Is Fallout 3 really not a proper Fallout game?

[DannyJBeckett]

Of course Fallout 3 is a proper Fallout game. It follows the same overarching setting and theme, doesn't it?

Just because the gameplay is different, and it doesn't contain as much pitch-black humour as the rest of the series doesn't mean it's not a part of the series. That's just the unappeasable purists talking.

 

[Arbi Trax]

Fallout 3 is a fantastic game, but the originals were better written.

Get Chris Avellone to start writing for Bethesda and...and...oh God...

I need a Saliva Vacuum!

*Shlorp*

Aah, better.

 

[Pjotr84]

Read up on the story of FO1, 2 and Van Buren. Then compare that to 3.

Well, since "Van Buren" was never made, than that point is moot. And considering ALL of 1,2, and VB takes place in California, and 3 In D.C then there will be differences.

Just how are they to "Sync up" story wise. Two different places seperated by 100 years and 3000 miles (some people forget to remember that fallout 1 and 2 have a time span gap of decades in between.)

Far from being moot, Van Buren is the one that most convinces me that FO3 isn't a 'proper' Fallout game. With 1, 2 and Van Buren you can see where they are going with the story, they're exploring the world developing the story of rebuilding after the apocalypse. Betheseda just went 'Woo! Supermutants, BoS, Enclave, Vaults! Woo!'

Nail on the head right there.

The Fallout part in Fallout went completely over Bethesda's head.

 

[Mr Pantomime]

Well Fallout 3 was released a full 10 years after Fallout 2. Its more popular and sold far more copies. And most Fallout 3 fans would never have played Fallout 1 and 2. Therefore, Fallout 1 and 2 arent really proper Fallout games.

 

[Austin Howe]

Is Fallout 3 Fallout? Yeah, look at the damn title, simple as that. Still, the game retains more than enough of it's roots to be called as such. I find it akin to what Mario did with 64 in terms of expanding gameplay concepts into true 3d worlds.

 

[Justanewguy]

Not sure. It was kinda off, but I still liked it. On the other hand, New Vegas was spot on.

This. I was introduced to the series by 3, and went back to play 1 and 2. 3, compared to 1 and 2 is off, but it's not "bad." It's still an intensely fun game, and even was my introduction to the series (I'm just a little to young to have played the originals when they came out). I will always enjoy playing 3. I will always enjoy playing 1 more. I will always enjoy New Vegas more than three and just a little less than one.

 

[ChupathingyX]

Well Fallout 3 was released a full 10 years after Fallout 2. Its more popular and sold far more copies. And most Fallout 3 fans would never have played Fallout 1 and 2. Therefore, Fallout 1 and 2 arent really proper Fallout games.

I really hope you're joking.

OT: Fallout 3 is a bad Fallout game, whether it is a good game is up to you. But in terms of being a Fallout game is messes with too much lore and can be very inconsistent at times, and Bethesda really just took things from the originals and did whatever they wanted to do with them.

 

[FilipJPhry]

It's more like a Bethesda game than an Interplay game. Bethesda thought 1 & 2 were awesome, so they re-introduced the series to make the series recognized. It worked for me! Thanks to Fallout 3, I've gotten into the earlier games (except Brotherhood of Steel, that was crap)

 

[Aprilgold]

It was set in the universe, but didn't have the key ingredients to a fallout game.
Mainly there were too many plotholes, and the problem there is that each fallout game / quest usually were very much contained into that one title, fallout 3 failed there.
It really didn't include tribes, yet another miss, why I like tribes is because its realistic, if I am evil, then certain factions should be upset NOT EVERYONE!
It was too gritty, not enough ironic jokes like the original had.

New Vegas felt like what Fallout 3 SHOULD have been, but it wasn't, Fallout 3 feels like a canon spinoff, while New Vegas is the real sequel.

 

[Nomanslander]

There will always be that group of Fallout 1 & 2 fans that played and loved the two back in the day, and won't consider Fallout 3 anything but Oblivion reskinned. But then again they will never be able to convince you of such.

Personally I've played the first two games, but since I tried them so late in the game and found them archaic, I don't think I'll ever see them measure up to FO3.

 

[Mr Pantomime]

Well Fallout 3 was released a full 10 years after Fallout 2. Its more popular and sold far more copies. And most Fallout 3 fans would never have played Fallout 1 and 2. Therefore, Fallout 1 and 2 arent really proper Fallout games.

