i have seen a lot of fighting over the whole hard core mode, like people will say its a bad idea becouse you would be playing realistically in a unrealistic setting, but others say that it just makes the game harder and funner and will make the game more immersive. i personly think hard core mode sounds fun but only after i have played the game a cuple times ( iplay fallout becouse it always has a grate story and i like playing will a fill of non realism, but it do sound fun). so what do you think i wnat to see every ones ideas on the mader. MrDot01 14:27, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
Personally I can't wait to try Hard Mode out. It seemed a bit absurd thaqt the Wandered could carry around nearly 100K rounds of various ammo, a couple hundred of assorted meds andstill beably walk/swim with no problem. It will make the game more challenging and offer more tactics to the game. It's a very welcome addition to the game and I for one am excited and ready for it.
Cpt. E. Blackadder 18:10, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
- Fallout 3 has a great story? It has a shitty story and shitty gameplay. I expect FO:NV's hardcore mode to make the gameplay less shitty (Obsidian's presence is enough to make the story non-shitty).
Tagaziel (call!) 18:47, May 1, 2010 (UTC) - hay i liked the writing, i geuss the story is a lil bla but it was not shit. and this is about hard core mode. well i liked the game play in 3 too. and E. Blackadder i do think you have some good points but i still like th whole not realy thing to. i think hard core mode will be grate but i dont think it willl make the game, i fill like its just a lil extra for after u beat it and u want to do it agen in a dif way.MrDot01 23:44, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
- Fallout 3 has won many "Best of ____" awards. Obviously, the majority of people would disagree with you, Mikael. As for Hardcore mode, it should be good.
Knight Captain Ski (talk) 05:57, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
- Fallout 3 has won many "Best of ____" awards. Obviously, the majority of people would disagree with you, Mikael. As for Hardcore mode, it should be good.
- ::Not really. The awards have NOTHING to do with the actual quality of the game, it's a publicity thing. If games were judged on actual merits, Fallout 3 wouldn't have won any award, except for atmosphere. By far the most insulting (intellectually) is an award for writing. WRITING. Tagaziel (call!) 06:45, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
- I'm looking forward to hardcore mode because I want the game to be more challenging than FO3. Although comparing the two games would probably be stupid because they're definitely not going to be the same. Same with comparing FO3 to the earlier Fallout games. That's like comparing remakes of movies or something. But maybe not quite as bad. As for being realistic in an unrealistic setting... Meh. I guess you can't make everything totally realistic, but you can find a balance between fun and realistic. If it was real life, it wouldn't be a video game. But yeah. Hardcore mode. I like the idea, and hope it's as good as it seems to be.
Metalspork talk contribs 07:22, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
hay i think the writing was really good, the DLCs writing was the best and most epic thow. ya i look forward to hard core mode but it will defy not make the game (well thats for me), and i fill that the awards fallout 3 were all fair and it deserved it, but this is about hard core mode, and im still a lil ify on it, but i do like that with this mode its like you are geting 2 (posible grate games) in one thay would have the same story but it will be the same story with 2 dif ways u can and will play throuw it. MrDot01 15:51, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
- Not really. People who "award" them don't have any qualifications. They're not literary or movie critics with a background in the appropriate field, which makes all of these "awards" utterly meaningless. Fallout 3 has poorly designed gameplay, weak characters, abysmal writing and a story that's a poorly-thought out rehash of all the previous Fallout games. Want a good story? Play Planescape Torment or KOTOR2. Want good gameplay? Play Fallout 2 or Risen. Fallout 3 is mediocre. Tagaziel (call!) 18:42, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
Shit games don't win "best of" awards. They win "worst of" awards. Name a game thats won a "best of" award that is widely believed to be crap. 
Knight Captain Ski (talk) 17:47, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
- Well marketed games win "best of" awards. And with the amount of marketing budget and hype Fallout 3 got, no wonder it won so many. Tagaziel (call!) 18:42, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
- Well marketed games do get more publicity, but that doesn't have anything to do with how good or bad a game is. A well marketed crap game would still be a crap game and would be seen as such. Knight Captain Ski (talk) 21:45, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
- 'sigh'... Just because you think it is crap doesn't mean it is. Name a game that won similar awards as Fallout 3 that is widely believed to be crap. Its not just publicity, they win these awards for a reason. Knight Captain Ski (talk) 15:16, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
- Crap games generally don't get the amount of publicity Fallout 3 did, simply because they don't have such a big marketing budget. Fallout 3 is not a crap game, it's a decent game with shit story, bad graphics, poorly designed gameplay, crappy writting and flat, one dimensional characters. It makes it mediocre. The awards it won are thanks to the marketing and hype, on its own, it wouldn't have gotten any. All the mainstream sites (all of which have their own GOTY award) had overwhelmingly positive reviews, not mentioning any of the flaws that permeate the game. This invalidates any and all award that site might give out.
- Also, remember, the awards are meaningless because there are no standards for them. Every site gives them out as they please, rather than on actual, objective assessment of merits. Tagaziel (call!) 17:15, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
what are u talking about a lot ofgame critics said it was grate, like X-play and shit like that, well it was grate it u look at all the other games that were comeing in that time. and KOTOR2 was mediocore, im just saying. and im not saying fallout was the best ever, but it was a grate game. the main story was a lil ify but i fill like in the end it came out epic, plus the DLCS hadbeter writing then most games did.MrDot01 18:55, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
- X-Play? That ain't a game critic. It's a gaming website. Gaming websites are by far the worst of the lot, because they are never going to objectively review a game simply because they too want a slice of the marketing money pie. Tagaziel (call!) 07:34, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
- I believe that Fallout 3 was a great game and I think most people would agree with me. It was much better than that Van Buren shit looked like it would be. But this topic is supposed to be about Hardcore mode. I think that hardcore would be fun, but the great thing is that the people who complain about it don't have to use it. See, everyone should be happy.That Guy From The Vault 19:46, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
- i agree, i just wanted to see what people thot about it, there has not ben very many hateds,MrDot01 20:30, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
- Van Buren mops the floor with Fo3 in terms of complexity, and it wasn't even released. Do look it up on the wiki. Van Buren had several times more interesting content than Fallout 3. Reservation? Joshua Graham (AKA The Hanged Man)? Devil Dog? Boulder Dome? Ballistic Orbital Missile Base 001? Arcade Gannon? All just a minor part of what Van Buren had to offer. There's no competition here.
