First time you saw an Outcast team scouring the Wastes for tech with a sentry in tow. First time you came across a BoS Initiate clearing a street of Super Mutants. There must be something, dude. I played Two Worlds which was dire, but it had its memorable moments. Prey, crap, had its moments. Quake 4, as a Quake fan I hated it, but it had its moments. Off the top of my head I can think of at least a dozen quests in FO3 that were a lot of fun to play. I never did play Fallout 1 & 2, but if I had and was a fan of them, me thinks there'd be plenty of elements in Fallout 3 I'd have been impressed with the first time around.

Anyhoo, I have bag full of memories for those 'first-time' instances on FO3, good and bad, ergo, vis-?-vis, concordantly... it has its memorable bits. Maybe you just have a bad memory?

So, and I'm not trying to be smart here...or nasty, but if you haven't liked any Beth game, and one must assume that Beth isn't going to drastically alter their approach anytime soon, why are you here? Why do you care enough about this to keep posting? FO4 will likely be the typical Beth game, as will the Fallout after that, and the Fallout after that. Might be incrementally better, but that might be all you can hope for, so why bother?

You could be playing Dragon Age, or whatever, instead.

I maintain that if you compare FO3 to most other games right now, you'll be glad it was made.

I've said many times that I like Fallout 3; just because I find it shallow and not particularly memorable doesn't mean I hate it. I play games for entertainment, and not for awesome memories. If I do get great memories out of the experience then that's a a happy plus, and means that it is far more likely I'll replay the game at some point.

Sneaking isn't really practical in F3, and no, you can't finish the main quest by simply talking. Also, my point was that in F1 (and to a lesser extent, F2), you had to actually have a strategy as to how you're going to build your character and distribute points, because 1- skills mattered, and 2- there were plenty of opportunities to use them. In F3, on the other hand, skills don't really matter, you'll (whether you want it or not) end up maxing most if not all of them, and at any rate there are barely any spots in which which skills you use actually make the smallest difference.

I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. FO3 is the most compelling game (IMO) of the most recent crop of games going. I've spent plenty of time with Dragon Age now and I'm not on their forum, I'm here. I'm not pushing that crack monkey button of stealing an hour to play a bit more like I was with Fallout, like I was with any of the Fallouts or Baldur's Gate or Arcanum or heck Civilization (any of them)!

But then, I'm a Seeker-type (according to some Gamer personality type test) and so I'm drawn to experiencing the new and exploring and such. FO3 is a classic I will look back upon fondly and revisit - and I won't be alone.

I'm playing both as well, and although I'm enjoying the dialogue and characterization, I don't see any real potential for replayability. SAme was true in the first Fallouts as well. Sure, you might try different skills combinations, but the world doesn't change, and the dialogue doesn't change enough for me to warrant a replay. A couple runs through FO1 was plenty for me. Yet according to the map in the Prima guide, there are still a few locations I haven't been in FO3, so there are more places to explore.

It all depends on what you want in a game. Do you want to explore PLACES, or do you want to explore WAYS of using those places? We can't ever seem to get both.

What do you mean by 'ways of using places'?
Does that mean 'explore the looks of a place vs. find things you can do in it'...
Because if that's it, then we absolutely should be able to get both! At least today and in games with a high budget, not getting both is quite a big fault.

Fallout 3 clearly suffered from trying to do too much. My main problems with the game are mechanical. Glitches and bugs, lack of realism, clunky animation, lack of mapping, and of course, VATS.

The story is lack luster, and feels less dire that one would be led to believe. Weapons are pathetically lacking in diversity. Weight limits are just weird. Third person is a total failure and should not have even been there as bad as it was. The beautiful textures are ruined by holes in rock faces, and fugly animations. Conversation trees are just all screwed in some places.

Game is still entertaining. I like to play it, and play it for hours, but it just should have been better. I do consider it a good Fallout game though, and FPS is a good way to go for gameplay style, but it was just not implemented as well as it should, and could have been. I think they need to find a new game engine, and maybe some half decent animators.

I don't find the story lacklustre, because I spent so little time on it. Stripped to its bare minimum as a 'main quest' and forgetting the fact you had to traverse a world full of side-quests and new places to explore through glorious visuals, then yeah, I agree the story was lacklustre. But forcing the player to 'find dad' in some places can lead you off the beaten path, and having so many other encounters means that most players' first-time through will differ vastly from one another's. I doubt that was so in the first games. You're on the 'main quest' but are forced to generate an advenure through everything else on offer, before you pick up on the 'main quest' again and march on. That makes the 'main quest' something memorable, not lacklustre.

