95 réponses à ce sujet

[TheElderWand]

I don't get it, I thought it was brilliant!

[xkg]

It's probably a matter of taste. TBH I liked it more than FO:NV, much more. oh well ... somehow I don't like Obsidian's stories.

[caradoc2000]

Why do some people think that Fallout 3's story sucked?

Because it did.

[Funkcase]

I thought it started off really great, but by the time you get back to project purity and as soon as the Enclave show up it just feels rushed from there, the pacing wasn't very good. Although tbh it doesn't matter too much, it's still a great game and the side quests are it's bread and butter.

Modifié par Funkcase, 13 novembre 2011 - 06:18 .

[SOLID_EVEREST]

I don't get why anyone likes Fallout: 3's storyline--it just decimated all of Fallout's lore. You only get like two different endings--good or bad. There was no flexibility in the story since everything was pre-determined. The voice acting was horrid, and the plot holes were even worse. Bethesda doesn't understand how to build a wasteland--they should stick to TES series.

[CroGamer002]

Fallout 3 story is pretty good.


I don't see how it isn't.

[Nodscouter]

The White-and-black morality honestly. I guess it's less about it itself, and more about how it bragged about difficult moral choices, when the choice was essentially Complete Monster vs Mary Sue. I'm sorry, but it wasn't fun.
To be honest, it's very much about the lack of choice. For a sandbox game, the story is incredibly restrictive.
I also found that the characters, as Bethesda games seems to like nowadays, have very little actual personality. They're always obsessed with one thing or they don't care about anything. Nothing more than that, and I find that the characters make up a large portion of it.
It always felt very forced too, like some people were just doing what they did because of some invisible friend in the sky telling them to.

Modifié par Nodscouter, 13 novembre 2011 - 06:48 .

[Funkcase]

SOLID_EVEREST wrote...

I don't get why anyone likes Fallout: 3's storyline--it just decimated all of Fallout's lore. You only get like two different endings--good or bad. There was no flexibility in the story since everything was pre-determined. The voice acting was horrid, and the plot holes were even worse. Bethesda doesn't understand how to build a wasteland--they should stick to TES series.

Funny how the wasteland was even funner to explore in Fallout 3 than New Vegas then.

The story wasn't bad, it just wasn't great, voice acting wasn't great but after Skyrim I'm sure Fallout 4 will be alot better. It didn't ''decimate'' Fallout's lore, being on the East probably helped here as they didn't change much from the series, the environment was a great change, and with New Vegas being back West it's more a welcome change as it's more unique. The different type of Super mutants is explained, and I saw no problem with the Enclave appearing. When I finished Fallout 2 I assumed that Oil rig wasn't their only base they had, I was sure they would have more bases on other parts of America or even the rest of world seeing as they have the Virtibirds.


I think they should continue with Fallout, just improve on their mistakes, they've heard the critisism and they know how to improve. I would rather Bethesda than Interplay any day after the awful Fallout: Brotherhood of steel.

Modifié par Funkcase, 13 novembre 2011 - 06:58 .

[Nodscouter]

Plus, I doubt I'll ever buy a Bethesda game for the story. Except for NV.

[SOLID_EVEREST]

Funkcase wrote...

SOLID_EVEREST wrote...

I don't get why anyone likes Fallout: 3's storyline--it just decimated all of Fallout's lore. You only get like two different endings--good or bad. There was no flexibility in the story since everything was pre-determined. The voice acting was horrid, and the plot holes were even worse. Bethesda doesn't understand how to build a wasteland--they should stick to TES series.

Funny how the wasteland was even funner to explore in Fallout 3 than New Vegas then.

The story wasn't bad, it just wasn't great, voice acting wasn't great but after Skyrim I'm sure Fallout 4 will be alot better. It didn't ''decimate'' Fallout's lore, being on the East probably helped here as they didn't change much from the series, the environment was a great change, and with New Vegas being back West it's more a welcome change as it's more unique. The different type of Super mutants is explained, and I saw no problem with the Enclave appearing. When I finished Fallout 2 I assumed that Oil rig wasn't their only base they had, I was sure they would have more bases on other parts of America or even the rest of world seeing as they have the Virtibirds.


I think they should continue with Fallout, just improve on their mistakes, they've heard the critisism and they know how to improve. I would rather Bethesda than Interplay any day after the awful Fallout: Brotherhood of steel.

Fallout isn't about the Wasteland, though, that would be a boring game, it's about the people and civilizations. As for the Enclave thing, the Chosen One destroyed everything about them since they relied heavily on the OIL in the OIL RIG. If it wasn't for how scarce oil was, they would've expanded. They might have the numbers, but definitely not the oil to move all the way to some arbitrary location like D.C.

