Just trying to assess the community's feelings on the game.

I'll specify "Other": Deeper NPCs, better dialog.

I went with Other.

My biggest gripe would absolutely be with the Attributes and the balancing of their relative usefulness in the new system. Regardless of how different it is from the original system (and I could have cared less if it even had the same Attributes, so long as it was appropriately refined and relevant to the sort of gameplay they were going for,) I think it's quite a bit unbalanced in terms of usefulness.

Some Atts just aren't as useful as others in this game - in a good system I'm always going to wish I'd put more points in all of my stats regardless of the character I'm going to play. I might never pick up a melee weapon, or go hand to hand - but I should ideally still wish I'd put a couple more points into STR. And so on and so on...

(There's been so many threads about SPECIAL by now, and I've written at length about it so many times, myself - I just don't have the energy or inclination to go any deeper about it than that.)

Anyway, I voted 4/5 on quality (despite any other gripes I might have, I very much enjoyed the game and was blown away by the visuals,) and that I enjoyed this game and have played all the original games.

The last section of the poll should have been multiple choice IMO, and the first two sections were a bit too black & white to give a clear picture.

Other: The ending. I can live with the on the rails death, but the lack of location endings was unforgivable.

While I enjoyed it, and have played Fallout 1 and 2, overall, I found the game to be poor. I might have rated it a bit better if I hadn't played it through more then a few times. But repeated playthroughs really exposed the cracks in the writing, game design...heck, in pretty much very aspect of the game.

Let me break it down, because there's a lot of faults in my eyes with Fallout 3.

WRITING

Ok, I'll say this first off: I didn't think it was bad, initally. But like I mentioned above, repeated play throughs really exposed what I felt was poor writing. If you play it in the terms Bethesda wanted you to, it's passable. But when you go off the trail it becomes very very poor. The ending was a major issue with it, but I'll go into detail on that later.

I hated the writing for James. He was intended to be this heroic character, but he just came across as a weak, selfish man who couldn't bear to see the Enclave finish his work for some reason (we do not know the exact intentions of the Enclave, Eden nonwithstanding, for the purifier). He killed himself in a manner that his death proved nothing, because the Enclave would have known where to find the GECK, would know how to set it up (all of James and his teams data is in Project Purity), and would only be a matter of time. He should have just surrendered.

There's also issues with various factions. The Brotherhood was written to be knights in shining armor, when they were never as such. They became extremely shallow because of this, since Bethesda was going for a distinct "black and white" story, which doesn't fit into Fallout at all.

The Outcasts? We know next to nothing about them. And there's nothing to them beyond the DLC and giving them old tech. Interesting concept, but no delivery. I'm going to leave it at this point, as I could go on and on about the faults in the writing. I'll touch on two other aspects of this near the end of this post, the NPC interactions, and the ENDING.

SPECIAL

I was very VERY disappointed at the changes. SPECIAL used to be a comprehensive ruleset, and was balanced as such. Bethesda felt the need to change it. The problem is, I do not believe they have any REAL experience with writing a roleplay system. Their own system had it's share of flaws, and Fallout 3 is the cream of the crop of flawed rulesets. By attempting to make the game more accessable, they ended up making SPECIAL useless. I find myself no more challenged if I pump all my stats into Charisma and, say, Luck, while leaving everything else as low as possible, then if I had put more points into Strength, Edurance, Agility, Intellgence, and Perception. Before, if you weren't prepared to paly with a low stat in a certain attribute, you were in big trouble, and probably wouldn't make it far.

Now? I find it makes very little difference. Which is very disappointing. The primarly flaw is in the secondary statistics generation, where they gave you excessive hitpoints, APs, carry weight, and so on. It also doesn't help that I am not hindered in any way by carrying untold amounts of ammo. That makes the game far too easy.

Also, we get three times as many perks. And there was no reason to do away with traits. Again, all in the name of dumbing down and instant gratification. Plus, the XP table is shortened, so you level far too fast.

ANIMATION

It's the year 2009. Other developers have decent facial animations, why not Bethesda? Or even hand gestures. How about if someone was sweeping, and you talk to them, they lean on the broom? People are rarely still when talking. We have a nasty habit of having to do something with our hands constantly. This is an area that, at this point, major blockbuster games should have this sort of detail. Wasn't the whole point of being in the first person perspective was to increase immersion? Well poor animations definately hurt it, especially when other companies have no issues with them.

