Playkon
Play. Die. Respawn
Animekon
Anime news, trailers, gallery
Animekon
RSS
RSS
RSS
When it comes to Fallout 3, there are certain things of notice: first, Bethesda got its hands on a license that virtually kicks ass: second, Bethesda has absolutely no idea how to create a RPG – and don’t make me prove to you that every fucking Elder Scrolls title was actually a FPS; third, there is a BIG Fallout community out there, demanding a game that will be at least as good as the Fallout 3 Beta (ed. - Van Buren), released by the former Black Isle guys so long ago.

Things are really sad when even the lead game designer for the current Bethesda FPS, casually named, I have no idea why, Fallout 3, says that the company itself doesn’t give a shit about the community’s suggestions. Sure, we will get 50% of Morrowind’s big sized world (unlike some other things that the developers have to offer), sure, we will have “open endings”, and other stuff that may actually attract casual players, but, Sir, we will certainly have no Fallout. Here’s what Emil Pagliarulo had to say:
That’s always the toughest question. You listen to the fans and respect their ideas, but once you start designing a game that they want to make specifically, then you can get yourself into trouble.

In other words, “we may get into trouble if we listen to you guys, create a hardcore game for the Fallout community to enjoy, and not listen to what our publishers tell us to do. And what cocks to suck”.

And certainly, the fact that Fallout 3 comes on various platforms, (probably) with optimizations as good as, let’s say, Resident Evil 4, also means that they don’t care at all. Go go, Bethesda, one more reason to hate you. And by that, I mean really hate you, I have a fellow priest that knows some incantations that will make your dicks smaller.

Read the rest of his bullshit here.
anonymouswrote on Oct 22, 2008 at 03:53
Thank you. Seriously, it seems that everyone on the internet thinks anyone who says Fallout 3 isn't going to be the greatest RPG ever made sucks cocks.
sounderwrote on Nov 2, 2008 at 03:56
just wanted to leave a comment...I bought FO3, and 4 days later I have completed the entire fucking game. What a load of shit. Yes the guns were good, and the graphics were nice, and the vats system was good, but it was just a crutch to get away from a turn based system. They really don't care about the fallout community. I am 26 years old, and I don't play games that much anymore, but this was one I dreamed about. Oh, and the ending really blows! It's just pure shit. Story sucked. FO1 and FO2 had better stories. Well so much for a post apocalyptic game.
madmerv.comwrote on Nov 13, 2008 at 09:22
Yeah the plot has a glitch in it. When I played it through I couldn't visit GNR AT ALL. Also, I had made decisions in the early part of the plot, like I listened to the Sheriff and avoided Moriarty, in Megaton, but when I got to Rivet City it was "revealed" that Moriarty's crock of a story was right -- except I hadn't heard it! I didn't pay him is 100 caps because I needed the money for ammo -- which there wasn't enough of. By the way, I'm Irish, stop it with the stereotypes already.

My friends worked on the game. My suggested fixes: 1) get rid of the "max level" thing. 2) Don't force the endgame 3) Give me the mutant earlier in the plot. 3) stop stealing plot devices from Star Trek III The Search for Spock and Transformers.
way too srslywrote on Nov 14, 2008 at 00:10
Agree that it sucks. I've only played 1 hour -- can't even build your character in that time if u can believe it!

I expected it to suck, and now that I've played a little bit of it, I expect it to suck a lot more.

But I bought cuz I, too, was hoping it wouldn't suck.

But seriously, I just want to stress, from the moment I heard that this game was going to exist, and that it was a non-Interplay property, that I expected it to suck, and was prepared for it to suck. I mean, really, how could it not? There is only one answer (at least which doesn't involve using all the original personnel) and that is: godly luck. Which apparently Bethseda does not have.

(And btw when I saw the dicky little "Games for Windows" banner, that's when I knew for certain that it would suck. Those guys don't know/care a damn thing about good games. Only $ and trying to make shit-windows look like anything but the shit that it is.

Oh well back to the stupid birthday parties or teaching me how to put a rubber on or whatever juvenile right of passage the game is going to have me do next...

Yes, I ALT-Tabbed out to try and find out why my pip-boy bind won't work right, and why the game insists on certain keys being un-changeable, and insists on favoring WASD (which is for newbs) over arrow keys (which is for daddies) w/r to those unchangeable keys. Back to the real quests of Fallout 3, it seems.

