It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Played Fallout 1 and 2 when they were released. Loved them. I approached FO3 with an open mind and no expectations. I was pretty pysched.

Atmospheric, pretty, gritty, wide open world. OK, cool.

Setting aside the FEV being out in DC (I chose to imagine FO3 as a reimagining of the FO universe)...

The inane storyline was like punishment for some bad karma. Will not be playing again. And I felt bad for Ron Perlman having to read that intro/conclusion. Embarassing monologue. Tacky. How does it have so many good reviews on Amazon? Why are IGN and Gamespot all gaga over it? Ugh. What an unengaging story.

Just venting. Thank you for your time. I know you've all the complaints before, on this forum and elsewhere. Just getting my 2 cents, for my own sake, not anyone elses. Bye!
... and don't forget Games for Windows, for that extra kick to the gaming crotch..
I thought it was okay. It has very large shoes to fill.
And you must admit, its storyline was closer to canon than Fallout: Tactics, and its setting and scenario were more appropriate than... say... Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel.
avatar
strixo: The inane storyline was like punishment for some bad karma. Will not be playing again. And I felt bad for Ron Perlman having to read that intro/conclusion. Embarassing monologue. Tacky. How does it have so many good reviews on Amazon? Why are IGN and Gamespot all gaga over it? Ugh. What an unengaging story.

Just venting. Thank you for your time. I know you've all the complaints before, on this forum and elsewhere. Just getting my 2 cents, for my own sake, not anyone elses. Bye!
So let me get this straight.... you think the game's story sucks & it is unengaging..... yet you played it all the way to the end. OK
FO1 and 2 had good stories for their time. Not better than what's in FO3 though.
But the main storyline is not the thing!

Bioware makes great stories, then puts in a few locations and corridors so you can get a feel you're in a world.

Bethesda makes a complete populated world, then slaps in a storyline so you'll get a feel you're not just wandering around.

FO3 is not about the story, it's about roaming the wasteland, seeing some monsters far away and either going to them or going around them. It's about seeing a location of interest far away and going for a look.

I loved FO1 and 2, as well as Knights of the Old Republic. But I'll take FO3 over Mass Effect 2 any day.
Post edited March 18, 2011 by Jarmo
avatar
Roberttitus: So let me get this straight.... you think the game's story sucks & it is unengaging..... yet you played it all the way to the end. OK
Generally, I try and thoroughly use a product before I go spouting off opinions about it. Try it out, since it seems a novel concept to you.
avatar
Jarmo: FO1 and 2 had good stories for their time. Not better than what's in FO3 though.
I'm guessing you never spent much time in The Glow bringing in its story elements. I'll accept the rest of what you've said, but in endings alone Fallout 3 has serious story failures. And honestly, I was disappointed with its story problems before I experienced the ending.

Your mileage may vary regarding the Capital Wasteland as an interesting wilderness. It was interesting to me for a while, but I don't insist that my eventual disinterest need necessarily be a universal barometer of taste.
Despite this, I'll still pit the storylines of Fallout 1 and Fallout 3 against each other and bet on F1.

Mr. Titus:
Reviewing methodology aside, to be fair, it's a pretty short game. If you were reading a ten page story and it started boring, you might not finish... but on the other hand, by the time you've established it's boring and unengaging and probably going to stay that way, you've already got through 7 pages, right?
FO3's actual plot wasn't so great, but I loved exploring the world. I didn't really bother with the main quest until I had already finished all the side missions I could find, and then I'd drop it again as soon as I found some more. Part of it was that it was my first Fallout game and I was still trying to piece together as much backstory as I could, but I found that the implied stories were the most interesting. Stuff like a skeleton in one of those useless coin-operated shelters with nothing but a pistol and a teddy bear. The real plot wasn't in the quests, it was in the world itself. You had to go and look for it.
avatar
Jarmo: FO1 and 2 had good stories for their time. Not better than what's in FO3 though.
avatar
MackieStingray: I'm guessing you never spent much time in The Glow bringing in its story elements.
I'm pretty sure I saw pretty much everything there was to see in one playthrough or another. Can't recollect much from the glow though, except it was a bitch to notice you're so well radiated it's time to dig up an old savegame. Ghosts and what not..?

