Yeah, but Fallout 3 comes frustrating to some players, because it is too easy. A difficulty scale where NORMAL is normal and EASY is easy works in someway in Fallout 3 and HARD is hard to "average" player, but why there should be VERY HARD? For those who think they are good and then make them to bow to their knees and pray for mercy. But now it is like "Everyone should be able to play with hardest difficulty so they won't feel bad to be 'average' or 'poor player'." It really would not matter to me, if people would be with different difficulties. That is why they should be there. Now there is only one difficulty and a different setting to make enemies eat more ammo and players to get more EXP. Or something, where would I know? I am stupid. I don't get anything. Really.

EDIT: What is average? I am average. I should be playing on Normal and feel challenged.

people complain about a lack of difficulty. i have in the past as well. fallout3 presents many IN-GAME options a player can use to increase difficulty.
to call using or not using an option given in a game a "handicap" in the sense that many use, is absolutely ridiculous.

again, which is the 'handicap'? turning the hud off or keeping it on? using stims during combat or not? allowing an unrealistic amount of weight or a more realistic one? giving my character a 1 endurance and keeping it their or getting it to 10? using repair whenever/wherever or only using it if chose it as one of the 3 main skills? hotkeying or not? roleplaying or not?

your line of reasoning is faulty.

and, saying that a level 20 character isnt challenged at all is just plain false.

Not confusing anything for anything as far as I can tell. I'm simply stating that a game's level of difficulty is directly related to it's level of enjoyability, and I'll add to that that making a game overly difficult for casual players to satisfy a smaller percentage of hardcoe gamers makes little sense. I'm ready to agree that the game is awfully simple after playing it for long enough and doing the right things, but what game isn't?


And I still stand by my opinion that FO3 is difficult for a time, especially when you're not using guides or anything of the sort. But that's really based on your style of play; it's not that hard to get rich and survive most major quests. It IS hard, however, to discover the more rewarding elements, like completing your bobblehead collection or uncovering hidden stashes, unique weapons, etc. Not many games I've played balance the fun with the challenge like FO3. Purely personal opinion...something you might have wanted to consider stating when telling us all that most people don't level up. I mean, can you show me one example of someone admitting to doing this? I'm sure you can, I am just curious, and will probably try it when I decide to start a new character. I prefer the idea of handicapping yourself to make a game more challenging than having the game do it for you without any alternatives, simply due to my tastes in games, but I have a strong feeling the majority of gamers are the same way.

Halo 3 (Single player, in this point.) . There is only two persons in this planet who could say the game is too easy, but I doubt they would. In that game there are pretty many ways to make the game to handicap players. And with the hardest difficulty settings possible, it will become nearly impossible to complete. Before that, nearly everyone can enjoy from challenge or "dischallenge" they want. Why shouldn't a "RPG" do the same thing, especially, when fighting is really big part of experiment?

I just don't understand why people complain about how certain aspects of the game make it too easy (especially VATS) and continue to use them. The game doesn't force you to choose Grim Reaper's Sprint (and all the other related perks) and breeze through the game in VATS. Nor does it allow you to wear only the T-51b power armor and spam stimpacks. It just seems to me that the only way to get the most out of this game is to use your creativity and role play, which Bethesda must have intended. What has drawn me so much into the game is the amount of freedom you have and it just feels like a lot of people aren't taking advantage of that. Sorry if I went off on a tangent.

Halo 3 is easy, and it svcked

fallout 3 is as hard or as easy as you make it

I find that Fo3 is more comparable to a Snow Globe reality. There is a specific Bubble where the player actively plays. FO1 and 2 is much more like a board game theatre map, each square has an activity.

While the Board Game approach allows for vast areas and large scale arenas it lacks the closeness of a continuing environment. The Snow Globe aspect allows for a closer feel and a continuing environment, while not able to be as large, it does allow things to be more detailed and the basic elements play a larger role in the story as a whole.

