I am a big fan of Fallout 3. Just a few days ago I ordered the Fallout Ultimate collection off of ebay so I should be playing it pretty soon. What I was wondering was what are the main differences between the 2 original games and Fallout 3, other than its in first person ? And in your opinion was FA3 or the old games the better of the series?

To be honest this thread may not go anywhere good. Not least because vs threads aren't allowed due to the way they usually end up going.

On one hand you're going to have the peoplewho played Fallout 3 first, and weren't able to get into the originals for whatever reason. (Didn't like graphics, not fast paced enough, didn't like turn based system)

On the other, you're going to have those who played the originals and loved them and though they felt F3 was a good effort, they also felt it was too weak in some areas.

And then you'll have those that developed a dislike for Fallout 3 even before release simply because Bethesda made it and not Black Isle.

Sooner or later someone will critiize someone elses reasons for which they prefer and things will just go downhill from there.

And for the record, I loved the originals, but I also feel Fallout 3 is a worthy addition to the lineup.

Yup ^

I grew up with the originals, they're deeper, raunchier, they allow more freedom, and they were better RPGs than Fallout 3, that's pretty much fact

Fallout 3 is a little light on the RPG side of things, but an awesome and worthy sequel in my opinion, Fallout needed a face-lift and Fallout 3 was a step in the right direction, but there were a lot of areas that fell short of the first two

I did enjoy the originals more for the freedom and advlt situations, I didn't like turn based combat or the graphics, but that didn't prevent Fallout 1 and 2 from becoming my top two favorite games of all time.

For me, Ive tried playing F2 and F1. While both are good games, I hate turn based combat, which is why i HATE the Final Fantasy series. maybe I got spoiled to free form combat due to games like Mass Effect and what not, but I just cant do turn based.

Yup, that's me. Fallout 3 just doesn't feel like a proper addition to the main series for me, because it departs way too much from the previous two installments and seems so "dumbed down". On the other hand I think it's a fairly enjoyable experience, and I wouldn't be so hard on it if it were called something like "Fallout: D.C." because as it is... Fallout 3 feels like a spin off, not a sequel. Even if it was a spinoff I would still likely side with the originals, though; because they felt "deeper" and there were multiple ways to deal with situations based around what your stats are. In Fallout 3 your stats don't really matter, and most of the time you end up having to fight your way out.

So there is nobody out there who loved the originals and formed no preconceptions about F3 before the game was released, but when it was they found it to be a terrible game disregarding it's legacy?

Wow, this forum has developed some fresh new ideas.

Hmmm....forgot them. Though they'd fall somewhere between the second and third groups, though they certainly seem far less numerous.

Except if it's such a terrible game, why is it selling so many units even now?

Or is it terrible because it wasn't a turn based, isometric sequel, ala Van Buren.


edit: But anyway, there's also a fourth group (Four hands? Mutant!) That loved the originals, and found something to hate about Fallout 3 in the face of its success.


Edit again: Anyway, my point was that these kinds of threads are bad ideas because you start getting various sides putting there aguements forwards, eventually someone takes offense and the whole thing goes downhill fast.

The best way I can put it for myself is that I like the originals, and I like Fallout 3 - but not for the same reasons.

In the originals, I enjoyed the turn-based combat, and it's emphasis on stats (being able to pick different Attribute and Skill load-out, and that having a significant effect on how I approached various obstacles.) It almost reminds me of the Hero's Quest (or Quest for Glory depending on what version you played) series. There were always multiple solutions to any problem the game set for you - but how you approached that obstacle depended on the character you made. It's all a matter of personal preference, but I find that approach to be freeing, rather than limiting.

The setting, of course - but I'm kind of a long-time post-apocalyptic fan (I used to dress up as Mad Max for Halloween when I was a little kid.)

But what really made me fall in love with the originals, and kept me fiddling around with it off and on over the years; was the feeling I had that every single thing I did in the game was significant. It was a remarkably responsive game, and I'd often find myself agonizing over the most trivial dialogue choices.

In Fallout 3, I found it be exquisitely detailed, and a very beautiful world full of opportunities for exploration. The Wasteland is sort of it's own Main Character in the game. The art direction and sense of atmosphere is quite exceptional in this game, and - I hate to say - "immersive."

It was also fun to play. And I'm really getting into working with the modding tools.

I like it as it's own game, but not so much as a direct sequel (meaning that in a sequel, I generally expect to like the same things as in the previous games - and that's not true with Fallout 3.) Doesn't mean I don't like it, or don't appreciate it as a contribution to the Fallout franchise, though.

It's a mainstream title targeted at a wide audience, unlike the more niche and challenging originals. And it might be a good game in its own right, but a bad sequel to Fallout.

Which is why a comparison between the originals and Fallout 3 is such a bad idea.

It's the same name, the same world (Though some would differ there on how far 'same' goes), but they are completely different games. It's the same as comparing the original Theme Park with Theme Park World, yes, it's not as good as the original, but it....it....actually, bad example Theme Park World svcked big time.


