RPGWatch Feature: Fallout 3 Retrospective

I've played FO3 on multiple occasions and have enjoyed it each time. It perhaps sufferers slightly in comparison to F:NV because it came first, but I still think both are fun. Some people like to lambast either or both for their faults, but I haven't found those issues to be a major hindrance. I guess that makes me less critical than some.
 
Joined
Mar 22, 2012
Messages
5,521
Location
Seattle
I've played FO3 on multiple occasions and have enjoyed it each time. It perhaps sufferers slightly in comparison to F:NV because it came first, but I still think both are fun.
Frankly, it's a lot more likely that it suffers not because it came first, but because Bethesda developed it, as opposed to Obsidian.
 
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
3,444
Judging by the past history of those companies, I'd have to strongly disagree.
The main gist of the retrospective we're replying to here is that Fallout 3 isn't Fallout (though it may be a decent game regardless). Bethesda's history makes it plain as day that they'd have no clue how to, or no business trying to, make a Fallout-like game, and in fact they proved it...by not doing it.
 
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
3,444
The main gist of the retrospective we're replying to here is that Fallout 3 isn't Fallout (though it may be a decent game regardless). Bethesda's history makes it plain as day that they'd have no clue how to, or no business trying to, make a Fallout-like game, and in fact they proved it…by not doing it.

You're welcome to your opinion, but I'm pretty sure which is game is more "Fallout" is subjective.

That's not what you originally said anyways though. You said it "suffers" compared to NV, and that it was because Bethesda developed it. A nonsensical comment considering that Bethesda has far more experience making open-world RPGs.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
39,129
Location
Florida, US
The main gist of the retrospective we're replying to here is that Fallout 3 isn't Fallout (though it may be a decent game regardless). Bethesda's history makes it plain as day that they'd have no clue how to, or no business trying to, make a Fallout-like game, and in fact they proved it…by not doing it.

I can't agree. Fallout isn't "Fallout 1 and 2" - but a post apocalyptic setting done in a certain way.

While I can agree that Fallout 3 writing wasn't good - the exploration and atmosphere were both far superior to the dreary and awkward New Vegas.
 
Bethesda was the best thing to happen to the franchise since its inception with Tim Cain. I'd rather have a stupidly-written bugfest sandbox customizable to one's choosing than a well-told linear story that is over and done with in 40-60 hours.
 
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
5,978
Location
Florida, USA
I like FO3 and NV about the same, but I still don't understand how Obsidian managed to make the graphics worse in NV compared to FO3. If they had to actually create a whole new Fo game on there own(NV was basically a co production) it would be a disaster I think.
 
Joined
May 15, 2011
Messages
108
Open world exploration of FO3 was great! Story and NPCs not so much. BTW, actually some of the quests were so mean spirited I'd even rate them bad. But that's the Bethesda way, apparently....

I think FO:NV is next on my to play list.
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
15,679
Location
Studio City, CA
Kefka, long time no see buddy! How you been? Still playing Reckoning? Ever hear from anyone on those forums anymore?

As for FO3, I loved it, one of the few games I actually beat, although at the time I barely scratched the surface of the exploration in the game. So many points of interest I never saw. I did go back a year or so later and explored more, but the game is definitely on my short list of "must play soon", especially with some mods.
 
That's not what you originally said anyways though. You said it "suffers" compared to NV, and that it was because Bethesda developed it. A nonsensical comment considering that Bethesda has far more experience making open-world RPGs.
Right, the "suffering" comes in because real Fallout is better than Fallout 3.

And your last sentence just makes no sense at all. What makes you think that I think "open-world" is better than Fallout?
 
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
3,444
Tbh I like New Vegas kinda more. Not sure why so many bashed it, just because it was from Obsidian.

To me, New Vegas is Fallout 3 - it's the one that follows in the same story continuity as the original games, showing the further development of the NCR we saw born in Fallout 1 and growing in Fallout 2.

I don't dislike Bethesda's Fallout, but to me that one is the gaiden — Fallout: DC, rather than a number in the main series.
 
Joined
Jan 30, 2012
Messages
1,192
Location
San Francisco
Kefka, long time no see buddy! How you been? Still playing Reckoning? Ever hear from anyone on those forums anymore?

As for FO3, I loved it, one of the few games I actually beat, although at the time I barely scratched the surface of the exploration in the game. So many points of interest I never saw. I did go back a year or so later and explored more, but the game is definitely on my short list of "must play soon", especially with some mods.

