...you're basing that off of a trailer? Well of bloody course the trailer isn't scary, it's a trailer. You try telling me sneaking through a dark, abandoned factory, while the rain is falling through the holes in the roof, and the only real light is the occasional lightening strike, and then just as you look into a darkened corner you see a bloodsvcker. Tell me that's not as scary as fallout 3, and I'll tell you you're lying. It's not a matter of opinion, that's a "oh ****" moment even for the hardiest of players, with the best equipment in the game. You don't go up against bloodsvckers at night. You just don't. You can't base an opinion of how a game plays on it's trailers, especially not when it was done by a relatively small developer.

aye,

I can appreciate this sentiment, because I've experienced it myself. I remember when Thief 3 came out and thinking I was some what disappointed with how it had deviated from the original two games. I'm still holding out for the same thing to happen to Deus Ex. Still, I had to recognize that it wasn't a totally crappy game, it was just different. And what makes me laugh is how those "old fallout" fans go on on about how Fallout 3 is just poorly made, when that isn't the case. Just seems spiteful to me.

nuthin wrong with not liking a title because it's not enough like it's predecessor, but credit still should be given where it's due.

Could you elaborate on this, please? What was unrealistic about the world compared to the world in F1 & 2? How did Bethesda force-feed this world to you? And how was it cliche, in a way F1 & 2 was not?

Fallout 3 is canon. I really enjoyed fallout 3 but the problem with it is that it does not have the same feel to it as the past games. The humour is gone, Human nature is not depicted in the same way. They don't really show the consequences of drug use or prostitution in any realistic way. The violence was toned down. There was little to no background story on any one. There were things old fallout fans had to get used to like the new super mutants. The quests all but the pitt had only good or bad karma out comes well most of the main quests if not all of them. Then there was broken steel taking away the ending and making it a never ending game. In all Fallout 3 is 8.5 out of 10. If they had done more for the story and depicted human nature better and expanded the quests so that there was more then just good/bad it would have been 10.

I couldn't agree more. Some people seem to be so black and white about this. If a game has flaws or has something you can rightly criticize, then that becomes synonym with the game being "crap", "made by monkeys" or "not worth the box it came in". What happened to being nuanced? Constructive criticism? Understanding that whether you personally like a game or not does not impact whether or not the game is actually good in itself?

Styles: I disagree about the humor being gone. Or that they aren't depicting human nature. I see as much of that in Fallout 3 as I see in Fallout 1.

I think it's a good thing. In Fallouts 1 and 2, I often felt like I was playing a some sort of a professional joker who had something smart to say in EVERY situation. It also killed the immersion in many dialogues.

Those are due to modern censorship regulations. The game was almost banned in Australia because of Morphine.


If you paid attention to details and dialogue, you can dig up quite a lot of backstory

It is indeed true that you could mostly either be 100% hero or murder everyone in the DLCs.
However, a big moral change in the whole game was ability to side with the bad guys. Twice.

Broken Steel was made because users demanded that Beth removed the ending. Players asked, Bethesda delivered.


Personally, the only thing that really annoys me in this game is how stuffed it is. There's always some stupid molerat climbing your back. There's always a random Enclave spawn in a street. There's always someone. What Fallout 3 lacked was big, empty spaces with just brainwork to do. Much like the Glow, or Sierra Army Depot. Nothing inside, everyone dead. Some silly robots come and try to kill you if you turn on the power. Vaults 106 and 108 were good in this sense, but they are rather small (as vaults are).
Also, the landscape in Fallout 3 was rather bad. Way too many cliffs and mountains. You can't just press Q for automove, rotate camera and watch the sunset. No, there's always the molerat, there's always a cliff to climb.

I give the game 9.0/10.0

I suppose in actuality for the most part it's all about a different company taking over the franchise, however I guess I can understand how some longtime Fallout fans would be a bit upset seeing as how the game has had some significant changes. I suppose I can equate it to the way I felt about Oblivion which had some changes from Morrowind that I was very unhappy about...

Sure, although I think much of it has been covered many times over.

The town of Megatron was my first annoyance. A town built around a live nuclear weapon? The guy standing in the water not getting radiation poisoning? It just reeks of someone thinking it was "cool" to have this town and not really thinking about the consequences. Add that with all the structures being built on stilts, and it just gets a little silly.

The number of buildings I cannot go in because the doors are boarded from the outside. Dumb.

The raiders' hideouts with mutilated bodies everywhere has so many problems I don't know where to start.

