Plot-holes and logical inconsistencies of FO3?

Discussion in 'Fallout 3 Discussion' started by Anarchosyn, Dec 29, 2010.

  1. sea

    sea Vault Senior Citizen

    Oct 5, 2009
    Here's a few I came up with a while back. By no means is this exhaustive:

    Why did your father install a water purifier at the basin of a river? Wouldn't you want to install it upriver? Instead of having free-flowing clean water, the Brotherhood of Steel need to send well-protected caravans across the Wasteland, which is both inefficient as hell and extremely dangerous.

    Why is your father so stupid that he doesn't realise water can be purified through simple filtration? Sure, it's not going to remove all radiation, but it's going to make drinking water a hell of a lot safer.

    Why does your father send you on a mad quest to find some ancient magic technology (whose purpose is conveniently retconned from Fallout 2) in order to make his giant purifier work, even though he mentions the technology works on a small scale and thus could be easily distributed throughout the Wasteland?

    Why were Super Mutants introduced to the story and then never explained? I can understand them being around, but who was making them? Why? How long had it been going on for? Where did this person or group get the FEV? If it was supposed to be the Enclave, it was never stated and it didn't seem to align with any of their goals.

    Why haven't the people of the Wasteland developed agriculture, despite people having done it 100 years earlier on the West Coast in Fallout 1? Maybe there's radiation in the soil (or whatever), but even then, why aren't there mutated plants that have adapted to the conditions? Have thousands of years of knowledge of some of the most fundamental technological developments in human history really been lost? Even with all these intact libraries full of old books and the apparent trade throughout the land?

    Why are there towns of 2 people who would never logically be able to survive on their own? Who supplies them? How does a single cow provide enough food for them? What does the cow eat? Where do they get their drinking water? How do they make their money? How are they not slaughtered by the Raiders living a couple minutes away, despite having no apparent defenses?

    Why are there hundreds upon hundreds of Raiders? Why are they so horrendously violent? What does it accomplish? How can raiding 4-odd caravans and a few settlements supply communities 10 times the size? Where do they get all those drugs they take? Where do they get their guns and ammo, if they're constantly using them to kill both themselves and the denizens of the Wasteland?

    Why is there a town built around an undetonated atomic bomb, which apparently nobody has ever attempted to disarm in 200 years? What the hell were they thinking? Sure, it might have been crazy cultists, but then why the hell did anyone go the fuck near them in the first place? Was it like, a hundred cultists, and there was no other option for everyone else? Megaton is full of settlers and travelers, so why don't they go make their own community instead of risk almost certain, unnecessary death at the hands of passers-by?

    Why does Three Dog have a radio station dedicated solely to reporting on the player character? Does he have anything better to do? Is there no other news in the Wasteland? What about all the horrendous violence that apparently goes on on a daily basis - is that unremarkable next to the heartwarming tale of the Player Character Who Got an Old Lady a Violin?

    Why did nobody make music past 1950 or so? Fallout takes place in an alternate 1950s continuity, where culture and technology went in a direction opposite to our own, but I don't see why that would have halted development. I find it unlikely that of all the music in the world, the only tapes to survive were about 130 years old at the time of the Great War, instead of contemporary ones.

    How does the town of Little Lamplight survive? Do the children have sex with each other or something? Or do people give their orphans to the community? Why are a bunch of goddamn toddlers able to hold off the Raiders who the game even establishes know about them? These are people who are willing to murder, rape and butcher others - but killing kids to loot their huge underground town is taboo?

    Why can't I just shoot those fucking kids, or give them a spanking, rather than be forced into one of the worst instances of railroading in gaming history? Thinking about this makes me want to kill myself.

    Why are Talon Company and the Super Mutants fighting over the Capitol Building despite having no apparent motivation? This is set up in a rather cool way and then completely dropped and left undeveloped. In fact, the entire downtown of DC is almost completely irrelevant to the main plot, which seems like a huge waste to me.

    Why does Moira Brown instantly turn into a ghoul despite it being stated canonically plenty of times that it is a result of slow and constant exposure to large amounts of radiation and/or FEV?

