Fallout 3

I had the fortunate oppurtunity to play it today and I absolutely loved it. I haven't played it long enough to determine whether or not I like it better than Oblivion, but it seems like it would be the case. I think Fallout 3 is better than Fable 2. Now if the kind folks at bethesda would only open it up for muliplayer.

 

the game is about 20 hours to complete the main quest, with a few sidequests ans some exploring. but if you want to do everything and see everything, its looking to be upwards of about 120-150 hours.

Onto my little mini review of the game:

Sickest weapons in the game (from worst to best)
5. chinese assault rifle
4. hunting rifle
3. Scoped .44 magnum
2. Combat shotgun
1. Sniper Rifle

these arent the most pwerful weapons in the game, but are my favorite and work best for the way i play the game. im not a big fan of big guns or laser weapons. and grenades are fun to leave in someones pocket and watch them freak out before they blow up, but only ever use them in combat when i have nothing much else, or i really just need to kill something.

One thing i do not like about the game is how areas are like cut into sections and blocked off, and the only way to access the area next to it it through a metro tunnel. The metro tunnels all seem very similar and repetetive, and ghouls piss me off even though you can just about kill them by coughing on them. just a waste of my precious ammo.
i can see how you might want to do this in the actual downtown D.C. area, but it annoys me when im outside exploring the wasteland and i come across a huge pile of rubble blocking my path and i have to either turn around and back track for 10 minutes just to get around it or go into a metro tunnel.

D.C. is also very confusing to navigate, for me at least, since the only way to move to a different area is via the metro tunnels. when you are down there, it is hard to know where you are going in relation to the above ground world.

The game world seems to be a bit smaller than oblivion, although there is more variety(not just the same meadow copy pasted a million times with some cities thrown down and some snow up north). And i dont know if its just me, but im not finding as many quests as there were in oblivion. There is still plenty to do though, since exploring, scavenging, and plundering is much more fun and effective than in oblivion.

I like the difficulty in Fallout. Im still playing on the easy difficulty level, but i dont feel like the super god-like character that i was in oblivion. Th ecombat is very balanced, with both the VATS with its Action Points and real time, and a large number of weapons in your arsenal. I do sometimes wish you could skip the slow motion camera change of a VATS attack, i sometimes just want to finish someone and move on to the next enemy.

Overall, this is a great game. It has its few negatives, such as the character animation, but the strong points of the game more than make up for it. I would say i like it better than oblivion, however i do not believe this game should be rated based off another game. It is a very different game from oblivion, and deserves to be acknowledged without being compared to it. So i will say that it certainly one of the best games this year, and deserves to be at least tried by everybody who has the chance to.



Wow i should totally reveiw games for a living ;] jk.

 

I would have to disagree with your statement. Almost every game these days has multiplayer pushing game creators to focus on multiplayer rather than focusing on campaign. I'd rather see them put more time into the offline portion of the game than in multiplayer. Plus I'd rather spend online time in Halo 3.

 

Sorry to disagree, but I think it would be ten times as more fun to have multiplayer. Think if Oblivion had multiplayer, like Wow, players must fulfill quests against non-NPC's, but you could always sack other player's towns and such.

On to another note, I nuked Megaton. I nuked it early in the game, like my third quest. Bad move I know, but I was on my friend's box, so it didn't really matter, I just wanted to see a big bang.

 

RPG's are always restricted by playability issues after you have finished the more attractive portions of the game. They will always be like that.

Even Fable was still restricted by it, and it caused uproar from disappointed fans.

Multiplayer should always be a seconday goal for RPG designers, because if the game is not intense and enjoyable, what is the reason to share your experience with others.

I don't believe RPG's will be pushing it past 2 player co-op in the next 4 years.

 

Yeah, I've always pondered how they could ever make a multiplayer system with combat like Oblivion's. The truth is that the singleplayer and multiplayer experiences would be two totally different games. I really loved Oblivion's hybrid combat system, like an FPS with and RPG. That and all the quests made the game.

 

I agree that multiplayer does extend the play value of a game exponentially.