PS the Home key is permanently bound to "Windows Live" games portal, like I'm some douche who would actually sign up for such a thing, and needs it interfering with (and stealing an important key from) the game I'm actually trying to play. Again, no respect for arrow-key users.

All in all, sorry for the disjointed and superficial rant. I didn't really prepare properly, yet I'm already so irked by this game that I just had to spew something. Actually, I sense my imminent rant is going to be of a size that might be best broken into small portions. I'm sure this game has ***much*** more suckiness in store. (Like if I don't find a patch right now to fix these bind issues...)
anonymouswrote on Nov 15, 2008 at 22:51
every games have its time fallout serie comes end of its road long ago so i havent expect nothing on FO3 its just bad mod of oblivion
Ballswrote on Nov 19, 2008 at 01:32
Sucked, cant play after you beat the game, WAY too complicated, endings sucked, once again bethesda has made a horrible glitchy game. if anyone needs me ill be playing fable 2
thebanishedwrote on Nov 24, 2008 at 18:09
fallout 1 sucks
i played fallout 1 for 20 mins the action point system sucks i got killed by giant rats. turn based game just sucks.

Fallout 3 is so much fun so stop dissing it its superior to the other fallout games
Stokkywrote on Nov 27, 2008 at 15:18
Getting killed by rats says more about the player, than the game.

Comparing F3 to something you never even played for more than 20 mins says even more...

Taking on turn-based games altogether just pisses us off!
oceann07wrote on Jan 18, 2009 at 01:06
guys really, fallot 3 sucks..... what games have u guys even played the gane??? I cant belive how much people dont like it. ITsss SO MUCH BETTER THEN FABLE 2. The graphics are nice. I didn't see any really bad problems in the animation that efected ur gameplay. PLus there is sooo much things to do in there. Fable 2 has 6 hours tops. And im pretty sure ive done everything in that game. So fuck u guys if u dontlike it . Give good solid reasons and stop saying it sucks because u dont like it. Well if u say it sucks go to the world and say gtav was a crap load of shit... this is a must havve game so go buy it u sorry ass noobs.
anonymouswrote on Jan 23, 2009 at 12:37
Basically everyone who complains about it is an ignorant Fallout purist who didn't realise that BI would have been SHOT for releasing something like the Van Buren demo at full RRP. Fallout 3 is a fantastic game made by a fantastic company (Bethesda can't make RPGs??? err YES THEY CAN! XD) FO3 was superbly put together, it had magnificent scope, it was involving and extremely proficient tecnhically. As i've said, only ignorant purists would complain about F3 sucking, i've played 1,2 and B.O.S and F3 is a far superior title. Grow and up and pull your head out of your arses. BTW Fable 2 was absolutely HORRIBLE
Red Avaricewrote on Feb 3, 2009 at 10:30
Fallout 3 really is shit, Bethesda stopped making good games after Morrowind. Fable 2 is even worse than Fallout 3 and I'm no fanboy, I haven't even played Fallout 1,2. I just took Fallout 3 for what it is, a bad game.