Overall I found the plot and quests pretty simplistic though, no questions of who's good and who's bad, you have you're choices but the world is pretty much black&white. Things got a bit muddier in FO2 (and back to simplistic in FO3).
avatar
Jarmo: I'm pretty sure I saw pretty much everything there was to see in one playthrough or another. Can't recollect much from the glow though, except it was a bitch to notice you're so well radiated it's time to dig up an old savegame. Ghosts and what not..?

Overall I found the plot and quests pretty simplistic though, no questions of who's good and who's bad, you have you're choices but the world is pretty much black&white. Things got a bit muddier in FO2 (and back to simplistic in FO3).
Finally somebody without there nostalgia shades on too tight... I swear. I played Fallout 1 for the first time this year & I noticed the same thing.... there is little to no actual story.
It's not just nostalgia, Robert. Heck, I didn't get into this game for years after its writing.
Hell, look at the story of Fallout 3. How could you say it had more story? And then there's the quality issues. If Fallout had moments where the story wasn't being driven headlong, it nevertheless never dropped so severely in quality as Fallout 3's story.

Fallout 3's story fell apart hard for me on two occasions. On the one hand, I followed the trail of breadcrumbs and missed the entire Galaxy Radio plot. Yet for entirely arbitrary reasons, I could not continue on to meet the father until I reconstructed where I'd made the logical leaps that took me beyond that point and had finished the Galaxy Radio storyline. Which was, frankly, a pretty weak bit of story, linked by very weak elements.
Then there's the ending. You've got lots of crew who would not have to give their lives in order to save the DC Wasteland, or potentially the option to waste 'em all and let the project die, yet none of your teammates will step up and do it. Actually, even in that short time options abound. You need not be either a hero or a villain in that moment, neither giving your life nor demanding the life of another. A very poorly written sequence, and for what? To hammer something home that is stylistically out of place? To moralize, and badly? I, too, feel sorry for Mr. Perlman. He must've expected better after the first two.
The double loss of your father was decent scenage, but honestly, I have to argue that the scenes involving Liam Neeson were probably the best written sequences in the game.

Fallout 1, on the other hand...
I'll spoil it for you. If you journey deep into The Glow, you can discover the facts behind what's going on. The FEV stores copies of the DNA of the infected person as exons, interferes with the anaphase process of cell division, reinjects the DNA and chemically bonds the redundant chromosomes to create a new molecule. The purpose of this, explicitly, was the Pan-Virion Immunity Project (as I recollect), specifically an effort to stop viral bioweapons by making humans genuinely immune on a chemical level. However, the capacity for their newly designed virus to store and reinject DNA also made it all too easy for it to alter DNA, so the head of the base altered the course of the research toward trying to make supersoldiers.
In a sense, it worked. Hadn't occurred to him that interfering with the anaphase process of every cell in the body also messes with meiosis... and yes, you can use that knowledge to win the game. :D
Between wartime human testing and atrocious misuse of power, I suppose it's no surprise that the soldiers who went on to create the Brotherhood of Steel acted a bit drastically and executed the scientists involved. Not admirable. Perhaps it's this same characteristic which is the reason that, if the player character kills Head Paladin Rhombus such that Rhombus doesn't take over Maxson's post, the Brotherhood becomes non-canonically evil. But that's depth, not story, so back to it...
Now, remember Harold? He talked about a person named Dr. Richard Grey, with whom he adventured in days of yore. Well, turns out that Richard Grey didn't die when he was thrown into the "acid bath," because it was no such thing. He was wounded, and the FEV changed him wildly, even violently, but he became more than human. As he convalesced, becoming the monstrous critter known as The Master, he began to see the potential of this stuff to better humanity, at admittedly some expense. He certainly knew that he'd meet conflict in this goal.
Trouble is, most humans exposed to FEV don't come out right. When the West Tek Research Facility (now known as The Glow) had been hit, a weakened form of the FEV was released into the atmosphere. Those not sealed away in environmentally sound containment were exposed to it and partially inoculated. The mutagenic process takes only partial hold, especially in the region of the brain, resulting in a dumb brute. (Interesting: This is actually a point of disagreement between The Master and the Lieutenant. I have just described the Lieutenant's theory, whereas the Master feels it has to do with exposure to the radiation of the wasteland. It matters not, because they both need the same thing:) What they need are Prime Normals, as the Lieutenant calls them, humans genetically unchanged by the war because they were sealed away, almost certainly in Vaults.
So we come to one of the last Vaults to open, Vault 13. Vault 13 has not opened for any number of possible reasons. Was it because no all-clear signal was given? In truth, was all ever clear? Or have the Overseers been paranoid men unwilling to risk the damage to the Vault's society, as in Fallout 3's beginning? I suppose it doesn't matter. They would not open the Vault until it became necessary: the loss of a keystone component of their water purification systems. You're given a probable location of an equipped and similar Vault and sent out alone.
The first thing that strikes you, as you leave the cave, is the bright light, the first natural light you've ever seen. (Note: This is alternatively starlight if you spend too long in the cave, so that the story doesn't suffer if you take your time.)
Assuming you continue along the narrative offered, given that Shady Sands has few people capable of giving competent directions, your character will almost certainly venture into disappointment. Vault 15 is useless. Almost entirely looted by the clans which sprang from it, infested with monstrous rats, and its crucial components smashed under tons of rock.
From there, options abound, but all roads lead to Necropolis. However, the attention you draw to Necropolis by interfering with the water systems is enough to spawn the first all-out invasion of a wasteland city by the Master's armies. Equally important, though you have saved the Vault, the Overseer sees no reason to open the Vault. He sees danger, and that same fear will lead to his brave yet horrible decision later... For now, it is enough that you are sent back out to report on, and possibly destroy, the source of the mutations. The level of mutation in the world is out of proportion to projections, and according both to the Overseer and the doctor in Shady Sands, outlandishly unlikely by natural causes. This is the clear arrow toward the Master's plans and armies, and the big switch in the story from a race against time to a mission to search and destroy.
Your character is valuable to the Master and the Lieutenant, not only for being a Prime Normal but also for a knowledge of an unopened Vault of Prime Normals. Though they disagree on why this is crucial, the evidence speaks for itself: only those untainted by the war can be brought fully into the fold.
Where this goes wrong is that they'll kill any and all who might oppose their grand evolution, their misguided step forward for humanity.