Only recently started checking out game sites again. Have not played KOA in a long time and have not seen anyone but yourself from those old forums.
 
Joined
May 15, 2011
Messages
108
Actually I was surprised how much fun I had while playing FO3. I played it unmodded in the GotY version and I'm normally not a sandbox gamer. The writing was really ridiculous, some dialogs downright stupid. I'm still wondering why Gamasutra elected Pagliarulo because of the FO3 story as one of the most influential Game Writers, among Ken Levine and MCA. But the game has great hot spots and creates a certain atmosphere that is hard to ignore. The game has so many ideas in it, the only problem is, most of them are visually driven. The gameplay was plain and simple, but outright fun action. I played the game not while looking for another Steppenwolf experience and therefor I was pleasantly surprised how it turned out. I finished the game and actually enjoyed all of the DLCs, because they improved where FO3 already succeded, in creating interesting spaces.

For the retrospective, I think it catches the most important aspects but turned out a little bit short on the argumentative side of things. Half of the article consists of explanations and introductions to the topic. It helps newbies to get a feeling for the game. The second half is quite the opposite. It doesn't offer much explanation but is recurring heavy on "common sense" among insiders. I would have expected more examples from the game.

What it cannot explain, that after its release, FO3 like it's predecessors became one of the most influential games in the crpg genre.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
839
Here and in many other places I see it regularly praised over FO3. And it sold really well. It received some deserved flak for bugs, but overall it was well received, I'd say.

It sold better than Fallout 3 did during the steam sale, or at least I presume that since during the height of the sale it had upwards of 14k simultaneous players compared to fallout 3's 2k or so.

I like them both myself, though I do like NV a little more and probably put about twice as many hours into it. I think fallout 3 creates a more effective and consistent atmosphere and does a better job at times of instilling in you the sense that you are intensely alone in places and at times you should feel as such.

I think though that might also be one of the reasons I replayed New Vegas more - while its atmosphere can be a bit disjointed it is populated with more interesting characters and their present stories. The best stories in Fallout 3 are the stories of the places and the people who once lived there, though I have to admit the stories of the people living in most of the populated places within the game are far less compelling than the dead ones. An example of a portion of New Vegas which managed to display a similar split between the quest/present story-telling and the lore seeded in tidbits, journals, and even the level design was honest hearts. "The survivalist's logs" made for a far more interesting story than almost anything any of the living NPCs had to talk about.

Also, while instilling a sense of bleakness and solitude in the way which many of fallout 3's locales did excellently is impressive especially on a first play-through - it does eventually just feel bleak and lonely which can get sort of old when you're no longer being impressed by it.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 20, 2006
Messages
1,710
True, though there's still interesting stuff and NPCs to find. And that "combat plateau" occurs much later in the game in FO/FO2 than FO3. I was basically invincible 1/3 of my way through FO3.

Actually I'm about 1/3rd of the way through Fallout 1 right now and I'm not far from getting the power armor so it is actually about the same as Fallout 3 on the amount of time it takes to become powerful.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
1,596
Right, the "suffering" comes in because real Fallout is better than Fallout 3.

Ahh is that it? Well thanks for clearing that up. :)


And your last sentence just makes no sense at all. What makes you think that I think "open-world" is better than Fallout?

We're only talking about two games here, and they're both open world. Try to keep up with me. ;)
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
39,129
Location
Florida, US
We're only talking about two games here, and they're both open world. Try to keep up with me. ;)
Yes, except the point seems to have gone over your head. They may both be open world, but in the case of Fallout 3 (and any game Bethesda has ever made), that's its only claim to greatness, meanwhile Fallout: NV also has that, but adds in the claim of being a true Fallout game with great story, writing, humor, and various other elements.
 
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
3,444
I enjoyed the writing in Skyrim and Morrowind, so I can't agree with that either.

FO:NV did have better writing, but it had awful world design, crappy visuals, a ton of visual bugs, inferior exploration and so on.

Ultimately, FO:NV was a mess in my opinion - and I think it's vastly overrated.

However, I realise that's just my opinion - and I'm ok with people thinking it's better than Fallout 3.

But a great game called Fallout has to be a great Fallout game. They own the license and I think they did a great job creating a game in a post-apocalyptic world.
 
Back
Top Bottom