines of FO 1 and 2 are pretty shallow, and many of the characters were pretty generic or not prominent enough to be worth much notice. Don't tell any of the hardcoe fans I said that. Still, I think Fallout and Fallout 2 did a better job at bringing plot threads together than Fallout 3, because let's face it... Fallout 3 is a mess of plot holes, rushed characters, and terrible dialogue. I really think they could have done more with James, as he was the only Fallout 3 character I found likable.

I don't get all the bashing of FO3's story & dialogue. While story & dialogue might be integral to modern day RPGs from BioWare, Obsidian Entertainment or Troika, those companies did not invent the RPG genre. What passed for 'story' is akin to classical RPGs - an excuse to go around the game world killing things and picking up loot. The dialogue is reduced to people telling the PCs what to do. No matter how companies like BioWare single-handedly redefining the computer RPG by creating "choose-your-own-adventure" games, putting gameplay second to story & dialogue, FO3 is more akin to pre-1994 RPGs that were all about combat.

In fact, Bethesda was one of the first companies that broke away from the standard of turn-based combat with Arena along with Diablo a bit later on. Indeed, as much as many people are going on now that "RPGs are foremost about the story & dialogue" and dismissing the true RPGs of old as 'dungeon hacks', the big controversy back in the day was the emergal of real time combat instead of turn-based. Games like Ultima Underworld, Wizardry, Might & Magic were fresh in mind and those games didn't have the vaunted "Choice & Consequence". In fact, many RPG players of that day would later scoff at all the Fallouts and Baldur's Gates as adventure games with some RPG elements. Nobody played RPGs for story, those were the territory of LucasArts, Sierra & others.

Indeed, but we were expecting it to be more akin to... well, Fallout.

And making Fallout 3 the polar opposite of its predecessors is good... how?

Someone who finally gets it!

To me, the story is there for people with little imagination. I get the feeling that the main plot in FO3 is there for the sake of console kiddies, so they don't have to figure out what to do.

Some people actually like have a cinematic experience in their RPGs. Personally, I actually got that sense when playing the old Fallouts - at least the extent you could, with the interface.

Some people like having a "plot" in their games. I'm now learning some people don't. (I guess it's true - you do learn something new every day. ) Hey, some people juggle geese!

I think this has rehashed a number of times around here, though. It's all about what your own personal priorities are. You can say I have no imagination just because I like the game to be reactive to my actions - and I can say I can imagine that my character in Fallout 3 is a Space Pirate with measles with an affinity for day-old tacos, for all the difference that it makes. Fallout 1 and 2 were one "type" of RPG; and Fallout 3 is something else entirely. Take two contrasting RPG fans and lump them together on the internet - and watch the hilarity ensue!

If Obsidian ended up making Elder Scrolls 5 and decided the best way to do it was by making it a turn-based game with "deep" RPG mechanics, and an emphasis on plot and storytelling over exploration and players' imaginations we all would be having the same argument, only on different sides of the fence. One group would be saying it's an improvement and a viable "sequel" because of a different gameplay focus - and the other group would be saying it lost a lot of what made Elder Scrolls so special - regardless of how faithful it was to the overall art direction and setting.

So let me get this straight, because I like games like Fallout, Baldur's Gate, and the like... I have no imagination? :blink:

There is room for dungeon crawling crpgs and there is room for Fallout crpgs which are more free style or free form. Since this is Fallout we are talking about it's pointless to argue about dungeon crawlers and other role-playing styles that don't fit into a Fallout game.

"Fallout 1 and 2 were one "type" of RPG; and Fallout 3 is something else entirely."

I have to disagree with that. Fallout 3 is a true successor to the Fallout series. The problem is when you try to match the quality of this game with the quality of the previous games, Fallout 3 is a good game but Fallout is awesome. TB and combat is only one way you can use to solve quests. Fallout 3 uses VATS which is a sort of RTwP system and for the combat complexity of the Fallout games (this isn't supposed to be a tactical game like Fallout Tactics or XCom) it should be more than enough if it is well balanced.

Your secret is safe with me, I won't tell a soul!!!! :hehe:

I don't find as much fault with the stories and characters of any of these games as some do, I simply recognize that all of them could be better just like any other game out in the market. I like F3's story and their characters, I like F1's and so far I like F2's (I'm a bit steamed at having to have to kung fu scorpions and ants right now, but hey I'm looking forward to finding my first gun). So overall I have to admit I like all Fallout and look forward to New Vegas.



The real problem with this logic is that you have apparently mistaken the old slash and hack as being the first RPGs, this in fact is not true. The dungeon crawls which made up the early 90s are not the first ones to break the mold of CRPGs or RPGs in general, one of the earliest CRPGs was DND based on Dungeons and Dragons created for the PLATO learning system (Pre-DOS stuff) released in 1974 by 2 programmers in Southern Illinois University and featured many of the staples of current day RPGs like leveling system, skill points, tougher enemies with level ups, general store for new weapons and armor and even a story about collecting an orb and slaying a dragon.

Nonetheless, what created and defined the ruelsets, the dynamics, the skill progression system, the roll die and all of that stuff which makes an RPG an RPG isn't computer games at all, the first RPGs were Pen and Paper Role Playing Games which were actually played with dice and character sheets, Game Masters who orally created the world and quests and misc characters, while the players adopted a specific persona in the games. Games like Dungeoms and Dragons from Wizards of the Coast (This actually was the first published RPG ever under TSR Inc. in 1974) and Vampire the Masquerade from White Wolf, these are the true first RPGs and story was paramount and integral to them.

I played Pen and Paper RPGs in my youth, as such I first and foremost expect some kind of story to play an important part of any game claiming to be an RPG, most certainly more than any dungeon crawl. So I disagree when you say that RPGs were initially not focused on story, quite the contrary, true RPGs were all about story for the players who had characters in them.