Weapons being pathetically lacking in diversity? Compared to what? Full-fledged FPSs like Quake 4 and Unreal T3 have weapons that differ but it is mostly aesthetic when you consider how they feel. Crosshair + head = instant death. Crosshair + compensate for delay + fire = death. In FO3 it's usually crosshair + fire = you might hit it depending on how the gun fires this time, how it should or randomly inaccurrate. In FO3 you have a wider selection of pistols, rifles, and heavy artillery than you do on most full-fledged run and gun FPSs, and they work differently enough to be classed as different guns. lol It's not like guns have many functions beyond pointing the working end at a target and pulling the trigger. The 10mm feels like a Chinese Pistol... the Assault Rifle feels like the Chinese Assault Rifle, nothing feels like the Hunting Rifles, and regular weapon don't feel anything like Energy Weapons. But they are different enough.

Weight limits, meh. I didn't play in third person the first time but now I play mostly with a view as close to the shoulder as possible, unless I'm looking for traps while climbing a stairwell of something. You are zooming into the shoulder view on third person ain't ya? Cos I don't see how it fails. You'll have to offer a reason why it fails, I'm afraid. The beautiful textures are far removed from the original games, and having minor holes every thousand metres in terrain isn't enough to glance at the entire product and say it's ruined. I'd agree with the animations, and yeah that's an engine thing. I've seen worse though. Ferals and Super Mutants are well animated, facials animation is okay during conversations. The only thing that can throw you is humans coming at you and breaking your reality because they appear rigid. If they didn't appear so they'd need more time to move and be slowed down, which would make them appear to be sliding as they came at you during the animation. If they had to move by step they'd be easy targets. It' not like Assassin's Creed where you can have intricate animations during a fight, you have to animate enough to give the appearance of movement and speed, whilst still having a functional opponent. The animation isn't so different from the Strogg in Quake 4 or the Bots in UT3, or the Splicers in BioShock. Under scrutiny they all look pretty rigid.

I just got into Fallout 1, and I don't know what all the fuss is about. I mean, alot of Fallout 1's problems seemed EXACTLY the same as they were in Fallout 3. For example, the dialogue doesn't make sence sometimes but there's quite alot of gems of writing in there. Same as with Fallout 3. Then, there's alot of cool random encounters and the combat can give you a smile on your face alot of the time, just like Fallout 3!

I also don't get all the fuss about the BoS in Fallout 3, I went to Lost Hills and the elder there was a freaking idiot! The East Coast BoS is much better with technology and better with alot of things like combat and science.

Yeah ok the raiders were cooler in Fallout 1 and 2, but that's only a small thing.

But anyway, I guess because alot of the old die-hard fans just had so much fun with the game the first time, and the games' formula hasn't improved, so they already had such an experience and it didn't thrill them anymore, even tough it's just as good.

I'd like to see some examples of what you consider bad dialog in FO1 - because as far as I'm concerned, the quality of dialog in FO1 is of the highest ever in a game.
(I like it more than the dialog of the sacred PS:T.... oh... and I like it a lot more than the dialog of FO2 by the way.)
It's witty and -intentionally- funny.

On the other hand, it's pretty well accepted that dialog is one FO3 worst problems.
At best, it's functional.
Maybe it has to do with Bethesda switching to a more 'traditional' dialog system in their last two games.
The topic dialog system used in Daggerfall and Morrowind (haven't played Arena) was purely functional - it didn't bother me that it showed no wit or personality, because it wasn't supposed to, it was simply supposed to provide you with information, and as such, it was a very good system and it worked perfectly. I'm actually kind of sorry they dropped it - even more so since their current approach doesn't have the literary value it requires to be good.

I have seen some reviews bashing fo3 dialog and personally I don't see all that much difference between the dialog between the games.

I think the big thing to remember here is everyone in fo3 is a 'talking head' and that creates a different experience.

Also.. I think most wastelanders think the player is a snobby tool dummy.. Cuz yer a vault dweller and haven't 'lived' the wastes.

Best way to describe this is I'm a city slicker who moved to small hick town and it funny talking to them cuz they think I'm an idiot even if they were a hs drop out.

There are some very funny dialog options in fo3 just like in the previous games. The t51 comment to seagrave. Calling agatha a prosttute is priceless as is telling bryan wilkes his dad is ant food. Telling lesko you could decorate the walls with brains good too. Lol.

