You could've done it yourself. Why a frontal assault cross the bridges? Why not a sneaky night attack, just swim over the river and take them all out yourself. You could do that, taking out less than a plutoon of soldiers, since you could take out their airforce base and land crawler all by yourself.

But you still had to do everything in the main mission for the BoS. You didn't get a choice of who you could help. There was only one choice, since if you want to complete the game, you can't role play that your character doesn't like the BoS. Or well, you can, but you still gotta help them in everything and Lyons'd be like "oh, you're such a good person for helping us and doing the right cause" and inside your head you think like "[censored] you, I just help you because I have to. In my spare time I blow up nukes in junktowns, leave innocent androids to their evil masters, enslave children and eat humans alive, and I'd rather help the Enclave with their cause (but they won't let me) they are better organized, have a better plan, and then I'm gonna wipe the BoS out (but Bethesda won't let me... untill I get Broken Steel, but I still have to kill the Enclave all over again).


And why is that? Why are we only given one option? Or wait, we are forced one option rather, because if we don't take that option, then we can't finish the game. Why couldn't Bethesda have fleshed out other faction, like actually helping the Enclave (putting that virus in the water barely does anything, and they still shoot at you, and then blowing up the Citadel doesn't help the Enclave either because you still have to kill them and Raven Rock is still gone and all that) or why not joining the Super Mutants like you could in Fallout 1? Why don't the Super Mutants have a leader, either? They, if any, need leadership. I would have liked to talk to a leader similar to Lou... (also, off topic, but why is there nothing about why the mutants are in D.C.? They need more FEV, why can't we go look for it and destroy it/sell it/give it to them? And why can't BoS do anything about the Mutants even if you tell them about where they all spawn from? Would make life soooo much easier for BoS, but would of course make post-end gameplay too boring for the TES fans.)

I don t roger here. I was level 7 in my 1st play through hard/hardcoe. I knew where Benny was I said f this Im going to Vegas baby Fastest route.... right off the Goodsprings Cemetary. My best weapons were a 9mm sub and a plasma pistol with some oc rounds. Not even a follower

Sure I died about 17 times by Cazadors and Deathclaws, but I made it down to the road and went into vault 19. (running from a deathclaw) Yeah the nightstalkers in vault 19 killed me like 5 times and the fire geckos killed me several times as well at such a low level, but my video game guy was a harder man because of it. So u still can go where ever you want when ever u want.

Well Savage Beatings I think that may be why they brought in Obsidian. Now me personally Im for a solid ending and knowing what is canon the second I do my first playthrough. That doesn t mean that everyone else thinks like me.

So I just don t know what to say. Now I m no rpg freak, but I have played them. Not every rpg out there has 5 drastically different endings. With me when nv started pushing me around at the end I was thinking "why can t I do this?? I will let me do this but not this I think this would be the best" To me games can t match most human brains on levels of critical thinking. So when a game trys to raise the level of critical thinking my brain starts to outsmart the game.

Like right now all the ncr r standing there waiting for President Kimbell to show up, but the dude has been dead for like a week. This is because I tried outsmarting the game to get the ending I really wanted. Well I did outsmart the game, but just not in the way I wanted to.. damn Im on ps3 countinued

So in the long run I pay for all this critical thinking. I think they think I killed Kimbell, because they called me a murderer and shot me, but only a couple times. Then I go tell Moore Kimbell is dead and she s like ok I knew this would happen now go talk to the General and lets win this, but she just shot me outside and called me a murderer. I was with Yes man when Kimbell got killed. Yes man says I should go save the NCR pres but my only responses were "they hate me they ll never let me near him" and "I don t care about Kimbell" Did not give me the option to go save him, but when I went to the dam they acted like he was still alive and put me on his protection detail. He never showed up because he was already dead. So they called me a murderer.

The only reason I broke out Yes Man was to send the securitrons to back NCR, but I couldn t do that either. No option with a robot named Yes Man to send House s securitrons to back NCR.
Then with House he wanted me to kill bos, but I was bos. GD ps3

OK sorry I can t edit and add on ps3. So it doesn t give me the option of telling House I m already bos. He might have tried to kill me, or he may have changed his route, but no option to tell him.

So all that pisses me off way more than a story like fo3 where it doesn t try to play critical thinking in the end. I m smarter than a game. I like choices and thinking, but not what I have written above. What the answer is IDK. Some people love it I don t. A chance to get with Talon Comp. in fo3 would have been fine. The main story made me hate Enclave so much that none of my 5 characters and 2400hrs of game play did I ever want to help them. Even my character that helped kidnap kids to be sold as slaves, because Enclave was messing with my dead family s dream. Even most bad guys like their mommies.

