Poll: "Fallout 3": Why Do Fans of the First Two Dislike It?

Recommended Videos

TyphoidEngel

New member
Jan 14, 2011
9
0
0
Fallout 1 and 2 are supreme gems of games, 3 was a wonderful gift to die-hard fans of the series and Vegas is even better. The fact that they had so many nods to the original and even used it as a chance to explain what some happenings were in 1 & 2 ie. the vertibird outside Klameth. But I still prefer 1 & 2 over all else.

Open challenge: Name one game other then fallout 2 where you can be forced into marriage, get addicted to drugs and pimp out your wife to support your drug habit?
 
Aug 1, 2010
2,768
0
0
I played 3, then NV then I tried to play one and two. The game-play was fine, but the art style (not the graphics!) was so unappealing that I never finished either.

Fallout 3 is still my favorite game of all time.
 

Zaik

New member
Jul 20, 2009
2,077
0
0
Xzi said:

All you and the other guy got out of it was something about fast travel, and not the over-arching idea that your entire argument for Morrowind > Oblivion is that you enjoy tedious boring time-wasting features and think that the sane people are wrong for wanting to cut it out. Why is that?
 

cairocat

New member
Oct 9, 2009
572
0
0
How about "I liked Fallout 3 and I really don't give a shit about the others, having never played them"
 

herpaderphurr

New member
Mar 16, 2010
116
0
0
I played Fallout in the order they were released, just not anywhere near the times they were. If that makes sense.

See, I wanted to play Fallout 3 pretty badly, but couldn't run it, so instead I played Fallout 1 then 2.

It's clear that Fallout 1 & 2 were great games for their times, but nowaways they've simply aged to the point where it detracts from my enjoyment - for example, the clunky inventory system, annoying bugs (I did install user-made patches which helped a lot), and how some X was simply BETTER than Y. X and Y could mean equipment, companions, SPECIAL/skills/perks/traits, etc. which translates to so much missed opportunity in the form of varied gameplay experience if they had been implemented and balanced better.

I then played Fallout 3. When you compare how good Fallout 1 & 2 were against other games that were out at the time, and Fallout 3 against other games that were out when that was released, they're probably pretty much the same in terms of how good there are comparatively.
However, Fallout 3 is simply new, and with that comes a lot more enjoyment - better graphics, voice acting, better balancing of SPECIAL/skills/perks, easier inventory management, and other assorted luxuries that come with modern video games. The raiders did piss me off though, because of how common they were, how they didn't have any redeeming qualities, moral choices, quest lines, interactable NPCs, or anything past "BAD GUYS LOL".

I have noticed, however, that while Fallout 1 & 2 could be extremely frank in terms of the darkness of the post-apocalyptic setting (various criminal underworlds, etc.), Fallout 3 simply skipped out on a lot of it. There isn't much swearing, slavery outside of Paradise Falls (and they don't seem too bad off compared to previously), or any of the darker stuff that was prevalent in Fallout 1 & 2.

No! I'm not some twat who enjoys stuff like that simply for the fact that they're there and shunned by society and me liking it makes me super cool. I mourn the loss because it detracts from the atmosphere: I don't personally like using the word fuck to punctuate my sentences, but it does detract from immersion and the gameplay experience where not a single low-life scumbag does that in Fallout 3.

Also, as previous posters have noted, Fallout 3 lost a lot of the quirky humour that defined the previous games in the series. That does suck.

All in all though, I'd still rather play Fallout 3 over the classics right now, because it's simply newer, and generally newer translates to better, as it does in this case.
 

dancinginfernal

New member
Sep 5, 2009
1,871
0
0
I adored Fallout 3, but it's not really much of a Fallout game.

The setting doesn't have the same 'flavor' that 1, 2, & NV did.
 

Duskwolf

New member
Feb 24, 2011
15
0
0
The first two worked, the third was amazingly broken for just about any platform it came in contact with.

I liked 3, but Prefer the previous, at least they worked.
 

JediMB

New member
Oct 25, 2008
3,094
0
0
I played the games in order. Except I haven't really finished Fallout 2 yet, due to a number of issues.

Fallout 3 is a great game. Very immersive. But the atmosphere and sense of humor are just better in the other three games.

Haven't tried Tactics yet, but will eventually. After I decide to dig out Fallout 2 again and finish it.
 

MiracleOfSound

Fight like a Krogan
Jan 3, 2009
17,776
0
0
Ultratwinkie said:
[
Considering the level of graphics, Fallout 3 looks like Ridge racer. If you consider overdone, cliche, patronizing, and overly patriotic games to be "fun", fine, but don't claim that its a fact.
Fallout 3 is not patriotic. Quite the opposite in fact.
 

MiracleOfSound

Fight like a Krogan
Jan 3, 2009
17,776
0
0
Duskwolf said:
The first two worked, the third was amazingly broken for just about any platform it came in contact with.

.
Not really. Fallout 2 is one of the most notoriously buggy games ever released.
 

Olrod

New member
Feb 11, 2010
861
0
0
I liked Fallout and Fallout 2.

I don't like FPS games.

I bought Fallout 3, and I was disappoint.
 

OniaPL

New member
Nov 9, 2010
1,057
0
0
How long are Fallout 1 and 2? I used to play only bits at my friends house ages ago, but now I'd like to actually own them, as I thought they were good.

My question is, how long does one COMPLETE playthrough take? My friend completed the game quite quickly, but I'm sure he didn't look at all the corners.

I'd like an answer, as I am pondering if they are worth my money.
 

Duskwolf

New member
Feb 24, 2011
15
0
0
MiracleOfSound said:
Not really. Fallout 2 is one of the most notoriously buggy games ever released.
True enough, but if there's any trend we've seen from this series it's that "Released without any testing" and "Working as intended" are the staples of any product they release. 2 at least was fixable for most people, 3 just doesn't work at all for some people, and the sheer number of returned copies of the XB360 that were just faulty makes you think the whole game was produced in a sweatshop with spit and tissue paper.
 

psivamp

New member
Jan 7, 2010
623
0
0
Fallout 3 doesn't have the same level of absurdity and humor that the first two had. It's mostly dreary.

I don't hate 3, but it's my least favorite of the Fallout games (Not counting the earlier console games that I don't consider to be part of the fold).
 

farscythe

New member
Dec 8, 2010
382
0
0
i liked all of them but kinda missing the sense of humour the originals had (and the child killing.. basically i feel a bit less free to do whatever the hell i want in the new ones)other than that no real gripes.. n at least the new games are just as buggy as the old ones :p
 

HT_Black

New member
May 1, 2009
2,845
0
0
Because the gameplay is hideously unbalanced, the story was written by retards, and it lets you roleplay about as much as a railroad track?

Yeah, that's why.
 

AMMO Kid

New member
Jan 2, 2009
1,810
0
0
I LOVED Fallout 3, liked Fallout 1, disliked Fallout 2, and was very "meh" with New Vegas