I really hope you're joking.

OT: Fallout 3 is a bad Fallout game, whether it is a good game is up to you. But in terms of being a Fallout game is messes with too much lore and can be very inconsistent at times, and Bethesda really just took things from the originals and did whatever they wanted to do with them.

Completely serious. Fallout 3 is now what defines the franchise. What you think about it, whether it messes up the canon, is irrelevant. For most people who played Fallout 3, it was their first Fallout experiance. It defined what Fallout was to them. So not by canon, but by public perception, Fallout 3 is the proper Fallout game.

 

[ChupathingyX]

Completely serious. Fallout 3 is now what defines the franchise. What you think about it, whether it messes up the canon, is irrelevant. For most people who played Fallout 3, it was their first Fallout experiance. It defined what Fallout was to them. So not by canon, but by public perception, Fallout 3 is the proper Fallout game.

I'm sorry but that logic is just completely flawed.

Fallout 1 was the original Fallout game and therefore laid out what was canon, Fallout 2 continued this, BoS and Tactics ruined this, and then Fallout 3 did a similar thing. Then New Vegas came out and didn't screw up the lore.

By your logic the Lord of the Rings novels are irrelevent because they came out decades ago and many people were introduced with the film trilogy. By your logic Avatar: The Last Airbender is irrelevent because the live action adaption made more money and was widely viewed.

Your logic is based on "public perception", but there is a difference between "public perception" and "fact". Fallout 1 came out before Fallout 3, Fallout 1 laid out the Fallout universe and the lore was set, now it just needed to be expanded. Fallout 3 expanded on it wrong, New Vegas, however, did it right.

Something may be canon to them because Fallout 3 was their first game, but that does not just make Fallout 1 disappear from history.

 

[Mr Pantomime]

Completely serious. Fallout 3 is now what defines the franchise. What you think about it, whether it messes up the canon, is irrelevant. For most people who played Fallout 3, it was their first Fallout experiance. It defined what Fallout was to them. So not by canon, but by public perception, Fallout 3 is the proper Fallout game.

I'm sorry but that logic is just completely flawed.

Fallout 1 was the original Fallout game and therefore laid out what was canon, Fallout 2 continued this, BoS and Tactics ruined this, and then Fallout 3 did a similar thing. Then New Vegas came out and didn't screw up the lore.

By your logic the Lord of the Rings novels are irrelevent because they came out decades ago and many people were introduced with the film trilogy. By your logic Avatar: The Last Airbender is irrelevent because the live action adaption made more money and was widely viewed.

Your logic is based on "public perception", but there is a difference between "public perception" and "fact". Fallout 1 came out before Fallout 3, Fallout 1 laid out the Fallout universe and the lore was set, now it just needed to be expanded. Fallout 3 expanded on it wrong, New Vegas, however, did it right.

Something may be canon to them because Fallout 3 was their first game, but that does not just make Fallout 1 disappear from history.

LOTR and The Last Airbender are adaptations, not sequels.

Youre arguing about the canon, but not the brand. And that is what were really arguing about here, the brand, the image, the title of Fallout. A brand is an everchanging thing, that is based on public perception of said brand.
While you can argue that Fallout 1 and 2 are the "true Fallout experiance" canonically, Fallout 3 is now what defines the current brand of Fallout.

 

[ChupathingyX]

Youre arguing about the canon, but not the brand. And that is what were really arguing about here, the brand, the image, the title of Fallout. A brand is an everchanging thing, that is based on public perception of said brand.
While you can argue that Fallout 1 and 2 are the "true Fallout experiance" canonically, Fallout 3 is now what defines the current brand of Fallout.

That's because the OP is talking about story and canon, read the OP.

 

[Custard_Angel]

Consider the Cthulhu mythos.

A large portion of it is solely attributed to Lovecraft himself as the author, but a great many works were from other authors (Derleth, Howard, Kutner etc).

The works are still considered canon, even though they are from another author.

Apply this logic to the Fallout series.

 

[Da_Vane]

The only time the argument "Fallout 3 isn't a true Fallout game" is even remotely valid is when you are talking about gameplay. Bethesda took the IP from the Franchise and created an entirely new type of game out of it - they did not create a new Fallout game. While many people disregard Fallout Tactics as a Fallout game, it still had much of the gameplay of the original two games, and thus can still be classed as such.