Bethesda writes stories like everyone is a robot. You are either good or bad, and the actors are all emotionally wooden. As for Skyrim, the voices circulate from mediocore (the Thief at the beginning) to okay (the Nord that helps you).

[Funkcase]

SOLID_EVEREST wrote...

Funkcase wrote...

SOLID_EVEREST wrote...

I don't get why anyone likes Fallout: 3's storyline--it just decimated all of Fallout's lore. You only get like two different endings--good or bad. There was no flexibility in the story since everything was pre-determined. The voice acting was horrid, and the plot holes were even worse. Bethesda doesn't understand how to build a wasteland--they should stick to TES series.

Funny how the wasteland was even funner to explore in Fallout 3 than New Vegas then.

The story wasn't bad, it just wasn't great, voice acting wasn't great but after Skyrim I'm sure Fallout 4 will be alot better. It didn't ''decimate'' Fallout's lore, being on the East probably helped here as they didn't change much from the series, the environment was a great change, and with New Vegas being back West it's more a welcome change as it's more unique. The different type of Super mutants is explained, and I saw no problem with the Enclave appearing. When I finished Fallout 2 I assumed that Oil rig wasn't their only base they had, I was sure they would have more bases on other parts of America or even the rest of world seeing as they have the Virtibirds.


I think they should continue with Fallout, just improve on their mistakes, they've heard the critisism and they know how to improve. I would rather Bethesda than Interplay any day after the awful Fallout: Brotherhood of steel.

Fallout isn't about the Wasteland, though, that would be a boring game, it's about the people and civilizations. As for the Enclave thing, the Chosen One destroyed everything about them since they relied heavily on the OIL in the OIL RIG. If it wasn't for how scarce oil was, they would've expanded. They might have the numbers, but definitely not the oil to move all the way to some arbitrary location like D.C.

Bethesda writes stories like everyone is a robot. You are either good or bad, and the actors are all emotionally wooden. As for Skyrim, the voices circulate from mediocore (the Thief at the beginning) to okay (the Nord that helps you).

Yes I know that, and Bethesda still did a good job at that I thought, Fallout 1, 2 and New Vegas were about re-building, Fallout 3 was more about a civilization who've lost hope and are only trying to survive, the same story but a different side to it. Yes the Chosen one blew up the Oil rig, but that doesn't mean there wasn't any Enclave already on the East when that happend, we dont know how long they were there, or any other location they could've been for that matter.

I admit they could've used a bit more greyness in Fallout 3, but it's better than say Bioware or Interplay now could come up with. I think Skyrim's pretty great so far, I dont see whats wrong with the voice acting, the characters do need more animations to look more real but thats the only problem there, and there seems to be plenty of grey in this game atleast so far for me.

[CroGamer002]

I think I now why Skyrim story is so great.

Most of Obsidian worked with Bethesda in Skyrim.

[Funkcase]

Mesina2 wrote...

I think I now why Skyrim story is so great.

Most of Obsidian worked with Bethesda in Skyrim.

Really? I never heard of this, although a partnership between them would be amazing after New Vegas. But I think some people are a little harsh on Bethesda for their story's, it was a long time ago when i last played it but I'm sure Morrowind had a pretty good story going for it.

[CroGamer002]

Funkcase wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

I think I now why Skyrim story is so great.

Most of Obsidian worked with Bethesda in Skyrim.

Really? I never heard of this, although a partnership between them would be amazing after New Vegas. But I think some people are a little harsh on Bethesda for their story's, it was a long time ago when i last played it but I'm sure Morrowind had a pretty good story going for it.

Well my problem with Bethasda isn't cause they do bad stories, cause they don't. They just do generic stories and don't much job for characters, especially party members.


And this marriage thing is a waste.


Oh and PC often has lack of dialogue choices, despite being silent.




Only thing they do not only right, but great is lore and to immerse you in world.

But Obsidian did that in Fallout New Vegas and more.

I just hope for Fallout 4 and future TES games they do all of those right.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Because: "Artoo says that the chances of survival are 725 to 1."

The story of NV is superior, but F3 is good too.
The weak part is the only important thing you do is killing mutants and purifying the water with your father. Nothing more.

[bussinrounds]

Bethesda doesn't have talented writers and rpg minds that Obsidian does. They have the $$$ though.

[Pious_Augustus]

Keep in mind if you do the main quest it is going to be a short game even New Vegas can be short.

Obsidian takes over when a developer needs a break and they been the same for years. Take over and released an unfinished glitched product and blame everyone else. Seriously every game they make has had this same problem.

[Rockworm503]

Nodscouter wrote...

Plus, I doubt I'll ever buy a Bethesda game for the story. Except for NV.

Skyrim is looking up so far for what I've done of the main quest line.
Also New Vegas was done by Obsidion so yeah.

