Yeah Fallout 3 just takes the muffin, wow, so many good experiences from that game.
Contrary to popular belief, im not playing on the PC. Im quickly learning that PC gaming is one expansive, crazy animal however. Id die for iron sights in that game, seriously.
Some of the stuff I hear about the first two Fallouts sounds really cool actually, like story and writing-wise, but ive never played them. I can totally understand people wanting the grittier atmosphere from the first two, or whatever seems so cool about them, because Bethesda's games never seem to be that serious.
Thats just my opinion and everything, and Fallout 3 had more serious elements than any Bethesda game id seen before, but it was still that almost family-friendly vibe going on, some of the stuff from Fallout 1 and 2 seemed grittier and more real.
I know my post-apocalyptic game wont turn out so family-friendly. About as family-friendly as a damn nuclear apocalypse
Yeah Samhain, I totally agree. You take the weakest civilian gun and shoot someone in the head with it, theyre down and out for at least a bit, cause its a gun
Now see the Warcraft strategy games are somethin' id want to play. For strategy game exp. im limited to Civilization Rev. for the 360, which I have to say gets quite tactical and has a good amount of options, but Warcrafts for PC if im not mistaken, which must mean infinitely more units and options, and of course in the Warcraft world, thatd be fun as hell.
"I found Fallout 3 to be enjoyable. Much more entertainment than I had with Oblivion. I spent a long time in it to explore everything. Two of the DLC's for Fallout 3 were great as well. I cannot see how it can be better than New Vegas as NV was larger in every direction, and also a lot more balanced overall."
Well it was a newer, more featured game, sure, but its only when you look at the little intricacies that differentiate the two games, that you see which ones more solid.
I mean its a matter of opinion I suppose, and I only say that because im trying to be less one-sided, because I see clear as day who the better game is, but to level the playing field ill take a few picks and see if I cant sway you:
First is the more hand-crafted approach of Fallout 3, where NV felt like it was manufactured. I found such a cheapness and repetition in the world quests. Mainly the factions all over, I remember having to do the same thing for each one, just in a different place. And each was so limited in its playability.
Excuse me please for not playing the game for a good couple of years, and not remembering so clearly, but I remember the one faction who were out in the mountains, they were like viking/drug addicts or something, I dont know, but I liked them and ended up doing all of their quests, but apparently the ending was so uneventful, I had no idea when I was out of work, I just remembering seeking everyone out trying to talk to them for advancement, it just ended out of nowhere. And honestly, that game was four times as buggy as Fallout 3, at least on the 360.
Secondly, the setting of Fallout 3 just takes the cake for me. I love revolvers and dusters I really do, but something about the capital wasteland in FO 3 just cant be matched.
Honestly though, you know what it really is? Its the radio. I hated the southern-styled songs on the radio in NV, and I love just about every song on Galaxy News radio, and even a couple on the Enclave station. I literally feel like im enjoying music I like and playing videogames I like simultaneously, not unlike listening to Mastodon and playing Dark souls or Skyrim
But you know, they had the iron sights, they had a cooler core story, or at least a more engaging one, and they had that f*cking sarsparilla cap contest. Anyone know what im talking about? I have the worst story about those caps, almost as bad as the ending to that quest. I had no choice but to actually learn a lesson by the end, some of you know...
But I have to give it to FO 3 forever, and if FO 4 is by Bethesda, than I guess its balls out till then.
Whatever that means