For a company to make a game aimed at a particular niche can be quite a gamble. Even if it does well, it may never do as well as a game aimed for the mainstream, console oriented audience. If it does badly, goodbye company.

Bethesda could have made a game that shared the mechanics of the originals, but it may not have done anyywhere near as well as what we had. Besides, Beth are far more cpmpetant at the style of games we have seen from them, first person RPGs.


Turned based RPGs are slowly losing favor with only the big name Final Fantasy series holding on, but Fallout never had a big enough following for such a risk to be taken.
On the other hand FPRPGs and other RPGS with realtime combat or limited turn based games such as NWN are popular and becoming more so.


Besides the hyperactive elements of console generation wouldn't show interest in a game were you have to wait your turn while the enemy makes his attack.

I'm sure I was going somewhere with this.

Seriously ? Heh. Care to note that it deviates from the originals in ways that are more important than the perspective or the time system.

It's a bad game because I didn't like it. I give every game I ever play a fair chance(IE, I try to complete it), and I did not enjoy Fallout 3 based on it's own merits. Ignore the fact that the original games even exist. Judge the game purely.

I did just that, and I found an awful game with very few saving graces. The combat? Terrible by action game and RPG standards. The story? Terrible by Sci-Fi Channel original movie standards. The graphics? Terrible by septic tank standards. The dialogue? Terrible by family sitcom standards.

Maybe it's nitpicking to mention the inconsistencies with the original Fallout games in setting. But as far as I can tell, the positive elements of Fallout 3 can only really be found by positive nitpicking. The exploration is nice, there are a lot of locations. The variety is nice, there are a lot of items. The characters are nice, even if the dialogue is lacking. See? These are all very minor elements that don't really have anything to do with the core game. You're praising the seasonings on rotten meat.

Yet you've explain why you didn't like it and as a result it gives your opinion legitimacy. You've listed what you did in regards to giving the game a chance and stated what you didn't like and why.

Instead of the sort of thing we usually see with this sort of threads with people snapping off one liners that the game is crap and then the whole thread descends into tit for tat arguements.


I do think you were un-neccesarily harsh with some of your comparisons. Though you do make some good points.

To differ with your points, the graphics aren't too bad if you consider the age and shortfalls of the engine. Yes, maybe it may not have the stunning visuals of Crisis, but compared to some games I've seen that boasted revolutionary graphics, Fallout 3 isn't that bad.

Story, again not that bad, (Seen worse) but it felt like by the time I reached the end, I'd either missed half the story or I was only halfway through.

Dialogue? The one point Beth seems to fall short. Main characters have a rich if cliche dialogue for the first few lines, but start moving into secondary and minor characters and it all goes pear shaped.

I have to agree with the combat, VATs is fun to use, but the Gamebryo engine is better suited to melee swords and shields. But in Fallout 3 it feels like it's trying to balance RPG skills based with FPS player skill based combat....and failing.


I certainly don't think Fallout 3 is the game to beat all others, and there have been others that have done things better, but it is a good game for burning up a couple of hours. I call it worthy because as things go it could have been worse, far, far, worse. It's the best we will likely get.

Look at it this way, suppose some other company picked up the rights, one that wouldn't have even respected the originals as much as Bethesda did?

So we should like Fallout 3 just because it could be worse?

I like them all but none are my favorite game ever
That honor goes to either Morrowind or Daggerfall (considering I can't decide )
but I thought FO3 was a good revival attempt but I'm sure New Vegas will bring back the old FO immersion

Bethesda respected the originals? That's news to me considering how they destroyed the SPECIAL system, annihilated the freedom to solve problems in a variety of ways depending on the type of character you're playing, turned a lot of traditionally "sane" NPCs like Raiders and Ghouls into mindless hostile psychopaths, and my personal favorite... ruined the Brotherhood of Steel by making them into heroic do-gooders. How pray tell, did Bethesda "respect" the originals? Especially considering that a good deal of the developers on the Fallout 3 team never even played them (which was admitted in interviews during development).

Sure Fallout 3 could have been worse in the hands of another developer, but the catch-22 is that it could have been a lot better too. Bethesda took Fallout and turned it into an action game while advertising it as a sequel, and that's unfair to both veterans and new comers alike. That's not respect, that's just Bethesda being Bethesda. I like Fallout 3 for what it is but seriously, while I was playing Fallout 3 I often got the impression that Bethesda didn't know what the hell they were doing... and I do think that the franchise would have been better off if Troika or Obsidian got it instead of Bethesda. Well, at least BioWare didn't get it.

Judging Fallout 3 on its own merits, it's a solid game. But when I think of Fallout 3 as a sequel, well it just rubs me the wrong way.

I don't mind the transitioning to first person, because that's just another take on the series. However, the thing that really hurts FO3 is that it's shallow. Skills make barely any impact on the game, and the main character starts kicking ass and taking names right from the get-go, even though that doesn't make any sense considering his background. The main quest is also pretty much a railroad once you find your dad, and even then there's much less choice then there should be. And, as it's been said before, the absolute lack of consequences is major, and one of my biggest problems. You're renown slaver, who's various massacres have been chronicled on the radio, but the hyper-protective citizens of Rivet City let you in?