For Fallout 3 its
Daddy issues
Why did daddy leave?
Why should I care besides him being voiced by Liam Neesom?
Oh there's dad.
Why are we fixing the water again and why should I care?
Oh right thing to do ok then.

The on rails feeling of how it was do it this way shoehorns the way you roleplay.  Your looking for your dad and your purifying the water.  This is something Bathesda has had trouble before.  Found it hard to care about Oblvion too.
Thats why Skyrim is so great (among other things) so far the story makes you want to care about what happens.  Hell the tutorial smacks you in the face and says "HEY your in trouble if you don't do something!"

[Fishy]

You need to play side by side to understand and see the suckage of the main story of Fallout 3.

Daddy left the vault .... Ye look for him and the second you discover daddy motivation .. boom over.

Modifié par Suprez30, 14 novembre 2011 - 10:16 .

[Skypezee]

For me it was a matter of the fact that after playing the originals (and really enjoying Fallout 2), Fallout 3 was just mediocre. The entire premise was this: Dad left the vault, you were forced to leave and find him, you learn what it was he had to do which was to purify the water for the Capitol Wasteland, the Enclave was seemingly revived and wanted to take over that project, and one way or another it was up to you to do the job for your dad and not let the Enclave get away with their so called evil scheme.... of also "purifying" the waters but doing it themselves. For me it was just too black and white in terms of morality; course it also felt like the morality system was watered down a lot for FO3 especially when consider that in the previous Fallout games (FO2 had this although FO1 might have had it as well, I don't remember) it was not just based on karma but reputation as well (nice to see them bring it back for New Vegas). There was just a lot more to it yet Bethesda brought it down to a simple explination of "good or evil"

In other words.... it was pretty boring. The DLCs were pretty entertaining though and some of the quests were good. But over all, I never got a feeling or sense of attachment for the setting of the game as well as the NPCs. Walking the wasteland was very boring, in fact I ended up dreading using the metro system, and really your place in the world just wasn't substantial. It's like, in regards to the NPCs they just give you that "Yeah, whatever...." attitude.

Modifié par Skypezee, 14 novembre 2011 - 03:11 .

[Leinadi]

The killer for me was that they forced a personal attachment on you and the game plays off of that regardless whether you give a crap about dear ol dad (a character that completely hingest on the fact that, hey, it's Liam Neeson!) or not. His death scene is obviously meant as the dramatic "nooooooooo" moment, but it's never what the Fallouts have been about nor is it pulled off with any kind of competence. Then you have the fact that you're forced into helping the White Kni- sorry, Brotherhood of Steel.

[Gunderic]

I liked it. But it had a lot in common with the previous two Fallout's stories.

And that giant robot at the end was stupid.

[Gunderic]

Leinadi wrote...

The killer for me was that they forced a personal attachment on you and the game plays off of that regardless whether you give a crap about dear ol dad (a character that completely hingest on the fact that, hey, it's Liam Neeson!) 

Worked for me.

Modifié par Gunderic, 14 novembre 2011 - 04:15 .

[Gunderic]

SOLID_EVEREST wrote...

I don't get why anyone likes Fallout: 3's storyline--it just decimated all of Fallout's lore.

How?

[Gunderic]

Skypezee wrote...

For me it was a matter of the fact that after playing the originals (and really enjoying Fallout 2), Fallout 3 was just mediocre. The entire premise was this: Dad left the vault, you were forced to leave and find him, you learn what it was he had to do which was to purify the water for the Capitol Wasteland, the Enclave was seemingly revived and wanted to take over that project, and one way or another it was up to you to do the job for your dad and not let the Enclave get away with their so called evil scheme.... of also "purifying" the waters but doing it themselves. For me it was just too black and white in terms of morality; course it also felt like the morality system was watered down a lot for FO3 especially when consider that in the previous Fallout games (FO2 had this although FO1 might have had it as well, I don't remember) it was not just based on karma but reputation as well (nice to see them bring it back for New Vegas). There was just a lot more to it yet Bethesda brought it down to a simple explination of "good or evil"

Fallout 1 had reputation. Fallout 2 had Karma and reputation. Fallout 1's system was pretty much good/evil.

Rockworm503 wrote...

Skyrim is looking up so far for what I've done of the main quest line.
Also New Vegas was done by Obsidion so yeah.

For Fallout 3 its
Daddy issues
Why did daddy leave?
Why should I care besides him being voiced by Liam Neesom?
Oh there's dad.
Why are we fixing the water again and why should I care?
Oh right thing to do ok then.

Oh come on, the other Fallouts weren't any different. Why should I care about finding water for my vault? Why should I care about saving the village by hunting after a near-mythical status 'artifact' that creates life as we know it from nothingness?

Modifié par Gunderic, 14 novembre 2011 - 04:31 .