Talk:Fallout 3

Companions?

The article currently states "Companions - The player can have a maximum party of three, consisting of their character, a dog named Dogmeat, and a single non-player character. Dogmeat can be killed during the game if the player misuses him or places him in a severely dangerous situation and he cannot be replaced (this was changed with the introduction of Broken Steel: the level 22 "Puppies!" perk allows the player to gain a "Dogmeat's puppy" follower if Dogmeat dies);[12][13] it is possible to not encounter Dogmeat at all depending on how the game is played.[14] One other NPC can travel with the player at any time, and in order to get another NPC to travel, the first one must be dismissed (either voluntarily by the player or as a consequence of other events) or die in combat.[10]".

I have the GOTY edition (not sure if that is relevant or not as it may be something that was patched / updated?) but I currently have both Fawkes (the Super Mutant) and Star Paladin Cross (Human female, Brotherhood of Steel Paladin) in my party and didn't need to dismiss either of them in order to acquire the other. Furthermore, I have zoned many times, saved, done missions, quests etc with both and they are still there. This doesn't agree to the above, as it states I can only have Dogmeat (who I never even met as per footnote 14) and one other NPC. Can anyone else corroborate this? 92.39.198.172 (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I also have the GOTY edition, this is a true statement that you can have 2 npc's following. I am investigating as to weather a patch allowed 2 npc followers in general without the restriction of one having to be "Dogmeat". cal2jack (talk) 19:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC);

Way before the GOTY edition came out (also before the trophy patch for the PS3) I was able to have Charon and Star Paladin Cross and Dogmeat all at the same time. I was under the impression that it was a glitch in the game that allowed you to get more than one human companion however I have no idea how it happens, I think the Fallout Wikia might explain it. Dark verdant (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok I can clear this up. It is possible to get Multiple followers by (A) Kill Dogmeat (B)Both Fawkes and Star Paladin Cross will join you no matter what (karma permitting) (C) Use other exploits. These will help

• http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_3_exploits
• http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_3_companions 76.253.51.50 (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

At one time i had dogmeat, charon, fawkes and sydney following me, yet it states that only a maximum party of 3 is permitted. did i find an exploit or is this info just wrong? CxxTorch'd 19:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cxxflame (talk • contribs)

What did they smoke?

Although the specific reason was not revealed in public, most people guessed it was because the game contains two-headed mutated cows called Brahmin (which may have been an intentional misspelling of brahman), which is also a class of religious scholars in India, as well as the fact that the cow is revered by Hindus.[174]

AFAIK Brahmin is simply a cult reference to Fallout 1&2. So, if Brahmin had been meant as a PUN, then not by bethesda, but by Interplay years ago. Is Wikipedia really that low on standards to cite bogus by some 10 year old desperates?! C'mon - "guessing" does not belong into a encyclopedia. Rob195.205.193.228 (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman_(cattle) it's a type of cattle... 98.198.83.12 (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

This article looks mostly like an advertisement for Fallout 3

This article is written like an advertisement for Fallout 3. (Of course, there is financial interest in doing this, so I can guess who keeps removing every mention of poor reception.)

The Fallout 2 and Fallout Tactics articles both mention the negative reception that the games got. The Fallout Series page even states how Fallout BOS is not considered canon (oh, so Fallout 3 is?). In this article there's not a word about it, only praise and more praise. There's a fairly extensive review on NMA, for example, and since NMA is a fansite dedicated to the Fallout series and this is a game in the Fallout series it deserves to be mentioned. This is obvious and there would be no question about it in any other article, but since people are still making money out of selling Fallout 3 there's mysteriously no mention about it here.

Here's the NMA article: http://www.nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=38620 And some other ones: http://www.nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=37350 As we can see, the game is not received like the Holy Grail by everyone in the Fallout community. This should have a serious mention in the article (and not a footnote or parenthesis).

