What disappointed me the most about Fallout 3.

Posted by TekZero (2638 posts) -

I was disappointed by the lack of good towns in Fallout 3.  Fallout 2 had great towns to explore and quest from.  Towns like Vault City, New Reno, Klamath (sp?), and so on. Fallout 3 didn't.  The best town it had could be blown up in the first couple of hours of the game depending on what kind of character you were playing.  The second best was Rivet City, which was kind of meh.  There were places that had potential to be good towns but only had like 5 people living there.  In the end, Fallout 3 seemed smaller in scale than Fallout 2 which was the game I couldn't help but compare against when I was playing.  And whenever I made the comparison, Fallout 3 didn't compare well at all.  
 
I hope that Obsidian puts in some cool towns in Fallout: New Vegas.  But I think deep down, New Vegas couldn't possibly have the scope that Fallout 2 had.  

#1 Posted by TekZero (2638 posts) -

I was disappointed by the lack of good towns in Fallout 3.  Fallout 2 had great towns to explore and quest from.  Towns like Vault City, New Reno, Klamath (sp?), and so on. Fallout 3 didn't.  The best town it had could be blown up in the first couple of hours of the game depending on what kind of character you were playing.  The second best was Rivet City, which was kind of meh.  There were places that had potential to be good towns but only had like 5 people living there.  In the end, Fallout 3 seemed smaller in scale than Fallout 2 which was the game I couldn't help but compare against when I was playing.  And whenever I made the comparison, Fallout 3 didn't compare well at all.  
 
I hope that Obsidian puts in some cool towns in Fallout: New Vegas.  But I think deep down, New Vegas couldn't possibly have the scope that Fallout 2 had.  

#2 Posted by TheSeductiveMoose (3617 posts) -

I agree.

#3 Posted by ozzdog12 (846 posts) -

Meh, it gave it more of a feel of an actually end of the war/survival feel to me. But i can see your logic

#4 Posted by TekZero (2638 posts) -

I couldn't place why a game that took place years after the second game would have less of a population than its predecessor. 

#5 Posted by allenibrahim (376 posts) -

I agreee with the OP. Everybody hyped up Rivet City as being a huge bustling hub, and it just felt like a cramped place full of dialog options.

#6 Posted by Mikemcn (6875 posts) -

I agree, I also imagine its alot harder to make Fallout 1 and 2 size towns in a 3D engine. That said, the cities they gave us were pretty good for what they were, but they could have been better. 
 
I also like the Ghoul city in the museum, that place was cool.

#7 Posted by DrDarkStryfe (998 posts) -

It is a matter of perception really.  I found Rivet City very interesting, especially when you dug into the sidequests that were available there. 
 
Fallout 3 is smaller in scale.  Fallout 2 took place in a considerable chunk of Central California and Western Nevada, but only a few points were explorable, Fallout 3 takes place in the DC Metro area, with most of it explorable.

#8 Posted by TekZero (2638 posts) -

There was that trading town up in the north of the map, I forget it's name right now.  But I really wanted that one to be a good town.  It was perfect.  The lack of towns or even populated settlements made the landscape more barren than it should have been.  

#9 Edited by Goldanas (542 posts) -

One of the biggest discrepancies I had with Fallout 3 was its horrible muddling of its own message.  
 

 
 
 
 
 
War . . . War never changes . . . 
 
 
 
   
That bleak assessment that regardless of purpose or reason war is always a disastrous Hell that damns countless innocent lives while the privileged sit in ivory towers shifting faceless checkers to dictate whose life is forfeit today is completely thrown out the window the second the player starts shooting dudes. Little tool-tips pop up saying good job for blowing a dude into a bloody pulp. Then you get an extra perk that draws out an even more ridiculous amount of blood and pulp. 
 
I am in no way saying that the game isn't fun using the VATS system. It is, and that is my contention. They have made a game that makes war enjoyable and silly despite the message. 
 

