Fallout 3

grizzly · 03-02-2009 12:15AM

I've got the steam version. Is the DLC out for this? If so, where/how much is it?

Thanks

Krieg · 03-02-2009 12:46AM

grizzly wrote: »

I've got the steam version. Is the DLC out for this? If so, where/how much is it?

Thanks

I also have the steam version.
Its only available on 'Games for windows' and there is no talk of it being released on steam

Took this from steam forums -

All you have to do is create an online GFWL profile if you don't have one, buy 1000 points so you can use 800 of them, an 80% efficient purchase for those of us with no desire to use GFWL for anything we aren't forced to, play FO3 using our newly created profile, move our savegames to the newly created directory (probably with the help of the FO3 community, since MS and Bethesda didn't think to helpfully prompt users to do this after creating a GFWL profile, after having already played without one) and you're set!

I have no intention of buying this addon until it is on steam (and even then im reluctant). None of this is because of the 10/12 euro price tag.

pixelburp · 08-02-2009 07:28PM

For those of you interested, the next DLC - what seems a more substantial offering in Pittsburgh - has been delated by a month:
http://www.gamespot.com/news/blogs/sidebar/909182374/26772371/fallout-3-dlc-slips-a-month.html?sid=6204274

I'm gonna make a guess that this delay is to go back to the drawing board and come up with a non "Games 4 Windows" delivery system. I can't be the only gamer who said no-thanks to the first DLC.

pablomakaveli · 08-02-2009 07:57PM

pixelburp wrote: »

For those of you interested, the next DLC - what seems a more substantial offering in Pittsburgh - has been delated by a month:
http://www.gamespot.com/news/blogs/sidebar/909182374/26772371/fallout-3-dlc-slips-a-month.html?sid=6204274

I'm gonna make a guess that this delay is to go back to the drawing board and come up with a non "Games 4 Windows" delivery system. I can't be the only gamer who said no-thanks to the first DLC.

It'd be nice if they released Operation Anchorage on a non-games for windows delivery system as well that is if they do that with the next one. It was the games for windows thing that put me off getting it tbh.

Stev_o · 12-02-2009 11:17PM

Man had to the Harold quest and never felt so bad for a character in a game. Actually had to save it and do the 3 options to see the outcome! Everything though just seemed end in a very sad manner =/

giggsy664 · 13-02-2009 12:07AM

I have a quick question about arefu.

When you complete the blood ties quest, are "The Family" and Arefu friends. If so, can shooting Robert of the family make Arefu and The Family hostile? This happened to me, and now Arefu is hostile to me, as well as The Family. Can this be fixed by waiting a few days, becuase I want to get the bobblehead / money for blood packs.

Thanks.
PS3 BTW

ShiverinEskimo · 13-02-2009 12:18AM

I think if the NPCs turn hostile and attack you they stay that way. If an NPC is pissed and won't talk to you but doesn't attack you they will come around in time afaik.

giggsy664 · 15-02-2009 01:21AM

Ok cheers. Ran up to arefu at night and took the bobblehead. The women there just flee-ed (ran away)

That's 7 bobbleheads now!! Got 3 today. Very happy.

lazlo · 17-02-2009 04:41AM

I completed this last night and the game left me with very mixed feelings. I am a huge RPG fan and I love the original games however I really feel that Fallout 3 represented a huge break from the tradition of these games. Naturally I expected the basic gaming dynamic to be different - a real time first person perspective is obviously a huge departure from an isometric turnbased interface - however I expected that the rest of Fallout's identity would remain intact. This wasnt the case, the game is nowhere near as open ended as it purports itself to be. Your ability to influence the world around you is diminished(in the older games karma worked on a local level as global). The main quest is very short and the plot does not have the depth of those games before it. Also the game has too many safety features for younger audiences. In Fallout 2 you could become a pornstar, a made-man in a mob gang, you could get married and then pimp your wife out for money. you could even skill up gambling and make your money at the craps tables. And once you had finished the game you could still roam the wastes wreaking havoc with your character.
Fallout 3 is also far too easy unless you crank the difficulty up to veyr hard or get a mod that balances the game more effectively.
I did however like the game a lot. And I will be playing it again. I think that this game along with a few others represent the beginning of a new era in gaming wherin the boundaries of genre are becoming more and more blurred. Fallout 3 is a mixture of RPG, FPS and Graphic Adventure. While none of these elements are implemented perfectly in themselves they are still done to very high standard and the blend is sublime at times. The best example