Wikipedia is not a soapbox! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTSOAPBOX#SOAPBOX Unfortunately, most of the damage is already done - this should have been fixed in version 1 of the article, not being debated about whether it should be included or not a year after the release. 83.142.0.60 (talk) 03:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)— 83.142.0.60 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

New sections go at the bottom of the page. You are correct wikipedia is not a soapbox, however it also does not use fansites as sources. Unless there is a bad review by a notable company it cannot be added. Why don't you try and find some notable computer game reviewers that don't like fallout 3 and add the negatives into the article. Saying that this isn't canon is incorrect however as Bethesda have the rights to fallout and it is up to bethesda to declare what is and isn't canon in their games. Forgot to sign Dark verdant (talk) 08:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Why can't a fansite be used as a source to reference the community reception that the game has gotten? Reception is mentioned in other articles and where else can you find it except on fansites? The unfinished Van Buren is actually considered (by the Fallout community, maybe not by Bethesda) to be the canonical Fallout 3. 83.142.0.60 (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)— 83.142.0.60 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

If you check out wp:elno it states that fansites are a no no however doesn't really go into much detail (no. 11). I think the reason for this is that fansites usually contain original research or people's opinions and therefore not as notable as an established expert (eg computer game reviewer for a console mag). I always thought the reception sections where just the offical reviews not community reviews, will have to have a look at some other game articles to see. Dark verdant (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The NMA review has always been a questionable thing in my mind as it was written by one of the lead developers at Iron Tower Studios. This gives him a certain amount of notoriety and also puts a big question mark over his head as he's a competitor. All in all, it was decided quite awhile ago that because NMA does not claim to be a journalistic publication that their content does not merit sourcing. Also, the reception section isn't completely positive, I made sure to include many of the common criticisms but if you feel that you can improve the article, go for it. UncannyGarlic (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

How am I supposed to improve the article if I'm not allowed to reference any page that has a negative opinion about the game? I can probably find some magazine review dismissing the game as "Morrowing with guns" but that's not good enough in my opinion. The Fallout community expected another isometric RPG which focused on the story and roleplaying, not a first person shooter focusing on graphics; for instance, the developers actually admitted themselves (in that article) that they were deliberately cutting back on dialogue (which was a major part in both Fallout and Fallout 2). Other issues such as vampires being in the game, super mutants looking like something out of TES: Oblivion rather than the big green hulks from Fallout/FO2, has also been criticized. This information is not in any journalistic publication but why would it be? We're talking about community reception here. I think NMA should be an exception to the fansite rule because it is notable in the Fallout community and it's been around for a very long time; after all, the rule is there because anyone can create a website or a forum and say whatever they want on it - but NMA has been around for much longer than Bethesda's Fallout 3, so it's not like they created it in order to bash the game or something. The difference in using, for example, Metacritic and NMA as sources seems very small. 83.142.0.60 (talk) 02:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)— 83.142.0.60 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Agreed. Article still looks very much like an advertisement for F3. I will try and make a start on improving it when I have a bit of time to do so (and perhaps know a bit more about the game). Centrepull (talk) 12:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The guidelines are quite clear that NMA is not a reliable source. There's an exception that "established expert[s] on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" - something neither NMA or any of it's writers pass on. You'd also be hard pushed to call NMA a "fan" site in respects to Fallout 3. So no, NMA cannot be used. Rehevkor ✉ 14:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

But it is a fansite to the Fallout series, which Fallout 3 is a part of, that has to count for something. Am I the only one who's disgusted by the fact that Bethesda/Zenimax have been using Wikipedia as an advertising tool to promote their new game? As I said, most of the damage is already done, but still.
By the way, if you look at the references section (#1; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallout_3#References ), NMA has already been used as a source. So it's okay to quote them, as long as they don't say anything negative about the game? 83.142.0.60 (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)— 83.142.0.60 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It doesn't count for anything. You should be able find find legitimate sources without using a fansite. Rehevkor ✉ 17:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Where? 83.142.0.60 (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)— 83.142.0.60 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You could try searing for them. I'm sure negative views of fans of the series have been addressed in reliable sources. Keep in mind that this game have received critical praise and awards (maaaany Game of the Year awards, for example) from players and reviews alike so any negative views not already in the article so any further negative views should not be given undue weight. For what it's worth I'm a huge fan of both the original and the new games (as well as a long time follower of NMA), so I am neutral in that respect. Rehevkor ✉ 02:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Pointing out the largest flaws hardly qualifies as undue weight. Reviewers that count as reliable sources very rarely dare to have opinions that differ from the mainstream too much, so in this case they don't point out the big flaws like no character build importance, crappy dialogue, non-isometric, OOC-content like vampires and inconsistent plot/design, because if they did and nobody else did, it would ruin their credibility. Maybe these views can be found in some obscure eastern-european magazine that noone has heard of but still counts as reliable enough and a year ago, I probably would have bothered to go find them. Now that this article has already served its purpose to promote the sales of Fallout 3, it matters little anymore. The thing is that this should have been done when the game was released, and looking at the page history and archives, it actually was... and every time it was conveniently removed on some technicality. Someone sure did a good job at squelching unwanted opinions here and I'm 100% sure it can't all be attributed to naive fanboys. 83.142.0.60 (talk) 04:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)— 83.142.0.60 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

