About | Meet the Team | Subscribe to RSS | Follow us on Twitter | Join our Steam group | Jobs
Regulars | Articles | Previews | Reviews | Podcasts | Xbox 360 | PlayStation 3 | Wii | PC | PSP | DS | Indie | Retro

Resurrection: Fallout 3

The dark side…

Resurrection: Fallout 3

Resurrection is a regular feature in which Resolution takes a look back at a game from way back when. Although its lonely atmosphere won the game plaudits, Sam Giddings explains why it left him less than impressed with FALLOUT 3.

Let’s go back in time a couple of weeks. It’s the end of the month. Saturday. My bank account lies in ruins. A trip into town to trade some games beckons. I rummage through the pile, trying to sort out anything that might fetch me a fair rate of exchange. Fallout 3 stares back at me, dusty and neglected. I pick it up, hesitate, put it back. I’ve been meaning to return to it for months now, and I promise myself yet again that I will, and soon. Then I wonder: “why?”

I pick it up again, my resolve clear.

I feel as if it’s somehow my fault that I don’t enjoy Fallout 3. I feel as if I haven’t made enough effort. Everyone else seems to like it. Forum threads are heaving with praise, critics gush over its never-diminishing returns. I feel like the lone voice of dissent, the guy standing there saying, “Look! The Emperor isn’t wearing any clothes.”

I loved Bethesda’s previous offering, Oblivion. Fallout 3 uses the same engine. But something just doesn’t sit right with me and Fallout. Actually, it’s not just one thing. It’s several things that bug me.

Losing control

The first is the control system. Oblivion was primarily based on melee combat, with a lot of area effect spells. You could run in, hold down the trigger button, and gleefully hack away at a troll or bludgeon a wolf to death. The thief class could sneak in and make a serious offensive using a backstab, and mages could throw fireballs at the fauna. In short, imprecision didn’t matter.

In Fallout 3, however, shooting is key. Sure, some weapons work better than others, but once VATS has run its course and I have to cower behind a rock while I wait for it to recharge, I have to trust in my FPS skills. Only, Fallout 3 isn’t an FPS. It’s an RPG, and the floaty crosshairs reflect this. None of the weapons have any real heft, and the controls slide around without weight or substance. It creates a disconnect that I can’t get over, but – more importantly – I keep bloody missing whatever I’m shooting.

Early on, this aggravation is compounded, not eliminated, by the turn-based VATS. I queue up a long line of attacks, only to see my laser beams fly off into the distance like a light show at a rave. In Fallout 3, this translates into dying a lot. It introduces the paranoia of constantly having to save every five seconds, which breaks any immersion. In some ways, this is a masterstroke of mercy. I’m constantly at odds with the cloying animosity of my surroundings, and any interruptions are a welcome relief.


Pages: 1 2


    “None of the weapons have any real heft”

    You obviously didn’t find the mini-nuke ;)

    I’ll admit the game was very hard at the start, but that’s part of the fun. After about six hours or so things got easier for me, and a hell of a lot more fun. I’m surprised you didn’t like it after 25 hours. Nice write-up though.

  • Your last point really rings true for me, and is the one reason I never saw Fallout 3 to the end. The whole thing is just so downtrodden and miserable. And I realize that’s the whole point, so it puts me in an uncomfortable position. Do I praise the game for accomplishing exactly what it set out to do in big, bold, beautiful fashion? Or do I scold the game for being so off-putting?

    The original two games didn’t have that problem because of the disconnect between player and game world. That Fallout 3 was so immersive was precisely what I didn’t like about it; I was pulled in and, in turn, wanted out.

  • Sam, you will not know the meaning of the word “bleak” until you’ve played Pathologic. Fallout 3 is an all expenses paid week in the Seychelles by comparison.

  • Great article! I honestly didn’t find Fallout 3 particularly bleak—but it was barren. On my second playthrough I installed the mod which adds green grass and trees, which—although it compromised one mission a little—made the world feel more hospitable.