is the VR world in Vault 12

I think.

Anyway maybe Bethesda will right some of their wrongs with patchs and downloadable content but I really dont think that they will restore the magic of the original games. Maybe the modsters at NMA or DAC willbe able to do that in the long run(sadly a lot of them wont even touch FO3 though)

ShiverinEskimo · 17-02-2009 11:06AM

Good post lazlo and I agree with most of it.

I think the reason it strayed so far from the culture of the original game is because between the huge gap of years and the change of developers I imagine it was harder for the ideas of old to make it into the scope of the modern game.

While we all wanted it to be perfect developers seemed more content on nailing the gameplay and mechanics than satisfying every old fan's desire to essentially have the two previous games remade in 3D. Bethesda have their own ideas and like any product, once a new manager/director gets his/her hands on it they see a different end product that the previous developers and the fans of old. I think the way fallout is at the moment makes it much more accessible to the living room market - in fact I'd imagine they weren't too keen on putting the '3' after name as I reckon over 70 or 80% of copies sold were sold to people who have never laid eyes on the original games.

We're seeing trade offs like this everywhere with modern sequels. Games companies are being run like efficient companies and profit is number one - meaning sales are number one target and if removing some of the more adult themes is necessary to ensure a wider audience than I cannot blame Bethesda for taking these steps as opposed to Rockstar with the GTA franchise who established a cult following and garnered so much negative press for the content that it was always easy for them to make the game how they liked. Largely due to the oceans of bad press which did nothing but increase people's desire to play it.

Bethesda didn't have the luxury of a modern predecessor or huge media coverage prior to its iteration of Fallout and I imagine this made the rules of investment a little more stringent.

noodler · 17-02-2009 02:53PM

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

Good post lazlo and I agree with most of it.

I think the reason it strayed so far from the culture of the original game is because between the huge gap of years and the change of developers I imagine it was harder for the ideas of old to make it into the scope of the modern game.

While we all wanted it to be perfect developers seemed more content on nailing the gameplay and mechanics than satisfying every old fan's desire to essentially have the two previous games remade in 3D. Bethesda have their own ideas and like any product, once a new manager/director gets his/her hands on it they see a different end product that the previous developers and the fans of old. I think the way fallout is at the moment makes it much more accessible to the living room market - in fact I'd imagine they weren't too keen on putting the '3' after name as I reckon over 70 or 80% of copies sold were sold to people who have never laid eyes on the original games.

We're seeing trade offs like this everywhere with modern sequels. Games companies are being run like efficient companies and profit is number one - meaning sales are number one target and if removing some of the more adult themes is necessary to ensure a wider audience than I cannot blame Bethesda for taking these steps as opposed to Rockstar with the GTA franchise who established a cult following and garnered so much negative press for the content that it was always easy for them to make the game how they liked. Largely due to the oceans of bad press which did nothing but increase people's desire to play it.

Bethesda didn't have the luxury of a modern predecessor or huge media coverage prior to its iteration of Fallout and I imagine this made the rules of investment a little more stringent.

Haven't quite finished it yet but lets make no bones about it-this IS an extremely adult orientated game. The gore in it is pretty much unrivaled in modern games I would argue in both content and numeracy ( I have killed 500+animals and 300+ people). You cut people's fingers or ears off, there are prostitutes, you can nuke a town, allow an entire building of people to be savaged by ghouls etc etc etc.

