I've been a fan of the fallout franchise for a long time. And i just finished the game. So i thought i would take a few minutes to write a small review of the game.
This is a good game, lots of interesting quests. But for some reason after finishing the game it just left me with an empty feeling.
I do feel the need to compare this game to the previous 2 fallout games.
Something is missing, I just felt this game was closer to Oblivion than the two former games.
The dialogue tree is not as interesting, the places are not really memorable, and the plot is really poor.
I just hope Fallout new vegas will bring something closer to the fallout franchise.
I am sorry Bethesda but I have to say, you tried your best.

Well, in my opinion, you shouldn't pay attention to the plot and dialogue in this game. Instead, think about all the role playing possibilities, all the character customization, and the exploration. The only game I've played that offers as much is Oblivion.

As for the New Vegas thing, Obsidian does have some of the developers of the originals, so they may be closer to them.

I haven't played Fallout 1 and 2. I can only compare Fallout 3 to Morrowind and Oblivion.
But I still think FO3 is a great game and I love the storyline. And it has many unique locations IMO, Megaton, Rivet City, the Citadel, Washington Monument...

If you're left feeling empty stuff a few DLC's into that hole.

I agree with you on this.
But still faintly want to believe that this was a sort of "test" in what they can come up with the setting, familiarize themselves to it - and the next game will be better (as in, closer to the originals and better in overall quality). Chances are slim but they are there nonetheless.



Different strokes for different blokes. Some people - like me - consider the dialog and plotline essential for the experience, and instead of VLARPing, would have the game recognize the things you do and see the consequenses of them. Now, roaming in the wastes like theres no tomorrow in a fancy suit, killing people with Magnum and looting only their caps with a character named "Infernal Taxcollector Travis" is fun - up to a point - but there has to be some meat to the game other than pretending something the game does not understand. Imo.

That's what I felt too. The difference is I was thinking it was laying the foundation for Bethesda to completely move away from "RPG" games all together. Oblivion was the first step (reduction of factions, etc)...this is the next.


I don't know what "VLARPing" is so...but I agree with you 1000% that there has to be something beyond a big open world to explore!

The game seems like an Easter Egg hunt...

That's why it feels like the beginning of a MP game. A game where the object is to collect things...except there'll be other players trying to get the items too and you'll just fight over them in a big open world. No story. No depth. Just a sandbox with a bunch of characters shooting at each other.

Fallout 3 was a great game. I havent really played the other fallout games. This game was bethsoda first fallout game. Give credit were credit is due. Fallout Vegas is going to be good if not better. I loved it. GAME OF THE YEAR.

Playin it.. i found the character NPC's to be original and entertaining.. something of this size not everyone is going to be perfect I don't imagine.
Considering again the sheer size of it and the massive amount of work that had to go into this I'd say they hit the mark, I don't think i was meant to be exactly like the original Fallout games but more of a change using fresh idea's.
I spent hours trying to play Oblivion and I simply could not get into it, after so many gates closed and so many long hauls with not much happening I guess i fealt the same way about Oblivion VS the original Morrowind as some people do FO3. It could be so many factors though.. maybe it was RPG burn out at the time.. maybe my tastes have changed slightly..maybe I had cheerio's instead of coco puffs that day dunno.
I enjoy the action and visible amount of thought that went into this game.. you never know who your going to meet or what angle on things they will have.
Playing this game i see alot of " we really care about what we are creating here" in it, these were not guys and gals looking for a paycheck every week but people that took it personally and ate,slept and breathed FO3
in my opinion.
There are also different types of RPG players looking for a linear guided style and completion of something and then there are the Role Players that use alot of imagination and create thier own world from the tools they have been given.. I am the latter.
I can milk the FO3 cow for a loooong time moo!

Mod it?

I think that comparing Fallout 3 to Fallout and Fallout 2 shouldn't be the entire reason to deny the game, no matter how different. Fallout 1 and 2 are going to be different to Fallout 3, if not only because of there being different developers. Also because of a different gaming audience, all sorts of things. I have played Fallout 1 and 2, but only after playing Fallout 3. I did not enjoy playing those games, probably because i was expecting something more modern after playing Fallout 3.

I think if you are going to review a game, and are going to link it to previous games, that should not be the basis of the review. A section of it would be sufficient.

I'll have to agree with the OP here. The link with the originals wasn't really there, except for the setting, and they did call it Fallout 3 so that would suggest the game being a progression from the first two. That didn't happen at all for me, because the gameplay was really different, and with that the experience I had while playing it. The things that had priority in the first two games were shoved to the background to make a game that's revolved around the same things people experience when playing the TES series. No problem with that, TES is great and I highly enjoyed it, but for me it didn't feel like something that fits well into the Fallout world.

To ElderTech: I can understand why people like Fallout 3 a lot, but I'll have to disagree with you on a few things. First of all, I don't really feel that the changes Beth made are for the better, and they definitely didn't bring much new ideas to the table. Most of it was rehashing of character, species, animals and enemies from the old Fallout games, only with a lot less depth. The things they did add weren't such great ideas to me (who came up with a name like Mirelurk? Doesn't make much sense to me in a world where they call a big mutated kameleon with huge claws simply a Deathclaw). The people at Beth probably do care a lot about the game they are creating, but even though they did a good job, it's not like they couldn't have brought a few things a little bit closer to the standard Fallout 1 and 2 set in terms of dialogue and storydevelopment. In this department there is a huge difference from the originals, but the quality isn't at all comparable.

This. But there is no need to declare that NV will be any better than Fallout 3*. All we know is who are developing it, not how good work they are doing there. As much as I'd hate wasting much money, I'd laugh my ass off if NV turned out to be a disaster. I'm expecting it to be an adequate game. Something that can be saved with mods. Just please, please Obisdian don't go too far with the Fedoras.

* Yes I know you did not say that

Your "review" will fit better in http://www.gamesas.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=1053797 thread for comparison of all three games.

There is no need for two threads doing the same thing.