  • I ‘ve started Fallout 3 3 times 1st traded in when heard of GOTY edition 2nd YLOD no back up 3rd time all I need are 3 trophies to get the Platinum including dlc trophies at about 90 hours Psn Id angrystslayer

  • You hit the nail on the head when you said…

    “it’s probably my fault. I understand; I just don’t enjoy it. Perhaps I just prefer my games to be shinier, lighter, fluffier excursions: ones that lie glittering in my pile of games, winking at me, alluring and infinitely more inviting than the iron grimness of Fallout 3.”

    Go play Super Mario Brothers….

  • I can appreciate the problem regarding the barren landscape. Thing is, I LIKE post-apocalyptic settings. What jarred with me was that the landscape didn’t even vaguely match the lore and it repeatedly threw me. Unlike the first game, FO3 is set a couple of centuries after the war – that’s a HUGE amount of time for rebuilding, and a huge amout of time for the old world to decay. FO2 had that to a lesser extent, being several generations after the bombs, but the gameworld was consistent with that – towns were reforming, technology was being scavenged and re-implemented. The Enclave made sense as enemies in that setting – for the first half of the game you are stuck between various factions with different visions of how to rebuild the world – largely a POSITIVE thing, as the world is recovering (though with some uncertainty as to the form it will take – e.g. a totalitarian state that is also free from racism and provides good living, a racist no-mutant good-tech ‘democracy’ (great…unless you’re the mutants and ghouls they’re going to wipe out), a free but crime-ridden town, etc. Then halfway through the Enclave appear…it’s the remnants of the old world, the old politicians, who haven’t learnt a thing. It made sense being set so long after the bombs because the threat was about the old warmongers rising up to smother the infant society at its birth.

    FO3, however, played out thematically like FO1 – a completely devastated world with no true states or solid governments. That just didn’t make sense so long after the war – it made me wonder how NCR or Vault City hadn’t come through and claimed territory there yet. It didn’t make sense that pre-war computers were still working after 200 years, with no explanation of where the electricity is coming from (unlike FO1 which was set just after the war, and FO2 where the source of electricity is a major issue in the cold war between the various city-states). FO3 looked and felt like it was contemporaneous with FO1, not 200 years later, and I think I’d have enjoyed it much more if it had been set as a contemporaneous side-story (i.e. ‘what’s happening on the other coast during FO1?’). The mutants would have made more sense too – in FO1/2 they are sterile but long-lived, and by FO2 are very clearly intelligent and have made peace with the non-mutants (one town even has a super-mutant mayor).

  • I agree totally with this article and feel I too experienced the same.

    I appears to be an epic game and stands alone but the barron wasteland just does not appeal.

  • Fallout 3 is hard? WTF? Even in Oblivion it was easier to die… lol

  • “Resolution takes a look back at a game from way back when.”

    Fallout 3? Less than two years is ‘way back when’?

  • This guy has to be kidding… This is too hilarious.

  • Seriously, there are a lot of reasons not to like Fallout 3 (such as the big one that Azrael mentioned), but your reasons are just…look, there’s a difference between you complaining about this game after 25 hours and me complaining after 300 hours. I mean, except for the weapon condition part (which was annoying by level 10), half your reasons are untrue (there’s nobody attacking you in your own house and the combat is ridiculously easy at that, and shooting is like in Deus Ex), and the rest are a bit over-generalized or make you sound as though you are incapable of playing a game like this

    Look, I’m not as fond off Fallout 3 as I once was (I’ve descended down the road towards original Fallout fanboy and I’m rather happy about it), but these are not the reasons to dislike Fallout 3. It’s your opinion, but still

  • Wow, don’t they have journos that actually play video games?
    Too hard?! Unless you discovered super ultra hard difficulty,
    then you just are bad at them. Maybe review Peggle.
    It’s both shiny and bright…

  • PS, I find it AMUSING you say Fallout 3 “informs” Dragon Age.
    You are incapable of even using wikipedia.

  • Countingdown7 and others: Don’t be so hostile. It’s an alternative view on things. They’re allowed, you know.