    Why is it that almost all buildings in the game are still stocked with pre-war goods, weapons, food, etc. despite it being 200 years after the bombs fell? That stuff would all be gone after 15, if that. More generally, how the fuck does the world of Fallout 3 sustain an economy or even basic, primary needs like food and shelter if nobody produces anything of value and the hostile Raiders and monsters outnumber the common folk 50:1?

    Why did Tenpenny want to destroy Megaton? He calls it a blight on the landscape, but considering the entire fucking world is ruined, I find it strange that he'd pinpoint them specifically. No, they're not competition for his own business, they're not specifically of a rival philosophy, they're not his enemies, hell, they aren't even fucking visible from his balcony... they're just "ugly."

    Meanwhile, why are the people of Tenpenny Tower so hated by everyone else in the Wasteland? It's stated that they're rich, but none of them produce any goods (the closest is a merchant who sells unsoiled clothes), and the only evidence for them even being rich in the first place is the fact that they apparently bathe more than once a year and wash their clothing.

    Anyway, whatever, now I'm going to kill myself.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  2. TorontoReign

    TorontoReign Shoot me again. I ain't dead yet. Staff Member Moderator

    Apr 1, 2005
    You made me laugh on a couple of those....:rofl:

    The problems you listed were some of the main gripes I had with the story, other than the 1950's music complaint. If they put a different kind of music in the game people would complain that it didn't fit the setting.
     
  3. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    well neither Fallout 1 nor Fallout 2 have been throwing really huge "this are the 50s!" references in to your face. So ... I dont know why anyone would have complained about it in F3. Except if F3 never was really trying to be "fallout" in the first place - which it wasnt in my eyes but that is a different story.

    Does not mean you cant have some references here and there. But as comparison how many references do we have today which go directly to the 50s ? How many will we have in 2070 ? Probably not that much.
     
  4. Sub-Human

    Sub-Human -

    May 31, 2011
    I disliked the 50s radio myself, how ammoral is it to blow someone's head off while listening to a love song. And the songs are boring anyways, at least for me.

    Something ambient, like back from Fallout 1 and 2, would be great. TES tracks under a thin layer of change was unfit.
     
  5. brandonhart61

    brandonhart61 It Wandered In From the Wastes

    113
    Dec 24, 2011
    What, so the fact that I haven't played many RPG's means I have a bad taste in games? My main points are that the people here are so stuck in a timewarp that they literally become rabid every-time someone says they like a Bethesda game since they hold the series to such a high standard and have become very bitter over the fact that there are no more isometric turn-based role playing games anymore.

    It's like walking into one of those quaint and seemingly friendly towns that you think you might fit in. An inhabitant of the town comes up to you with a smile on his lips and perceptive awareness of this new stranger in town and he attempts to find out about him. "Have you ever played Fallout 1 and 2?" the inhabitant, whom I will refer to as Will, asks you. "Yes" you reply, and say how you enjoyed the game and Will starts to smile a little showing off his white teeth. His smile darkens however as he asks: "Did you ever play Fallout 3?" You nod that you did play Fallout 3 as it is what introduced you to the series and while it was not as good as the originals, it was a great game nevertheless. Will suddenly snaps at you "NOT AS GOOD AS THE ORIGINALS?! IT IS AN ABOMINATION!" You then notice that all the inhabitants of the town have suddenly crowded around you, and are nodding their heads in unison in their agreement with Will. You try and defend your thoughts of the game, but it only serves to aggravate them further, stating "Aren't you overreacting? It's not like I said the others were terrible and what the games should be like...". But it is at this point that you realise that the inhabitants have now gathered pitchforks and nailboards and begin to circle you like a pack of lions.. ready to pounce and devour their prey at the moment of retaliation...

    I can appreciate the fact that they are good games and that Fallout 3 was not as good as the rest but only if YOU appreciate the fact that at the end of the day, a company's main reason to make a game is to make money, not to appease a small fan-base by making exactly the same game that the older guys like. Hence the reason why this is a 'cult series'.

