Forums are a bad place to get a balanced review of a game anyway, gaming magazines are far more reliable and balanced. It's risky to judge a game on what forum members write, come here when members are having a bad day and you will see the game being unjustly trashed.

Personally, I find Fallout 3 comparable to Fallout 1 and 2 in style and game-play. Did Fallout 3 make such a big change ? It was mostly in the amount of content, and When you consider that 3 has been stuffed with so much more content, that if having the same board-game style of combat movements as Fallout 1 and 2, it would have made Fallout 3 unbearably drawn out, with players just wanting to get on with the game.

That aspect of play was rightly dropped ... but is still available for those that want it, via VATS and the self discipline of taking turns in action/movements during combat. Fallout 3 is really now in effect a more complete RPG, than a RPG/Board-game that it was in 1 and 2. Just that Fallout 3 has so much more content, and great though Fallout 1 and 2 were, you can't really slate any of them.

well said about the reviews, people here are gonna say its too different from past games or like me like it because it gives an rpg an infusion of some run n gun styles

(like me meaning never played fo1 and fo2)

If I was ever going to rely on a review of a sequel that wasn't really a sequal (IE the elder scrolls and fallout games. They're not direct sequels, well at least fallout 3 wasn't of the first 2) then it would have to be reviewed by someone who never played the first 2 games. Why? Because even if they're not purists or die-hard fans, they'd have some bias in them. I think fallout 1 and 2 were the epitome of a great game during THEIR time. Fallout 3 is ours. It's not a perfect game, but I enjoyed it so much that I have more than a year's worth of gaming hours on it. Now to be honest, I didn't play the first 2 games before I played fallout 3, and I think that's part of the reason why reading those reviews got me incensed. They vivisected everything and just did their best with an electron microscope to find some grime they can give a diatribe on.

I do agree though (as most people did) with the comments on dialogue and the main quest. However, it didn't ruin the game for me. I liked following it to see what happens. To give constructive criticism though, I wish characters were more nuanced (as a lot of people asked for) as well as staggering character development

As much as I love Fallout 3, I can't deny they do a good job of pointing out some of the obvious cons in the game.

Well, they're just reviews. Which are someone else's opinions about something. The point of a good review isn't an assumption that anyone or everyone is going to agree with everything that was said, but more that it accurately represents the writer's feelings about the game.

So... I don't see the big deal. It's two articles talking about how that individual felt about the game. You get two people in the same room and you're pretty much guaranteed that they're going to be able to find something they don't see eye to eye on; this is nothing different.

For my own two cents, I rather enjoyed Fallout 3, but there are also some things I didn't like. I'm coming from a place where I'd long ago come to terms with the idea that there was never going to be another Fallout game after Fallout 2. Fallout 3 was therefore a bit of a suprise, and not something I was exactly getting my hopes up for. The thing is, you can never go back home again; and Bethesda was never going to be able to "recreate the magic" of playing the first two titles for the first time.

Instead, they made their own game and incorporated the Fallout universe into that completely new game type. I don't think really any of the gameplay is any sort of direct-line "evolution" from the older games - but then, I don't think it has to have been. It's a different game, and I don't have a problem judging it on it's own merits. I think on those terms there are a couple of things that it falls short on, but then again that's true of most games out there. The "perfect game" has yet to be made, after all.

I'm a fan of the game, and I'll be buying Fallout 4 if/when Bethesda decides to make one, even if there's still a gaping hole where what I would have wanted out of another Fallout game should be. But at the same time, I can understand some people who are more critical - and I don't really see as how someone not loving a particular game as much as I do is going to impinge on my own enjoyment; or really even be something terribly mention-worthy...

I think the reason why a lot of us feel a little offended (or put some other negative reaction here) is that those reviews can decide whether a person would want to play or not. It's only natural for someone who loves SOMETHING would want to spread the word, to find more people who also have the same similarities. What I found troubling about those reviews is that they gave a review based on how far away fallout 3 was from fallout 1 and 2... which to me doesn't really accrue the quality of the game or not

Come on now - we're talking about two reviews that are posted on the NMA forums. It's not like we're discussing something by a professional as an "official" review on something like the Escapist or IGN, here. And considering that NMA is a site dedicated to the Fallout games, long before Bethesda had even considered doing anything with the series (meaning that the primary demographic is naturally going to consist of fans of the first two games, obviously,) I don't think it'd be terribly off-base for any of the reviews to be found there to reference those games in their reviews.