  • I must admit, that you are right in some of the things you say, though dont say it was too hard. I played on normal difficulty and ended up havening aroung 200 stimpacks i lvl 10 and 7000 caps. one of the reasons may be that i choose to be urmarmed worrier with alot of hit points. I actually had no fear of traveling the wastes, even at the beginning of the game since nothing could hurt me.

  • May I just reiterate the most important point about this piece: opinion. If you don’t agree with it then say so in a mature manner, detailing your points the same way as the author. Resolution is no place for nasty comments, this isn’t some troll forum.

    Anyway, great piece. Agreed with a lot of your points, the game impressed me and the world awed me, but it was not enough to make me come back and play it. I too like my games shinier, maybe not as shiny as /Mario/ though.

  • lol. This is a silly article. Fallout 3 is not hard, and the setting (and virtually all of the story elements) are corny as hell.

    Not the Fallout setting of course. The Fallout 3 setting is the one that is corny.

  • Got a few other comments.

    To Mike Suskie: Seriously? I knew people bought into the “immersive” talking point, but not to that extent. Apparently “immersion” is all about camera angle. The “I feel like I’m really there!” argument for first person perspective, is aggressively stupid.

    To PurpleSteve: He has a right to voice his opinion. But that doesn’t give him carte blanche to say any stupid thing that pops into his head, and not get criticized for it. Opinions can be wrong. Opinions can be ill informed. Opinions can be downright stupid. I hate that “it’s his opinion. leave him alone!” BS.

  • Bobby: No, we’re all for discussion and debate, and I hope you’ll stick around to engage in just that. It’s just some of the hostility on this thread that we’re not fond of. There’s a difference between “I disagree because…” and “You’re an idiot,” y’know?

    RE: the “too hard” thing — having re-read the piece just now I can’t find the bit where he says the game is too hard. He said he died a lot. I didn’t interpret those as the same thing.

  • @ reviewer

    [SNIP. Not least because this is in no way a review.]

  • @Bobby: I agree. I did not say “it’s his opinion. leave him alone!”, I said if you disagree then say so, but do it in a thought out manner rather than just being plain rude. Surely you agree with that?

  • Don’t see how Fallout 3 is hard, I mean with the Instant Win Button how could it be hard?

    play Fallout 1, now thats hard.

  • I never called anyone an “idiot”. I DID question his ability as a gamer because Fallout 3 is known as an easy game.

    It is also a game that has a COMPASS SYSTEM for quests. It is impossible to get lost. AND it has a fast travel option. After 25 hours(plus however long he spent before that)he could have done the main quest.

    I can only assume this guy isn’t a gamer.

  • Maybe you meant “PS, I find it AMUSING you say Fallout 3 “informs” Dragon Age.
    You are incapable of even using wikipedia.”

    Which, again, questions his level of knowledge not his intellect.
    Bioware games and Bethesda games are polar opposites, in fact,
    if Fallout in ANY WAY inspired Bioware(despite Mass Effect already
    doing the FPS/RPG genre a year before)it was Black Isle’s original
    two Fallout’s, not the remake.

    All of this is easily read on wikipedia, but research is too hard,
    I guess.

  • And I never did say that you called anyone an idiot. I wasn’t referring directly to you. I was hoping to make it clear that we don’t tolerate unnecessary hostility at Resolution. We like to think that we are grown-ups capable of having a conversation without shouting.

    While I personally wouldn’t have gone as far as to say Fallout 3 informed Dragon Age, I too noticed a couple of moments at which I was reminded of it.

    The whole arrogance thing when it comes to being good at games, and moaning when other people don’t live up to your high standards, is utter nonsense, too. This is a singleplayer game. It is non-competitive. (For the record, I found Fallout 3 to be reasonably hard in places as well, particularly early on and then very late on in the main quest.)

    More than anything, though, I genuinely don’t understand why it offends you so much that someone has a contrasting opinion to you, however. More on why this is in fact a great thing in tomorrow’s editorial blog.

    [EDIT: Oh, hey, it's already gone live.]