    Would you like to know why Bethesda chose not to make another isometric turn-based game? Because only a small group of people would buy it who were fans of the originals and would end up bankrupt. At least Bethesda tried to make another Fallout game with similarities in gameplay and environment. And the fact that they're the reason why people even know about the great series in the first place while the people here constantly slate how much they want to murder Bethesda because of the game's plot-holes and differences to the fabulous originals. :|
     
  6. Per

    Per Vault Consort Staff Member Admin

    Apr 1, 2004
    If that's your main point then you don't have a main point. If someone flames you for no reason then report them, otherwise try to think of some actual arguments. Hint: "they have to make money" is not a good response to "it doesn't make sense".
     
  7. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    Though "it doesn't make sense" is a good response to "they have to make money"
     
  8. TorontoReign

    TorontoReign Shoot me again. I ain't dead yet. Staff Member Moderator

    Apr 1, 2005
    @Brandonhart: Most of what you said was gibberish, but I would like to go on the record and say this....

    I don't think Fallout 3 should have been isometric, and I don't think it should have been turn-based either, but that isn't what made the game suck. The game sucked because of about 50 other reasons which have been repeated a billion times all over this forum. I am a hardcore Fallout fan, but I am also a realist. If Bethesda made Fallout 3 turn-based/ isometric many people would not have played it, so don't place EVERYONE into that category.

    So far you have not said anything to counter the fact that the game made no fucking sense and it sucked donkey dick. The only thing you have said is "You guys are stuck in the past" and "Bethesda introduced new fans to the series"....

    I am actually thankful that Bethesda bought the fucking series because, like I have said before, Fallout: New Vegas was released because of them. I think it is hilarious how it bothers people that many NMA members hate the game. Who gives a fuck? Go play Fallout 3 and enjoy it, but don't expect everyone to agree with you. Most gamers are fucking retards, so Fallout 3 and it's uber-awesome reviews don't impress me, just like the legions of Call of Duty bitches ,and Halo fanatics don't impress me.

    Am I a jaded bastard? Yes. Do I give a fuck? No. I have been playing games for over 23 fucking years, and I have more cultivated tastes than a retarded 12 year old, so forgive me for not liking some games just because other people like them.

    When I see something in a game that makes me cringe it is so horrible, something is wrong with that picture. When I try to play a game, and it crashes every 30 fucking minutes, why is that my fault? Is it my fault that Bethesda can't design a fucking engine that works? Have you played the game on PC or on a console? There are over a thousand fucking bugs in the game even if the story and gameplay were perfect! God forbid you leave the fucking Autosave on, or it will CTD, or freeze your damn XBOX.

    If you are too blind to see the faults, and have nothing else to add to the discussion beyond your clever stories, then don't bother continuing the conversation.

    Again, I do not desire a turn-based , or isometric Fallout, but I expect a game to make a little sense. Fallout 3 made no sense.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  9. sea

    sea Vault Senior Citizen

    Oct 5, 2009
    It means that your frame of reference for RPGs is more limited than most of the other people here and thus you are - probably - less qualified to comment on their mechanics and to discuss them from a critical perspective.

    Wrong.

    On the surface, this kind of makes sense, and it's an opinion a lot of people share. "Well, the old games were isometric and turn-based, and people don't like the real-time first-person gameplay as much, thus that must be why they don't like Fallout 3!" Problem is that people have very good reasons for thinking what they do that go well beyond superficial traits. To understand them you have to understand both why people like the first two Fallout games, why they like isometric and turn-based games in general, and you have to be familiar with the history of the Fallout franchise.

    First of all, the isometric perspective. I think it's silly to expect too many 3D games to stay isometric outside of the strategy genre these days, especially when you can sell an RPG as a shooter (or the other way around) to a mass audience and make tons more money, but the reason people prefer the isometric perspective is not simple nostalgia. There are plenty of great reasons other than "it's how I remembered the game back in the day."

    Generally, isometric games are easier to read at a glance - it's easier to understand spatial relationships, it gives definite and identifiable distances (i.e. tiles) between characters and objects, and it reinforces the size of the game world. There's also the issue of interface, and that many people prefer point-and-click controls to direct controls, as well as the idea of the interface as a "frame" bordering the rest of the experience. Conceptually, there's even a detached quality to it that people enjoy - many players find isometric perspectives more immersive because they can see a picture of the whole world rather than a single character's perspective. Those people also don't necessarily want to feel "in the action" despite what marketing would have you believe.