NPC INTERACTIONS

This falls more under writing, but there's a lot here that it needed it's own mention. To be frank, these stink in the game. Companions tell you jack all about them, NPCs are hardly engaging, and they barely react to you. Let's bring back some Karma flags! If I'm constantly stealing, and get caught too many times, I get the karma perk "Known Theft", and everyone would react according. My clothing should affect reactions. Someone looking for me would notice a Power Armored Wastelander, but maybe not someone dressed as a trader. Or thugs might pick on someone who doesn't appear to be armed or danagerous, but shy away when they are clearly packing firepower. Things like that would have made the game waaaay more interesting. But it was left out for a simplistic Karma system that really had little effect beyond key NPCs.

Ultimately, I never could care for any NPC in Fallout 3. There's no emotional attachment. James' poor writing made it nigh impossible for me to feel for him. I thought he was a complete jerk. And making me choose between myself and Lyons? I don't know Lyons. She only knows me of my actions, and when we briefly fought side by side (which, if you found Dad earily, or went to Rivet City first, you might not even have that encounter). Her? All I know of her is of what I saw when we worked together to get to GNR, and that doesn't always happen.

So why the hell would I care if I let her die? My character is the damn kid, who has barely experience the world. Speaking of which, this brings us ultimately to...

THE ENDING

This is the crux of my issue with Fallout 3's story. First: It was rushed. From the point the Enclave showed up, to the end, the story constantly was rushed forward. Because of this, we did not get any development of the NPC that we ultimately get to choose the fate of. Which means we don't care much about her. Like I mentioned in the last section, we only met once before, and that doesn't always happen. So I'm emotionally detacted from her, and my character is 19 years old. I would be having a nervous breakdown and spazing out! Not calmy say "I'll do it..." or "screw you, you do it!" *not actual quotes obviously *

And it gets messed up even worse because of NUMBEROUS NPCs who could have taken your place and suffered no ill effects. Charon, Fawkes, the robot (who I never bothered to get, but have heard what he says when you ask him to do it). Please, this is suppose to be a wasteland, where people are barely surviving, and giving in to their worse natures. THERE IS NOT BLOODY DESTINY IN THE WASTELAND. And Charon? Contract says get your [censored] in the damn machine. Don't give me bull about saving my butt enough times as it is.

And to top it off, we're going to have the ending changed. YAY! But what if, with the way we roleplayed our character, that death WAS their choice, say if said NPCs were not there? I really really hope that the change is merely making it so other NPCs can take your place. The ending as it was wasn't necessarily bad, it was the fact that we were railroaded into one of 2 choices, when there should have been multiple choices.

Also, the slide show: It was horrible. Especially when we're told there was to be over 200 endings, only to find out that they're slight variations, some of which was not based on our actions, but rather the race of our character. Bogus. Bethesda, please, rewatch the endings of the first two games. They cover what the long term effects your character had on various locations and peoples in the wasteland. That's one of the things people SHOULD expect from an RPG: consquences of their actions. Saidly, this is a lost aspect of RPGs, which have steadly gone towards being action RPGS. I'm just hoping Bioware delivers on Mass Effect 2, with your choices from the first game having major impacts on the setting in the second game.

So, overall, like I said, I would rate this a poor game. Which is sad, because it had a lot of potential. It really highlights Bethesda's weakenesses, in my eyes. From writing, rules design, animation....I think for Fallout 4, I'll rent it first, then see if I want to actually buy it. (for PC of course. I'd never buy it for Xbox or Playstation)

I like the game. My main two pet peeves was giving such a terrible ending to Vault 101, and NO ROMANCE (this is the big one).

Liked it, but I'm still replaying F1, right now. Its just not the originals.

All that FO3 lacks is good dialogues and role-play feeling.
Vast dialogues would've made this game perfect.

Broken V.A.T.S. is a patch-brought issue, and should not be considered a game flaw.

Other: More Locations.

I voted:
Average, No I haven't played 1 or 2, and Other (Every choice but the last one, since I never played Fallout 1 or 2.)

Yeah. A vast improvement over Obliblimans, but it's still a pretty meh game. Like BioShock on my 3rd run through or Mass Effect.

Do you think this was a poor game because you are comparing it to your ideal next Fallout franchise game, or are you comparing it to other games on the market?

You know, if it was called "Fallout: Waistlander" it would be more than acceptable.
The guy is comparing it to Fallout 1 and 2, because its named Fallout 3. Notice the number please. I would enjoy somebody comparing Fallout: BoS with Fallout 1 or 2, because its noted that its a spinoff

My problem with this game is that its more of a spinoff than a Fallout game. The story makes zero sense, to much black and white, halfway killing of the SPECIAL, and other problems. If it was called as the spinoff it is, it would be acceptable(because then its a spin-off, its suppose to be different).