  • Ok well first off its seems to me that you just suck and are getting pissy at a game that you cant play. My friends and i have all beaten this game on the “Very Hard” setting and i use quotes because we all run around in fun armor not even real power armor unless something really really bad assed comes after us and we don’t use companions. My friend runs around a Lincoln in full garb and I run around as Miyamoto Musashi after the alien addon came out and we fly through it all addons defeated all main mission and any side missions that sound interesting. As for vats and the accuracy I must say that the bullets seem to fly true when you aim down the sites and take a second to aim as for VATS its like i would expect you start out sucky then you get perks that increase your VATS accuracy for your specific weapon and play style like i choose commando and sniper for my gun people making the accuracy for hitting a guy square between the eyes almost indefinite with every shot. Also you probably made your person wrong my friends and I all learned within the first few days you HAVE to specialize to play on very hard choosing 9 for some and 1 for other *cough cough charisma*. All in all the game is amazing albeit a bit boring now cant wait till New Vegas maybe a male character will be more fun with the special attacks. As for the dreary alone and harsh survival idea in the wastelands thats what the game is about. Yes in oblivion you were running around prancing through valleys picking flowers maybe a wolf or minotaur attacking you but the wastelands are completely different its supposed to be a harsh environment and your not a hero at all you are The Loan Wanderer a kid from the safety of the vault leaving to look for his dad no idea whats waiting for him outside. Basically I’m just saying this game is one of the best and don’t go bashing it cause you can’t aim a gun and have to run up to people and smash their face in and aren’t smart enough to dodge run and heal when you need to.

  • Heaven forbid anyone has an opinion different from the masses eh?

  • Try putting all your points for the first four levels into into a single weapons skill. I recommend small guns. You will almost never miss in VATS. Every three days vendors restock ammo. So you can use the wait function to wait three days to get more ammo.

    Head to Springvale School for a newbie “dungeon crawl.” Get quests from Moira in Megaton. When you get a quest make it active and it will tell you exactly where you need to go on the map (minimap inside).

    If you don’t like the atmosphere then there is nothing anyone can do to change your mind. I happen to love the “trying to survive in the wasteland” experience, but to each his own.


  • I can really sympathise with this article. I thought the game did a great job of throwing you into the Wasteland feeling pretty lost, disoriented, and pathetic. That a little planning will turn your character into a cataclysmic force of nature on even the hardest settings has been discussed (a personal favourite is running towards raider camps full tilt with the Blackhawk and challenging myself to kill each raider in one shot without VATS). But I feel that the mood of hostility does change, little by little.

    Doing quests like “Agatha’s Song” mattered, not just for the aforementioned gun, but for the new radio station and the frequent thanks Agatha broadcasts over the wastes–the world’s less bleak and you helped somebody. Saving Big Town, resolving the conflict at Arefu, and clearing out Grayditch all seemed to make the wilderness a little less hostile. On the flip side, you can be as hostile to the wastes as they are to you–more creatively or less creatively–and at least show it who’s boss, e.g. by killing forever Super Mutant Behemoths, most of the Outcasts, the Talon Company Commander, and nearly anybody who looks at you funny anywhere, at any time.

    Granted, the summaries at the end of the first two games which catalogued the lasting impact of your actions may feel more rewarding, but I enjoyed transforming the wastes in Fallout 3 from that hostile, bleak place to a slightly better world, or at least my bitch. So I considered that atmosphere one more obstacle to overcome rather than a deterrent.

  • 3 words. [Which have been snipped.]

  • You thought this game was hard and tiring? Fallout 3 is just as hard as walking over to the toilet to take a dump. This has to be the most [contrasting] opinion i have ever read of Fallout 3, The game is so easy that i play on very hard with multiple mods to make the game harder. you just be 10 years old or extremely obese. [???]

  • @Jooney Obese? Fat people can’t play games now? I think that’s sports your thinking of fella.

    Oh, one more thing. It’s not even a review…

  • OK, enough now. Any further comments that add nothing to the discussion except namecalling will be deleted.

    This is not a review of the game. It’s a retrospective taking an alternate angle. I really wish people would start treating it like the latter and have a grown-up discussion, instead of behaving like bickering children.