FO1 and 2 focused more on the Whole of the Story, while FO3 is designed to be more of an exploration with a story. That is not at all saying that either games are linear, simply that actions are viewed differently, and behaviors of the character interact with the environment differently.

FO3 gives the player the ability to travel to any destination with the ability to actively explore. FO1 and 2 is more focused on the destination rather than the time between, "how to get from point A to point B", while FO3 is more "On my way to... Oh look something shiny! *ambers off course*".

So really the games really cannot be judged simarily. The basic comparisons can only really be done through cannon. However while FO1 and 2 are pure cannon, FO3 is more an experience of Fallout through the First Person Experience, I actually view FO3 more so as Bethesda's Fallout Rendition, rather than a true FO3.

Looking past the issues of all the Games both mechanical and cannon wise they are all very good, offer new things, and while FO1 and 2 are more hardcoe RPG, FO3 allows more of the general populace to play and experience the Fallout Universe, Casual gamers may not fear!.

This wasn't really supposed to be an argument of difficulty, but I see how that happened....

I think Fallout 1 and 2 have more depth, easily. But the thing about the original games is that once you figure it out, the path to invincibility is short. At least in Fallout 3 I feel like, even though my character is very strong and doesn't have much to worry about, there is the chance that being outnumbered or outgunned will lead to your death. I could tackle a dozen Enclave at once in Fallout 2. No sweat. I'd get killed if I tried that in Fallout 3. Actually, if it wasn't for VATS, it could be unforgiving.

This was supposed to be about the feeling. Who did "post-nuclear" better? Gameplay and mechanics aside, I'd say that in terms of the concept of Fallout (the idea of surviving in a post-nuclear world), Bethesda did it better. The graphics have a lot to do with that, but not as much as the design. That doesn't mean that the game is better. What it means is that it's more immersive. More convincing.

post-nuclear feeling has got to be fallout 3, it feels like the nuclear bombs just hit recently in the game, a bunch of corpses here and there, raider shacks, exploration, etc. Bethesda hit the spot in terms of post-nuclear feeling, however not the "surviving" part because of the hundreds of ammo and stimpack everywhere.

I've never played Fallout 1 or 2 and I doubt I ever will. I don't like mouse clicks or turn-based combat. I doubt I'd enjoy either game.

Oh yes...Enclave patrol in FO2:

They line up in power armor and with the the best weapons.

You and your followers line up a short distance away in powerarmor and the best weapons.

Let the TACTICS! begin. If you don't win, you were unlucky.

Enclave is weak in FO3...there never are enough of them to pose a challenge, and most of them are static. I typically see them long before they see me. By the time I trigger the Enclave, I'm typically fully capable of dealing with them. That could, and should be fixed. If you don't win, you aren't playing a character with combat skills.

But that doesn't mean that combat with the Enclave in FO2 was better, because it wasn't. FO2 was very easy as well. The only fear I ever had in combat was fast travel before Vault City, and maybe the first time I did the oil platform. Besides that, I never feared that game, never went lacking for ammo, supplies or caps (After reaching VC) and grew quickly tired of the "Lets line up and take aimed shots until everyone in the other line is killed" craptactics.

For myself, I agree with you on that. This is what I've long felt was one of Bethesda's primary strengths - creating a vivid and convincing world with an obsessive level of detail. Graphics aside, there's certainly a lot more to discover in Fallout 3 in terms of the little details you come across; which lends itself to a more convincing world. Fallout 1 and 2 had lots of matresses with stacks of bones on it as well, but Bethesda went the extra distance with more specificity - it's this matress with this specific arrangement of bones on it, carefully posed to tell a small vignette. (As an example.)

Fallout 1 could have done that as well, but every stack of bones you click on, every random assortment of rubble, will always give you the same description - there's no description that ever pops up to say "a pair of skeletons locked in a final embrace" when you click on it.