I never put any proper time into the old games but I would find it hard to argue they 'held back' with this game to the extent some of the die hards are claiming. It is pretty much exceeding, or at least on par, with many of the more adult releases in this day and age-hence it's 18 rating.

EDIT: I forgot slavery

ShiverinEskimo · 17-02-2009 03:10PM

Yes but when you compare it to GTA and the likes of Condemned it's Blue Peter.

Sure there are prostitutes, but you pull a prostitue in GTAIV when driving an open top and there's not much left to the imagination.

There is lots of adult-themed actions in it - but very few are graphic - ie. displayed clearly to the player.

noodler · 17-02-2009 03:15PM

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

Yes but when you compare it to GTA and the likes of Condemned it's Blue Peter.

Sure there are prostitutes, but you pull a prostitue in GTAIV when driving an open top and there's not much left to the imagination.

There is lots of adult-themed actions in it - but very few are graphic - ie. displayed clearly to the player.

Sure but GTA is about crime almost exclusively whilst Condemned is akin to a horror movie.

Fallout is more ambitious, I would argue, than the other two.

Retr0gamer · 17-02-2009 03:17PM

noodler wrote: »

Haven't quite finished it yet but lets make no bones about it-this IS an extremely adult orientated game. The gore in it is pretty much unrivaled in modern games I would argue in both content and numeracy ( I have killed 500+animals and 300+ people). You cut people's fingers or ears off, there are prostitutes, you can nuke a town, allow an entire building of people to be savaged by ghouls etc etc etc.

I never put any proper time into the old games but I would find it hard to argue they 'held back' with this game to the extent some of the die hards are claiming. It is pretty much exceeding, or at least on par, with many of the more adult releases in this day and age-hence it's 18 rating.

EDIT: I forgot slavery

All those themes though were in the old games but handled a lot better with better writing. Well I haven't played them but thats what I've been told. One of my mates was pretty obsessed with Fallout 2 and I was working with a die hard fallout fan since the old days recently and there seemed to be an awful lot more stuff you could do in that game and it seemed to affect the overall game and story in a much subtler way. It was a lot more mature and adult as well, remember my friend telling me about him playing as a female character going around sleeping with everyone to get his way until the character eventually got AIDS. Compared to games these days it does deal with far more adult themes but the old games took it a step further. However with the console market being so huge Bethesda probably pushed it far enough with creating a **** storm.

Also the gore kind of missed the point of the old games. In the old games the gore was quite realistic and showed that fighting and gun fights were pretty damn nasty business. The gore in Fallout 3 is there to look cool (which it does) but not realistic.

Still fantastic game and am really enjoying it. Will probably check out the older games when I'm finished.

noodler · 17-02-2009 03:23PM

Maybe you should play the old ones before you start saying that had better writing then! Not saying they didn't now.

So you finally got round to it. How far are you in as in where and what kind of time do you think you have clocked?

EDIT: What a combat shot gun can do to people at close range is realistic-ish, Although when I headshot someone with a sniper rifle and they spontaneously combust then I have to agree with you. Violent nonetheless and not exactly toned down for the kids though.

Ciaran500 · 17-02-2009 08:19PM

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Also the gore kind of missed the point of the old games. In the old games the gore was quite realistic and showed that fighting and gun fights were pretty damn nasty business.

What? Sometimes people explode when you shoot them in Fallout 1 & 2.

Retr0gamer · 17-02-2009 08:41PM

noodler wrote: »

Maybe you should play the old ones before you start saying that had better writing then! Not saying they didn't now.

Ciaran500 wrote: »

What? Sometimes people explode when you shoot them in Fallout 1 & 2.

Well I did point out the flaw in my argument that I hadn't played either game. I'm just going on what little I've seen, the Fallout 1 demo I played years ago and what I've heard about the game from two Fallout fanatics. From what I've heard from them the story telling was a lot better and grittier although both love Fallout 3.