It s just me, but the writing in fo3 served its purpose. I didn t have that big mess going on in fo3 that I had in nv. A game can t out critical think humans. fo3 didn t try to....

I've spent more time playing FO3 than FNV and I think I prefer it. FNV is a more refined work in many ways though, more believable without being completely serious. FNV was of course more like the originals, but that isn't neccessarily a good thing. Those old games had loads of flaws as well.

I always thought that with FO3 they didn't know exactly how to pitch it, particularly in relation to the series. A lot of the ideas were taken from the originals. It was like "this worked before, so will work again". It was almost like they didn't realise that people would evaluate it in terms of it's consistency with the earlier games. As a fan of the originals, I was never offended by this sort of thing, just thought it was a bit tentative.

The things that I liked most about Fallout 3 were the atmosphere, theme, music and the exploration. The idea of that '50s Americana vibe and the feeling that the war was still a fairly recent event. That's what made it really addicting for me. Trolling around a scorched wasteland while Malcolm McDowell's soothing voice coos reassurance in your ears with pro-American propaganda. Blowing someone's head off to the tune of Bob Crosby and Roy Brown.

A lot of the experience of playing the game is what made it memorable. To be honest, there wasn't much about Fallout 3 that I didn't like. I was so busy enjoying it that most of it's flaws were only reviewed in hindsight.

On the flip side, I found New Vegas lacking in the things that made me love Fallout 3. Obsidian looked to make it deeply written and very story/choice driven (certainly not bad qualities to have). But I found it difficult to "get into" so to speak. I disliked 80% of what was on the radio and much preferred the Inon Zur style of music to Mark Morgan (meaning nothing ambient was enjoyable). Wayne Newton's voice was grating on the nerves (not something I could listen to idly). The terrain and much of the atmosphere, rather than being '50s, felt too western/country/twangy (hate country). A lot of seemingly explorable areas seemed off limits or to contain nothing of use or interest. I disliked the blue sky and how it wasn't a nuclear wasteland. Another problem I had with NV is that they built to many things to such grandeur/realism but didn't fill them either with something of value or NPCs. There were many areas that were just big but seemed completely empty. Quests, while interesting, were sometimes overly wordy or unnecessarily tedious.

NV was a great game but lacked "the magic" which made Fallout 3 for me and let me play it for hours at a time. Even though NV was better in a lot of mechanical and practical ways, it seemed to miss that sweet spot on the delivery. In the end, it's how easily I become immersed and lose track of time/overlook any flaws. Something I wasn't able to do in NV.

Yes, because the force fields have a gap over some rocks, and there is sewer access, and the force field generators are completely exposed, Talon Company could have won, had i had the option to help them.

Eww, Inon Zur Composed those tracks, the other are just remastered version of the Fallout 1 and 2 soundtracks

I'm not seeing how the main enemies in New Vegas are easier. I mean, the Enclave fall like dominoes for me. Caesar's Legion can take multiple shotgun rounds to the head and still be standing. The few of them that use firearms are deadly with them. Without a Gauss rifle they can be quite tough.


I did like their design though, sort of raider-like yet new and unique at the same time. Tere's a risk of damaging the franchise by adding new factions, but they blended seamlessly into Fallout for me.

Frankly, if someone has been playing a game for getting on for two years no sequel is going to match it, the only thing that might possibly work is a near carbon copy of F3 in a different but very similar location.

Fallout 3 is a game more of the flavour and type of play of the early Fallouts, the post apocalyptic chaos scenario of groups and individuals surviving as best they can. That is basically the similarities of the sequels, but there are some differences with Fallout 3 in that it is now it is an all real-time role play game whereas the early versions had turn-base-combat mixed in with some role-play, and the Fallout wasteland is no longer barren of content, there is much that can now be found and in the rubble. That is the basis of Fallout 3.

Fallout 3 game-play is excellent, the role-playing is also excellent, and even the writing, all have very high reviews from reputable reviewers who have earned their reputations over time for giving accurate reviews of games. If that Fallout scenario is the type of game that you like then you can be sure of satisfaction.

Personally I was after a scenario the same as the early Fallouts and with similar type of content, I pleased to say that I am well satisfied with Fallout 3 on all counts. I am also very pleased with the real-time game-play that makes such a great improvement in role-play, it really makes all the difference.

There is only one con that I can think of, and that is of becoming too strong during the game, but that was not really difficult to rectify.

New Vegas is a Fallout spin-off, but in one respect New Vegas is similar to the early Fallout sequels in that the wasteland is as barren as the early sequels were with almost no content, that to me is a big con to the game. New Vegas has turned the post apocalyptic scenario into a much more developed and civilised scenario. Many more groups can be joined if you are inclined. The writing is ok, as is the game-play and role-play.