  • I politely disagree with this article(and I really do)

    See? Its not hard is it?

    Sam, I’m not sure what kind of world you were expecting from a game set in a post apocalyptic world? Green meadows and fluffy bunnies?

    Fallouts harshness and its bleak world are what I love most about the game.

  • Ok I do not like people telling others to cool off about disagreeing with his opinions about dificulty. Honestly the game is easy end of it if this was just some kid writing on a forum that would be one thing but this is supposudly a reporter doing a review and publshing it on a serious site he should know about games and actually have some skill I think his problem is he didn’t experiment with class builds learning to give a high preception for energy wepons high agility for ap and high enderance for health seemed like it would have helped him a lot. He honestly has no skill or knowlege of gaming and shouldn’t be writing for this genra at least.

  • For the absolute last time: it is not a review.

    Perhaps an interesting discussion topic, though – certainly more interesting than the nonsense this has turned into: to what extent should someone be good at a game in order to be justified in writing about it? To what extent should someone be a fan of a genre in order to have something interesting to say? I’d argue you don’t need to be good or a fan to write something valuable. Sometimes, the opinion of an outsider is just as enlightening. Not that Sam is in any way an outsider, but I suspect that’s besides the point by this stage.

  • What kind of review is this? You didn’t even give it a score! You also didn’t even write that it was a review, and repeatedly said, “It’s not a review”! You’ll never get your review taken seriously like that.

    Seriously though, the whole point of an article like this is to let someone who wouldn’t normally review it get their take on it. Craig Lager at Gaming Daily had his wife play Oblivion for a while and had her write that up, that was pretty funny. Obviously someone who was into this type of thing would have been better placed to actually review it two years ago. This is Sam’s opinion as someone who likes RPGs and doesn’t care for the shooty bang. Any reader who doesn’t get that is a games-writing noob.

  • Someone points out that this was actually accidentally filed in the Reviews section. Er. Which may have been the source of some confusion. Apologies for that.

  • Didn’t read the comments flaming the OP. They’re boring.

    As one of the seemingly few who didn’t get on with Fallout 3 yet recognise its achievements, I completely understand where you’re coming from. For me, and like you said, Fallout 3 is the embodiment of an unresolvable existential crisis. I get enough of that in real life not to want it in a video game.

    What I would like to mention, though, is that I think there is one major failing in the game: the Fallout inhabitants. They’re just a bunch of glassy-eyed robots. If there was someone to care about in the game, someone worth saving, then maybe I’d engage with it better. And I don’t believe this is some kind of intentional artistic decision, no matter what way you spin it. I think it really is a flaw in an otherwise quite impressive game.

  • oh serious? heres and idea:you suck at shooting BLAM nothing was wrong with the shooting system execpt maybe a few pistol aiming crap

    (im only jokig dood really i dont care but somthing is kinda wrong with it but i got around it)-master sniper-

  • it’s a post apocalyptic world, why the hell would it not be bleak? people are dieing at every turn, there are guys wanting to put you up on a fish hook, and extremists have found a new venue for their craziness… that isn’t just fallout 3, every PA book i’ve read and movie i’ve seen feature that shit

  • Regarding the writer’s perspective on the dark bleak world… the writer gets it, but maybe readers don’t get the writer, let me try to help.

    I interpreted the writer as living as a starving student (my interpretation of the author’s monetary needs) may have had a serious impact on this review. The despair brought on by having to live by scrounging through filth, etc just *may* be to close to home to be enjoyable. It’s not an escapist journey for them, it is a bleak reminder of the real world situation they are in. A mirror dropped into their escapism… That can be heavy on the soul at hard times. This game was born in a time when life was a little better for a lot of people. Bringing it out when times are not so could lead to this feeling.

    So the reviewers take on the world: not happy cheery, and some obligatory mention of the mechanics that were not appealing to support my negative review sprinkled with some neutral criticism to remain aloof, but still ending in a “I really wanna dwell on the world Edgar Allan Po emo style” wrap up.

