I consider it a fps. Most fps will put you in a role to immerse you more in the game.

As a hardcoe FPS player, I can't consider it an FPS. It is for certain an FPS/RPG hyrbid but not a pure FPS.

I'm not a hardcoe FPS player, in fact I fairly svck at shooters - and I don't consider Fallout 3 an FPS.

Here's a question for the "hybrid" camp - would you say that Fallout 3 plays liks an FPS with "RPG elements" or like an RPG with an "FPS-style interface"?

FPS with RPG elements

FPS with RPG elements, the RPG mechanics in the game are oversimplified compared to many "true" RPGs. I like to use the following benchmark, which is a useful one because the game content is quite similar:

System Shock 2 = RPG with FPS interface
Bioshock = FPS with RPG twist


I really can't emphasise enough how good a game System Shock 2 really is, it is one of the only "hybrid" RPGs I have played that has had a skills/development system deep enough to pass for a "true" RPG.

i think id call it an adventure game with fps/rpg elements and roleplaying capabilities.

Of all the console games out there, I'd personally say that Fallout 3 falls in line with the rest. Mass Effect I found to be quite a bit different each time I played with a different type of character. I have yet to be terribly suprised with anything I came across in subsequent playthroughs of Fallout 3. It's still just a good/bad decision in this game, and most of the people you encounter don't even really seem to care one way or another. They had said that playing a "neutral" path was going to be a viable option (I'm still not really sure what that's supposed to mean) but it seems more about switching back and forth from being good one day and evil the next.

Like most of the games you mention, in Fallout 3 if you really don't want to get in any fights, it's going to take a lot of running away from stuff, or spending the entire game in sneak mode (mostly the running, I think - you're going to miss a lot of sneaks rolls throughout the game.) You could do the same thing in KOTOR, sneak past enemies you don't want to fight - you even have many opportunities to use guile or the Force to get yourself out of sticky situations instead of fighting.

Fallout 3's meant to be a combat-heavy game. It's certainly an option to not kill anything you don't want to, but the game isn't really set up for that to be a main selling point. Even if you're playing a diplomatic character, or a sneaky-type - you're going to find yourself in a large number of firefights. I've heard that you can get through the game only having to kill the one radscorpion at the beginning of the game, but I think you'd have to really know the game in order to do that - I don't think it's something you could succesfully do the first time through the game. Even most of the quests are set up with combat in mind - to not pretty much go in and kill everything that moves (even if you do it all with sneak attacks) would be to do things in a way the developers hadn't considered.

That sounds like Fallout 3 to me, as well. The only thing that's different is the number of sidequests in the game - and I would argue that Mass Effect is a more focused and better paced game because it didn't get bogged down in all the expository sidequests that only serve as one-off quests that don't tie into anything else. There's kind of a "forest for the trees" thing going on in F3. There's tons of neat things, but I think it also loses focus because of all the stuff they tried to cram in. I'd rather see more focus on the storytelling and the main quest (and tying the sideplots back into the MQ) than a ton of sideplots and locations that only exist for their own sake.

I'm not saying Fallout 3 isn't a really good game - I rather enjoy it. But it's not really so much different from many other console RPGs out there (and it's another matter altogether if you take PC games into account.)

thats the thing bethesda does best and an important reason why i play their games, its not just about the mechanics that you can call it rpg or not, but you can actually roleplay many different characters.

i really like the fact that many (if not most of them) arent tied in anyway with the MQ, people have their own troubles, and many factions dont really care about your search for dad thats gives choices to you, i want to be a wasteland nazi i can do it and the MQ doesnt interfere with that roleplay. i want a mix of very developed quests with simple quests that give that feeling of everyday life and that the world doesnt act only around you.

my second time through mass effect i didnt even finish the planetary collection quests.
the only things that changed were my skills and the boring, for me, decision to go the bad route
on a given situation. i stopped doing most of the side quests (i guess you could call em that) because
they were worthless except to inch me a bit more towards paragon, etc.

in fallout3, morrowind and oblivion i truely feel a part of the gameworld.

as far as the fighting, i didnt mean to imply its not combat heavy. it is and i enjoy it. my point is depending on my
mood on a given day i can choose to play a numerous different ways. sneak, let someone fight for me, fight, run, whatever...

personally, i think some of the sidequests and the way they tie into the game overall are some of the best ever implemented.
its that character/world interaction karma/charisma thang. lol. its sorta like what Peter Moly. does a good job of yappin about
but not actually implementing. its what alot of us want but its tough to do.

for example- the 3dog radio quest has a great reason for doing it: unlimited radiowave distance. its a true in-game reward.

for me, the mass effect, kotor, jade empire quests are 'generic' sides compared to Bethesda's 3 top games.

btw, dont want to sound like i dont agree with some of your points because i actually agree with a lot of yours and others...

sounds like i need to try systemshock!