- Sure, it wouldn't have been a graphical revolution, but then again, neither was Fallout 3. If you rate games based on graphics, rather than content, then remember that that's a rather... shallow way to approach gaming. Tagaziel (call!) 07:34, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
Ignore Tagaziel, hes the dark side of nerds....hes a troll who just wont realise nobody gives a shit at his opinion and that his facts have no evidence, I for one love fallout 3...how much you wanna bet he comes back and calls me a retard? 71.72.184.211 00:09, May 3, 2010 (UTC)Merpmaster25
P.S. Tagaziel is calling an RPG unrealistic, talk about calling the kettle black. 71.72.184.211 00:12, May 3, 2010 (UTC)Merpmaster25
- We were having a civil discussion up till this point. No need for all the insults and such. Knight Captain Ski (talk) 04:35, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
- I never said F3 was the best game ever. Good, yes. Best ever, no. Far from it. Moving on:
- "Fallout 3 is not a crap game, it's a decent game with shit story, bad graphics, poorly designed gameplay, crappy writting and flat, one dimensional characters. It makes it mediocre." First, I hope you were being sarcastic, as the whole statement is a contradiction. You say F3 isn't a crap game, then go on to describe basically everything that makes up the game as crap. Let me break this down: You can't really describe the the story as shit without insulting the holy F1&2 as its basically a rehash of those. Its unimaginative, yes, but it can't be shit. Gameplay wise, most people liked the combination of VATS/FPS/Over the shoulder combat. The gameplay's quality really just comes down to personal preference. Obviously, you dislike it, which is fine. As for the writing and characters, I didn't think they were phenomenal, but they aren't nearly as bad as you seem to think. Overall, I think you're being just a little too critical.
- The fact that it's a rehash doesn't mean the originals are bad. It uses identical plot devices, yes, but Fo3 fails at having a decent story because:
- The story is linear and depends on exposition and NPCs, rather than actual player actions (finding the GECK and/or the Water Chip required detective work and actually asking around. Fo3's is a series of linear missions more like CoD, rather than Fallout 1 - you get a briefing from an NPC and have to hop to another node immediately). Furthermore, it lacks consequence. Your choices aren't reflected in the ending slide, unlike Fallout 1/2. And then there's the world - it lacks any substance or coherence. Unlike Fo1/2, the interactions between towns and NPCs are non-existent - there is no "grand scheme of things" like in Fo2 with NCR expanding northwards. It's just a series of carnival attractions masquerading as towns.
- Gameplay is shit. The balance is broken past level 5, you are way too powerful and the enemies are far too weak. There's no vulnerability. Plus, VATS is godmode with instakill practically. Just because a lot of people like it doesn't mean it's actually good (a lot of people like McDonald's, but you can't say it's good, healthy food).
- The writing is bad. Really. Poor voice acting doesn't help either. Play Planescape: Torment or KOTOR2 and you'll see how proper writing looks like. Or, read the LP that explains everything.
- Most of Fallout 3 is crap. What I love? The atmosphere of the ruins, the art design of most of the stuff, ruined DC... basically, everything that doesn't have anything to do with story, characters or voice acting, as those are very much shite. Tagaziel (call!) 19:56, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
- Knight Captain Ski (talk) 21:44, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
- The fact that it's a rehash doesn't mean the originals are bad. It uses identical plot devices, yes, but Fo3 fails at having a decent story because:
- 21:11, May 3, 2010 (UTC)21:11, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
- I most respectfully disagree with you, ski, but I don't believe arguing over Fallout 3's quality is relavent to the topic.
- As for me, I won't be using it, although I'm happy it's not mandatory.
- DLW
- 21:11, May 3, 2010 (UTC)21:11, May 3, 2010 (UTC)~~
- I never said the originals were bad, I was just pointing out the use of identical plot devices. Having a more linear story is kind of necessary nowadays because most people wouldn't be able to find their ass with both hands otherwise. Its not right, its just the way it is. Let me just go ahead and cover that whole first statement: Yes, the story implentation, thoroughness of characters and world were better in the originals. I play on Very Hard and feel the gameplay is balanced enough. The writing and voiceacting didn't bother me. And as for KoTOR, the writng was good, but the voiceacting.... nooooooo... Oh and to the guy above, that statement isn't mine. Mikael put his comment right inbetween mine and my sig. Knight Captain Ski (talk) 21:44, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
- KOTOR2. Not KOTOR1. KOTOR2. Kreia alone is the best written and best voiced character in the history of gaming. Tagaziel (call!) 09:05, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Couldn't agree with you more, mate. Sheepbiter 11:49, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
- I meant KoTOR 2. Knight Captain Ski (talk) 02:44, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
- I honestly don't remember. Its been years since I played it. Knight Captain Ski (talk) 08:28, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
- KOTOR2. Not KOTOR1. KOTOR2. Kreia alone is the best written and best voiced character in the history of gaming.