 
This is a problem with a lot of games, where the gameplay completely contradicts the story, such as anytime the protagonist laments a kill he made, and then the player goes out and mows down hundreds more, all the while the character shouts in blood-lust and approval. 
 
A game is a unity of many, many elements, and when you have distorted messages and lumpy characters stiffly delivering dialog as the action freezes around you, you get games like Fallout 3.
#10 Posted by hedfone (1748 posts) -

hey bill help me put up this sign to let guys know this is a great town for trading....... bill?
*watchesbillgettornapartbydeathclaws*

#11 Posted by Gooddoggy (409 posts) -

The towns in FO1 and FO2 seemed bigger, but I don't think they had substantially more content than the towns in FO3.  Look at NCR or San Francisco in FO2.  Even though the maps are big, most of the buildings are empty and you can't talk to most of the townspeople.
 
There's also the problem of scale...the DC Metro area is roughly the size of the Bay Area.  FO2 took a couple of screens to depict San Francisco, while FO3 took an entire game for Washington.  I'm interested to see how New Vegas will handle the scale.

#12 Posted by HandsomeDead (11863 posts) -

Like others have said, it gave it a very survivalist feel. Besides for maybe Rivet City, there was no real infrastructure anywhere.

#13 Posted by afrofools (1295 posts) -
@TekZero: I like your criticism, but I just want to mention that New Vegas has Vegas in it.
#14 Posted by SpiralStairs (1020 posts) -

New Vegas will probably be a lot more exciting to explore.

#15 Posted by Alex_Murphy (1184 posts) -

As I remember, Tenpenny Tower had lots of people in it, but they were all twats.

#16 Posted by AZChristopher (93 posts) -

Bethesda games in general have a lack of people. Huge worlds populated with only a few hundred NPCs.

#17 Posted by zepp (230 posts) -
@AZChristopher said:
" Bethesda games in general have a lack of people. Huge worlds populated with only a few hundred NPCs. "
This.
#18 Posted by Hailinel (22720 posts) -
@Alex_Murphy said:
" As I remember, Tenpenny Tower had lots of people in it, but they were all twats. "
Yeah, pretty much.  I regretted blowing up Megaton in my second run at the game.  Tenpenny Tower just sucks.
 
Paradise Falls was pretty sparse, too.  Well, it became sparse after I went on a rampage and killed all of the slavers in a hilarious display of heavy firepower and running like hell, and it all started because I had the desire to blow up Eulogy Jones with a mine.  (Who knew that the rest of the tone would know what was going on inside his pad?)
#19 Posted by natetodamax (19137 posts) -
@AZChristopher said:
" Bethesda games in general have a lack of people. Huge worlds populated with only a few hundred NPCs. "
The Elder Scrolls II: Daggerfall had 750,000 NPCs.
#20 Edited by InKtOiD (100 posts) -

I don't really see an issue with the population and settlements in Fallout 3. In a Dog Eat Dog world 37 years from the second game to the third game can mean a lot of changes and a lot more dead bodies.
 
@Goldanas:
I think you're reading to far into the message and contorting it to your own means. What they are saying by "War Never Changes" is that people will always love it, they will bask in death. Then there are others who will hate it and be appalled by the entire situation. Your argument doesn't stand up because of the sheer fact that your character has a choice, he can be good or evil. He can choose the high road or he can take out his anger with a shotgun. Just because you're evil doesn't mean you're corrupt, and because you're pure of heart doesn't mean you're good.
 
I good show if this would be in Fable 2, when they have the good and evil meter as well as the corrupt and pure meter. You can be corrupt but be good at heart or you could be The Incarnation of Evil who actually has some sense of honor.

#21 Posted by DoctorWelch (2774 posts) -

What about the shooting, that was the reason that I stopped playing that terrible game. There was absolutely nothing about that game that was fun for me. If the shooting was actually good, I could see the rest of the stuff that people enjoy turning out to be awesome, but the VATS system or w.e. was just garbage.

