ill try to answer a few of your questions....

i do admit that fallout 3 has a number of flaws, but it can be great fun if you can get past them. :fallout:

Fallout 1 : The godfather. I love this game to death on how the storyline features sadness, hapiness, excitement, and depression. Its a amazing mixture.

Fallout 2: The best fallout game I think. I loved it to death. And with mods to boot, I enjoy it even more.

Fallout 3: A worthy sequel. I enjoyed it very much and I love it to death. The only thing that makes me mad is some plot holes with the DLC's. The game itself was awesome. The only reason why I play it after all these DLC's is the mods I get from Nexus. So I think you should get it and enjoy it to the max. IT was meant to be played and will always be a true fallout.


Conclusion: To me, Fallout 2 was the best. But now a days, I have to say that because Fallout 2 is quite old, I say fallout 3 is a worthy sequel and a VERY fun game full of exploration and content.

They're very different games, designed at different times for very different fanbases and they have their own strengths and weaknesses. Fallout 1 and 2 are vastly overrated by many fans, but are still great games. People think liking the less mainstream games in the series makes them edgey and cool; well, it doesn't. Seriously. Each game should be enjoyed for what it is.

And, for the record, the original Fallout is my favorite.

Oblivion with guns? It's a lot more than that. It uses the same engine as Oblivion and feels somewhat familiar but I assure you, Fallout 3 is it's own game. And a great one too.

Atmosphere-wise FO3 is wery similar to FO1, it's harsh and depressing, nothing like circus-like FO2 with it's gangster atmosphere, primitive tribals, talking animals and countless not so hidden references to pop culture. Main storyline svck as much as it svck in FO2, but side quests are brilliant (well, like ones in FO2) and FO3 offers you wast territory to explore and it is really designed well, not like same plain dungeons in Oblivion. Only major drawbacks are boring dialogues and heavily censored advlt themes (except lots of gore). Also FO3 officially supports mods and has great tools for modding, so making your dreams Fallout is in your hands.

First of all the comparison is really hard as F3 is completely different from the previous 2, so I'm going to be bref.

Is it Oblivion with guns? Nah, I wouldn't go that far. But the game still reeks of Oblivion in more ways than it really should. I'd say that it just leans towards Oblivion too much and corrects it's mistakes when it should've been more in the middleground and evolve from Fallout 1 & 2 more than just settingwise. It just doesn't deliver in the same way. And no, I'm not (nor weren't prerelease) asking for an ISO/TB game, though I would've preferred it that way.

I'm of the thought that Fallout 3 is a good game and a passable sequel. The rpg mechanics and writing are not on par with previous games as F3 tries to be too much of a shooter (which I count for a fault), but I can live with that in hopes of some improvements in following games. The thing that disturbs me the most in this game is the downgraded difficulty. You level too fast and get too much supplies for the game to offer any kind of challenge (matter opinion, but I've seen more than few people agree with this).

F3 is a good game - even great - on its own merits, but as a sequel... just passable due to the too complete change of almost everything. It's closer the term "Oblivion with guns" than it should, but it is not "Oblivion with guns".

The Fallout games never had a repetitive character, in Fallout one there was Vault Dweller, in Fallout 2 you had The Chosen One, and in Fallout 3 you had the lone wanderer. Most creatures in Fallout 3 appear in previous games, Harold the tree also appeared in 1 & 2. The Brotherhood of Steel are always the protagonist faction in the game, with the Enclave as the antagonist faction. Fallout IV will most likely have a new playable character. Fallout 3 is not Oblivion with guns, who ever thinks that is an idiot.

Off topic but F2 is sick i love that [censored] bb gun

I personally like Oblivion better, but thats just because its more my type of game. FO3 is isnt really oblivion with guns, yes the controls are somewhat similar, but thats about as far as it gets to being anything like oblivion.

Yeah, a lot of younger players can't get past the graphics in older games. We old timers used to have to use our imagination a bit, which wasn't a bad thing, IMO. I loved Fallout and Fallout 2, but I've been a gamer since the early-mid '80s, so games that don't have OMGtehAw3sumGr4fx don't bother me too much. I understand it being shocking for younger gamers that have always been used to near-photo-realism in games, though.


I disagree with this. Visually Fallout 3 is more immersive, obviously, but there are a lot more things in Fallout 3 that make it difficult to suspend my disbelief than there were in the first two. There's a lot more to the story and game world of Fallout 3 that just doesn't make much sense than there was in Fallout and Fallout 2.

In some ways Bethesda packed different ways to play into Fallout 3, but in other ways they held it back. Some of the ways in which you can choose to play differently (like the good vs evil stuff in some places) feel a little heavy-handed and contrived rather than natural and real.

I like Fallout 3 a lot. I think it's a fantastic game, and the artwork is stellar. It's a decent sequel to the first two, but I prefer to appreciate it on its own rather than compare it to the first two games. Bethesda did a great job, but there's something missing from the atmosphere of the game that the first two had and Fallout 3 doesn't. I can't quite put my finger on it...it's just not as gritty and real as the first two were somehow.