I think it's a poor game because I think it's a poor game. Yes, I hold the first Fallouts in high regard, but these flaws don't need comparisons to see them as flaws. The only time I made comparsions is when I commented on the fact that SPECIAL was drastically changed, and when I talked about how fractions from the previous games were treated. And perhaps a bit with animation, but only because Bethesda seems to be behind the curve on it when you look at other developers (Bioware, Epic, Take Two, etc), and it's definately an area they need to improve on.

Bethesda is about 10 years behind on animations...

I personally think that the game is a great Post-Apocalyptic RPG and an average Fallout sequel.

When I'm playing Fallout 3, I don't have the feeling that I'm playing a Fallout title, but rather an RPG made by Bethesda. When you don't have the same staff as the earlier titles, you can't get the same feeling. Like with movies. Watch the Harry Potter movies. It's not the same crew, and it's not filmed or approached the same way.

There's of course the SPECIAL system that got screwed up for the reasons mentioned. I found the writing to be average, the main quest to be very disappointing but the combat was fun. Even if I'm a fan of Fallout's turn-based. Bethesda made their own combat system well enough to be fun.

Like every RPGs they've made to date, Bethesda likes to experience new things and they showed it well with Fallout 3. They took the Fallout setting, tweaked it to their liking and made a good Post-Apocalyptic RPG but not a true sequel to Interplay's Fallout franchise.

If the GECK wouldn't have been announced, I would never have bought the game and invested time in it. Modding is what makes me play the game.

When i rented Fallout 3, i enjoyed it alot so i went out and bought it. I still do like this game alot, the one MAJOR thing i would love about it more, is if it was a bigger and deeper game with more to do and see. Granted ive never played the first 2 Fallouts so i have nothing to base my opinion on except the Elder Scrolls series.

yeah the game was WAY to short I was able to beat the Main Story in almost a day. The good part is that the miscillaeneous? quests and the entirety of exploring the wasteland make up for that even if u have a guide

Seeing as your account name makes you the "arveage" 1337 gamer, how was the game storywise and plotwise? And did it make sense? Did you find big missing stuff around or things that should have been patched up before the game was on the marked(dialog wise, quest wise)?

I was sad when I hit level 20 with my first char after only a few days

Other than that I enjoyed the game very much.

in my opinion fallout 3 is excellent even though there were alot of problems with it.
the level cap was to low, i hit 20 3 times and it only took about a week of playing 1-2 hrs mon-thur and 3-4 hrs fri-sun to get to level 20 the first time (took less each time by the third it took three days to get to 20)
the world is to small
not enough quests
should be able to get a vehicle but not a big deal that you cant
i didnt have any problems with bugs except for every once ina while i would get stuck behind a rock or something
main quests was not long enough and alot of the missions were boring as hell like the one where your fixing stuff in the jefferson memorial and finding the G.E.C.K. but the memory lane quest was really entertaining and i liked the quest after you find the geck and you need to fight the enclave soldiers in thier base
thier should be different armor for every part of the body [hands, legs, chest, arms, head, face (if not whereing headwear that covers your whole face) and shoes]
i would also like harder enemys and joinable factions
also Co-op (not MMO)

SPECIAL in F3 is more balanced than SPECIAL in F1 or F2. In F1/F2, Intelligence was just as over-important as in F3. But, AGILITY was HYPER-important in those games - your Action Points, then as now, derived directly from your Agility stat. And unlike F3, there WASN'T a combat mode where you could fire your weapon and move around that DIDN'T take AP.

To not have a 10 Agility was to not be as effective in combat. Period.

So. INT is still a problem, but at least AGIL has been tamed!

Its not a case of being tamed, that was the whole point of it.

Think of it this way. In real life, with low agility you will not run as fast, you will not hit as fast or as much, than if you are very agile. In FO 3 none of it matters outside of VATS, which makes agility marginal, if not useless.

With 3 in INT you would be retarded and get 11 points a level. With 10 in Int you would get 25 points a level and be pretty smart(notice in conversations).
I seriusly ruined the RP aspect for me in F3 since there was no "stupid game".
If you really want to be a "stat-nazi" in F1 and F2 pick Gifted and have all skils with value betwhen 3 and 8. The If you go betwhen 1-10 on the other hand you will really start playing on your strenghts.
For F3, every single SPECIAL except Int and Luck was nerfed. And INT was still nerfed, in dialog.