    The isometric perspective and interface also changes the way players use skills and interact with the environment, and the sorts of challenges faced. In an isometric game like Fallout, the point-and-click interface allows for players to examine individual objects and obtain detailed descriptions, and use specific skills on specific objects to obtain a variety of outcomes. In a first-person game like Fallout 3, the limitations of console gamepads as well as the more limited forms of interaction with the world necessitate the use of context-sensitive actions over all others and consequently reduce world interactivity.

    Similarly, level and environment design in an isometric game is very different. Since the player can view level layouts from above, navigation is no longer an issue; challenge must stem from the question of "what do I do?" and not "where do I go?", a situation which is reversed in Fallout 3. Consider how in Fallout 1, The Glow is a difficult and memorable dungeon not because it's a veritable maze to get through, but because making progress (using the rights to unlock the right doors, reactivating power, etc.) is a gameplay puzzle in itself. Fallout 3, in comparison, is very much about navigating mazes and fighting baddies room-to-room, not so much about figuring out problems on a macro level.

    What about turn-based combat? For many players, Fallout is defined by its combat as much as it is by its post-apocalyptic themes and its distinctive characters, locations and groups. Turn-based combat is a fundamentally different way of overcoming challenges in the game and as a mode of play it is very detached from real-time combat, with design considerations to match.

    For instance, in turn-based combat, speed is abstracted and represented in terms of action points, whereas in a real-time game speed narrows or widens the player's ability to respond to threats. In turn-based games, the interplay between and manipulation of statistics is what makes up the majority of the action and determines outcomes, rather than the player's reaction times and accuracy. Strategy is far more important, with careful consideration of actions and their consequences driving the action. The tension in combat doesn't come from "oh shit, I'm being exploded" but rather from the dissonance between formulating plans, viewing their outcomes, and adapting accordingly.

    Bethesda's Fallout 3 attempted to bolt a series of mechanics and systems onto a completely different genre of game. Whether or not they succeeded is almost irrelevant, as is the question of whether or not the lore, story, characters, themes etc. were well executed. Rather, the question that bothers most hardcore Fallout fans is one of fundamental style. Fallout 3 is a bad Fallout game because its play mechanics, interface, and the very focus of the game (open-world exploration and action-based combat) was altered so as to be almost unrecognizable. Without the Fallout logo, the setting, the specifics of the character system, the creatures and factions, Fallout 3 would not bear a single resemblance to the other games in the series. You might as well call it... well, RAGE, or Borderlands.

    This might already be known to you and understood. What you may not realize is that most people here would actually be totally fine with a game like Bethesda's, in another context, whether that's by stripping away the Fallout brand and instead simply making a tribute to some of the series' ideas, or by labeling Fallout 3 as a spin-off, like Tactics, and not a core entry in the franchise. I think a lot of people here could have enjoyed Fallout 3 a lot more if it had been left at Fallout: Washington, or something similar. I think that's also why people are more accepting of Fallout: New Vegas - it's thematically and spiritually linked to the Fallout franchise, but not a direct follow-up with the same expectations.

    There's another elephant in the room. Fallout 3 was a game that had already been made... under the code name Van Buren. By all accounts it was shaping up to be the sequel fans had been waiting for. It had a very polished and modern game engine, it had lots of new features and improvements to the game mechanics, it had a great premise and an interesting villain, and it expanded the universe in smart ways and brought it closer to the original in tone. Van Buren was, of course, canceled, but its spirit lived on, as did the idea that one day many of its ideas would be reborn in a new title. When the leaked demo came out and players saw for themselves what could have been, there was a recognition of just how far RPGs had fallen in recent years.

    And then, Bethesda's Fallout 3 was revealed, and released, and it became clear that none of Van Buren had survived. The gameplay was Oblivion with Guns. The deep quest design and interesting world was replaced with a nonsensical post-nuclear fantasy theme park. The uncompromising difficulty and hostile feeling throughout the series was replaced with level scaling and game balance that revolved entirely around the player character. The art style and themes of the game were a poor facsimile of the original games, with the 1950s retro-future style and commentary on the nature of humanity taken at their most basic, face values, then turned up to eleven and blasted through a megaphone. The writing was fucking horrendous, with one of the worst plots in videogame history and bizarre attempts at "dark humour" that were usually just awkward and sad. Fucking vampires, man, vampires. The skill system was unbalanced and required players to make almost no choices, when previously Fallout's character system was perhaps its most defining feature and led to much of its staying power.