So you finally got round to it. How far are you in as in where and what kind of time do you think you have clocked?

Well just got it on saturday after coming home late again from college. Was pissed off so decided to treat myself. I'd say I put in about 10 hours during the weekend. Haven't touched the main story really, got to Megaton and doing side quests and exploring really. Have very little of the map uncovered. Loving it so far though, which means a lot from me because this is the first western RPG I've enjoyed despite reams of dialogue. Haven't had a chance to get back to it and probably won't for a while. I'm working in college 8am - 10pm every day. It's not worth it. Prick of a brother keeps robbing my 360 as well to watch DVDs on.

noodler · 17-02-2009 09:38PM

You needto snatch his ass in a bear trap, eat the pudding.

Don't forget you can fasttrack on the worldmap to places you have already been, I didn't realise that soon enough. I'll leave you for a few weekst seehow far you get before any more discussion then.

giggsy664 · 18-02-2009 02:07AM

I'm just about to finish the main story. I have a save from just before talking to Lyons so I can go back and get level 20, other quests etc. I restarted the game during the final quest, and I accidentaly overwrite the save. So I decided to be a good character. Need 11 more boobleheads, and 13 more quantums. Actually 14 so I can make a nuka grenade. Have science and speech @ ~ 90. Won't bother upgrading them any more as I have the business wear / lab coat. And I also have quite a fine collection of Vault-Tec jumpsuits. And I

my A3-21 Plasma Rifle.

Azza · 18-02-2009 01:13PM

I heard the same thing about Fallout 1 and 2 that it was gritter and having a better sense of humor. Well I'm sure Fallout 3 is a better game the original Fallouts where probably better games for there time than Fallout 3 is for its own.

I was well impressed with this game but it took me 3 attempts to get into it but I'm glad I did. Well pick up all the DLC for this, already got Operation Anchorage. While it was not worth the price alone I feel if I come back to this game in a few years the additional content will fit in nicely.

Its not a perfect game but it is tied for my favourite game of last year.

Anyway what is it with Retr0gamer and the word mature!:eek:

Almost every post he makes he has to stick that word in it.

I think he has a rather strange dis-order where he has the type the word every few minutes and his posts on boards.ie are just a cover for this. I bet you he types the word mature down first and then sends 20 minutes of thinking about a post he can right around it.:rolleyes:

Even if he dares use in relation to Street Fighter IV I think he should get a ban!

lazlo · 18-02-2009 01:48PM

Azza wrote: »

Well I'm sure Fallout 3 is a better game the original Fallouts where probably better games for there time than Fallout 3 is for its own.

This is an irrational argument. The originals have a lot more depth and replayability. The fact that they were made 10 years ago and have a completely different interface does not render them inferior. The greatest games stand the test of time and can rival any new release in terms of playability.

This line of argument is tantamount to saying that Gladiator is a better film than Lawrence of Arabia, that Damien Hirst's art trumps DaVinci's or that Amy Winehouse sings better than Nina Simone. True quality is timeless, irrespective of its medium.

Azza · 18-02-2009 02:05PM

Its not an irrational argument. I enjoyed Doom when it first came out and few games that I have played since rival the enjoyment I got from playing that game back then.

But when I go to play through it now I find it a choir now. Does not take away from the fact Doom was a great game when it was first released, but now its rather limited. The same goes for Command and Conquer 1. I find it incredible frustrating to only build 1 infantry unit etc at a time. A completly outdated concept. I mean hell Space Invaders was a great for its time but I be hard pressed to play it now.

Now it does not apply to all old games. I still play Half Life, Deus Ex and Street Fighter 2 and they have the playability to keep me going.

And there is a massive difference between watching old movies and playing old games. Movies don't have gameplay, and gameplay can (not always) become obsolete in time.