And for fucks sake, theres more to games than prettyful graphics.
anonymouswrote on Feb 26, 2009 at 04:11
i thought the graphics looked shit, the game looks really ugly, i never played the first 2 games, but im starting to get bored with 3 already.
anonymouswrote on Mar 3, 2009 at 03:22
HAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS
Utterable UNREALISTICwrote on Apr 11, 2009 at 23:49
Yup yup yup... bought it yesterday and returned today! Piece of shit, I put 5 bullets in somebody's head at close range and still he stands! WTF!!!!
Jonaz5000wrote on Apr 28, 2009 at 22:08
Half the people ranting on here give no real reasons why this is a "bad" game. Half of the people are just upset that the game takes a different direction than the first two. The main quest is a bit short, not too bad. But the map has so much to offer, it is HUGE. I mean I have been playing for weeks and still have so much to do. Endless amounts of weapons, not to mention the kickass guns you can build yourself. And utterable unrealistic, this game is not meant to be a realistic game!(LMFAO) WTF ARE YOU TALKKING ABOUT this isn't COUNTERFUCKINGSTRIKE. If you want a game with depth, incredible graphics, endless amounts of quests/sidequests, ability to be good/neutral/evil, excellent voice acting/production, creep/beautiful atmospheric effects, checkout fallout3. People get an idea in their head before they even try it, and as soon as they try it and find one thing they don't like about it, the whole game is "shit" in their eyes. If you have a pre-conceived idea of something of course it will be shitty, because in your mind it has to be shitty. This is not a bad game, but maybe its just not for everyone. There are many excellent sports games out there, I can't stand sports games, but it doesn't make them bad games.
Dimmiwrote on May 4, 2009 at 21:52
The biggest piece of shit, half assed attempt of a game. How is it scoring 9 out of 10 all over the freaking net, is beyond my comprehension. Bethesda you just raped and murdered an incredibly gorgeous game. The one that cared about its community, the one that put forward creativity and love. Bethesda you're not the first one and certainly not the last one, know that, however, it always comes back double!
Jackwrote on May 10, 2009 at 16:38
I'm not a hardcore fan of the Fallout series, and so haven't had my own expectations of the game. Granted, it's not as big as Oblivion was, but then again you don't get all the unnaturally clustered rinse-and-repeat caverns and ruins everywhere you go. The weapons aren't as diverse, but would you expect that in a wasteland? The animations aren't always realistic and the combat can be somewhat stale at times, when confronted with legions of enemies, but these are unimportant to me; as long as the animations are somewhat normal and the combat reasonable, I don't care. I like the exploration, the novelty of America brought to its knees and the combat. Don't want a game so immersed in violence and combat? Go elsewhere.
anonymouswrote on May 24, 2009 at 18:41
fall out 3 is so shit
Stevewrote on Jun 27, 2009 at 20:47
I think some people posting are overdramaticising this a bit. I agree, I don't like Fallout3. But my reasons are different. The graphics are excellent. The side bits (radio, wind drifts, etc) are well done. The weapons are good and the major story line (although I haven't got to the ending yet) seems pretty reasonable.....but, it fails because of simple things that Mass Effect and even Oblivion and Assasin's Creed did so much better. The VAT is a nice idea, but shouldn't be the only way to actually shoot targets (I swear I'm at point blank range and still can't hit these guys unless I'm using VAT). The dialogue needs major improvements if the idea is to be interactive. The conversation too often is as follows : random character decides to talk to you or you approach someone. You are given three basic choices -- to respond with a complicated way of saying "sure", to respond with a rude "screw off" or to basically walk away. There are information answers, but they are so obvious and redundant. In Mass Effect, the answers weren't leading. You had to figure out which direction to go with the conversation and your choices really had consequences. Not here. The "side quests" (e.g., deliver the letter) seem to have little to do with the actual story and cascade into more and more uninteresting, but very well done side quests. While I think these help you (likely) get better weapons, etc, I can't help think while I'm on them, "why am I doing this?" Assasin's Creed also allowed you to go freeform, but it put you in context and there was usually a better goal.....again, your choices had ramifications. There may be ones in Fallout 3, but I'm having trouble understanding why this isn't just many little gauntlets to occupy me until I get to the end of the story. Biggest recommendation is to make the game more interactive from a story standpoint, rather than with VAT. For those wondering, I borrowed the game from a friend to check it out. Glad I didn't buy it.
anonymouswrote on Jul 11, 2009 at 22:20
DISREGARD THAT I SUCK COCKS
anonymouswrote on Jul 11, 2009 at 22:30
You are all basement dwellers who are never, ever going to have sex.
anonymouswrote on Jul 25, 2009 at 22:27
Har, har, you all are fucking stupid.
anonymouswrote on Jul 27, 2009 at 22:17
omg rebecca lowne is sooooo sexy
anonymouswrote on Aug 19, 2009 at 06:12
Okay you want reasons fallout 3 sucks?
I'll give you reasons why it sucks and why it's good.