One thing that is dumb in for sure fo2 and maybe fo1 but it been awhile is having to cycle through the same conversation over and over again to build up respect. In fact that the only way to get in good with salvatore for quest reward and the only way to get captain of the guard with first tool lynette(along with cha 8+)... At least that I know of.

Anyway I have never played a game under the impression cormac mccarthy wrote the dialog.

Personally I think the talking heads factor plays a big role.

I didn't say it was bad or poorly written, I said it doesn't make sense sometimes.

But there's a lot of cool dialogue in F3

When you talk to cerberus in Underworld and he says how ghouls are people too and deserve love, respect, etc. And then he says "At least thats what they programmed me to say, personally I think they are a bunch of rotting zombie maggot farms, and i'd send them all back to hell if I could, DAMN THIS COMBAT INHIBITOR!!!"

Cl. Autumn talking to the Wanderer:
"You're going to tell me the code to the purifier and you're going to tell me now."
"No. [censored] you."
"Why do you insist on provoking me!? Give me the code, NOW!"
"No, seriously. [censored] you."

Liberty-prime's dialogue:

"DEATH IS A PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE TO COMMUNISM."

"EMBRACE DEMOCRACY, OR YOU WILL BE ERADICATED."

"FREEDOM... IS THE SOVEREIGN RIGHT OF EVERY AMERICAN."

I'd agree that a lot of dialog does not make sense but I'd say the big gap is fo2.

In fo1 and 3 you are a vault dweller. So you got an education and should have access to computers and pre war info. Movies discs etc.

Yet in fo2 you grew up tribal. No computers or tech. Yet unless you take low int you are a fairly smooth cat.

I still think most wastelanders look down on you for being a vaulty and that does or should make a difference if you take that into consideration.

Better writing would be good, but I didn't think the writing deserved some of the bashing I have seen.

Plus one thing I remember seeing bashed was 'I'm looking for my father a middle-aged guy' and that so reminded me of 'I'm looking for a GECK do you have one?' Which you could ask A LOT in fo2.. Personally I thought the father thing was hilarious but I guess I'm the only person who thought it was a FO2 reference..

Anyway I like all 3 games and think a lot of stuff is fairly similar as far as story, mood, and environment goes.

these are not examples of bad dialog from FO1
These look more like examples of not-very-good dialog from FO3! (though the underworld robot was pretty fun I admit)
Honestly what do you think is so noteworthy with:
"You're going to tell me the code to the purifier and you're going to tell me now."
"No. [censored] you."
"Why do you insist on provoking me!? Give me the code, NOW!"
"No, seriously. [censored] you."

Here, see it in comparison to a similar dialog from FO1:

"Now what do we have here? I've been told you wish to divulge information of the utmost importance. I do hope so."
"Not to someone as ugly as you."
"An insult. How droll. I'd define that word for you, but that would be a waste, wouldn't it. Let's get to your two choices: You can tell me what I want to know. Or I can do it . . . my way."
"Okay, but on one condition."
"Conditions? How delightful. Go ahead, amuse me with your . . . condition.
"Put a bag over your head so I can stand being in your presence."

A bit more interesting that "Give me the code, NOW! - No. [censored] you." isn't it?



But a GECK is not something as obscure as "a middle-aged guy"! I see middle-aged guys that I don't know all the time...
The GECK is a unique thing that someone in the FO world might potentially have seen one during his lifetime - it doesn't need further description - if you have one you would know it.

That was a conversation between you and the Supermutant lieutenant no ?

And I agree, it's ten times more superior to the Autumn dialogue in F03. Some random "F*** you" can't be even comparable.

BTW: Fallout 3 story was a complete lack luster for me.

Fallout 1 and 2 have their dialoges, Fallout 3 has better graphics and a little faster gameplay. For me the old Fallouts and the new Fallout are awesome in their own ways... But if I have to choose between one of them I'd pick Fallout 3.
It's a big world... I've played every DLC but Mothership Zeta. There are a lot of places you can go. A lot of people you can talk with or just shoot (if you're some [censored] madman )
Also Fallout 3 is not turn based. And I'm not realy a big fan of turn based. It just takes out the adrenalin out of some situations.
There are some funny moments in Fallout 3 - Remember the Mole Rat race? Or maybe the rigged guy down in D.S. that was yelling? Or even the random encounters of people who say they're rigged, run 10 meters and explode? And ofcourse last but not least - That young fella that tries to steal caps from you with an empty gun?

Enough with the autocensor bypassing. Continue that and warns will be issued. Also, please respect one another's opinions in this thread.

Note the caution with why this thread was allowed to stay open in the first place: