Yeah but fo is supposed to be a 2d turn based map nodes game. Bethesda destroyed canon and lore. Then they destroyed the lore of the lore they destroyed.

Man this threads like the Twilight Zone.

Those who dislike Fallout 3 arguing for it, those who like Fallout 3 arguing against it. :ahhh:

Isn't sarcasm great? :hehe:

In any case, there's no arguing against that.

So I'll just go on.

I really did miss House Customization from F3.

I also wished Goodsprings could have played a larger role in the game.

I think the "varmint hunt" with Red could have been done with Sunny Smiles.

Also, I would have loved some Doc Mitchell quests.

For Good Karma character, F3 made you LOVE Megaton.

There is no such thing as good or bad in fo. Only a greyish shade of grey. Those house themes in fo3 crushed the lore of canon s lore.

They wore rags, but somhow they had house themes. It was just a ploy for Bethesda to cover up the horrible voice acting, and the fact that you could not make everyone love you.

There's nothing remotely grey about either the Master or the Enclave in the original games. The Enclave is a lot MORE grey in F3 than Caesar's Legion since presumably Colonel Autumn doesn't intend to condemn all women to perpetual slavery or annihilate all of humanity outright.

Besides, the house themes was just putting different KINDS of scavenged junk in your house.

OHHHHHH NO I can asure you fo is the grey s grey. Only fo3 ruined canon and lore with a good guy bad thing. I wish I could have helped the Enclave kill me, but no Bethesda forced me to side with bos. They ruined thier lore too. Bos is never supposed to have a brain ever under any circumstance. No wait thats canon that bos shall remain stupid until they all die of stupidity.

Yeah there is no evil in real fo. fo3 shouldn t even count as a fallout they messed it up so bad.

Bos thinking??????? Crushed canon s lore.

I love this thread. This is 50% legendary, 50% epic, and 50% win. That's 150% of awesome sauce.

I could be a little bias as I played Fallout 3 to death (logged more hours in that game then I'm proud to admit) but I'm just so burnt out on it. Even without mods it crashes every couple hours or so on a good day. That combined with the fact that you absolutely need mods to break up the monotony means the game is even more crash-ridden. Absolutely unacceptable. You couple that with the fact that the main story and sidequests are some of the most cliched hogwash this side of the Mississippi and you have something like mediocrity bordering on complete failure.

In short, yeah. New Vegas improves upon everything I whined about above. (Actually it still crashes but far less. Can get a good 5-6 hours of play time on a good day.)

I keep getting the feeling I'm being rick-rolled yet the internet is filled with such strangeness I can't be sure.

I agree fo3 is trash from top to bottom. Storyline you say??

The only story in fo3 is they destroyed the entire series with one game. It crashed so much it made nv look like a picnic.

I put 2400 hrs in fo3, but it was unplayable I tell you. It should be struck from the fo banner and thrown with the burned game.

FO NV is the greatest most exciting game i ve ever played. I can t say enough about the voice acting.

Rook would never give you up
Rook would never let you down
Rook would never run around and desert you
Rook would never make you cry
Rook would never say goodbye
Rook would never tell a lie and hurt you

It can be a scary thing. For a while I thought I was in the Twilight Zone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzlG28B-R8Y

id pick fallout 3 over new vegas everytime mainly because of the side missions and the size of the map much better for exploring

Oh snap, Charlemagne just got Rook Roll'd.

Anyway on the topic of Fallout 3 versus New Vegas... it ultimately comes down to what type of design philosophy one prefers, Fallout's or The Elder Scrolls'. I know some people like to argue that Fallout 3 isn't the Elder Scrolls with guns, but it definitely resembles TES more than it does Fallout. It focuses on the exact same formula that The Elder Scrolls does (huge emphasis on combat, grinding, dungeon crawling for loot, exploration, a more idealized and fantastical game world, and all that jazz) while Fallout traditionally focused on interaction with characters and factions, quests with multiple solutions for different character builds, a grittier and better realized world, as well as more tactical gameplay. Exploration was nearly non-existent, dungeon crawling was kept to a minimum, and the developers focused more on narrative, the story that actually mattered, as opposed to putting more effort into showing irrelevant pre-war history through visuals and text/audio logs.