WP:UNDUE is rather specific on the matter. Rehevkor ✉ 04:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules . "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." 83.142.0.60 (talk) 03:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)— 83.142.0.60 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Fine, but adding criticism sourced to blogs doesn't improve or maintain an encyclopedia. --Leivick (talk) 07:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC

Ignore all rules doesn't apply here. If there were several fan sites that were more critical of the game that might fly, but a few non-notable ones do not a consensus make. WP:I just don't like it isn't justification against the fact that the game was well received by several published sources. Also be wary of no personal attacks, as your tone towards "fanboys" is undue. The article is well sourced in its statements which back up each and every point to the game. --Teancum (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That's your opinion, I say it DOES apply here. It's not just NMA that's critical about the game (so using your logic, it does fly anyway) - it's just that NMA is the easiest one to refer to. Yes, the article is well sourced in every point it makes, but it misses several important points. 83.142.0.60 (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)— 83.142.0.60 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Nope - it's Wikipedia policy. Look at any other B, GA, A or FA class article. You don't see community reception in any of those. --Teancum (talk) 23:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

There are several articles that have a community reception section. Anyway, you said: "if several fan sites were more critical [...] it might fly". So, if I find several (let's say, 3?) major fan sites that are critical of the same aspects of the game, can I add that to the reception section without it being reverted? 83.142.0.60 (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)— 83.142.0.60 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

If you know of quality articles that have a community reception section, then by all means, please list them. As far as whether to include major fan sites it would absolutely be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. There are sites for games larger than the Fallout series that don't even get mentioned in quality articles. That being said, why exactly do you want to add community reactions? --Teancum (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I want to add it because right now, this article looks basically like an advertisement for the game. I understand that the game is generally well received, but I also happen to know that it's not well received by everyone, as this article gives the impression of. Therefor the article seems unbalanced, only showing the good side and not the bad. Two major fansites that could be used: No Mutants Allowed (http://www.nma-fallout.com/ - has been around since 1997), Duck and Cover (http://www.duckandcover.cx/ - 1998). These are probably the largest Fallout fansites that there is, and also a solution to the problem of balancing this article (the sites themselves are completely irrelevant to mention in the article, it's just that the information that they contain is hard to find anywhere else - yes, it's probably possible, but I'm not going to scour Egypt for it). It's not an "I don't like it"-kind of reasoning. I have no opinion about the game (for the record, I have never even played it). The only thing that I don't like is how Wikipedia obviously is being abused to promote a product. Wikipedia is not an advertising ground so it's a completely valid point. Examples (I see now that these are rated C, though): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallout_(computer_game) (specifically mentions fan base criticism about useless skills); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallout_%28series%29#Fallout:_Brotherhood_of_Steel (states that "F:BOS is generally not considered canon"). 83.142.0.60 (talk) 03:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)— 83.142.0.60 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I don't see how you can argue that the main authors on NMA aren't experts when it comes to the Fallout universe and Brother None (head of NMA) works for GameBanshee. I assume that he is largely responsible for GameBanshee's pages for the Fallout games, though I could be wrong. The author of the NMA review is a professional game designer and is working on a RPG so he likely qualifies as a expert on RPGs for computers. My point is merely that some staff and guest writers on NMA do quallify as experts and some have been published by reliable third parties. That all said, NMA makes openly states that it is not a journal. Here's my question, would Canard PC's reviews of Fallout 3 be usable on the page? I've always been hesitant to use them because it's not an English publication but they have the most harsh review of the game and the review actually compares it to previous games in the franchise. I think that it could cover most anything worthwhile that could be extracted from the NMA review. Honestly, I look at the criticisms section in Reception and it's pretty good as far as content goes. It could certainly cover more complaints but that would break or risk breaking the rules about undue weight. The DLCs all need their own articles for numerous reasons and one of them is a more neutral reaction section. UncannyGarlic (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue with those sites is not whether they're experts on the game though -- they need to be reliable, published sources, which is where they fall short. Site staff may work at published gaming companies, but what they do on their time off doesn't count for beans unfortunately. --19:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I was pointing out that, "There's an exception that "established expert[s] on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" - something neither NMA or any of it's writers pass on." is not true, not that NMA should be used as a source. UncannyGarlic (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