Okay first off, I don't care for fallout 3 at all. It's combat system is terrible. Mutants can kill you from 400 miles away in 4 shots, but you can't kill them. You have run all the fucking way up to them and then shoot him for 4 fucking years and take 500 stimpacks in the process, and after you kill that ONE there is 20 more of them behind you. The graphics I'll admit, are good if your playing on an HD tv but they suck on a standard definition tv. The physics are well done and the blood and gore is supurb. The voice acting sucked, every Goul in the Game sounds exactly the same, all the girls guys and mutants also sound the same. The game was very repetitive. Ex: you have to go inside 4 billion vaults throughout the game and they are all exactly the same except a different shade of brown. The main story line was terrible, it lasted about 5 hours and you couldn't complete it because if you did the game ended. The game had a ton of side quests (including the dlc's) but they were all boring and pointless to do. I'll admit the game is pretty creative, but it's still not fun. The only reason people bought it is because it's the first next gen Post Apocolyptic FPS and RPG. I can garentee you, this game would not of sold so many copies if it had been a 3rd person turn based game such as fallout 1 and 2.
anonymouswrote on Aug 21, 2009 at 03:24
Some people need to get a life. I personally liked fallout 3 better than the old ones. This was a good change for the fallout series because no one plays turn based games anymore. And if you can sit down and play this game, even worse beat this game, in 5 hours you have more pressing issue to deal with than flaming a game that clearly beats the shit out of it's predecessors
EatShitAndDiewrote on Sep 3, 2009 at 01:21
Youre just bunch of ingorant shits! FO3 is a shame for the family, it doesnt deserve the name FALLOUT! Like WTF!? Its just a big embarrasment, where's the language? Niger in sheriff's hat?? Cheesy humor? Rubber-like meat and blood? You call that gore? Modern games SUCKS HAIRY COCKS! And most of all YOU SUCK ASS MOTHERFUCKER! I mean you piece of turd thats above this post!
anonymouswrote on Oct 31, 2009 at 21:19
you guys just wanna bitch fallout 3 is a great game
anonymouswrote on Nov 2, 2009 at 22:43
fallout 3 is fuking epic hw can u not like it?!?!?!?!? nd fable 2 can suck my dick fable 1 was awsome then they just killed it...
anonymouswrote on Nov 13, 2009 at 22:41
im not going to start saying what is better than the other and what-not. im saying that i liked fallout 3. the beggining is very boring but it picks up qiuckly. and the guy who said its only like 6 hrs long.... he obviosly did not do all the quests.
anonymouswrote on Nov 21, 2009 at 20:30
Oh my god i am sick of hearing a bunch of peoplesaying that fallout 3 sucks! It does not! its way better than the old ones!!!! The Vats are AWESOME, the graphics are over the top way better! The weapons are WAAAAPPPPPOOOWWWWWWWWW! Man i hope when Fallout New vegas comes it will be justlike fallout 3 so the people who hated fallout 3 hang themselves! God i know with all my heart that most of u dumb shits are just nerds! And that their MOMMMMMYYSSS wont let them play bloody and gory games like fallout 3! "im sowwy son but the new fallout game of the series you like so much is way to gory and bloody...so i im not going to buy it for you" HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Hang yourselves fucking cock suckers!
anonymouswrote on Nov 22, 2009 at 17:02
i am stuck in and endless loop where i die straight away
blah blah blahwrote on Jan 27, 2010 at 04:29
Finished FO3 twice, in that time I found the biggest problem was dealing with the same "enemies" time and time again. Wasteland mutants = all the same for example, in fact, everything is the same. It has that huge problem that made Oblivion so boring, the monotonous crap, "the same old caves with the same old opponents". Shit, take my word I'm no gamer, I found it easy and boring. What does that say? The whole childish playfulness was dull, and ultimately became a very uneventful and expected story line. Played once Good guy, once Bad guy.

Surely though, it wouldn't be easy to create hundreds of individual characteristics the whole way through, understood. But, I got to say even Oblivion has better moments, and that was a pretty lame repetitious waste of time.

4/10 - points for effort, but gameplay was really lacking. Graphics weren't anything amazing, soundtrack .... SOUND TRACK WAS REALLY LACKING too. .. Um, really needed variety, more dangers, more hideouts.
Imagine your city blows up, infested with mutants and faggots, slavers owning faggots, etc. There would be more to do - game worlds do have limitations but shit there really wasn't much to do... THERE IS A LOT OF SPACE in the game with very little in it. Needed suspense, unexpected failures of quests, meanstreaks in good characters, all sorts of shit. Only thing that was awesome, really awesome was Dogmeat, aside from the fact that the stupid thing decides to run infront of your gun and gets you killed all the time with his lack of obedience.