    Unfairly I completely ignored the other mechanics points brought up, he had me nodding yes emphatically when he mentioned “FPS in my RPG”… not my cup of tea either. Although it was still an interesting mash-up, but the best part of that was the ‘called’ shots part (and shooting grenades out of the air (nice touch imo), which to me was a very classy nod to the RPG part. But I am not sure I like skill based mechanics mingled with in my stat based game though. I guess I am an RPG gold box purist…

    The game must please the suits… because they read somewhere FPS was the way the world of gaming is going… And money makes the games production happen… Just not my cup of tea I guess. So I support the author putting the game back into circulation to appease a curious latecomer. That transaction doesn’t effect the sales numbers back at corporate… I can support his choice of re-sale for that reason alone. We vote with our wallets.

    This self deprecating review of the review brought to you by tooo many hours of sleep deprivation and based on nothing of importance coupled tightly with trivial blathering. Trawl on brothers!

  • The main sentiment expressed in the review, that Fallout is too bleak to be enjoyable, is far from uncommon. I love the game, but I definitely agree, to an extent. What gets me is the lack of variety. One area in FO3 looks pretty much the same as any other; it’s just varying levels of rocks, desert, rocky desert and grey buildings. I’m pretty sure that there would be a lot more vegetation, even considering the radiation, 200 years after the bombs dropped. I’m not sure how the large animals have survived for this long without more plants to snack on. All those big predators have got to get their food from somewhere. What’s wrong with post apocalyptic settings where mankind is struggling with a world overgrown with mutated plants?

    It’s somewhat disappointing that New Vegas is obviously going to be yet more desert, although if Obsidian channel even half the awesome that was New Reno in FO2, I’ll forgive them.

  • For along time I looked down at fallout 3, after all I’m a hardcore fan of the old ones, and was turned off by bethesdas approach to the series, that and the amouny of disappointment I had with oblivion, morrowind was great ( spent my entire middle school years obsessed with that game),back on subject I just recently rented fallout 3 for the 360 and was actually surprised, yeah sure the timeline and lore makes no sense, the fact there are no traits and perks every level make me scream “why did you change so much of the game bethesda it was what made individual charecters uniqe” not to mention the general lack of proper patching for the 360 version i makes me infuriated.

    Still it’s a good game, and is way better then oblivion

  • I’ve heard many comments like this article that bag FO3, saying that FO3 is Oblivion with guns, its nothing like the last FO games and its a travesty.

    I think though, that while snide folks who dislike FO3 & bitch about going against the herd with their gripes about the game and its design, the market and thus the general gaming community have spoken and have given FO3 a thumbs up. Sales of the game proved this and if it it were such an appalling game, it would have been trashed in the market place and in the trade reviews.

    Now I do agree that FO3 has got some serious short comings especially in the level of suspencion of disbelief. My main gripe is that 200+ after the atomic war and general apocalypse, there is far too much of civilization left standing. Almost all major structures would be decaying ruins, EVERY subway tunnel etc would have either collapsed or be filled with water, vegetation would have regrown [one look at the town of Pripet near Chernobyl proves this] and that many of the items found in the gamne like weapons, food etc would be unusable/inedible and so on. For me, FO3 feels like 80 years after the fall, not 200. In addition, after 200 years, there’d be far more communities which have rebuilt or instead, total savagery.

    In regards to the gameplay though, it is supposed to be a fight for survival. I really can niot sympathise with the author of the article one bit when they say they died repeatedly. Seriously dude, you must suck as a gamer and ditching the game only after 25 hours doesn’t speak well for your character. The old sayinbg is quitters never win and I guess you’ve proved that point.

    I wouldn’t have toned down the harshness of the setting. In fact the bleakness and general moribund wasteland is EXACTLY what FO requires. In IRL, a wasteland like that would be a real fight to survive and you’d have to be damned ruthless and good at combat in order to live. The savagery of the raiders, psychotic cannibals, rings true to people who are doing what it takes to stay alive albeit completely reprehensible to us today. But the fact is that that is the sort of behaviour many people would embrace in a post apocalypic world. and I congratulate Bethesda for getting that bit right.