#22 Posted by TekZero (2638 posts) -

I think the whole point behind the War never changes line is that it is a take on Human Nature.  We all have choices but human nature will never change no matter how optimistic we are at the time.  We will always find a way to kill.  Even after the nuclear war destroyed just about everything. 

#23 Posted by Goldanas (542 posts) -
@InKtOiD:  
 
I suppose, by definition, an interpretation is one's own dissection of material. I could easily say that you're contorting the message to your own means, but that's vulgar and negates the idea of opinion. Simply stating it creates a redundancy in a public forum. 
  
Indeed, the player can be good or bad, but that's not the point of "War never changes." It stipulates that war is an atrocity, regardless of reason, regardless of new technology, regardles of time, place, culture, race, whatever. War is about killing dudes. The game does hit that mark in a way. 

My point was that no matter what the player did, he still had to kill hundreds of dudes, and the gameplay gladly touted it as spectacular blood-spilling. Occasionally, you could make moral decisions to assuage some vagabonds' bloodthirst, but ultimately it's a game about murdering a bunch of dudes and making it look awesome.  
 
I'm just not sure you can have a video game about how war is awful, and then make the core mechanic of brutally murdering dudes a super fun time, while still trying to retain that message.
 
Unless it's about how war turns us into mindless, happy sociopaths, eager for fountains of blood. Though I imagine real war vets would find that message appalling. 
#24 Posted by one_2nd (2359 posts) -

Never played Fallout 2, but I really enjoyed exploring in Fallout 3. It would be cool if there were more towns though. 

#25 Edited by ShaneDev (1696 posts) -

I liked most of the settlements but from what I understand of the Fallout lore the east got hit much harder than the west and DC the worst. Also it would seem the vaults in the east where more experimental ones than the west meaning less people surviving. 
 
Actually as another note Todd Howard said the size of Fallout 3 was much bigger than the final game but they removed a lot of it so people wouldn't have to walk for very long through nothingness. 
 
EDIT: Although the real reason for the lack of people is lazyness or tech limitations.

#26 Posted by jorbear (2517 posts) -

I felt that Megaton and Underworld were the best two. Rivet City felt too dense, Canterbury Commons didn't have enough to do, Tennpenny Tower was full of dicks and douche-bags, and Paradise Falls wasn't enough of a traditional city (You know, vendors, bars, random homes), but I did like the slaver population there.

#27 Posted by NekuSakuraba (7240 posts) -

There were lots of small towns however. Big Town, Little Lamplight, Arefu, etc. Then you have places like The Citadel which noone has mentioned. 
 
I loved the game, I have no complaints with anything besides bugs. 

#28 Posted by TekZero (2638 posts) -
@NekuSakuraba said:
" There were lots of small towns however. Big Town, Little Lamplight, Arefu, etc. Then you have places like The Citadel which noone has mentioned.  I loved the game, I have no complaints with anything besides bugs.  "
Yeah I only think it was the lack of towns, but I played through the game twice; once as a neutral character and once as a bad character.  Both times, i did everything I could.  But in the end, there was something about the game that didn't sit right with me. 
#29 Posted by InKtOiD (100 posts) -
@Goldanas: I'd still have to argue the fact that most of the fights you encounter, you are actually shot at first. Would a normal person put into that situation just let someone murder you while you stood there defenseless? No, you would save your own life, even if that meant taking the lives of others. Put into a kill or be killed situation and our basic animal instincts take over, Survival.
 
Yes you can just become a mindless killer but that is part of the experience, it doesn't take away from the point that war is horrid, actually for me it seems to add to it. If you are dropped alone into the world and you feel like everyone is out to con you, kill you, or both you could snap. Adopting the mentality to kill them before they have the chance to kill you.
#30 Posted by Goldanas (542 posts) -
@InKtOiD:  
 
Again, I will say that my point has less to do with the morality of the situation, and more to do with how the game glorifies each kill.
#31 Posted by InKtOiD (100 posts) -
@Goldanas: 
I understand where you're coming from. Glorifying death is just part of the video game industry now when it comes to games geared at the mature audience. Just can't be avoided I suppose.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.