I think Fallout 3 is a fine game in its own right, but as a Fallout game I felt that it failed to deliver. It focused on all of the areas that didn't matter in a Fallout game, and didn't try very hard at delivering in the areas that actually did. As fan of the Fallout series as a whole, naturally I'm going to prefer the game that actually resembles Fallout not just in setting, but in design philosophy. That's my two cents, take it for what you will.

you are all wrong, fo3 is the win of the am debu dao- uhh.

DUN DUN DUN DUN

I suppose it depends on how exactly one views the concept of Fallout.

Fallout 1 is the same engine but a very different feeling game from Fallout 2.

Both are very different from their spiritual father of Wasteland.

Fallout: Tactics, I point out is an entirely different game as well.

Fallout 3 is well... what it is.

Privately, I think it's a very different sort of game (being focused on combat) than Fallout 1 and 2. However, it's very much set in the Fallout world. What areas did you think it failed to deliver?

Fallout 3 was dross.

Fallout 2 was sauce.

Fallout 3, all the other games break canon, they're not http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AR23f08yBA&feature=related and they have no (insert randomly picked meaningless word, like personality or character, here). Also, the other games make you role play, unacceptable for an RPG. They make you choose who you side with, forcing me to think, and that hurts my brain.

Yup, Bethesda should take lessons from the Call Of Duty developers, now that studio knows how to make good games.

fo3 is superioreror in the is spelling and translatoring.

thinking is bad and hurt head need tosavemoocow from bugmen torr happy

Wait, I think I may actually like Fallout 1 or 2... WHAT IS HAPPENING TO ME?!


I always feel like, somebody is watchin' me!
Tell me it's just a dream,
Ooo~woooah!

Well, yes and no. I think Fallout 2 suffered from a lack of direction, that lack of direction resulted in the ridiculous humor (and the ridiculous amount of said humor) present in the final product. Fallout 2 still felt like Fallout to me though; it was basically Fallout 1 with more content (some better, some worse). It adhered to the general design philosophy of the previous game even if the setting suffered a bit. It's by no means a perfect sequel, but I think it had less issues than Fallout 3 did in regards to its status a Fallout game.



I don't think that really matters. I've never really considered Fallout a spiritual successor to Wasteland because the only real similarity between the two franchises is that they're post apocalyptic cRPGs with some of the same guys on board.



Fallout: Tactics is irrelevant I feel, it's a tactical spin off of the franchise and not a cRPG that heralds itself as a sequel. The setting was poorly handled, but I'm somewhat indifferent towards Tactics as I didn't really like it on its own merits, so I don't really care either way.



My biggest gripe was the lack of quests that branch off and allow you to make use of different skills in order to complete them (instead Fallout 3 focused more on a direct combat approach for nearly all quests with the occasional speech check at the very end). There was Tenpenny Tower, but that's the only one I can think of.

As for the world, I don't know... it felt too much like an idealized fantasy to me with all of its 'cool stuff' as Todd Howard put it. Fallout has always had 'cool stuff' yes, but generally this cool stuff was mixed into a world that had some degree of grittiness and realism to it. Fallout 3 didn't feel particularly gritty or believable because of all of the asinine places like Little Lamplight, and all of those epic quests you undertook weren't combined with more down to earth side quests. I don't think of Fallout 3 as non-canon or anything, but I do have difficulty at times accepting that it takes place in the same world as Fallout 1/2 because it feels more like a cartoon or caricature than a Fallout game. Although to be fair, I also tend to have difficulty believing that Fallout 2 takes place in the same world as Fallout 1.

All fo3 is is Oblvian with guns. I actually count it in the Oblivian series.
Fo3 ruined most of TES and FO lore and canon and canons lore.

Fo3 was just a TES wanna be wanna be with Michael Bay Explosions instead of a story line. Plus I couldn t help Enclave kill me and steal my parents life s work.

If I could have helped Enclave kill me, then maybe it would have made a little scense.

Well its a long story there was radiation still lingering 200 years after a world wide thermal nuclear war.

People didn t build a General Motors plant. They were all just laying in the dirt.

Fo is suppose to have a 50s favoring time split well what fo3 had was a 50s favoring time split.

fo is suppose to show humans rebuilding fo3 showed bad guys stronger than good, so the bad guys actually were better off....... imagine that.

If the bad guys were so strong I don t understand why the cw people just didn t get there knives and get out of the dirt and wonder around until they found a better place. They should have just walked to the west coast where the real fo is at.


Nothing was growing 200 years after a global thermal nuclear war