    So in all I think the article is a reflection of a gamer who didn’t have the right stuff to make it in the wasteland. It’s a bad workman who blames the tools for their shoddy work.

  • 25 hours in and struggling? That’s either an exaggeration, or you are truly terrible at this game. When playing on Normal difficulty, the game became too easy for me and I started a new game on Very Hard difficulty.

    Admittedly, at this point, the beginning of the game was a real challenge. I was always starved of ammo, and one V.A.T.S. just couldn’t take out an enemy alone. However, basic aiming ability completely solves this. There is no reason to rely on V.A.T.S for a kill, though V.A.T.S is indeed incredibly powerful, if it doesn’t kill your enemy, then it’s common sense to just fire at him manually to finish things up. By level 8, the became easy, and I no longer even noticed the Very Hard difficulty.

    In regards to your complaints about missing when firing at enemies, it’s true that moving targets are very difficult to hit, but you can easily take them down with a V.A.T.S. Moving targets also aren’t a common issue, since a gun wielding enemy will just stand still and you can easily move in and out of cover to fire at them. Melee attackers can be difficult to hit if they have erratic movements, but then you can just activate V.A.T.S for an easy kill. As for missing in V.A.T.S, you have nobody to blame but yourself if you attempt at shot that has a 10% success chance. What the hell did you expect upon doing that? With a high skill level in your weapon type of choice, V.A.T.S becomes incredibly accurate, and it only takes a few levels to max out a skill. If you leveled up Barter and Speech instead of Small Guns, you can expect to be gimped for a very long time.

    Fallout 3 is far from difficult, on Normal difficulty the only deaths I suffered were accidentally falling from high heights, and on Very Hard difficulty I died at level 3 because I stepped on a mine which did ridiculous damage on that difficulty level. I am by no means an incredibly skilled player, but even I was able to take out a minigun wielding Super Mutant Brute at level 4 on Very Hard difficulty with a hunting rifle because I had the common sense to take cover, not attempt to use V.A.T.S because it would require getting too close to a minigun, and aimed with my eyes open.

  • Honestly, I’m not sure what some of you who oppose fallout 3 expect. Coming from a person who played both Oblivion and Fallout 3 i can say that i enjoyed BOTH games for what they were.

    Oblivion was a bullshit fantasy that will never come true with grassy wildlife,eccentric wizards,funny accents and set in a medieval looking time period. The game was fun for what it was and i think to many of you expected fallout 3 to be some generic,colorful,happy bunny land paradise like Oblivion was. By the trailer of fallout 3 and the synopsis of post apocalyptic life,I’d expect most of you would of had the simple common sense to understand what you were getting yourselves into. Are you just playing stupid or are some of you truly that ignorant?

    If the game seemed depressing(which it should of,from what i hear of all the whining and complaining)then you should of turned a blind eye and not bothered playing it in the first place as a warning from the trailers.

    Yes. It’s a post apocalyptic world,barren,deserted,depressing and dangerous. Everything a post apocalyptic game is SUPPOSE to look like. It was much more in tune with reality then oblivion was,not completely mind you,but MUCH MORE in touch with reality then oblivion ever was and in turn that was what made the games fun factor. The idea of thinking “wow this place is dangerous and it feels so real! This nonsense could actually happen in real life!” It’s not an absurd fantasy like oblivion where your groping elven females,shooting fireballs out of your ass and looking for the magical unicorn in the grassy meadows while avoiding minotaurs. Some lousy escape from reality into some kinky fantasy land of dungeons and dragons.

    So again,If you guys knew exactly that it was a post apocalyptic game and that it would most likely be deserted,barren and depressing,then why in the world would you even bother to initially play it when you already knew that you weren’t interested in that particular scenery in the first place. Most of all the anti-fallout 3 views just feel so biased and ignorant. It’s like you already knew you weren’t going to like the game,decided you would play it anyway,then complain like a bunch of children after proving yourself right. Pathetic….

  • I really don’t know what you were expecting when you (obviously without any research) went out and bought Fallout 3 “way back when”.

Leave a Reply