    Fallout 3 had some strengths, true, but by and large it wasn't just a mediocre game - it was an insult to fans, to the memory of the Fallout franchise, and a desecration of the ideas embodied in Van Buren. In fact, I don't think desecration is quite the right word... it was positively antithetical to the design and gameplay tenets of Fallout and old-school CRPGs at large. It was as if someone had taken your best friend, killed him, then stretched his skin over a crude automaton and sold the resultant monstrosity as your same old friend... and nobody else but you noticed the difference. Dramatic? Yes, but I think the analogy holds and fits for most of the older members here.

    That's what you really need to understand why people on NMA and in the "old guard" CRPG community dislike Fallout 3. It's just as much what it represents as what it is. Nobody here seriously expects, or even expected, the "old ways" to return, but I don't think it was ever too much to ask for a game that kept the spirit of the first two Fallouts alive, maybe even took their best qualities and refined or expanded upon them. In the hands of a competent developer, this could have happened, and I think that's what most fans wanted - or alternately, to let the series die and be remembered as what it is, a landmark CRPG and an excellent videogame. Instead, we got Bethesda digging up the corpse, dragging it through the mud and stamping its face in, then propping it up... and we saw the world proclaiming it the pinnacle of its genre. The loathing is well, well beyond something as simple as camera perspective and combat systems.

    Oh, and going to the oldest Fallout fansite, one with a reputation for being somewhat hostile to outsiders, one which has had a falling-out with the new Fallout publisher and developer to the point where coverage is pretty much entirely denied (save for occasional C&D notices), and one which is visibly a relic from the past based on its content and looks alone, only to complain about how the people there aren't tolerant enough of new fans... well, you'd might as well go to RPGCodex and complain about how there aren't enough threads discussing romance options in BioWare games.
     
  10. LambentEarache

    LambentEarache First time out of the vault

    14
    Sep 18, 2011
    I have something to say here. First of all, there is a difference between "logical inconsistancy" and "canon inconsistancy". The logical things, like where Project Purity was built etc., happen in every game. But on to canon.

    If you actually do research, canon is not screwed as bad as NMA thinks it is. Enclave Power Armor looks different in Fallout 3. That's because the Enclave APA Mk II on the East Coast is a different model than the APA MKII on the West Coast. Lyons' Brotherhood wears T-45d instead of T-51b because T-51b was never mass produced on the East Coast. The T-51b in Fort Constantine was the only prototype for it in D.C., other than the pre-war Winterized suit stored in Operation Anchorage.

    Some creatures and robots look different. But did you ever think that it's due to the geographical location? Animals evolve differently depending on their location. Mutation would probably occur the same way. Other robots, like Sentry Bots, have been changed so they don't look unintimidating anymore.

    Story plotholes? Vault-Tec cut an under the table deal with Wes Tek Research Facility, obtaining FEV for the Vault 87 Social Experiment, which in turn created the Vault 87 Mutants plaguing D.C.. Vault Tec was responsible for nearly everything in Fallout canon. Lyons Brotherhood is "nice" because of the bleeding heart elder they have. Tactics and Fallout "POS" are not treated as canon, although the main events of Tactics happened. The Midwest BoS is nowhere near as strong as in-game however.

    The Enclave retreated from Navarro, using what little Vertibirds they have to reach D.C. and join the Raven Rock branch of the Enclave. Others had to walk on foot. Not very many survived the attack on the Oil Rig anyway.

    It is presumed Harold joined a caravan to the east coast. Bombs not being as effective? Well, what kind of game would it be if every last thing was blown to hell and back, and nothing remained to dig through? D.C. is the capital, yes. But to be a game, some things had to survive.

    All of this can be found on the Fallout wiki, from Bethesda themselves, or from Chris Avellone.
     
  11. brandonhart61

    brandonhart61 It Wandered In From the Wastes

    113
    Dec 24, 2011
    Pitchforks... the pitchforks!
     
  12. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    Yeah. But it does stick out more in games which require actually quality writting and content like with Fallout games.