This distinction isn't about not liking change, as many will gripe. It's about understanding the relevance and impact of gameplay on a game, and how gameplay is as much part of what defines a game, as the story. Yes, it would be pretty cool to be able to zoom in and see things from the Vault Dweller's point of view, but using that viewpoint in a real-time context changes the gameplay into a different type of RPG from the original Fallout games.

Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas plays like a Post Apocalyptic version of Elder Scrolls: Oblivion. Yet this is a different style completely from Fallout 1, 2, and Tactics, which played like a turn-based equivalent of Baldur's Gate. Both are great games, but they are completely different in terms of gameplay even if their stories are similar in theme, since they are both fairly standard fantasy.

 

[ChupathingyX]

Consider the Cthulhu mythos.

A large portion of it is solely attributed to Lovecraft himself as the author, but a great many works were from other authors (Derleth, Howard, Kutner etc).

The works are still considered canon, even though they are from another author.

Apply this logic to the Fallout series.

I will, and I will apply it to Fallout: New Vegas, which was made by a different developer and didn't screw anything up.

Fallout 3 on the other hand, is a slightly different story.

 

[WolfThomas]

The only thing I didn't like about Fallout 3 was how it had to take place after Fallout 1 and 2. It was already far enough removed from the first two, why not set it parallel to the main games?

My complaint was that really after Fallout 2 society on the east coast had pulled itself out of the gutter, seriousy there was the Arroyo/Vault 13 city, Vault City, NCR and the Shi Empire in San Fransisco. Even if the West coast was far more heavily bombed, they still had a lot of time to rebuild, so I found Megaton and Rivet City pretty primitive.

Any other Fallout game should really be a prequel. Tell a story about one of the first vaults to open and how they dealt with the post apocalyptic frontier.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

I'm kind of sick of this whole "FALLOUT 3 IS NOT A FALLOUT GAME" argument that often crops up whenever Fallout 3 is brought up. In my opinion, this argument is ridiculous. What I feel it really feel the argument should be is: "Fallout 3 is not Fallout 2."

I'm not talking about the gameplay here, I'm talking about the atmosphere and story. Fallout 3 is very different to Fallout 2 in it's tone. Fallout 2 was much less serious and had a lot of dark humour compared to Fallout 3 which had a few moments but not as much as it's predecessor. However, when we look at the original Fallout, 3 has a very similar tone. Fallout 1, again, had it's moments of humour but was mostly a serious dark game. It wasn't full of laughs or light hearted antics like Fallout 2 or New Vegas. 3 was very similar to 1 in my opinion.

I think Fallout 3 is a fantastic game and just as valid member in the Fallout series as any of the others.

Ok, here's the deal:

As a stand-alone title, F3 is a superb game. The atmosphere, the setting, everything. Before I go any further I would like to thank Bethesda for at least bringing Fallout back into the spotlight and getting people interested in Fallout again. But it doesn't work as part of the Fallout franchise. The original Fallouts were about how humanity had rebuilt itself after nuclear war in a world full of mutated flora and fauna; and Fallout 3 was about how humanity hadn't done jack shit to repair itself in two hundred years in a totally desolate world with no life whatsoever. But lets put that to one side.

The main reason original Fallout fans (like myself) dislike F3 can be summed up quite simply. Strictly speaking, F3 isn't canon. Now, I know Bethesda now own the rights to Fallout and can legally do to the canon what it likes, but that doesn't mean it should. Fallout 3 f*cks the pre-established canon so hard that really F3 and F1&2 cannot exist side by side. Either you take Bethesda's version of Fallout canon, which totally invalidates 1&2, or you take the original's view, in which case 3 becomes totally implausible. Playing through 3 as someone who played the originals you bump into so many Han/Greedo-shot-first moments that the game is really frustrating to play.

If Bethesda had added to and expanded existing canon, longtime fans would have loved it. But they didn't add to canon. They changed and re-wrote existing canon, effectively invalidating everything long-term fans of the series had invested in the Fallout universe.

 

[Funkysandwich]

The thing that I don't like about Fallout 3 is that the storyline, characters and factions don't quite fit properly with the exsisting Fallout universe. If you havn't played the old Fallout games, obviously you're not going to notice. If you did, the game seems to take great strides to constantly stamp on the established story.

It would've been better if they'd made it take place around the same time as Fallout 1, and changed the Brotherhood of Steel into a different faction. That's all they needed to change to make it fit.