For reference...I loved Morrowind and didn't care for Oblivion at all without tons of mods.

If you think the fat man is unrealistic, check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)

Good post. And wholeheartedly agreed as I could find my self from there. :thumbsup:

not november its late september

Pistol, have you ever played Fallout 1 or 2? Do you seriously believe that Vault 87 is a great explanation? That's a shoddy explanation and you know it.



Two, the Brotherhood does not have the resources to go cross continent in search of technology. If you actually ever played Fallout 1 and 2, you would know this. They did not have the transportation or manpower to be able to embark on such an expedition half way across the continent.



Three, if you played Fallout 1 or 2, you would know why Jet should be literally impossible to exist in Fallout 3. Fallout 3 portrays it as though Jet is a "Pre-War drug". Jet is a post war drug. Second, even if people tried to smuggle it from California to Washington D.C., do realize that they would first have to get past Raiders, Radscorpions, and all other sorts of dangers in the world.



Four, Fallout 3's setting does not make sense. It's been hundreds of years after nuclear detonation. Plant life and other sorts of forms of life should be thriving by then. Fallout 3's setting is as though this takes place maybe 10-20 years after the bombs hit, when in fact it's what, 200 hundred years or so give or take?



Five, Fallout 3's graphics is not anywhere near the top of the list. Try playing something other than a Bethesda game and you might find out about this game called Crysis. Oh yeah, other games exist, I forgot.





Here's a small list of canon inaccuracies between Fallout 3 and the first two :


1.)Super Mutants exist outside of Mariposa.
2.)Vault tech doing FEV research
3.)Ghouls are miraculously able to run about 30 mph, despite earlier games having all ghouls have crippled limbs, and specifically stating they are unable to run due to necrosis
4.)Jet is EVERYWHERE, even in pre-war places sealed since the apocalypse. Jet is a post-war drug - you actually get the inventor of Jet as a party member in Fallout 2.
5.)The G.E.C.K. never magically re-arranged your surroundings at the atomic level with the power of God. Canonically, the G.E.C.K. is simply a kit containing a wide variety of genetically engineered seeds, water purification tablets, an extensive library (the entire library of congress, actually), and a pen flashlight, amongst other things.
6.)The presence of Deathclaws
7.)Almost every weapon was changed, with no discernible reason WHY.




And contradict yourself much there Pistol? First you say Fallout 3 combat is difficult, yet you also say in FO 2 you can't kill anything without the most advanced weapons and armor? You can in fact finish Fallout 2 without the use of Power Armor. You just actually have to be decent at the game.




If you googled "Fallout Bible" which is a compilation of all the lore and canon straight from the original developers, you will find that there is alot of contradiction between Fallout 3 and the first two games.




In fact I do own the game. I play it, quite abit. I've beaten it, twice. It still isn't on the level of Fallout 1 or 2. I do like how you call Fallout 1 and 2 "mediocre" games, when in fact they both consistently are listed as two of the greatest games of all time.

Yep.

The Davy Crockett was not hand-held and didn't have such a ridiculously short range. Not really comparable.



Gameplay-wise, it is more similar to Oblivion than to Fallout.

Lulz people are calling the Fatman unrealistic? What about laser weapons? Plasma cannons? No one is complaining about those, it seems the statement that the Fatman is unrealistic is just a pitiful attempt to insult Fallout 3.

Hell, I think a BB gun that can tear through MK2 Tesla PA is unrealistic! Why is a BB gun one of the best guns in FO2?

Stop and think about this.

If this game had been called "Wasteland Wanderer" or "Post War Survivor" and totally disassociated with Fallout and TES games, would it still be good? Would it be able to be a success on its own merit?

I think so.

Why do we have to judge this game against the rest of the series or the other games by the same publisher? It's a great game all by itself.

If the new Fallout had turn-based combat, they'd lose me as a fan. Instantly. I didn't play the original Fallout or its sequel, but me thinks neither game was a best selling success that attracted so many awards and so many gamers. The success of Fallout 3 has to have more impact on the design of the next game in the franchise, than short-comings perceived by the original fans. hardcoe fans tend to hate change... see Star Trek for appropriate gimp arguments, and listen to the quiver in the high-pitched voices when change is announced. And then laugh, heartily... as they watch the next installment of anything Star Trek related en masse. Only to whine and moan about it, week in week out, without ever missing an episode. lol

If there are any Trekkies present I apologise, but you're a prime candidate for examples of geek and change-phobia, so no offense. :lmao:

Wow you couldn't understand the storyline? The story was so [censored] simple it seems like it was made by a retard in special ed. The whole time your just trying to activate project purity. How do you not understand that?

I think you can go take your condescending attitude and shove it up your ass, but let's wait for Pistolero's response.

As far as I'm aware yes Pistolero has played atleast F2. Hell he liked it so much he once joined this wonderful site called NMA to complain about F3. This is going off a post he made so I guess we'll see what he has to say whenever he's back online.

This thiiiiiiiiiiiiis.