I have my own preferences with various elements, but as far as art direction and presentation I'm very impressed with Bethesda's Fallout 3.

:) It sounds like you played Fallout 2 the way I play Fallout 3. All I ever do in F3 is stand still, blast away at enemies until VATS recharges, queue up shots, and repeat until everyone's dead while I keep one finger over my stimpak hot-key.

But certainly there are those who are more comfortable with real-time combat like in Fallout 3 who would say I'm really not taking full advantage of the game and the options available to me. And they're right - there's a lot more I could be doing in F3 to approach it with a more tactical mindset and I'd be rewarded for going that extra mile as well by wasting less ammo and meds. I'm just not as comfortable in that set-up, and not experienced enough to explore all my options. I do the same thing when I'm playing Madden with my friends, all I ever do is randomly pick a play and then send my guy as far down the field as I can - that works but I'm also not taking full advantage of the options available to me.

Or in a fighting game - just randomly tapping buttons as quick as you can. I can make that criticism against pretty much any game ever made, but if I'm not going to spend the time to fully explore the intricacies of the system - the fault is mine and not the game.

The same can be said for just lining up and firing in Fallout 1 and 2. My companions can certainly hinder my approach to the game (and the same can be said in Fallout 3 - the only game out of all of them that really allows you to make full use of your companions is Tactics,) but I always remain mobile in a turn-based game with a keen eye towards placing myself in the most advantageous position. And I enjoy the challenge of trying to make every Action Point I spend count and selecting options in the most efficient way. Standing still and trading shots is something you can do in any of these games, but it's also sort of missing the point of what's available to you in both games.

(I think this has been brought up before, as well...)

Crits to the eyes? Oh, sorry, you did say "low level."
Gotta admit, though, once you were able to do that reliably...

There just isn't much you can do in FO1/2 during combat. The biggest challenge was to clear line of fire for myself and not get shot in the back of the head by Vic. Tactically, choices are limited, especially in random encounters, where cover is often limited. I would typically select the best weapon vs the armor of the mobs, clear my field of fire, and have at it.

In FO3, one can run and gun, and it makes combat very simple. The way I do it is if I see them first, I maneuver the what I consider to be the best tactical position even before I start combat. I find this...setting up the battlefield, as the most enjoyable aspect of combat. The combat itself isn't as much fun to me. That kind of tactical consideration was generally impossible in FO1/2, although there was some of it possible in static engagements. To me, Tactics was substantially better suited to my idea of turn based combat, because one could try real world battle tactics.

you can buy them here for pretty cheap.

http://www.interplay.com/games/fallout.php

I'd agree, the system didn't really come into it's own until Tactics.

Still, the statement "Lets line up and take aimed shots until everyone in the other line is killed" is no more apt a statement than saying "let's face each other and mash buttons until someone dies" about a fighting game.

I've never played FO 1 or 2. Come to think of it........I never HEARD of the Fallout series before buying FO3. Maybe that's cause I'm a console gamer now days!

Anyway, I've never really had much trouble playing FO3. The ONLY time I felt the game was even remotely difficult, was really early in the game. My first play through, I went exploring instead of heading to Megaton. It was kinda hard at first, but once you start to REALLY build your character, it's all gravy. I don't think that takes away from the game though. Games are never fun when they are to hard.
But I guess I understand the beef with the game. Ammo does get heavy, even KEYS get heavy if you have enough to them. And anybody who has played the game knows by the end of it, YOU HAVE A GRIP LOAD OF KEYS.

QUESTION: Would you guys recommend buying the first 2 Fallout games??? I assume they are older games and that my PC could run them easily (I hope). The more I hear about you guys playing the originals, the more I want to play them.

Well, that's kind of a logical fallacy isn't it...similar to the one I just made, arguing that something somehow svcks less because something else svcks too, although I did indicate that I agree that Enclave was a problem in FO3 just as they were in FO2.