What does everyone thing about adding a paragraph or two how people on DAC, NMA and RPGCodex didn't like the game, providing references to the sites, then calling in Arbitration Committee once a revert war ensues? 85.221.142.5 (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)— 85.221.142.5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

No. Rehevkor ✉ 00:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you didn't even formulate a proper sentence. Anyone else? 85.221.142.5 (talk) 02:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)— 85.221.142.5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

No. That's what talk pages are for. Things are discussed here to come to a consensus. If a consensus isn't met the article isn't altered. That's just how things work at Wikipedia. --Teancum (talk) 12:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Why was it reverted earlier, then? A consensus wasn't met and it was deleted anyway; and more than once, it seems. That rule works both ways. 83.142.0.60 (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)— 83.142.0.60 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Because in the lack of a consensus Wikipedia policy still stands -- fansites are not reliable sources. If a true consensus was met there might be slight justification for WP:IAR, however even then it's clear the majority of published sites out there rate the game highly. Metacritic (360) scores are high, with only 7 below 85, none of which are below 70, with 18 perfect scores. The PC version had only 9 below 85, none below 70, with 10 perfect scores. The PS3 had only 7 below 85, none below 70 and 9 perfects. If you can come up with a similar amount of weight from reliable sources it could certainly be added, but all we've seen thus far are low-traffic fansites, which just isn't good enough per policy. --Teancum (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

How exactly are "game review" websites reliable sources? They shouldn't be mistaken with critics. On numerous occasions it has been shown how reviews were altered to appease current advertisers. Frankly, they're not much beside advertising under the guise of "review". 85.221.156.35 (talk) 07:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

If you have a problem with how Wikipedia works in relation to reliable sources, you can take it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. In regards to review fixing, no mention has been made in the news about any review fixing on Fallout 3. Now as far as the PS3-based bugs go, that's definitely worthy of mention because all of the sources are published (i.e. professional) sources. Besides, are you really saying that Bethesda fixed a total of 84 reviews for the 360 in their favor? I can totally understand if you're talking a total of maybe 6 or 7 reviews total, but clearly the numbers speak for themselves. The only things that I can find on the contrary are all on fansites, which again are not reliable. Now you can always expand the "complaints" paragraph of the Reception section (the second paragraph) if you can find professional reviews that state the same issues you have with the game, however given that it's about 2/3 the size of the first paragraph (positive stuff) and the game has aggregate scores above 90% I'd say that's more than even. What really needs to happen at this point is to point out what actually needs to be said and find sources for it, much like Reconman43 did with the PS3 issues. I want to be clear that it's not a bad thing to add more criticism to the game, it's just that it needs reliable sources (you can find guidelines on video game-specific reliable sources here) to back up any statements made. --Teancum (talk) 13:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's on the IGN review. There was an article on Ars Technica a while back on how game magazines self-censor to receive games before release date, as their business model depends on it. I'm trying to find it, but as it's been a pretty indeterminate amount of time ago, I can't find it. Maybe someone else saved it? My point is that game magazines aren't "professional critics" and thus not reliable sources. I also have no interest in taking the matter further up in the Wikipedia bureaucratic hierarchy, if you're fine with having corporate propaganda as "reliable sources" that your problem, I already know to double-check every assertion made on Wikipedia. 85.221.156.35 (talk) 07:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not a black and white issue. "Professional reviewers", like the ones we believe are the only ones that should be cited here get advance copies of the games they review and other perks from the game creators so that is a conflict of interest right there. Further, unlike the actual people who will play the game, reviewers can't afford a lot of time to play the game and do an express run through it. These reviewers have value but averaged ratings based on gamer reviews have more value if they are in sufficient numbers. Reconman43 (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)— Reconman43 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Again, I would lead you toWikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines if you have a problem with how Wikipedia works in relation to reliable sources. What stands now is policy. Remember this is an encyclopedia first and foremost, so published sources are a must. If www.nma-fallout.com isn't a published source, it can't be used. It's policy. It's not favoritism. This isn't some conspiracy, it's how every single game title is dealt with, and how this one needs to be as well. If a news/published source cites problems, bugs or general annoyances with the game then by all means add it. But this is beginning to sound more like a need to promote non-published sources. If it isn't I suggest searching all the big sites -- if you want a site that doesn't sway one way or the other, try searching Kotaku. If you find published sources to cover the issue I'll gladly add it when I have time. Fansites, as big as they may be, could only ever serve as backup sources (at best) to a published source. Find the problems on a reliable site according to Wikipedia standards and we'll gladly post the info. --Teancum (talk) 17:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines talks about box art, am I missing something? What does it have to do with this discussion? If a site publishes an average gamer rating based on surveys they conduct, I don't see why that could not be included or even would be considered "not published material." If the site is reputable, and thoughtfully authors and tallies a survey, it should be considered as it is published on their website. Reconman43 (talk) 18:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)— Reconman43 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Sorry, I meant to point you to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines is the talk page (in case there are actual issues). And I think "published" is where the hangup is here. NMA and other fansites are Self-publishing sites. Meaning that there are no editors, nobody to check for accuracy, etc. IGN, Gamespot, Kotaku, GameRankings, Metacritic, etc are all published sites, in that they have editors, accuracy checks, they're licensed, etc. That's where the dividing line is.