Even simple systems like trading items, seeing other people stats and communicating can make a big difference. It does for Fable.

 

I had two ideas for multiplayer on Fallout 3. One was where you and up to four (maybe just one other) friend could complete fallout just the way you do alone. It could use a system like Mercs 2, but if they die you need to use Stimpacks to heal them. Also any person unprovoked (besides raiders) that they attack and you don't revives once they leave. These prevents them from joining, killing a town laughing and leaving. Another option is actuall fighitng against each other. You could select and option, and the party of players is put in a loby with a host. The team are then balanced out and the game is in a medium sized city (maybe multiple levels to chose from) One team is super mutants, the other humans. No unfair perks, everyone is equal level with a assault rifle (50-100 ammo) and a hunting rifle (25-50 ammo) Weapons are scattered around the map (in weapons lockers, on dead bodeis, etc) Don't know exactlly how VATS would play, something testing would work out. How does this sound to you guys?

 

Guess what arrived in the mail today? Early...er than it should have been.
Because it definitely was not early enough.

So I'll be playing it later today and telling you what stuff happens to me, etc.

 

The problem with this is that it's boring. You should be able to join a friends game, kill everyone in a town without him realising and then go back to him and play normally. That way, you could have fun with all kinds of things here.

If you don't like that, you can press a button and then what just happened could have been a figment of his imagination.

The problem with this one is that it's so... bland. Replace super mutants with red, locust or whatever and replace humans with blue, CoG or anything.

Like Cliffy B said, everything can be multiplayer. In Bioshock, off the top of his head, he came up with a couple of ideas for Multiplayer Bioshock. Hunt the Daddy where there are twice as many humans as Big Daddies and it's standard deathmatch except one team has plasmids and guns while the others have large amounts of health and unswitchable weapons.

Then there's this VATS thing. Just because it's in the singleplayer doesn't mean it has to be in multiplayer. Get ri of it. Toss that ****er out as soon as multiplayer is touched.

Now, if you wanted to get fallout 3 style multiplayer, it's easy. For example, from the little I know about Fallout 3, you could make a gamemode called Raid. One team defends a town from raiders who have a mini nuke. Bam! An interesting gametype that has a Fallout style, some good teamwork and a fantastic ending depending on who wins!

A seperate co-op campaign. Let's accept it, games that feature co-op but were built for one person aren't as fun as games which forcus on co-op in the first place.

Hunt. One team has infinite lives and lower health while the other is a human who can buy skills with limited amount of points, not to mention their one life.

See, easy to come up with some interesting ideas for multiplayer.

 

I like the raid idea, but I don't know how hunt would work. Fallout 3 is in DC, so it would tough to make many good maps for it. Maybe one town, with bombed out buildings etc but after that there isn't really much left. You are right about my ideas for multiplayer being unoriginal, but I didn't mean for them to be the only options (I just couldn't think of anything else). I think that if multiplayer is ever added or put into future Fallout games, there should be a variation of deathmatch. I think the scavenging for weapons, ammo, and chems would be fun, and deathmatch is enjoyable in most games.

 

Oblivion would be good with multiplayer too. I don't think Fallout would be weird, sounds fun to me. To nuke Megaton go to Moriarty's saloon and talk to Mr. Burke (he's in the right corner). He offers you to blow it up. That starts the quest.

 

Wouldn't work. First, you have to take into account lag and it's sometimes hard enough to hit enemies, imagine it with lag.

Then, you'd have to completly redo the sword fighting. Not to mention having to balance it with the overpowered spells.

Could you please use paragraphs!

 

You literally made absolutely no sense there. Those are not reasons to why it wouldn't work. You shoud really plan out what your going to say before you say it.

You could place restrictions on items / spells. You could have predetermined classes to chose from, allowing for fair and balanced battles.

Using lag as a reason is absurd. Name any game that would work with lag.

 

Okay, I'll simplify.

Melee combat sucks with lag. Halo 3 proved that long ago. And considering that Oblivions combat is one third melee...