This really isn't very much different than if I were to come on this forum and post my own Fallout 3 review - and if someone were to base the decision of whether or not to buy a game based solely on one review by just another geek (and not one by someone who actually does that sort of thing for a living,) then not only is there not very much you can do; but chances are they're already have going to have made up their mind well before now, and likely aren't going to have ventured onto NMA by that point.

In short, let's not make a mountain out of a molehill, here. Any game you happen to be a fan of, there's going to be plenty of people who have the opposite reaction; and they get to throw their opinion into the ethers just as much as anyone else does. (And let's not forget we're talking about reviews on a site that's generally known as having wanted a more "traditional" take on the franchise, which you're probably going to realize by the time you've been there long enough to bother reading their members' reviews on the game.) And it's certainly not like Bethesda is hurting so bad for sales that they're going to miss the (debatable) losses they're taking because one or two people decided not to buy a game based solely on a non-proffesional review on a fansite that caters to a very specific demographic...

EDIT- And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I particularly agree with the tone of a lot of the reviews that get put on NMA. There's a trend in videogaming that I'm not overly fond of - and it's this rather annoying sense of entitlement that seems to overcome a number of dissapointed gamers (and this is no way limited solely to Fallout, by any means,) and that first review in particular seems highly colored by that offended sense of bitterness. But at the same time, it's just a bunch of guys saying what's on their minds; and there's never going to be any shortage of that on the internet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PaPXy6XBiU

I really think the review is a really forgiving one.. They didn't even mention what is happening in this two minutes video. I would have made a similar video, but I would need to make a two hours long video, a directors account on youtube, and enough patience to show you the bugs and similar things in the game. My favorite part is the floating guy at 1:16

The first review just seemed a little to whiney to keep my interest and it's validity as a review. 2nd one, well havent read it yet. lm playin Oblivion atm. :3

What is happening is the Raiders and Mutant have fallen into the river from either bank, and are still set to hostile, but because submerged neither party can draw a weapon for a sustained period. But since they can't fight in water, and there are no low banks to use to get out of the water... they're aimlessly swimming. I've seen it at this exact point of the game a few times, but often the Mutant will swim away to a shallow point it can gets its minigun out at.

Why are you posting this stuff dude? Give me any game from recent years and I'll find you a bug in it. An exploit, a glitch, a graphical error... something, anything that shouldn't be there. Stuff gets through, and this game is huge... but sometimes a game is so popular it has literally thousands of players posting thousands of videos on YouTube, and posting complaints on similar sites, highlighting a thousand times the same bug. I have played Fallout 3 for some ridiculous sessions, like twenty hours, no joke, and encountering one bug in that twenty, out of eighty on that character... total... lol... they tend to stand out when the rest of the time it has been smooth sailing. :goodjob:

Of course FO 3 isn't perfect; it's just better than FO 1 and 2. Really though, I'm sure you could ask people here and almost everyone would agree FO3 is not a perfect game.

You can ask me. I'm not a boy so I can't be a "fan boy" but I'll tell you the game isn't perfect. The dialogue issues can make me crazy, the MQ has holes in it, James is a stupid git, etc. Even with all of its faults it is still my favorite game.

However, if the criteria for being sensible and rational, though, is that I have to say that not only is FO3 not perfect, but Fallout and FO2 are superior games in every way and I enjoyed playing them so much more, then I fail that test.

As do I.

I could be told I will never be able to play Fallout 1 or 2 again and not even think twice about it. But if someone told me I'd never be able to play Fallout 3 again I just may cry.

Let me put my ideas this way: I think it is much more fun to play Fallout3, even with the huge flaws it has (it's heavily bugged, incomplete, unpolished and worst of all unsupported check unofficial fallout3 patch to see which bugs are not fixed by the official patches.) It took the Fallout idea, and made it into something that many of us (including me) are happy to have... But Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 are much better games than Fallout 3 if you compare them RPG wise (which is the right thing to do if they don't convert Fallout4 into a copy of Stalker (apparently people want it here) minus the good script).
Also when you compare Fallout3 with similar games of its era, many other games are superior in terms of role playing, fps wise, graphics, game mechanics and how polished these games are.
When you compare Fallout1 and Fallout2 (especially Fallout2) with similar games in its era, they are gems. They stand out with extremely good dialogue, script, game mechanics, athmosphere. The simple fact that the things you said or did effected the game endings in tens of different ways makes it a better role playing game making you want to play it over and over again to see different outcomes.