Having a box with 3 rounds of ammo in it next to a locked box with three rounds of ammo in it. Huh? Who does this? In this type of world you would stuff anything you could in a box with a lock.

The amount of stuff available for scavanging. How can I show up with enough stuff to sell for over 100 caps from just walking from the vault to Megaton. How did people not grab this stuff already?

A town of kids that kick each other out at 18.

No entertainment. None. Anywhere.

I could go on.

Its the problem with an open world rather than one you travel accross by the overhead map. There needs to be stuff in an open world, and much of the stuff doesn't feel right.

Really take a look at New Reno and then take a look at fallout. The Junkies really look like junkies that have sold their soul to their addiction. The guy on drug in Megaton looks like a normal person and he can quit taking jet over night with no problem. They did depict cannibalism in the game and inbreeding in Point look out. But there was no real need for you character to resort to cannibalism unless you had a mod. The one and only prosttute in the game was not really depicting prostitution like the other. you can say she was "high class" I can give you that. There were no drug dealers on the street corners no kids pit pocketing you in every town. No grave robbing. No one getting killed in gun fights. No Cats PAWS equivalent. I did not laugh at anything anyone said once in the game. so yea I say the humour was gone.

One of my major issues with the game is the engine and how there doesn't seem to be any real weight to objects.

When moving around (not in combat or looting) I prefer to use the 3rd person perspective and the engine's issues become really glaring. The PC (and NPCs) floats over the terrain, they don't walk on the ground, there's no friction at all.

Similarly, objects don't have proportional weight - I've picked up a single cigarette before and knocked over an ashtray and a carton of cigarettes with it. That should be impossible and irritates me immensely.

Lastly, there's no "examine" option in the game. In F1/F2 one could examine nearly everything, revealing all sorts of interesting details.

That to I did not like that there was no weight to ammo in the game I could walk around this hundres of missiles and thousands of rounds of all ammo types. Mods fix that I know but they should have added that at the start.

and I agree with what nliv007 said above.

+1

I have to say, I had no problem with Megaton, how raider camps was made, prostitution and chem addicts. I am all for realism - up to a point. When all is said and done, this is a game. An entertaining game. (With a very, very eerie and good atmosphere, I might add). So I don't care about some of it not adding up in the real world. Having that said, the game was real enough for me that I had to quit and take a break first time I trekked from Megaton to Rivet City. The complete destruction of all buildings, the unforgivalbe, merciless raiders and Talon company guys chasing me, the dust, the grime, the grittiness, the thin and desperate dogs I had to kill... I had to turn it off and was shaking afterwards. It really had an impact. Walking through the ruins of houses, seeing the skeleton of a child in a bed next to a teddy bear, the skeleton of someone lying in a bathtub next to a toaster, the horrible S.O.S. broadcast with the sick child... No, this game had plenty of grittiness and realism for me. And it hit quite hard sometimes. I loved those details, it made it all horribly real. And that had a greater impact on me than any chem addict or prosttute would have (although I find the Don Juan-guy in the middle of DC with his two women quite sad, I have to say. Very good addition too).

Perhaps you would prefer games like, say, Dragon Age, which lack a physics system and where you can't do those sort of things at all.

Notice how characters' feet actually realistically prop up on slopes, stair-steps, corpses and other obstacles instead of clipping into them? Now try and see how many other games you can find that level of detail in. How about Dragon Age again, to take a recent competitor, where you can't even walk over minute elevation changes or wade into water for that matter, and where stairs are treated like slides.

Oh right. FO1/2 also had a complete 360? view and 3D-models of each and everything, including the PIP-Boy interface that accurately reflected the light and other conditions around it, and crafted weapons that clearly showed the components they were made out of. No? I guess they're even.



Honestly, most of the complaints against FO3 seem little more than lottery-winners moaning about the taxes they incur. <_< Really, if you do care about the stuff you'd like to see, go push for it in the New Vegas or FO4 forums! You can be sure to find that not everyone shares your ideas about an FO should or shouldn't have.

It's just that those who are not satisfied or happy tend to like to express it more than those happy with the product they buy. So the loudest are usually the least satisfied.

I happen to be a fan of all three games and I am happy with FO3. But if I am happy with it I've no reason to post that over and over. If I were not happy with the results, I would be screaming loudly and often in hopes someone out there would hear me. :shrug:

The truth is in the continued sells and popularity of the game. Gamerrankings still have it in the top 10 lists for Xbox 360 and PC. And Amazon still has it listed as selling well despite it having come out in 2008. :shrug:

So because there's nothing better, criticism doesn't count? I love the game, but it's not perfect, and the sooner this whole phase of "If you like it you can't complain, and if you complain you hate it (slash are homosixual)" goes away from the gaming community the better.