Bottom line is if it's a fansite it doesn't belong as a factual reference at Wikipedia. There's just no getting around that. If you want to address complaints, find published sources to back up the claim, as you did with the PS3 GotY issues. If you want to use fansites you're out of luck - it's just against policy. --Teancum (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Review from CanardPC, main French independent games magazine actually sates something like great game, worst fallout ever, mentioning poor scenario and overall lack of world neutrality (i.e. it pushes you to play good, preventing some "bad" actions in the main storyline). In canardPC forums he added that the review lacked his opinion on the music, which compared to mark morgan's (falouuts 1&2) made him want to to quite nasty thing to the composer after having eaten asparagus. Now arguably, the problem is what constitutes a reliable source for reception, which usually considers indies as unreliable, but then major mags are heavily advertisement dependents and not definitely non-neutral.

Ok, the sources given were enough to go on, so there is now a Technical Issues section as a sub-section to the Reception section. That should hopefully help everyone feel things are more fair. --Teancum (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to kick this bees nest again by requesting that someone go through some of the prelease articles and reviews for Fallout: New Vegas for criticisms of Fallout 3, they do a lot of, "This problem from Fallout 3 is back." Returning engine bugs seem to be popping up most frequently in reviews but I've seen AI and combat pop up a few times as well. The issue with including criticisms in the past was always that they mostly appeared in the more obscure reviews and the detail was usually lacking. The couple of sentences sourcing the IGN review bother me, it really looks like something you'd see on an advertisement poster and the first sentence of the criticism paragraph is poorly written. If someone could figure out how to fit [Todd Howard's agreement that the game has less mediocre combat] in, it think it would be beneficial since it's a criticism from the lead producer. I haven't been happy with any of the ways that I've included it as it feels a bit tacked on. It think it would compliment with a deeper critique of the combat but it feels to bare standing on it's own. Actually those questions are what MTV considered the major complaints from "gamers" so it's probably the closest thing to documentation on "fan complaints". UncannyGarlic (talk) 02:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

PS3 GotY Edition issues

There is a serious problem with the PS3 GOTY release and DLC that causes the game to become unplayable. It is not a small problem but experienced by a significant number of users. What is the best way to work that into this article? Obviously need to get some refs, but other than that? Reconman43 (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If there are real refs, it might be mentioned in the DLC section. --Leivick (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

What about these refs? the first is actually about how the GOTY PS3 release is marred by the issues. The other refs merely make mention of the glitches and freezes.

