ok, so Fallout...

So, what do you folks say? Should I get it? Did it live up the expectations? Surpassed them?

Trying to avoid magazine reviews...

I avoided getting it for the first week or two, waiting to see what some people said about it. I bought it and downloaded it through Steam. I'd never played the Fallout series of games before so this is my first exposure to it. There was another post on these boards about it recently here. In general I like it, it certainly has much more replay value than other recent games I've bought like FarCry 2. There are some things I dislike about it but mostly I'm all for it. I can't say much about expectations because I had not been following its development and also what I already said about not following the series. Personally I'd say get it.

Sometimes DogMeat makes me angry. Like when I'm safe behind a wall/fence with a DeathClaw on the other side and I'm unable to get a shot off at the DeathClaw because of bad line of sight or obstructions so I decide to just let it be. Then I look out the corner of my eye and what do I see, DogMeat takes off and runs around the wall and tries to take on the monster all by himself which of course lasts all of 10 seconds all the while I'm yelling at the computer "NO YOU STUPID *$#%%@ING DOG!!!!! DON'T DO THAT!! GET BACK HERE YOU!!" I've had more frustrations (and saved game reloads) because of that stupid dog than any other aspect about the game. I should tell him to leave but he does often serve as a useful distraction to lesser enemy.

If you mean Fallout 3, get it.
Got it about 2 weeks ago and it's great.

I got the DVD release, not the download version.

Hmm... sidekicks AI usually gets on my nerves too. Reminds me of Neverwinter Nights and why I never used companions. But if you can send it away and it doesn't have an impact on the storyline, neither you need it in order to proceed...

What about replayability and how vast is the game world? Those were huge points in the previous games.

Having downloaded it through Steam I miss out on not having a manual which would have helped in some regards. The keyboard configuration menu doesn't show all the keys (at least that I've found) used in the game meaning I had the hardest time at the beginning figuring how to aim accurately in third person mode since my own body obstructed my view until I accidentally stumbled on the correct key to go to first person mode.

As for how replayable it is, I'm on my second run through the game now. The first time I didn't know much about what I was doing... I didn't really get the whole upkeep of weapons/armor until about halfway through my first game and I focused on the core storyline missions and I wasn't sure what skills to concentrate on because I didn't know how my playing style would be so when it came time to level up I wasn't sure what to focus on. I got to the end of the core missions and was disappointed with the choices offered the player and the lack of any gameplay once you decide to reach that point. I feel as though I could easily play through the game a couple more times.

Now I know how my playing style is and I'm more familiar with how the game plays and what my style of play is I know more about what skills I should focus on. I've already maxed out my character - you can only go up to level 20 and that's it - by traveling all over the map and without having done any of the core missions except the very first one in Megaton. I'm having fun exploring all the different areas of the game I could not (did not) reach the first time through.

The gameworld represents several square miles (I've heard sixteen square miles) so there is a lot to explore. Of course the real world area represented by the in-game map is likely several hundred square miles. Living in the Washington area for real I can relate to some of the locations in the game though there placement is greatly skewed/stretched in places relative to each other. The style/architecture of the metro stations is somewhat faithful to the real deal though the layout/mapping of their physical structure is no doubt completely wrong. Much of the above ground locations consist of a barren landscape interspersed with a small town/village here and there. If the game matched the real world more closely no doubt the 96% of the map would be destroyed city and burnt out sprawling suburbs and 4% landscapes instead of the other way around. DC is the only real "city" of any great size, others are represented in-game by a few buildings (usually only a couple of which you can actually enter). The style of the visuals in the game and the setting work really well for me.

If you have absolutely no prior experience with the Fallout series then it's worth getting. If, however, you were a big fan of the series, then I would sit and ask myself what I liked so much about the first two games before you go ahead and purchase it. If you enjoyed the dark humor and the open-ended-ness of the series, then this title is not for you. If you enjoyed the post-apocalyptic setting and the scavenging for items aspects, then you might get some enjoyment out of the game. It really is hard to say what Bethesda did right as far as making this game similar to its predecessors. However, it is still a good game in its own right and if you can look beyond some of the sloppiness and beyond the fact that with a lot of time and a little creativity, I could mod Oblivion to play exactly like this game... then you'll probably enjoy it.

Yes, I guess I'll be passing. Fallout had a unique mystique to it that I've not been recognizing in what I've heard and read about it. As far as a third installment goes, I was actually hoping for more of the same, only this time with the new technologies available. Guess that is asking for too much, in the current situation in which game developing companies keep ignoring the growing numbers of players asking for the old formulas back.

Thanks folks. Would like to hear from Bubba on this one too. But if I now him -- and he has played it already -- he shouldn't be too happy either.

I don't have it but many friends and co-workers have commented on it. A couple of key points is that the landscape and destroyed buildings get a bit repetitive after awhile and the colors are somewhat bland and washed out. Another comment is that since the vats? system is in place it appears that the AI has a very bad tendency to run up to you point blank before fighting. Also the real time fighting is more accurate in sniper mode than the vats system making vats useless for ranged fighting.

After a bit they also said the game is too easy. You can just do head shots the entire time in the combat system and usually win every encounter quite easily.

I'll get it when I upgrade my system. I believe it uses SSE2 which I do not have support for.

vats works well when used with hunting rifles and pistols, less so with things like miniguns and assault rifles in my experience (but why would you need a targetting computer to spray an area with bullets?).
I've not tried a melee character so can't comment on how well vats works for that.

I've not encountered many mobs running up to you to engage if they have ranged weapons and the space to use them.
Many of them even seem to duck behind cover to reload from time to time.
And those that do use melee weapons usually run in behind a few grenades thrown from some distance away.
I've also seen mobs use terrain features to mask their approach to some extend.

Overall they don't seem (in general, the feral ghouls aren't smart but they're not designed to I think) rather intelligent overall.