Well, the level design is actually very similar to Fallout 3's, System Shock was one of the more popular games that started that shooting/hacking turrets/stealth etc, type of gameplay. It really plays quite similar to Fallout 3 in some ways. But it's not the same sort of RPG, either - it's more like Bioshock in that aspect (well, it is the spiritual successor to System Shock...) It's relatively linear and contained. But if you enjoy the "dungeon" areas in Fallout 3, System Shock has a lot of that. (Plus, they're not attempting to do a bunch of other stuff at the same time, so the level design is a bit more focused.)

To all the peopel saying Fallout 3 is a good game but not a sequel to Fallout1 and 2.

Do you consider Warcraft 3 a sequel to Warcraft 1 and 2?

Because its about as similar as FO 3 is to FO1 and 2.

It went from a an RTS focused on massing units as quickly as possible and as many as possible to a nearly squad based strategy game focused around heros.

It really seems like a lot of the people who are critics of the game just want Fallout 1 with better graphics.

ah, thanks.

actually, i was thinking about getting the baldur's gate2 pc duo. i dont normally play pc games
but they seem to be my type of game...

Goal: Kill every single person in the wasteland =/

Fixed.

That's why I can understand why a lot of people are peeved at FO3.

Interestingly enough though, I didn't mind the switch from TB/ISO to FPS. But it seemed to me that it came at a cost to RP. There are mods out there that do a better job at porting the original Fallout elements to an FPS style of gameplay. :shrug:

I don't consider Warcraft 3 anything, I never played it. Better yet, what does that have to do with FO3 being stripped of anything that made the S.P.E.C.I.A.L system and immersion great.

And why would that justify anything o_O


I would never expect a Fallout sequel in 2008 to be TB/ISO either. And there are no mods I know of that fix anything worth saving from previous games. Some have the right idea but don't come close. I would love you to prove me wrong and point me towards a mod that fixes the S.P.E.C.I.A.L and brings back AC/individualised DR system for armour. That would make me grin from ear to ear

Actually yes, because gameplay is pretty much similar to what you're expecting as a fan of the original games. It's pretty much the same gameplay mechanics but with lots of new wrinkles that lead to different tactics. If you're familiar with Warcraft 1, you can pretty much step right into Warcraft 3 and know what's going on. I didn't even need to read the manual to figure out what was going on in Warcraft 3, it played exactly the same, right down to most of the commands. You can't do that going from Fallout 2 to Fallout 3, it's entirely different gameplay. Based on that alone, I have trouble seeing Fallout 3 as a sequel - but it's not that big of a deal to me, either. I don't put much stock in the name.

No, I'd prefer if we had the same story as Fallout 3, just with gameplay (improved, with new features of course) that was more similiar to Fallout 1 (well, Tactics at least, since that was an improvement of the original system.) And better graphics, of course.

I'm a fan of turn-based games, that's really all it is. I liked Fallout 1 and 2 because they were turn-based - I enjoyed the gameplay mechanics. It was also a very nice and deep RPG, but that was icing on the cake - I'd have played that game if it were set in a Fantasy setting, too.

You and me both man. Sadly, there's no total conversion mod out yet.

I take what I can get though. And there are a few that fix things here and there to make them closer to the originals. Sent you a list.

As nu_clear_day said before me... It is a sequel, but the better example IMO is to have asked it as "Do you consider WoW a sequel to Warcraft 3" ~Which it is patently not for the same reasons that Fallout 3 is patently not (In Many Opinions).

Fallout 1 with better graphics is not what I would want; I'd take Fallout 3 with Fallout 1's graphics if the game did the rest of it right ~The graphics are hardly important at all.

I am so glad that Fallout 3 is not turned based. That would be patently dumb and definitely a step backwards in my book.

For a next in line sequel to a Turn based combat RPG? Right.

For what reason exactly? I don't mind the game as it is and would have bought the survival edition instead of the standard edition if only they had labeled it truthfully ~as a new title set in the Fallout world. Numbering it as a sequel is disingenuous IMO.

For a combat system, it would have been nice to have a choice. VATS is a poor replacement and has no strategic elements. These companies target sugar pumped kids with little to no attention span that eat up games as long as they have the word 'action' in the genre title. The standard has dropped as graphical capability has increased. And you're left with a very smooth turd.

Black Isle did not sell Fallout to Bethesda... Black Isle was destroyed by Interplay; IIRC they were all suddenly laid off a few days before Christmas that year.

I have to agree that V.A.T.S. is poor attempt to make the game a bit strategic, but I think without it, the game would just end up being a standard FPS with skills governing your effectiveness (which it almost is).

Just read my sig for all I have to say about that...

Yeah, I'd have had some real trouble getting into this game without it (I'm not very good at shooter games.) I have enough trouble keeping my cross-hairs over a Behemoth while I'm waiting for VATS to recharge, I shudder to think how I would have done without something to fall back on.

If you want tactics, why are you using VATS?

EDIT:

Oh geez, not this shooter thing again.