I agree. And hopefully, along with it, attitudes like "I have something about this game I don't like, therefore it's utter crap/made by monkeys/made for plebees like console players" can be put in the garbage bin as well. With those things out of the way, we can start having constructive and interesting discussions.

Fair enough, never going to argue with this.



Debatable, but opinion. I was creeped out at times as well, I will admit.



If you argument had stopped here, you would have been golden.



The buildings are phenominally inconsistent. The Washington Monument standing? Fortunately, all the building you need to go into seem to have remained very structurally sound. For that matter, anyone figure out where ground zero is? Did they miss with the nuke? There should be a substantial amnount of flattened area somewhere in downtown D.C. (I admit, have not explored all of downtown, so maybe I am missing it somewhere)



Raiders are dumb. You could not live in a place infested with rotting corpses. Further, with the scarcity of bullets, the last thing you would do is kill someone, seeing as most people probably have nothing on them. The raiders should be robbing people, possibly killing for food, but not psychopaths. Really poorly done. And if I am dressed in raider armor, how do they know I am not one of them from hundreds of yards away?

Talon company being hired to kill me because I am being good? Exceptionally poor implementation.



How old are you? And animals do not attack things bigger than them unless it is last resort. While you might argue this is, if dogs went around attacking anything that moved, there would be no more dogs by now. Or mole rats. These guys simply defy darwinism.



But stop and think about this. How are they in the bathtub/bed next to the teddy bear? Instant death that didn't knock down the walls of the house? They didn't get out of the bathtub? Went and decided to die there? Again, with a little thought it becomes...silly and inconsistent.



It just is not an accurate depiction of realism. Which is where it is totally cliche. You just buy into it instead of questioning it as realistic. Stick with the statement about not caring because it is a game.

I was telling how those parts felt real to me. And had an impact on me. (And starving animals might indeed attack in packs like the dogs do there). As for my age, I'm 32 year olds if that is relevant in any way.

Fair enough. But you feeling something is real does not make it realistic. I just want a realistic world that makes sense. This simply fails in almost all aspects.

And yes, dogs in packs might attack as a last resort. The key word is 'might.' Appparantly I come accross every dog just at that time. Thus my point: its not that a dog attacked me, it is that every dog everywhere attacks me.

It is a game that is good, but could have been great.

I might be wrong, but I don't think I've ever come across any game that was completely realistic. What about the fact that your character never has to eat? Never has to use the bathroom? I do agree, though, that if the realism in general is too far away, then it just won't be believable and immersive at all. So I guess where that line is drawn from "realistic enough" to "not immersive" is quite subjective.

Agreed. And I put a mod in my game that requires me to eat, drink, and sleep. I guess I just want a higher element of realism than most and tend to notice things that are out of place.

That being said, I think being more realistic would also make the game better in many ways. Imagine this (to continue the theme of wild dogs). You see a few wild dogs, maybe a pack., and they see you. They growl and bark and act aggressive, but do not attack. You are low on ammo, so don't want to waste shots. You walk by, knowing they might decide you are worth attacking, or might just be defending territory. They might attack once you turn away, and might not. You have to continually look back to see if they decide to attack.

To me, that encounter would mimic realism, similar to encountering a bear in the wild. It creates the apprehension and fear rather than just jumping to fighting. The creatures act as if they are more than mindless killing machines. Maybe the coding is too far off, but I don't think so. The modders have gotten close to this sort of thing, so I am still hoping for a game to start putting this in to practice.

Anyone who hates Fallout 3 is making an opinion, but at the same time, a huge mistake. As soon as bethesda became the creator of this specific Fallout game, they have improved it alot, added the After Credits section, and provided us with DLC's. If youve played Fallout 3 for at least an hour, youll get an idea of how well this game has been made, especially by this new company that developed it.

And if you want to argue about Fallout 3 having an After Credits, you might as well leave. The after credits section in any sort of game would be the best improvement the game developers could possibly make. Especially for an RPG/Adventure game.

And yes, it IS RPG/Adventure because i saw the DVD of the making of Fallout 3.

Enjoyment of a game, and opinions, are purely subjective. Please don't tell people they are "making a mistake" because they don't happent to like a game you think is great.

Don't argue with him. He saw the DVD!!