The concept of the game was awesome - you can definately expect more like it in the future, it's not the first game to do this sort of thing.
tiredwrote on Jan 27, 2010 at 04:33
I quit Fallout, Pornhub is better.
anonymouswrote on Feb 11, 2010 at 21:25
FALLOUT 3 FTW ALL OTHER FALLOUTS IS PURE CRAPPPPPP
nissiwrote on Mar 8, 2010 at 20:40
ok game but lame compared to the prequels
nissiwrote on Mar 8, 2010 at 20:40
i mean, compare the ending in fallout 1 to the f 3 one.
anonymouswrote on Mar 9, 2010 at 21:30
FALLOUT 3 DOENST SUCK YOU GUYS SUCK AND FALLOUT 3 RULEZ and this site is a shitload of crap. imma playing f3 on mah xbox.
anonymouswrote on Mar 16, 2010 at 16:33
Jesus fucking Christ! The majority of you gimps are all such whiny, little bitches! Fallout 3 is not a shit game, nor is it amazing, it's just a fucking game - a game that I happen to think does most everything right, but it doesn't mean I think it's the best game in the world. I don't like FIFA/PES, Street Fighter, or Gran Turismo, but it by no means makes them shit games - they are just not my kind of game. If you don't like a game it doesn't automatically make it shit. Get off of your fucking pedestals and come back down to where us normal, open-minded people are. I'd love to see any of you create a better game, because the chances are your couldn't even make yourself a shit sandwich, much less distinguish your mouths from the unwashed arseholes where you're all spouting this steaming bullshit from. Get a life, get a girlfriend, and learn to appreciate something that you will never have the talent to create yourself. Idiotic, bigot fucktards.
anonymouswrote on Apr 3, 2010 at 03:23
got nothing against people liking the game just think it had nothing to do with the fallout series in terms or story and completely different gameplay and alot less humor the funniest thing was the wierd mechanic in megaton and shot her cos she annoyed me allof these factors made fallout 3 a disappointment to fallout 1 and 2 fans... post apocaliptic washington could of had better music on the radio too
anonymouswrote on Apr 10, 2010 at 18:48
oblivion was BORING and NERDY
F4LL0U7 4 3V4
anonymouswrote on Jun 14, 2010 at 22:03
Fallout 3 was pure crap. I am now back re-playing fallout 1/2 for 6th time (I replay it every few years), and I am still surprised by how things and quests turn out sometimes, and by difficulty as well.

What I hated most at fallout3 was level-scaling. Basically you couldn't loose game if you were just little skilled. In Fallout1, you could just take a wrong turn on map, and find one of toughest places in game (Supermutan's base, just few blocks off starting position) and you would get raped.
Same with other things, such as radiation (hard to find rad-x) etc... not to mention armors were rarity.
anonymouswrote on Jun 23, 2010 at 21:58
HEY GUYS, I LIKE FALLOUT 3 BECAUSE I'M A SPOILED GRAPHICS-WANTING PIECE OF SHIT! OMFG FALLOUT 3 IS THE BEST GAME EVAAAAARRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!

FALLOUT 1 AND 2 IS A PIECE OF SHIT AND FALLOUT 3 IS WAY BETTAR.
anonymouswrote on Jun 27, 2010 at 07:59
okay, for those of you saying fallout 3 was too short, you rocketed straight through the game!! there are SO many extra missions to play through, not to mention the random shit in the wasteland, like muggers or people with bombs strapped to them begging for your help. and to find these things, you have to play through the game about 3 times. there are so many different dialogue choices and choices in general, the replay value is enormous! not to mention, the world is huge! you can stand on top of tenpenny tower, look at hills on the horizon, and walk there. to go from one corner of the map it would take you about 2 1/2 fucking hours. the graphics are amazing, but i don't care about graphics that much. the gameplay is incredible!! the v.a.t.s. system is awesome, and the v.a.t.s. animations make you shit your pants. and the story is deep and involving. yeah, the ending sucks, but broken steel remedied that (though i do admit it should have been included with the base game) i haven't played fallout 1 or 2, and i'm sure they're great, i'd actually like to play them sometime. i'm just not a fanboy who can't let go of a great game, and thinks any sequels to that game must be EXACTLY the same. i'm looking at fallout 3 as a noob to the fallout series, but also as an experienced gamer and RPG lover, so my fresh opinion should count for something. and i'm not gonna say those who don't like fallout 3 suck or fuck off or anything, because i respect your opinions. i just ask you to play fallout 3 a little more, explore the wasteland, and try to have fun with it, instead of comparing every element to an older game of the same title.
Averrewrote on Jun 28, 2010 at 06:10
To Interplay/Fallout fanboi's: ask yourself this before you decide to embarass yourselves again on a forum when New Vegas is released.

Why is it that Interplay didn't release a Fallout 3 of their own?

Interplay gave you a real-time tactical game that bitched up the canon and a action game that not only bitched up the canon, it stabbed it in the throat and left it for dead.

The simple truth is Interplay should have never had to sell the Fallout licence nor should fans have to wait 10 years before a true RPG is actually released based on that license.

