Game Skyrim Forum

1. LOL the AI has minor flaws yah right. All they added from F3 was the companion wheel and didnt fix of how dumb they are. For examples of the ending could be Yes man and Mr. House. They both end up practicly the same. All the endings end the same with you talking to Either Legate or Oliver nothing different and the slides are practicly the same when you do all 4 endings.

2. Bethesda did not for Years to make this game. Its just a good game and thats it. If they would have worked years on it, this would have turned out far better.

3. LOL what enemies. what game are you playing. There arent any good enemies. 95% of the map is empty and has nothing to explore and just a plain old desert. Nothing interesting in a Desert.

Yeah right, all fallout 3 did was copy fallout 1 and 2. By the way new Vegas had 10x more replayability than fo3

Sorry double post

I would give it 85-90. I loved many things, especially the writing. What was lacking, was the lack of stuff for CL and the mediocre exploration

there's no companion bugs or flaws I've seen the main quest ending are all diffrent
95%! 5-10% has nothing not f***ing 95%

'60-80 Pretty Good!' for me. I'd score it a six or seven out of ten, depending on how much grief the bugs are giving me.

In my opinion it was not all that great. I give it maybe a 70/100. The story was horrible, but luckily the gameplay was very good (I LOVE ironsights!) which saved it alot. It also have a HUGE value from modding for me. If I owned it on console I would be much more dissapointed. Also it was released with many bugs, but they have fixed them all/most now which was expected from me so no deduction there.

Story: 20/100
Side quests: 50/100
Gameplay: 95/100
Overall mechanics (UI, etc): 75/100
Random bonus for modding potential: +100

Overall: ~70/100

But the main story seriously lacked a hook... like... less hook than the EXACT opposite of a pirate with a hook arm... none.



I sir, severely, but respectfully disagree with that statement. (At least in accordance to what games I have played.)

It's a good intro. Shame the rest of the game was horribly campy.

(Hmmmm, It seems there is a Flaming going on between games, i voted, and i have to say it is still #3 on my favorite Fallout games list, I will not go into reasons other than there were elements that were strong, there were elements that were weak, I do not want to go into explanations right now.):unsure:

Not judging from FO3 IMO. Based soley on what I've played of the games... (and a lot more of FO3 than NV), FO:NV wins hands down in my book against FO3 ~but not FO1.
Now I will say that Bethesda's game is more polished (and they had more time to do it too).

80-100, i give it 97, why? Because 97 is an obscure number and i thin-- oh you mean why i gave it a high score? Because it rocks.

I think the fact that I'm still playing the darn game pretty much every day from day 1 says to me that it's been well done, vanilla-wise, and there has been an excellent modding community behind it in this short time-frame. I'm looking at close, if not over, 90 here.

90, it'd get a 100 from me except for the lack of good exploration or random encounters.

The characters and great companions compensate for this, however.

I sadly have to agree theres more exploration in my shower.

Ok r u high on apple pie how can you say that fo3 copied fo2 there completely diffrent all fo3 done was revive the fallout franchise.

No, he isnt, because that is what Fallout 3 did, in case you didnt know, only the "find your Dad" thing is unique to Fallout 3, and it was done poorly, the rest is either directly or indirectly copied from the first two.

Enclave bro that's how. And they took BoS and super mutants from fo1. Also other companies were biding for fallout 3 and others probably couldve made it better and made a sequel to fo2 like fnv was. Another company also might not've randomly teleported everything big in the series to the east coast.

yes story wise fo3 is a miss mash of them both but thats it fo2 isometric turh based fo3 first pearson real time all ready vastly diffrent its like comparing disgea to oblivion

GTA was really good, but i'm not too into driving games but for what it was it was excellent, a big open world, great story, unlike the new vegas story, but back on topic, i give new vegas a 7.5 ,i think the gamespot rating is accurate here.

Of course they did if they added the brotherhood of sausage and super elve brutes it would be stupid because they took factions from them doesn't mean they copied fo2 ok so what about killzone 3 the helghast are in them all dam copycats.

because fighting the helghast is what Killzome is about, Fallout is about the effect of nuclear war over time, this didnt make anything new, it took old stuff that has already been done and put it somewhere it didnt make sense.

Killzone is an actually sequel published around the same time about the same scenario where fo3 was a reborn series with a new developer with a completely different story and setting yet used the same content. Copying.

I don't wanna seem like a [censored] here but it sparked my zippo.

Fallout 3 ripped off the story from fallout 1 and 2:

Fallout 1 Plot: Leave Vault (Lone Wanderer exits Vault), kill super mutants (Vault 87), Join the BoS [optional] (You join the BoS late in the game.), obtain/purify water for a group of people (Capital Wasteland)

Fallout 2 Plot: Find G.E.C.K. to save people. (Vault 87), out who Enclave is (Eye-bots), help the BoS against the enclave (You are forced to help the BoS in FO3), witness horrors of the Enclave (Killing of your dad.), destroy the enclave with an explosion (Raven Rock and Borken Steel)

Fallout 3 Plot: Leave vault, find daddy (The only thing that's original, that isn't from some fantasty left over from oblivion.), discover the enclave, get GECK and kill Mutants, help BoS, witness enclave, destroy the enclave, overkill the enclave...

Also, lets review what else they ripped off: Armor from Tactics, Starting from a Vault, Dogmeat, and etc.

Futhermore, Bethesda never, I repeat, never revived the series.
The only thing they did was bid more on an auction for the title, Bioware bidded and most likely would have done a better job with the series than Bethesda, and they may have actually made a decent Van Buren rehash.

Yes because it was trying to stay close to its roots in terms of factions so fans of blsck isles fallouts would recognise them it's not copying .Ohh was there a giant robot in fo1 n fo2 that single handedly destroyed the enclave was there a brotherhood who craqed on the codex 4 the greater gd?

yes it was triojk (somthing like that)bio ware and bethesda that bid on bethesda still had 2 do the hard work and mk a good game bethesda still revived fallout so what if theres 3 guys standing and you're hanging on 2 a cliff and bob ,bill n brian all give u there hand 2 save you and you grab brians wouldn't u say brian saved u?