I'm not suggesting the Bethesda respected the originals anywhere near as much as they should have, but at least they haven't run ramshackle over the lore. Okay, so they ignored a few bits here and there and made a few glaring errors here and there. It's still recognisable as Fallout.

Somebody else could've picked up the license, took one look at it and said, "screw it we'll keep the theme and drop everything else. Ghouls are the undead, ressurected by a virus and they evolve into super mutants" "There was no war between nation, instead the mutants rebelled and allied with aliens and the hero must find a special high tech suit of armour and fight off the invasion"

Like I said it could have been worse, just as much as it could have been a lot better. Maybe Bethesda will actually listen to the complaints about what was wrong and what needs changing when it comes time for Fallout 4.


As for Obsidian getting it, well, lets see how they do with New Vegas.

Oh I'm well aware they could have done far worse of a job, I remember Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel . In terms of setting Bethesda did well save for the mindless Raiders, and ridiculous amount of Feral Ghouls... among other nitpicks. From a gameplay perspective, though; Bethesda essentially spit on the original games by breaking SPECIAL, and Fallout's more diverse choices. They turned Fallout into an action game, something it was never intended to be... and that's the exact opposite of respect. As I said before, I wouldn't be as hard on Fallout 3 if it were marketed as a spin off rather than a sequel because quite frankly, as a sequel it fails miserably. If it were a Fallout spinoff I'd have said that it succeeded marvelously; because I wouldn't be as hard on what I perceive to be the game's flaws as it would have been a different type of RPG, and Fallout 3 did do some things right.

Well, New Vegas will still be a Bethesda-style RPG (just like previous Obsidian games were BioWare-style RPGs), it will likely be different from what a Fallout game made if Obsidian had gotten the license would have been (that would have probably be Van Buren resurrected).

Yes, Bethesda turned it into an action game, because when it comes to Consoles thats the sort of game that sells. The pick up and play generation is looking for a quick blast, rather than a game that keeps you engrossed.

And you're right, Fallout 3 would have probably been accepted as spinoff better than it has been as a Sequel.

Maybe if New Vegas is closer to the originals, we can pretend thats the sequel while the sequel is the spinoff

Seriously though, I wish more games could be a little more cerebral rather than mindless action. I mean I loved Bioshock, but how many other games are that in depth, that keep you engrossed, yet this was a game that dared to be a little different. Hopefully Bioshock 2 will live up to it's older brother in a way that Fallout 3 didn't quite live up to it's older siblings.

Do I look like I care about a Fallout game being on consoles? It's a primarily PC series.

Most Fallout fans would have preferred to stay a more niche PC series, not a console blockbuster.

But thats it, are there enough fans of the original games to have made it profitable if they had kept it a niche PC game.

It's the thing these days, you either make a game multiplatform or you hope someone will pay a large sum for an exclusive. When was the last time we had a decent, big money PC exclusive?


I actually dislike multplatform releases, because the PC always suffers in some regard. Sure we get better graphics compared to other versions, but it isn't always worth it next to simplified interfaces, more action orientired gameplay in a series that was more about stats and the actual enjoyment of the game than how fast you could mash a button and usually massive delays in PC release (Example: GTA started on the PC, but since GTA3 PC owners have waited almost half a year again for a release. another example is Halo, which was a overrated if you ask me)

All the most important aspects of Fallout 1 and 2 were not even remotely as important in Fallout 3. As a fan of the old series I felt while playing it for the first time that they really took the setting but dropped the old gameplay, to make a game that does really the same thing as the TES series. It's all in exploration and doing whatever you want to do, as opposed to hard choice and consequence, stat-based gameplay and telling some great stories. I played Oblivion (and Morrowind more recently) and I enjoyed those games as well, but to see the same priorities in gameplay in Fallout 3 as well, that just didn't feel right. It felt like a kick in the groin (which would have been nice if we could actually do that) and I never really got myself past it to have true fun playing Fallout 3, even though I managed to get over 100 hours in. Needless to say, I can understand why people enjoy Fallout 3, but it just wasn't for me.

I think it would have been a wiser decision on Bethesda's part to develop what became Fallout 3 as a spinoff, and outsource the real Fallout 3 to someone like Obsidian who would have likely done it justice. If Fallout 3 were marketed as a spinoff it wouldn't have sold any less, in fact it might have sold more because there would be less people intimidated by the big "3" in the title. Not to mention we'd have less disappointed veterans (unless the outsourced developer blew it, which is always a possibility), and less new comers who were surprised and disappointed that Fallout and Fallout 2 were nothing like 3.

Developing a spinoff and a main title may have cost more, but it also may have been more beneficial and rewarding for Bethesda in the long run. Bethesda would have gotten even more money, veterans would have received a proper sequel, and new comers could have enjoyed the spinoff if the main series didn't appeal to them.