Interplay didn't give a damn what Fallout fans really wanted. They wanted to bank on the tactical gamplay trend that was going on and use Fallout name to do it.

When Interplay failed that they decided to bank on the action game/casual console gamer and use the Fallout name to do it...and failed on that as well.

Between 1998 and 2004, two games based on Fallout were released, neither one was what fans really wanted...so much so that fans actually ignore Fallout Brotherhood of Steel and instead point their fingers at F3 like it's some kind of bastard child to the series.

No, it isn't. BoS is, and it was made by the company you say is better than the company that took Fallout back to it's roots as a open ended RPG.

Fallout fanboi's make me laugh at their combined ignorance to both the Fallout series of games and Interplay.
Fariswrote on Jun 28, 2010 at 11:56
@ Averre - My only hope is that you're not referring to Fallout Tactics anywhere in your post, only to the indeed-crappy action game for consoles.

"Between 1998 and 2004, two games based on Fallout were released, neither one was what fans really wanted" - Well, Fallout Tactics was released in that timeframe, so I'd have to disagree with you: it was a cool one.
anonymouswrote on Jul 4, 2010 at 13:50
I'm not sure why this page came up in an unrelated Google search but I've gotta say: the article is pretty funny.

Calling out the failure of a game that wasn't even released yet and basing that assumption entirely on the fact that it wasn't going to be the way they wanted it was a poor call.

Bethesda is right, you can't listen to everything the community says when making a game. Otherwise you either turn out the same crap that Interplay would have (which would have surely failed) or you end up with a ridiculous game that includes vehicles, Chuck Norris and flying dragons.

Some of these Fallout 1/2 fans really irk me. You want everything to be "just the same" and with "no change" and wah wah wah wah etc.

Who's really doing the Fallout franchise an injustice? The company that bought the license and released a great game that, to this day, is still the 18th most played on xbox live and the 3rd most played on Windows Live? Or, the die hard mouth breathing fans of Fallout 1/Fallout 2 that wanted to release a remake of it's predecessors, into a market where nobody would have any interest in a 1990s style turn-based game.

Bethesda took a dead franchise and reinvigorated it. Not only did they reinvigorate it, they brought back the Fallout series in a bigger way than Interplay ever could. What was Interplay doing with Fallout? Nothing.

Be happy that it is back at all. Fallout: New Vegas is coming out this October and I am expecting it to be as popular as Fallout 3. Perhaps Fallout 1/2 fans will appreciate it a bit more, since it will be taking place closer to California. Or maybe they'll just keep comparing it to a game that came out over 10 years ago.

- Korindabar
anonymouswrote on Jul 5, 2010 at 12:45
Sometimes, a good franchise is a dead franchise.
Averrewrote on Jul 9, 2010 at 16:02
@Faris

Yes I am talking about Fallout:Tactics. A game so good that Interplay/14 degrees East/Microforte decided to not even bother with a sequal.

You may have liked it and that's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that it simply didn't sell to expectations.

The game is non-canon, the weapons were totally changed over, and giant tanks with flail's on a rotating tumbler is the new threat of the wastes.

Tactics is not Fallout beyond the name. Interplay rolled the dice to re-invent the Fallout licence and failed when all they had to do was stay the course and make Fallout 3.

@anonymous "Sometimes, a good franchise is a dead franchise" Bethesda disagrees...so does their bankroll.

The franchise died because Interplay killed it.
spirit_monkwrote on Jul 10, 2010 at 11:12
FALLOUT 3 RULES!!!!!!

if you dont like this game than you suck ass
anonymouswrote on Jul 12, 2010 at 15:46
Fallout 3 outsold all of the previous versions of Fallout combined... on the second day of release
anonymouswrote on Jul 13, 2010 at 09:12
Yes and crap music often outsells classic masterpieces; your point being?
Averrewrote on Jul 13, 2010 at 21:44
"Yes and crap music often outsells classic masterpieces; your point being?"-Anon

The anon's point is very clear: F3 outsold Fallout and Fallout 2 within days of release.

At no point did Anon say that Fallout or F2 was bad or that F3 was better than the other two, they simply pointed out a fact. So your point (aka question that offers nor supports anything) is irrelevant.

Here, let me help since you seem to be inept at making a counterpoint:

Interplay released Fallout on Sept 30th, 1997. This was a mere 23 days before the highly anticipated Final Fantasy 7 was released.

