My replies in bold.

look, developers said that most of then even haven't played Fallout 1 or 2!

And? A lot of people who've played Fallout 3 never played the originals. Plus a few people who have played the originals didn't like them. As good as they were, the originals were are a bit 'niche'. Making a game like that these days can be so hit and miss, it's an extreme risk for a company to take.


yes, Fallout 1&2 are very complex, detailed games.

So is Fallout 3 in some ways, but some elements of the originals may not have translated over to the full 3d setting of Falllout 3.


yes, they can't do the same.
but they should try to do something, that looks like the Fallout universe, has it's spirit!

I think it has the spirit

and they should try avoid useless and illogical things.
force picklocking (open it or jam forever) - is useless until you have a special perk.

But the actual lockpicking is more involving. Do you actually do the work or take the risk


unlocking electronick lock with a hairpin is illogical!

Erm....you use computers to open electronic locks.


large metal alloys that that stick out of orc's buildings are not 'defensive things'! they do nothing! they're 'just for fun'. they might defend against elephants. but there are no elephants.

They serve as barricades, narrowing fields of attack, create defensive positions and force attackers to come from a particular direction. The Wasteland has some vicious (And sometimes big) critters.

I'm not against changes thay had to do.
VATS instead step-by-step is ok.
increased ammount of vaults if ok.

but....
'repair' skill is used only to repair weapons and armor.. why ?

Repair skill is also used as part of several quests, offers couple of speech choices and some areas have broken doors that can be fixed with the repair skill

the Fallout had chances in lockpicking and hacking. any multiple attempts with chance (small) of jamming (chanses depend on skill).
fallout3 has direct checks lockpick/science skill (25, 50, 75). so, you can't pick a lock if you lack 1 point in skill! in the Fallout, the less you skill, the more time you will try to pick a lock. and the more chance that you will pick it.

This is a bit annoying, but it's the same system as in Oblivion. Take some mentants if you're a point short

the Fallout hac direct checks for speach. you have a skill to persuadec, or you haven't.
fallout3 has 'chances' in speach

Chances which are affected by your charisma and speech skills. Plus having a certain level in other skills such as Science, Medicene, Repair, explosives, etc, can also add extra choices. It's a good system, I like it. Only problem is, not enough speech choices based on skills and perks

finally.
one could polish any skill to 300! in the Fallout.
the better your skill, the more skillpoint cost to increase that skill.
100 - is normal level.
a a point for skill in 0 - 100 costs 1 skillpoint to increase.
100 - 150 cost 2 skillpoints.
250-300 cost 6 skillpoints to increase.
and that does matter!
with shooting skill 100 one shoot well.
with 150 - he is an ace!
and so on.

With weapons skills, lockpicking and hacking, the players skill also factors in since it's real time rather than turned based.

and the story...
the story of fallout3 is just a variation of fallout1 and fallou2 storylines. ) )

Becuase it starts you out in a vault, revolves around water and features Super mutants, BOS and Enclave?

i played FO 1 and 2 and i admit some gameplay elements are better in the originals but i think that it is a welcome sacrifice for 3D and if anyone is complaining about it being more FPSRPG than turnbase why not just go into vats shoot. let them hit you a few times then go vats again

[censored] [censored]es stop whining

but i've payed for it.
that's gerat. one pays his money and then 'don't like - don't play'.
nice.

unlocking electronick lock with a hairpin is illogical!

Erm....you use computers to open electronic locks.

in most cases you can use computer to open electronic locks AND you can pick them with an hairpin.

large metal alloys that that stick out of orc's buildings are not 'defensive things'! they do nothing! they're 'just for fun'. they might defend against elephants. but there are no elephants.

They serve as barricades, narrowing fields of attack, create defensive positions and force attackers to come from a particular direction. The Wasteland has some vicious (And sometimes big) critters.

look at them once more. they are alligned approx 45 degrees upwards. they are defending roofs. are there flying elephants there ?


With weapons skills, lockpicking and hacking, the players skill also factors in since it's real time rather than turned based.

the problem is not what it factors. the problem is that all skills have easy reachable limits.
in the Fallout all skill limits were practically unreachable. one could get fine skills and polish them further and further. slower and slower. but you are able to train skills.
look, I understand that the Fallout was step-by-step and fallout-3 is real-time.
and i have no any objections on that change and anything concerning it.
my abjections are on other things.

