Fallout 3 Criticism

[ashtonlp101]

So I was playing through Fallout 3 (finally got it to work on my PC) and I was thinking about the criticism of the lack of choice in the main storyline. Although I completely agree that the lack of choice and consequence in the main quest is laughable, I feel like it's much easier to say that in hindsight. If you look at the two Fallouts Bethesda had to work with, they really didn't have much variation in the main quest but a lot of options in the side quests which is exactly what you see in Fallout 3. It really wasn't until Obsidian got a hold of Fallout that the Fallout fathers made a freeform New Vegas main questline. Just to make a example so my thought are getting put out:

 

Fallout 1: Save your vault, you can join the super mutants at the end, but there isn't a unique questline for it (similar with the Enclave in FO3). Also to be noted, you are on a time limit for the majority of the game, so you can't opt to not save your village because that is considered a "game over." Lots of choice in side quests, but they aren't as prevalent or as interesting as Fallout 2.

 

Fallout 2: You cannot join the enclave, you are essentially forced to save your village and defeat the Enclave. But once again, side-quests are very well written and full of choice.

 

Fallout 3: Once again, no option whatsoever to join the Enclave, but you CAN poison the water supply which ultimately has no in-game consequences, even if you have Broken Steel. Side-quests are once again filled with a lot of choice, but little consequence besides ones like Power of the Atom.

 

Fallout NV: A multiple-quest-line, freeform main story in which you can choose one faction, or double cross a faction, or really do whatever you want up until the last couple faction quests for each main faction. Side-quests once again are very well developed and have consequences that have consequence.

 

I'm not necessarily trying to defend Fallout 3 for all its flaws, rather I'm trying to show that when we see Fallout 3 in hindsight it's easy to ask why it wasn't like the game that came out two years later. NV is my personal favorite but in Bethesda's case, they were simply trying to follow the equation that previous Fallouts followed.

[jjb54]

Until I got the DLC's for FO3 - I was seriously disappointed w/the game. I finished the main line and then discovered " GAME OVER " .... I went, WTF????? Seriously, there are other quests and places I wanted to discover!!

 

Now there are some great MOD QUESTS for FO3, but also you NEED the DLC's for a number of these QUESTS, which is fine. I have them now.

 

All-in-all, I really enjoy FO3, the characters and quests, as long as you understand HOW TO PLAY THEM. ;)

 

As for FO NV - there too, a good story lines and I put FO3 and NV in the same league of fun. I'm looking into the mod that ties the 2 into 1 game, so the Lone Wonder can " travel ". :)

 

But I have to admit - FO4 was and still is a major disappointment for me. Even after taking 1 1/2 years off the game and came back to find it's still seriously bug ridden ....

 

Plus I'm looking at the mod that ties NV and California together.

[JimboUK]

I didn't really like FO3, it was fun with mods but I'd kind of used them to turn it into a story led shooter, I think where it did excel was the DLC which in my opinion was better than the DLC released for New Vegas.

[Radioactivelad]

I don't really understand the idea that you're "forced" to search for your father, save your village, etc.

It's very common for RPGs to have plots. I don't think anyone is reprimanding it for that. Nor the lack of a binary choice to make the entirety of the rest of the plot irrelevant. (Joining the Bad Guys.)

(Not to mention it's against character for the enclave. They'd no sooner let The Chosen One join their ranks as The Master would let The Vault Dweller remain human.)

 

The problem people have with Fallout 3's mainquest is that the player has no agency, they're just a suitcase for the plot's various Mcguffins and a sidekick to the true star of the show, Liam Neeson.

 

Overall, Fallout 3 wasn't terrible for a first effort at making a fallout game though.

Edited February 22, 2020 by Radioactivelad

[ashtonlp101]

I don't really understand the idea that you're "forced" to search for your father, save your village, etc.

It's very common for RPGs to have plots. I don't think anyone is reprimanding it for that. Nor the lack of a binary choice to make the entirety of the rest of the plot irrelevant. (Joining the Bad Guys.)

(Not to mention it's against character for the enclave. They'd no sooner let The Chosen One join their ranks as The Master would let The Vault Dweller remain human.)

 

The problem people have with Fallout 3's mainquest is that the player has no agency, they're just a suitcase for the plot's various Mcguffins and a sidekick to the true star of the show, Liam Neeson.

 

Overall, Fallout 3 wasn't terrible for a first effort at making a fallout game though.

I suppose I should rephrase what I meant. In Fallout 4, your character is forced to care about your son, you can't role-play as an asshole who doesn't care about anyone except for himself. In Fallout 3, your character is forced to care about your father. In Fallout 2 you can give zero f*#@s about anything and play how you want, you can completely ignore all the psychic messages of the village shaman and let Arroyo rot (as far as I know), in Fallout 1 if you play that way it's game over.

[jjb54]

I read / watched ( I don't remember right now ) - about FO 3 - NV - 4

 

The thing is FO 3 still had more RPG to it then not. But there was a start to ' move away ' ..... but they stayed as much an RPG as the game could allow.

The same was true for FO - NV, as with FO 3

 

But FO 4 simply became a FPS and the RPG was all but gone.