So, I kind of got to thinking while mulling over Fallout and why Fallout 3 is actually a good thing.

Fallout 3 itself may not be the best example of a revival of Fallout, but as a game itself, you have to admit that it does stand pretty well on its own. Why? Sure, the recycling of factions such as the Enclave, the Brotherhood and other Fallout related 'buzzwords' is a bit like throwing it all in a blender and making a Fallout smoothie, but perhaps that's the point. I myself had never heard of Fallout until Fallout 3 and I fell in love with the series as I worked my way backwards playing Fallout, Fallout 2 and Fallout: Tactics the summer before New Vegas was released and read The Vault extensively. Now, while some will berate Fallout 3 as smashing lore in the face, it's not as bad as some like to claim, but it does give us too much vagueness to explain WHY. It just tells us a tree is growing bright and blooming right here in front of us, but it doesn't tell us WHY. This is a common issue with Bethesda in general though.

Fallout 3's biggest issue in many respects is that it:

A. A 'Cliffnotes' of sorts on what Fallout is and doesn't quite tell us why stuff in Fallout 3 is what it is, it just throws it at us and says 'This is a ball, it's also a cat.' Why does this make sense? Well, we're never really told why, which is a problem since, in general, lore is best when it provides us with answers we need in certain points.

B. Fallout 3, I feel, operates under the pretext of 1. you've played Fallout games in the past and/or 2. you're brand new to the series and it's expected you'll buy the previous Fallout titles and learn more of the series and lore on your own.

C. Focuses so heavily on post-apocalyptic doom, gloom and chaos and a free roam open world, somewhere along the way they completely forget to tell us the 'why' of thing. We don't know WHY Rivet City is there, it just is. We don't know WHY Canterbury is there, it just is. We don't know WHY Vault 87 has an isolated sample of FEV, it just does. Things like this don't matter on a superficial in the moment setting, but in discussions common amongst fans it can cause quite a rift in opinions.

In the end, I don't think Fallout 3 is 'bad', it's just that it's a rebooting of an older game that not many have heard of prior to Fallout 3 than after release that tried to accomplish so much that it became overly ambitious and neglected things in key areas, but for the purpose it intends, to get new faces to play the older installments, I think it does its job decently well. The problem from there lies with spoiled gamers obsessed with graphics who see Fallout and Fallout 2 as irrelevant and unimportant to play. So I think Bethesda in its aims succeeded in what it wanted to create, but failed to take into account picky/spoiled users who don't like 'old' games and graphics. Does this make Fallout 3 perfect? No, but it's better than a lot of users give it credit for.

Thoughts and opinions?

I cannot say it is bad, it was my first glimse of the fallout world and it has kept me in that universe for years and years:D there are things I love and do not love, but it is still one of my favorite games!

Fallout 3 is for me the culmination of shooters like Quake and Doom, id software on the decline, Bethesda's Fallout 3 team on the rise. Years ago Quake 3 was the most played online shooter, very very bloody, but compared to Fallout 3 - well, let's say it found it's master.

Eh, In my opinion it's a pretty bad "fallout" game, mostly because it doesn't even try to gold up what the originals focused on. C&C, branching quests, morally grey, and so forth with it's story. What they focused on was a TES game in fallout skin. Black and white story, exploration for exploration sake with little interaction between the "attractions" hence why alot of people refer to it as a "theme park". Linear gameplay, and shallow game world. Not to mention the as you said recycling of faction that have no reason to be there with little to no or even lore breaking reason to be there.

The overarcing problem with Fallout 3 is that it doesn't work like a Fallout game on any level; it just does what it does regardless of what it tries to continue and be a part of. People didn't like it because it was a Fallout title, but becasue it was just another Bethesda freeroam sandbox -- the same people would've liked it regardless of what it was called.

Even if ignoring the title, I found the game boring and largely meaningless. No interesting systemic quirks to elevate the gameplay from being utterly uninspired FPS-like, no narrative intrigue or proper choices and consequences but just lazily knitted together set pieces, it's all about disjointed random pastime activities where nothing matters or has any focus or relevance. In my opinion it is a well crafted all around mediocre to bad game that charms with its visual design and Beth tradenark overdone freedom that nulls all possibilities for the given freedom to actually pay off and provide the sense that what you do matters, things to consider about.

As a post-apocalyptic adventure it's good. As a Fallout it's a train wreck.