ShiverinEskimo · 18-02-2009 02:21PM

I think Lazlo's point is that while Doom created a Genre it isn't a true great because it hasn't stood the test of time.

I finished playing through Baldur's Gate 2 a few weeks ago and got over the graphical limitations purely because the gameplay kept me hooked.

A game can be a great game but should never be labelled a classic until it stands up over time. I mean I would still pick up and play Half Life 1 tomorrow if I felt the urge - 10 years on from it's creation.

Retr0gamer · 18-02-2009 03:22PM

I'd still play Doom to this day and would call it a true classic because for me it really has stood the test of time. It's also very MATURE

Still prefer Half-life 1 to it's predecessor.

I get the feeling that the Fallout games will have stood the test of time since they are quite unique in how they play and when they came out they were considered quite ugly looking and behind the times and still got glowing reviews. Anyway I'll find out myself soon enough, good old games are selling the originals. Western RPGs from the 90's used to have exceptionally high quality writing and gritty themes that console users weren't used to.

noodler · 18-02-2009 04:24PM

I tried to play Fallout 1 but din't have the patience to wait 5 mins to cross each screen.

lazlo · 18-02-2009 04:35PM

Azza wrote: »

Its not an irrational argument. I enjoyed Doom when it first came out and few games that I have played since rival the enjoyment I got from playing that game back then.

But when I go to play through it now I find it a choir now. Does not take away from the fact Doom was a great game when it was first released, but now its rather limited. The same goes for Command and Conquer 1. I find it incredible frustrating to only build 1 infantry unit etc at a time. A completly outdated concept. I mean hell Space Invaders was a great for its time but I be hard pressed to play it now.

Now it does not apply to all old games. I still play Half Life, Deus Ex and Street Fighter 2 and they have the playability to keep me going.

And there is a massive difference between watching old movies and playing old games. Movies don't have gameplay, and gameplay can (not always) become obsolete in time.

This is only true in examples where technological limitations impede upon a work. Obviously the very earliest movies, whilst innovative, are not as enjoyable to watch as a mediocre modern film. The same is true of games Wolfenstein 3D and Doom were trendsetters but they were merely prototypes for what was to come. Once the technology has developed sufficiently true masterpieces can be created.

I dont think there is a huge difference to gaming and movies, not only have both media become heavily reliant upon technology but they are both meant to 'engage' us in a very visceral sense. And when you consider how plot driven many games like Fallout 3, MGS, Half Life are we can see that the boundaries between them are drawing ever nearer.

And good gameplay does not diminish. Asteroids, Tetris, Megaman, the original Donkey Kong. these games are ancient but their gameplay is excellent. In fact the absence of corporate quality control over gaming difficulty levels made many games in the 80s a lot more challenging that a lot of the day-to-complete hogwash thats spat at us today.

lazlo · 18-02-2009 04:37PM

noodler wrote: »

I tried to play Fallout 1 but din't have the patience to wait 5 mins to cross each screen.

Give it a chance. I got baldurs gate when it came out but it took me ages to get used to the real-time interface. It was only being 6 months in possession of the game that I 'got it'. Not everything is pick-up-and-play.

Chumpski · 18-02-2009 04:57PM

Ciaran500 wrote: »

What? Sometimes people explode when you shoot them in Fallout 1 & 2.

At least in Fallout 1 they do. I havn't played fallout 2 but its the same engine as far as i know so probably in 2 as well.

Fallout 1 is an absolute classic savage game. I played it 8 or 9 years ago so i dont know how it holds up to the test of time. I have 3 sitting at home since christmas, must start playing it soon.

pixelburp · 20-02-2009 12:22AM

Some screenshots of the next DLC, set in "The Pitt", aka Pittsburgh:

http://kotaku.com/5156833/fallout-3-welcome-to-the-pitt

coopersgreen · 20-02-2009 04:34PM

Sorry if this has been covered but is any of the expansion stuff going to be available for PS3?

Fallout 3

Comments