My last comparison is going to be how, many of the people here compare old Fallout games to Fallout3. (ie: Fallout2 is turn based, Fallout3 is better because you have control over the game) (ie: Fallout has bad graphics) (ie: in Fallout2 you can shoot a porm movie, it's unrealistic) (ie:in Fallout2, you have far too much quests you can do, in good games you shoot things instead and nuke Bahemoths a couple of times)

Here comes:
Fallout3 has much much better First Person Shooter mechanics than Fallout2.

(If I have to be sensible,): But it's still awful when compared to other shooter games. (I think Quake1 has much better first person shooter mechanics and Heretic2 has much more realistic animations)

I'm loving FO3. No question it's great fun to play. But FO and FO2 were just... different.
And for me, that's the key. The post above touched on it. Those two games really seemed to be head and shoulders above anything else done at the time in terms of role-playing depth and enjoyment. There really were only an absolute handful of games which could be compared favorably to it in practically the entire decade that it was released. Many "Best of" lists still have FO at or near the top of CRPG's.
While I like FO3--it's an awesome game--I don't feel as if it's as ground-breaking RPG-wise as the other two. FO3 is really great at something different: an open world and fantastic eye-candy. As for role-playing, the dialog is limited, the characters are flat, and an awful lot of the quests felt kind of meh.
I can love FO3 for what it is, and not hate on it for what it isn't. I am sad that it seems as if we're sacrificing story and dialog for eye-candy, though, but it is what it is, and we're not going back.
I will say, though, that I feel that FO3 is leaps and bounds better at dialog and character and RPG feel than Oblivion. While limited, I felt Jericho was ten times the character as anyone in Oblivion.
So maybe we're headed in the right direction, and soon we'll be able to have the eye-candy and the RPG awesomeness the FO 1 + 2 fans miss so much.

Isn't that what you're supposed to do when reviewing a sequel?

I found those reviews pretty accurate, though I don't really agree with the snide tone.

From my personal view, I found Fallout 3 to be quite an enjoyable experience in it's own right. It was a huge step in quality from Oblivion, but there were a lot of room for improvement. So, imo, where Fallout 3 failed was in being a genuine sequel to the franchise as it strayed too far from the mechanics and depth of the originals; and where it succeeded, was in being a fairly good game in the setting that offered lots of hours of gameplay in a beatifully crafted world. Bethesda sure has the right direction going on from Oblivion to Fallout 3, and I do hope the keep walking that road further in the future.

I think that pretty much mirrors my own views. I can concede that Fallout 3 is a "sequel" and not a "spin-off," but when actually playing the game that's exactly what it struck me as - a brand new game set in the same "universe" as the original games, almost a reboot of sorts. (Sort of akin to how Batman Begins isn't "Batman 5" so much as a fresh start that takes the franchise in a new direction - the first movie of a new series.) And I don't mean that as a put-down, so much as a statement of what my experience truthfully was while playing Fallout 3. If I went in expecting a linear advancement of what was set up in the first two games I wasn't going to have as much fun with it as I did going in with the mindset of someone playing a game that's attempting to make a fresh start in the same world set out by Fallout 1 and 2.

Bethesda stuck to what they do best, and their strengths illuminated the Fallout world in a manner that few other studios could have done. Beth's obsessive attention to detail, and ability to create what at least "feel" like living, breathing worlds worked quite well for a Fallout game. The world of Fallout 3 itself is almost the main character of the story. In making a whole new game from scratch, at least gameplay-wise, they've run into some of the same pitfalls that often befall the first games in a series, but I hope the hypothetical Fallout 4 will be able to iron many of these issues.

Fallout 3 was something I felt to be a very enjoyable experience, and a real treat at times, as a long-time fan of the franchise. There's still a part of me that's hungry for a game that runs closer to what I would have liked out of a "sequel" to Fallout 2, but as a fresh start I found Fallout 3 to be a decently-polished game and overall very enjoyable; even if it still leaves plenty of room for improvement in successive iterations from here on in.

I think this thread has too much cross site discussion and flamebaiting of both new and old fans of the series and will thus be closed.