It all comes down to what your preference is in game-play. Personally my preference is for the post apocalyptic scenario chaos of old with similar type of game-play as of old, and Fallout 3 gives just that. I didn't want a scenario more developed than it was in the old Fallout scenarios. Great though New Vegas is in a way, Fallout 3 being more similar to the old type of scenario and now fully with real-time role-play is still the game for me.

I havent played FO3. All these points I like in NV, despite apparently not being included in FO3. I have FO3 GOTY still in the plastic and will play it after I finnsih with NV. Kind of backwards, but it might give a different perspective. NV first then FO3

No, I must disagree. Fallout is about humanity rebuilding. Fallout 3 acted like "Jim, did you hear those bombs go off last week?" "Yeah, Bob!" New Vegas was realistic. 200 years we'd be worst-case scenario like Fallout 2 NCR.

I always saw Fallout as a post apocalyptic survival scenario unique to the 'Fallouts'.

Fallout 3 kept to that scenario, which is what I wanted ... not a civilisation building game.

New Vegas on the other hand is a deviation from the Fallout 'norm', being more civilised of civilisation building, but Bethesda did say that it was a Fallout spin-off.

Have you even played the originals? Fallout 3 deviated from the Norm, NV kept to the Fallout scenario.

Fallout 1 looked like people had rebuilt a lot more than Fallout 3...And it was set less than 100 years after the bombs dropped!

Wiki says super mutants have been taking people in DC for as long as anyone can remember. Kind of hard for scrub NPCs to build anything with 8 ft tall 450lb 6% bodyfat super mutants running around with mini guns and other stuff.

Plus there was just more bad stuff period out there. Through all that the cw built a giant water purifier, megaton, people moved into a carrier, greyditch, cantabury commons, nuka cola lady shacks, lamp light , big town, paradise falls, underworld, ranger compound, 2 talon comp bases, chineese remnents holdouts, Republic of Dave, escaped slaves, the grandma lady and sons, raiders of evergreen mills, bethesda ruins, 1 military base, a cave base, the drunk guy and his hoes, small raider camps all over the map, Arafu sp? wanna be vampires, the tree people-- just to name a few.

People of the West were able to rebuilt just fine and there was an army of super mutants attacking people. The radiation had mostly gone away just 84 years after the great war. Fallout 3 was going for "world ended yesterday" look. Nothing changing in 200 years is just stupid IMO.

This ^

Fallout 1 had places like the Hub...Less than 100 years later with an INTELLIGENT, well-armed super-mutant army raiding them...

Yeah, but you and the bos were there to stop them right away in fo

No one was there to help them in DC for like 170 years or so when bos showed up . The NPCs scrubs did the best they could against all odds until 2278 or what ever year fo3 started. Maybe fo China had some ICBMs and nuked DC again and again. lol

The Chinese remnents kept radioing to China and were like "NO you missed the Pentagon again. TRY AGAIN" and that s why there was some radiation there. Radiation might have been coming out of the earth or from the sun because the ozone layer got destroyed.

FO3 BEST ALL AROUND GAME EVER RATED IN THE ROOK HISTORY!!!

The Master was around for years. There was even the children of the cathedral. Yet people still managed to rebuild. Super mutants in Fallout 3 should not have stopped the people from rebuilding. Some people managed to build Megaton and Rivet City and yet they never managed to try to stop the mutants themselves. Or make better armed trade caravans. No one farming. They just sat there for 200 years. Still the thing with the Radiation which should have gone away.



:facepalm:




Still have yet to play the Originals have you? Hope your computer gets fixed soon.

lol I ll play them, but it will be hard to go back to that game style and say its better, even though they should be alot harder and be more thought provoking. Old school rpgs did not care it they made you mad. You got slapped until u got hard. I was scared to go off the roads in map nodes rp lol you clicked off the road something horrible was there almost everytime.

I

When I play them you ll know, because then no one will be able to say "but you didnt play fo2 you don t know what evil is" lol I ll tell them, but I did play it and Enclave is still evil. Can t wait

If I would have played them first it would be different. I think I ll like them, but the real time game play of these games will be hard to beat.
I m not a huge rpg guy, I have played them enough over the years to watch them change though. They look better and game play is more exciting, but they keep getting easier.

I m the same with cod on line, cod 2&3 will crush todays Michael Bay explosion merri go round on line rail shooters they ve turned into.

They used to encourage thinking and out witting your human opponents, but not today......... fastest slayer dominates every time. You still have to think a little, but not like the 1st on line shooters.