Beyond PC Gamer magazine, Interplay had very little advertisement for Fallout. Taking all of this into account it isn't too hard to see why Fallout may have bounced off a few gamers radars.

Fallout 2 was released on September 30, 1998 and was a buggy, unplayable mess. Once again no real advertisement was done for F2 and released shortly before games like Xenogears, Metal Gear Solid and Baldur's Gate.

Baldurs Gate owned the CRPG market back in 1998, F2 didn't have a chance especially in the mess it was in during release.
anonymouswrote on Jul 27, 2010 at 08:06
All of you ignorant people that say any of the FO games suck are fucking jerks that play COD all the time!!!
Seriously this is a masterpiece and all of you people are geeks that want more graphics, more guns, more everything!
Go and play your COD and WOW.
Gaming is meant to be FUN!
This game (Franchise) is the best ever made, and if you don't accept the truth go and get a life or produce a better game!
truwrote on Aug 2, 2010 at 07:58
why fallout 3 sucked

plotholes: how did BOS go from CA to DC in 30 years? Something that terraforms land (GECK) Protects water filters?

Freedom: no pacifist playthrough like F1. You have Intel:1 and your not retarded like F1. You MUST purify water its your FATE. cant be pornstar, rape, kill kids, marry like F2

Story: F1 story:Leave vault, stop mutants and get water chip/purifier for vault. F2 story: get GECK for your tribe, stop enclave from killing impure humans. F3 story:Leave vault, Find Daddy, Get purifier, Get GECK, kill mutants and stop the Enclave. but wait now they're gonna poisen the water to kill DC instead of humanity oh noes!
truwrote on Aug 2, 2010 at 08:09
anonymous: This game (Franchise) is the best ever made,
and if you don't accept the truth go and get a life or produce a better game!

tru: social life has nothing to do with a game argument, it's like saying your basketball argument is wrong because you suck at Basketball.

tru: Produce a better game, really? So if I buy a "bad" car I should go and make a car myself? no.

PS calling someone a no life means nothing online. Everyones ananymous here. Your reflect thought does show who you are though.....
anonymouswrote on Aug 2, 2010 at 21:31
*******************************************************
plotholes: how did BOS go from CA to DC in 30 years? Something that terraforms land (GECK) Protects water filters?
*******************************************************
It took 23 years and all of this is explained in-game:

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Capital_Wasteland_Brotherhood_of_Steel

The GECK was also in Fallout 2:
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/GECK
*******************************************************
Freedom: no pacifist playthrough like F1. You have Intel:1 and your not retarded like F1. You MUST purify water its your FATE. cant be pornstar, rape, kill kids, marry like F2
*******************************************************
It could just as easily be said that you have to "stop the mutants" in Fallout 1. You don't have to just 'purify' the water, you can also choose to poison it with the modified FEV:

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Modified_FEV

re: pornstar/raping people, why would you want to be/do that anyway? There are plenty of moral decisions in Fallout 3 that aren't in Fallout 1/2, such as nuking megaton or selling children into slavery to name a couple.

As for killing kids, you can find an explanation here:
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=200353

It is not uncommon for games these days to prevent you from killing children.

Fallout 3 does not let you beat the game as a pacifist, this is something that will be possible in New Vegas however.
*******************************************************
Story: F1 story:Leave vault, stop mutants and get water chip/purifier for vault. F2 story: get GECK for your tribe, stop enclave from killing impure humans. F3 story:Leave vault, Find Daddy, Get purifier, Get GECK, kill mutants and stop the Enclave. but wait now they're gonna poisen the water to kill DC instead of humanity oh noes!
*******************************************************
I'm not sure what you were trying to show here, other than Fallout 3 has more interesting story than Fallout 1/2.

Let me know what other points you'd like to make so I can easily refute them. It appears you either haven't played Fallout 3 or blasted through the main quest without reading any of the available text or doing any of the side quests.
Dratchwrote on Aug 7, 2010 at 04:56
I think Fallout 3 has its meritted moments, but it also has its flaws. It's better for the more Trigger-happy people in the world, managing to have gunplay actually be a bit of fun. The side-quests are virtually endless, and theres a lot to do.