Becuase it starts you out in a vault, revolves around water and features Super mutants, BOS and Enclave?

the story of Fallout1 is about water chip and Supermutants.
the story of Fallout2 is totally different. it's about finding GECK and about Enclave that wants to kill all mutants with FEV (and all who live not in vault are mutants).
look, it i totally different. you can find remains of Fallout1 in Fallout2. but the story is totally different.
the story of fallout3 is about Enclave that Enclave that wants to kill all mutants with FEV (and all who live not in vault are mutants).
and the Supermutants (though, it became boring and I haven't found their's origin).
the same.

and... propaganda... livng in ckack&white world...





yes, VATS is a very good solution.

but shooting in real time (here is a minor remark) I gues there should be 'shooting cone', that is increased when you run, deacreased when you aim, and deacreased with skill level. and _displayed_. one can find it in games like Deus Ex, half-life, stalker and many others.

VATS has nothing to do with turn-based combat. It's an entirely different system with only some superficial similarities. It doesn't cover movement or any actions aside from shooting.

if you do it right it gives the illusion of turn based and if you are really that annoyed that you will come on here and whinge then im guessing you would do this, stop whining if you done like it, trade it in and go back to FO1 and 2

It's fine that you don't like the game, you are welcome to offer constructive criticisms, but be civil when people disagree with you. Sorry you were disappointed, I thought the game was really engrossing and well worth the money spent. Pity you feel you wasted money on a game that has been out six months and reviewed both positively and very negatively - you maybe didn't read the wide range of reviews - even the negative ones on this, the developers own forum. :shrug:

I will revise your thread title, as a rather pointless "That's Awful" is flamebait. And I am sure you aren't trying to start a flamewar with fans of the 3rd Fallout game, right? On the Developer's forums. You just want to air your opinions, which is fine.

Exactly. If the OP had anything new in it, it would have been worth reading. But after seeing this sort of thing for a year or so, in just about every thread in "Fallout Series", it's just more noise drowning out the signal.

Another lame excuse to feel better for buying a game that one didn't like: bashing it.

Originals get lame very fast. The limited gameplay and storyline (get an essential item -> kill bad guys) ends the game very fast and Fallout 2 was only a hunch better on that front. Sure, they are excellent games with excellent dialogues and background, but IMO they were planned in a very short sight. They don't last long. Complete the game, then do it as a stupid character and wham: You remember everything you gotta do and the games become just blind bashing through the same old story with slightly different methods.
The optionality in the originals were limited to what route you shall take, what weapons you use and will you massacre cities for money or not. Then you just roam the world map fighting bountyhunters until you are lv35 and buy another game. Atleast in the third game you were given the chance to spend hours and hours of wandering the Wasteland yourself instead of watching that red marker move somewhere in California.

That's a pretty crappy illusion of turn based, heh. Amazing how "shut up and go somewhere else" is valued - you'll end up getting more of the same with that attitude.

And here it goes, another thread to support my theory!

See, Fallout 1&2 were niche games. Therefore, they attracted a certain clique of people. In time, these people started viewing the games as belonging to them, it was their hunting grounds, it was their territory.

Naturally, when that dominance ended, they were upset because the plebs got access to something that had been the sole ownership of their little elite.

There really isn't much they can do, that elite is a tiny minority, moving on is the only option.

Yes, Fallout was a niche game, and it should had stayed so. Why bother to pick up a niche game and mainstream it? The only reason I can think of is to attract the old fans along. Which are precisely the people who disliked the changes. When they labeled they game Fallout 3 Bethesda made a compromise to make a *sequel*, and deliberately created an expectation on everyone who knew the first games. Then we receive a sequel not to Fallout 1 & 2 but to TES. So yeah, we're pretty pissed with Bethesda for that. What they did was pretty much con-artistry. They didn't have to acquire the Fallout franchise if they didn't want to cater to the old fans. They could have just made a new PA game and it would have sold just as well.

Actually, yes. If you don't like the game, don't play it, regardless of how much you paid for it. Beth didn't aim the game at you, you wouldn't have liked it if it were fallout 1 with new graphics. (Oh, they ruined the atmosphere!)

I'm going to lock this now. It really didn't start out strong, frankly, though I wanted to give it a fair chance. However, once you get into the "debate" over old fans are better than new fans, old games are better than new, there's not much to discuss beyond what amounts to an argument that is:
"Is too!" "Is not!"