My only problems with FO3 were with how quickly you accrued experience, the numerous bobbleheads and skillbooks that made specializing or making any real choices in character direction meaningless, and how lopsidedly easy the combat became. I never had a problem with the graphics, other than the fact it was the Oblivion engine, which I knew was going to look ugly, so no big heartbreak there. Your other points, however, I don't see the same way you do. I explored nearly every square inch of the maps, because they were absolutely chock full of interesting things to see and do. I thought the lore was different than the first two games, but it stands to reason, since it's on the opposite coast of the US, and I didn't think they skimped on it in the least. The plot, while not the most original in the world, was adequate enough to provide a sense of direction and overall tone for the Capitol Wasteland, and the various personalities within it were no better - nor worse - written and depicted than FO1 or 2. Honestly, FO3 was a refreshing step back to what made RPGs great, especially when viewed against other games made that year. Weapon and armor degradation and repair, dialogue that was actually dependent on your traits and skills, a plethora of interesting quests that had nothing at all to do with the main quest…
What was it, in particular, that you didn't like?
I could go on forever about what I didn't like, but I'd rather not. My main issues with the game was that the landscape wasn't worth exploring. There was very few unique locations, none of them were particularly interesting. Unlike the previous games and other open world games it didn't feature any distinct and memorable locations that stood out.
There was the endless metro tunnels, which all looked the same and contained nothing of neither value nor interest. In the cities the roads were always blocked by junk so that you couldn't move around freely. The wasteland itself, in which almost no plants grow despite it being 200 years since the bombs fell, felt so tiny and dull. In the previous games the environments were dense with characters, quests and all kinds of stuff, this is because they didn't actually had to show much of the actual wasteland. In Fallout 3 it's all spread thin over such a large area that it like you're walking more than anything else, which you do. NPCs rarely have anything interesting to say to you, the dialogue choices you are given are despicable.
That, my friend, is my main gripes with Fallout, except the writing that is. If a game is built around exploring it better make it interesting.
You misunderstood what I was saying, I meant that your opinion, and like it or not that is what it is, is what you believe. You can have your own, but doesn't mean that the rest of us don't have different opinions. You guess I can have my opinion thats what I was saying, if anything you seem to be of the opinion I can't have my opinion of the game. Seems you speak of opinions and believe they are fine as long as they agree with you.
Do not put words in my mouth, and do take note that I never said that any opinion was wrong. I have never said nor implied that you couldn't have your own opinion of it. On the contrary, I have already said several times that I'm perfectly fine with you both having your own opinion and expressing it, as long as it amounts to something interesting to read.
I do think that it is a most players that enjoyed the previous games because of its setting will be disappointed in the third game, it is a logical conclusion one may draw from the fact that they only managed to use the most superficial elements of the universe in the game. It doesn't feel or play like a sequel but rather a spin-off.
I liked fallout 3 for its immersion which I think trumped any of the previous games due to feeling like the wasteland was there, right in front of you. When you came out of that bunker it was insane.
You liked the first person view more than the isometric view then?
Why didn't you just say so to begin with instead of blathering about opinions and my assumption that experienced gamers just might not find this game as entertaining as those that are new to the series.
Considering how long FO3 is, I find it a bit odd that you played it to completion if you disliked it so much. Not saying I don't believe you.. because I do. Personally, I just don't force myself to finish games I'm not enjoying.
I didn't have anything else to play at the time, and since I'm a fan of the previous games I wanted to know exactly how bad it was. It could have been worse, but I would have appreciated if they didn't use the title Fallout 3, considering how loosely connected the games are.
because jack is a tru bro, he plays games even if he hates them.
Damn straight.
Couchpotato said:
Your not alone in your view its the same problem every game that Bethesda makes. They can craft good environments and immerse you in the world but cant do npc's or quests in general.
Seriously would it hurt them to hire a better writing staff. Obsidian put them to shame. As for the mods it seems they fix every game they release it almost laughable. Feel sorry if you only play the vanilla version on consoles.
Im not saying there games are terrible but suffer from the same problems. In not believing any of the pregame Skyrim hype as its Bethesda cons and pros and everything.
Aye, the thing is that it didn't use to matter back when they were crafting huge worlds with loads of random generated content. The scale and freedom the games gave you often made up for the lifeless worlds. Instead of fixing this in later games they made the games smaller.