    Not that past games didnt had such "holes". But the quality of the game was high enough regarding the roleplaying and characters that you didnt noticed it that much. Fallout 3 is somewhat throwing it right in your face. And pretty much every damn time ... (from the purity project to the kidz town and villages with 3 people next to raider camps ... ).

    BN or someone else described F3 as amusement park with lots of "lulziness" to do. And exactly that is a perfect descrebtion. You dont follow a path nor has the world any consitency. The best thing you can do in F3 is "blowing shit up".
     
  13. TorontoReign

    TorontoReign Shoot me again. I ain't dead yet. Staff Member Moderator

    Apr 1, 2005
    I agree with most everything you said. My gripe with the Enclave is mainly from a aesthetic point of view, but I see where you are coming from. I also agree that D.C would look pretty boring flattened like a pancake. I don't think the canon is screwed up either. I do think that the main plot for Fallout 3 was horrible though. The best part of the game (to me anyway) was Tranquility Lane. That made the game worth playing by itself.

    I see what you mean on the "logical" and "canon" comparison, and agree with you as well. If the main quest was done better I think I would like the game more, but to be honest it was a huge letdown. I honestly can't understand why some people liked the main quest in F3 as opposed to FNV, since it was so poorly executed.

    Nice post man.
     
  14. Oppen

    Oppen FIXT n°1 fan

    Dec 26, 2011
    First, Enclave APA Mk II. Why a different model? The point stands, the only change is now it's a geo question instead of a faction question. Also, the Enclave is just one faction, who moved on after being defeated in California. It makes more sense they translading with their power armors than Enclave scavenging it in DC, and actually finding a better Power Armor than the BoS just in a rush of luck.
    Also, the site of production doesn't mean anything really, if you consider the fact that in pre-war they could mass transport them. There were planes and vertibirds before the war.
    The robots can't look different because of evolution...
    And not, if you say evolution is different because of the location, mutation too. In fact, evolution and mutation are intimately related.

    About the FEV mutations, that was talked, I think it was agreed it's not a big deal the HOW, but it's a big deal the WHY. Why will mutants with the IQ of a 10 years old still want to get other people to turn? How is it that none remember their previous life but manage to think about the process that make them turn into mutants? They doesn't seem to have a leader, they doesn't seem to have any motivation, they just learned out of a hat how to use the machines to release gaseous FEV into people, but are hardly sentient enough to talk.

    I don't know what Harold has to do in that answer. I'm quite sure he has an ending in Fallout 2 who explicitly said it's believed to have traveled east and the tree in his head actually gave fruits and developed roots. Even when some people hates it (I liked it) it doesn't mess canon.

    About the "not very many" Enclave survivors, it's contradictory how they are a few but you can see everywhere Enclave troopers fighting in random encounters. I don't know much about strategy, but if they already had a plan which will make them avoid all the fighting and just win, why would they waste resources and lives of their troops in fighting in random places?
     
  15. Surf Solar

    Surf Solar So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Aug 20, 2009
    Am I the only one who is just tired of the same old discussion? :/ I developed some thought about Fallout 3 that I just let it live, afterall I'm not forced to touch or play it. I just don't give a shit anymore. Ofcourse I am sometimes saddened when I see uneducated claims about the old games/silly stuff about FO3, but I don't really have the power anymore to discuss this. So a big :salute: to the likes of sea etc. to "fight the good fight". ;-)
     
  16. Oppen

    Oppen FIXT n°1 fan

    Dec 26, 2011
    I don't know, arguing is funny for me :p
     
  17. Surf Solar

    Surf Solar So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Aug 20, 2009
    To me most certainly too! :p But I kinda see this is some useless endeveaour here.. The damage (FO3) is already done, the future isn't looking too bright either. I still have FO1/2 to boot up, so I don't really care anymore at this point. :)
     
  18. Silenus

    Silenus First time out of the vault

    1
    Jan 18, 2012
    This is my first post so I believe a small introduction is in order. :)
    Sorry for the wall of text btw....