I disagree with all your points. Things don't have to make sense. Ive not played, not do I intend on ever playing any past fallout games. And the reason why Rivit City is the way it is, thats not necessary for the game. Perhaps that knowledge is lost, who knows, who cares? The fact of the matter is, you are FOTV, and dont know squat. Its a huge ship that is now grounded and it is a city. The end. I don't need any more "why" then what I get because it doesnt matter to me. Things are the way they are, and I am just surviving as best as I can. That is "Fallout" to me.

No. It's worse.

It is a golden turd. If you were only to play FO3 once or twice, and especially if you never played a FO game before, upon first playing it is a fantastic pretender. It makes you think some of your choices actually matter, and you can be so in awe of the world that you almost don't pay attention.

But when you start peeling back the layers, you find a stinky turd. Not just as a Fallout game, but as a roleplaying game in general, and frankly, while improved, the same problems exists with Skyrim.

And while I like FONV much more than 3, FONV has it's problems as well. While FO3 is black and white, NV is just too damn grey. IMO a great game won't have you thinking in color schemes, it will just leave you thinking wow.

Both FO3 and NV suffer from lore factor. Neither game gives much in regards to what is going on anywhere else, or what happened. There are some comments about things, but most are vague and just lead to debate. If you look at the transition from FO1 and 2, you have a really good idea what happened in the years between games, with some questions. In 3, there is basically nothing but a few vague comments.

But, I have faith. I would like to think that things can't get any worse than 3, and Beth will see the criticism of their games(story, C&C) and they will up their game. As far as new fans, I think they mostly see the gold because they don't chip away the paint to find the turd.

I think a list of flaws would be endless.

But if you may, i think that Fo3 not only creates expectations from its name, and the legacy of two of the best RPG in the whole history, since man was able to use fire, but it also have issues with introducing its features.

There is the issue of why many things happen. There is the issue of Beth trying to do too much things in the same time, that, in the end, they succeed in none of them. If they were less ambitious, maybe they would have done better. Maybe they would have reached the quality of Fallout:Tactics. (You can argue that FOT have a few inconsistencies with other titles, but if you don't count it as a Fo, it have zero flaws on his own.)

Another problem is that when you play Fo3, the game let you believe in things that are not there.

- When you make a choice, you believe there will be consequences.

- When you have a dialog with multiple choices, you believe you are in an RPG.

- When you hear Eden/3dogs on the radio, it creates a build up of expectation for an upcoming meeting. (which turn up underwhelming to say the least)

- You hear many times about some factions, that aren't really treated as factions in-game. (Talon, SM, Chinese...)

- It introduces a conflict between two BOS, that never actually pays off.

- You start the game with two locations that have an average population. You expect as much if not more in other settlements. Turns out the ingame average is less than 10 people.

- There are many terminal and holodisk that make you think the game is more serious that it is. Then you meet aliens, vampires and the ant woman.

- It introduce immortal children and force you to do a quest for magical jerkass children in THE MAIN QUEST. So you can't finish without pleasing them.

- You see a continuous gameworld, but there is magical fast-travel.

- The world is big, but 80% of locations are copy pasted.

- I also believe that the demo was only about the demo. So it doesn't tell much about the rest of the gameworld.

- And so on...

You can say that those things are harmless, or not important for you but contrary to FOT, the game actually let you believe it is better than it is, so you can keep going, until you gone too far not to finish it. So the most time you play the game while you are introduced in plot-point that you think will pay-off later. But in fact, later is the same as never.

The comparison with Borderlands 2 comes to my mind.

A few months ago, it was free to try it for a few days. (a very nice thing that all publisher should do)

I played like an hour or two.

In that period, i had the time to understand what the game was about.

It is a shooter with so few RPG elements (mainly crafting and the ability to choose mission) that you don't consider it as an RPG.

It doesn't take itself seriously and doesn't make much sense.

There is a lot of improbable features, like an in-universe resurrection system, some graphics that cannot get old, as they are not meant to be realistic.

The dialogs have no depht but they are funny. It doesn't deal with post-nuclear societies issues, but with post-nuclear aesthetic.

You can like these or not, but at least, during these first few hours, you know exactly what kind of game you are playing, and can choose to buy it or not, to continue it or not, with all those features & tones establishing moments in mind. If you choose to play it until the end, you know why.

But still, if you call a game Fallout 3, you cannot expect people not to compare it with Fallout 1 & Fallout 2.

I would have prefered them to come up with their own post-apocalyptic franchise. (or only hire people that can make it, like they did with FoNV)

If it were the case, you may have loved it or not, but if you didn't like it, you would have move on and forget about it, like i did with many games in which the first episode didn't suit me. (i rarelly start a franchise with a late episode. Only two cases come in my mind)