Just about any computer still running will play FO1/2.

They are cheap also, so there really is no reason to try them. They cater to a different type of roleplay, and they are, most of us agree, excellent games. They do have their own warts though, but zi suggest that everyone try them.

I think this is what she meant.

I'm just saying you can marginalize the intricacies in most videogames. If I just mash buttons in a fighting game, it might be an effective strategy but I'm also not making full use of the game. Same as if I just stand still in either Fallout 2 or Fallout 3, I'm missing out on all the game offers me by way of tactical options. All 3 examples have their own wrinkles that are there for the savvy player to delve into or ignore. It's almost always up to the player to approach the game in a compelling manner.

Just about any digital download site offers the original games these days - Direct2Drive, GOG, Gametap, Steam, etc.

Feh. I punch them. That's how I roll . Fallout 3 is pretty easy with even the most basic of tactics. Find something to reduce the flow of enemies (which is sometimes the enemies themselves...keep moving so that their buddies are in their line of fire)

I also have to make a concious effort to not use stealth, which is damn hard for me, since using stealth is one of my primary methods of playing RPGs, if allowed for it. But it makes Fallout 3 more then retardly easy. Someone has a big gun, and no AP to shot it? Run up to them until they pull a small gun out, then retreat until they pull the big gun out again . Sadly, that actually works.



Hmm, gotta disagree. Mainly because I found characters in Fallout 3 to be too damn cheerful. In the first two, you really saw the decadent behaviour showing. Prositution, drugs, murder...everyone had an angle, everyone had an agenda, and saw the PC as a means to accomplish their agenda. And if they didn't, they didn't really want to talk to you. I didn't get that vibe from Fallout 3 at all.

Indeed, most of the characters where not very good in FO3. I mean hell just look at the slaver bosses from FO2 and FO3! Who do you think is a more convincing slaver boss Mezzer or Eulgy?

I'll help you out here. Here's what I think Beth did right for the post-nuclear feel.

I like that food plays a bigger role in FO3. I never felt the need to eat in the previous games because you could heal more with a stimpak. I always sold whatever food I got.

I like that there's more of a need to sleep. You could heal in the previous games by just waiting, so I only ever rented rooms for roleplaying purposes (though my roleplaying paid off because of a special surprise, if you recall). In FO3, I find it very satisfying to clear out an enemy camp and then hunker down for the night in some beat up bus. Awesome.

I do like being able to walk through a fully rendered wasteland. I don't fast travel because of this. This is Beth's greatest strength.

I like the random encounter system. Watching two rival groups battle it out, and then moving in to pick off any stragglers never gets old. And I've seen some pretty epic, unscripted events happen before my eyes. Which all lend credence to presenting the wasteland as a harsh and dangerous place. +1 Beth.

However, I do feel that all the immersion that the above elements created is trumped by some of Beth's other design choices. You may think that game mechanics shouldn't be part of the discussion, but for me, they're a real immersion breaker.

The feeling of desperation is undermined by the easily killed enemies and the abundance of supplies. I never get the "fighting to survive" feeling when enemies plink uselessly away at my health while I can pause time, pop 10 of my 100 stimpaks, and return to riddle them with (literally) hundreds of bullets. Considering all the ways that the game helps the players, the wasteland ceases to be harsh or scary. Give Mad Max 1000 stimpaks, 10 different guns with unlimited ammo, and a nuke launcher, and the general tone of the movie would shift dramatically.

Also going back to my first post regarding tone. Post-nuclear's supposed to be about the breakdown of society and present day rules going out the window. The black and white, good vs. evil, happy vs. grouchy tone of the NPC's takes away from the post-nuclear feeling.

No, I don't think Beth did a better job than Black Isle at creating a post-nuclear simulator. But they still did great job nonetheless.

Its called "Fallout", for "Fall Out".
But i do agree a little with the author, the game did a little right. The only problem on that is how messy it is compared to the story.