Compared to the old games, yes, its a different cup of tea, but I think that they're all great games. If you are the one out of 100 that can still enjoy turn-based games, try out the old Fallout's, they're difficult, but fun in their own right.
Averrewrote on Sep 7, 2010 at 05:44
why fallout 3 sucked-Tru

F3 didn't "suck" YOU think it sucks, big difference.

plotholes: how did BOS go from CA to DC in 30 years? Something that terraform's land (GECK) Protects water filters?-Tru

1: Erm, caravan? yeah..hate to break it to you but one could walk from CA to D.C.

2: You don't know much about the F3 storyline or the GECK.

Freedom: no pacifist playthrough like F1. You have Intel:1 and your not retarded like F1. You MUST purify water its your FATE. cant be pornstar, rape, kill kids, marry like F2-Tru

1: Pacifist playthrough? I don't recall being able to sweet talk rad scorpions or the random bandit encounter. Fallout and F2 had options to swing certain dialogue, neither game had a true peaceful playthrough.

2: Playing at a low intelligence character was funny for about 5 minutes until you realize that you can't do a large chunk of missions and/or are pretty much ignored. It's a useless addition that even Interplay didn't bother to carry over with Tactics or BoS.

3: Pornstar? pointless. Murder? Wrong, you can wipe out many areas in F3. Rape? Um dude..you need help because the rape of a character in Fallout or F2 was only in your mind. Kill kids? pointless Marry? pointless.

Story: F1 story:Leave vault, stop mutants and get water chip/purifier for vault. F2 story: get GECK for your tribe, stop enclave from killing impure humans. F3 story:Leave vault, Find Daddy, Get purifier, Get GECK, kill mutants and stop the Enclave. but wait now they're gonna poison the water to kill DC instead of humanity oh noes!

So..what you're saying here is that there is more to do in F3 than in Fallout or F2? I couldn't agree more.
jlynnsmileywrote on Sep 20, 2010 at 10:05
Some of you fan boys need to give things a chance and appreciate that a whole grip of ppl worked their asses off for years to try and make a game that was fun and something new for us all to enjoy. It's one thing to say that you didn't like an aspect of the mechanics or the lay of a character level map but to totally rip on something just because it doesn't follow the formula is dumb. We can't have dynamic innovating games without taking some risk. If you think you can do better maybe you should get off your ass and prove it instead of sitting in your lazy boy bitching all day??
anonymouswrote on Oct 6, 2010 at 06:00
I believe that the best game of 2008 award proves you wrong.
Loserswrote on Oct 27, 2010 at 01:14
Fallout 3 and New Vegas are awesome. If you dont like it, you need to die in a gaschamber, and dont compare these games to anything else. Games like these are your moneys worth, insted of playing a crappy game like the new Castlevania, or some boring sports games, yeah theres millions of those, games like these stand out tall above all the mainstream shit that you suckers gotta eat
rdchili96wrote on May 31, 2011 at 08:30
Fallout 3 is trash, Fallout NV is great.
VaultSecretwrote on Oct 21, 2011 at 12:19
You disappointed with the game? Buy PC version and download mods. In any game, mods make everything better. Example: Counter-Strike Source spawned as a Half Life mod.
Bahahahawrote on Nov 20, 2011 at 09:34
@ValutSecret

Yep, cause nothing is cooler than a bunch of 30 something, sexually repressed, PC users making characters naked (with a dash of early 1990's JRPG elements thrown in) to show how awesome playing on a PC is.

All PC mods are exactly the same. They either crash the game every five minutes, are nothing but cosmetic, make your character uber-powerful on a already super easy game even on the hardest setting, or just plain suck.

If I wanted to download shit then i would pay for Fred videos.

@redchili96

Wrong. NV was a buggy mess and feels like nothing more than an expansion. All the BS dialouge and encounters from F3 are still present in NV. And, of course, once the game is over..that's it. Proving yet again that Bethesda has no desire to fix one simple issue.
Stokkywrote on Nov 20, 2011 at 23:49
Now, now, no need to bash PC mods. Good ol' "They Hunger" for Half-Life comes to mind...
Bahahahawrote on Dec 1, 2011 at 07:41
Yeah, the meger handful of mods out there that are actually good totally invalidates all the ones that suck.

Mods exist to "improve" the gameplay experience and/or to give the game a breath of fresh air, too bad the large chunk of mods have nothing to do with either. My original comment stands.

F3 is far too easy on the hardest setting to load the game up with insane mods. If PC gamers are bored with F3 or NV then go and play some games that are actually good....you remember, when developers actually gave a toss about the PC community?
Username   (optional)
Password   (optional)
Email   (optional)
Your comment

Copyright © Playkon 2008-2017