I don't really see how the story falls short here.

3 was good. It wasn't perfect, but I don't ask perfection. I'll even accept that it was Fallout, if a little less in the story department than I'd come to expect from some prior attempts. Still better than, say, Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel.
But it's not just nostalgia that makes me feel Fallout 1 was better in the story department. Fallout 1's story never fell apart.
Post edited March 21, 2011 by MackieStingray
Well it's not like I'm saying FO1 is a bad game with a poor plot, it delivers on both departments! In many ways (coherence being the foremost) FO1 is the best of the bunch, even if FO2 is my favourite. I'm just saying FO3 is no worse in story department.

Although we're probably disagreeing on what counts for how much. Personally I downplay background information you get from terminals, holodiscs or dialogue narratives, versus stuff that happens "in game". Plain text is such an easy way to add stuff, it's almost a cop-out. Thereby I'd count the vault with dreamers trapped in virtual reality to story-wise counter the glow. I'd count Simms/Burke and disarming the bomb against Killian/Gizmo in junktown and consider the odds even,
Out of curiosity, where do you put your lead character's importance to the Lieutenant, in terms of comparison?
I confess, I partially bring this up because of how much background it puts into play without taking you out of gameplay. A conversation with "Loo" does tie up a few loose ends.
avatar
MackieStingray: Out of curiosity, where do you put your lead character's importance to the Lieutenant, in terms of comparison?
I confess, I partially bring this up because of how much background it puts into play without taking you out of gameplay. A conversation with "Loo" does tie up a few loose ends.
Nowhere really. Can't remember the specifics. :)
That was the mutant dressed in black? I'd guess I talked to him at some point, but can't recollect what he said. I was caught once in necropolis, but reloaded an older save.

Might be there was a bunch of backstory I missed, but if I missed it after several playthroughs I dont accept that as proof of the plot quality. If the best and essential parts of the plot are available only as a kind of easter egg from wandering around (yes, deep in glow) that's not really a good thing.

In any case, the Liutenant/Master are reflected into FO3 as Colonel/President Eden in pretty much the same roles, The same story really, just told differently.
By "Loo," I mean the Lieutenant, who is perfectly willing to expound on the importance of a Prime Normal vault dweller as a source of other fresh Prime Normals.