    I'm an old fart (literally) and have been playing games even longer than TorontRayne (if you can believe it, lol). RPGs and strategy games have been mostly my bread and butter, though there have been plenty of games from other niches I have played and enjoyed. I also have a computer and coding background and have done some modding for some games in the past (but never again, lol). I've always been a die-hard PC gamer until Steam and its clones showed up, at which time I made the heart-breaking but necessary decision to sell the farm and moved exclusively to console gaming. But that's enough about me....to get back on topic:

    As an old player and fan of Fallout 1 and 2, I'd like to share my take on Fallout 3 for those who might care to read a fresh perspective. If you don't agree that's fine, you don't have to. I'm jaded enough not to care either way (no offense intended). I'd like to point out that (being an old fart who has learned a trick or two during his time) I waited until the GotY version was released before I bought the game for the Xbox360, so I never got to experience the majority of the bugs most of you have complained about.

    I agree with TorontRayne that Fallout 3 (how'd he put it? Oh, yeah...) "sucked donkey dick", but at the same time it was a beautiful experience for me to play. Doesn't make any sense? It didn't for me either at first, so let me explain what I mean....

    Half my brain was rebelling against all the inconsistencies and plot holes most of you have been complaining about. The other half was focused solely on one fact: "I was playing Fallout!" A franchise that by all right should have been irrevocably dead and never seen the light of day again....and I was playing it! Like Dr. Frankenstein yelling: "IT'S ALIIIIIIIIVE!". So what if was as grotesque, dumb, and stupid as the actual Frankenstein monster? The beauty and wonder of it was that it was alive and breathing at all. If you reunite with a long lost, well-loved relative whom you had thought was dead, you sure as hell are not gonna say to him/her "Damn dude, you look and smell like shit!". Instead you hug them and welcome them home. So yeah, my left brain was sorrowing and crying over the state of the game, while my right brain was celebrating the reunion a-la cheesy lifetime movie scene.

    After having Played Fallout 3 once, would I play it again? No. Its got no replay value after having done it all and having maxed out my skills. THIS is my biggest gripe with FO3: maxed skills. I'm not going to explain why that was such a horrible thing. It's too long an explanation. Suffice it to say, if you don't get it, then you haven't been playing long enough.

    Knowing Beth had made the game, I did not go in thinking it was going to be ANYTHING like the original Fallouts. Different company, different developers....it was bound to get screwed up, and of course, it did. But here's the caveat in all that mess. Beth seems to have realized they screwed up and took FO3 and used it as a learning experience. FNV is the result of that experience and, at least, made an effort in not repeating most of the more serious mistakes they made with FO3. If this trend continues with FO4 and beyond, then as far as I'm concerned, having to endure FO3 will have been well worth it.


    That's my meager 2 cents on FO3. Hello all.
     
  19. Oppen

    Oppen FIXT n°1 fan

    Dec 26, 2011
    Bethesda didn't make New Vegas, Obsidian did. Bethesda just published it. So, right now, we HOPE Bethesda learned anything of their mistakes and their successes. But we don't quite know, because we didn't see Fallout 4 yet.
     
  20. TorontoReign

    TorontoReign Shoot me again. I ain't dead yet. Staff Member Moderator

    Apr 1, 2005
    @Silenus: I am right there with you man. I did enjoy the game, but like you said, it has no real replay value, beyond mods of course. FNV redeemed Bethesda since they at least cared enough to turn it over to some of the former developers. I am thankful that a Fallout 4 will actually come out, but I hope they use more ideas from FNV and less from F3. At least Bethesda releases the fucking Mod kit with their games. We can always correct things they screw up, or things we don't like, but Fallout 3 was pretty hard to fix even with mods.

    As much as everyone praises Interplay, they sure fucked the franchise over no matter how you slice it. Van Buren appeared to be epic, but we know how that went, and I won't mention the other shit that went down. But it all works out in the end. Van Buren lives on with FNV, and maybe Fallout 4 won't suck, but even if it does I will buy it. Bethesda is a hit and miss with me, but then again so is Capcom, Square Enix, and many other developers. I would complain a lot less if Bethesda hired new writers because the quality has dropped since Morrowind.

    The only reason I rant and rave is because Morrowind was one of my favorite RPG's of all time, and they ruined the series (for me at least) after that. They did similar things to Fallout 3, but FNV changed that, although I don't think the Obsidian guys will be around next time. One can hope right?