http://spawnkill.com/review-fallout-3-game-of-the-year-edition/

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/103/1035569p5.html

http://www.digitalchumps.com/game-reviews/35-ps3/3990-fallout-3-game-of-the-year-edition.html

http://www.gameplayreviews.com/fallout-3-goty/

http://www.staticmultimedia.com/games/reviews/fallout_3~_game_of_the_year_edition Reconman43 (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought they fixed that issue a while ago. Is it still an issue? --Teancum (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Just go on the Bethesda Softworks forums for FO3/PS3 (http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showforum=38), just about every thread is rife with irate customers who are experiencing this problem. I know every game will have some issues people complain about but not of this magnitude. Other forums like playstation have similar posts. Even the amazon.com consumer reviews (http://www.amazon.com/Fallout-3-Game-Year-Playstation/product-reviews/B002BXKJ6O/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1) gave this awarded "Game of the Year" an average 3 stars out of 5 all because of this problem (read all the negative reviews). It's scandalous at this point as its 5-6 weeks after release and Bethesda Softworks has not made public acknowledgment of the problem and continue to sell it, indicating a possibility they have washed their hands of it. It is not some minor freezing like happens in Oblivion, for many, including myself, the old and new content is rendered unplayable with constant and severe frame rate slowdowns and freezes several times an hour. Power cycling the PS3 several times an hour is obviously dangerous to the console.

It was surprising to see that an issue of this magnitude is not mentioned anywhere in this article. It is believed because reviewers do an "express run" through a game for their review, they do not hit the full brunt of the problem as gamers would, although most reviews do acknowledge "glitches." The review from SpawnKill is dead on, basically saying this great game has been marred by this problem and rendered unplayable.

I also got a little paranoid seeing the comments about this article being an advertisement for Bethesda Softworks and thought maybe they were controlling the content here and making sure everything looks rosy. But I don't think that is the case.

There needs to be some mention of this in the article, it is too big of a problem/controversy to sweep under the carpet. I don't want this to be written as revenge as this game is really great, but this article should paint the truth and make some mention of this fiasco, even if it is a small paragraph. I think it belongs in controversies mainly because Bethesda Softworks is in denial about it in such contrast to the fan baseReconman43 (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Message boards are not reliable sources. News articles need to be used to include info about this controversy. What people on a message board say can't be used here. And on a personal note, I've not had any problems with my copy of the game or the DLC for my 360. Anakinjmt (talk) 05:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes I'm fully aware message boards can't be used, I was referring to them to answer Teancum's question. I posted links above of official reviews which reference the issues. I'm talking about PS3 not 360, are you even reading this through? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reconman43 (talk • contribs) 06:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I know we can use IGN and Digital Chumps from those for sure, they're listed in VG Sources. The others I'd have to check on --Teancum (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I see the Technical section now. Looks good now, didn't read it through at first. Reconman43 (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Please watch the attitude. It's not like people can't see your previous edits to the talk page. Additionally, this isn't some conspiracy as I've stated before. Maybe more reviewers than IGN fixed their articles, but companies editing their own pages to look better isn't tolerated here, and it's a big deal when they do. See Electronic arts#Editing of Wikipedia. It's not tolerated, and admins can quickly see if someone is editing their own stuff. So the whole Bethesda conspiracy theory doesn't apply here. I've added what I can to provide nuetrality and to bring out the point you're trying to make - is that not good enough? --Teancum (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

There's definitely an elitist attitude on here for sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.121.135 (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

fan reception

How about a franchise-fan reception subsection? There are sites by CRPG players that contain reviews, essays, dissertations etc. Perhaps these sites are reliable sources and notable enough to be mentioned at all? 85.221.147.47 (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It depends what kind of site you are talking about. If they are notable major video game review sites, than yes. If they are fan sites or user submissions than no. --Leivick (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about DAC, NMA and RPGCodex -- the latter a non-profit general CRPG-site, not a "fallout fan site". Also, why aren't really DAC and NMA reliable sources about fan reception? Even if they aren't, guidelines (which editors should attempt to follow) are not rules, definitely not something which ought to cause an instant revert.

A revolutionary RPG franchise gets sold by a publisher faced with bankrupcy without consulting the development studio in any way. The "sequel" alienates fans . This is contrary to a guideline and therefore is reverted, while having the article written as an advertisement is the newest revision. 85.221.147.47 (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

They're not considered reliable sources, per above. Fan reception doesn't matter, critical reception does. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 08:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"Notable major video game review sites" haven't had the slightest shred of credibility in years. If they're the only sources out there, then every major release is going to have absurdly glowing "critical reception". --74.14.117.128 (talk) 20:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

DLC content moved to new article

Per a now-archived discussion, all info on the five DLC packs can be found at Fallout 3 downloadable content. The Gameplay, Plot and Development sections of each expansion need updating/creation, so any help there would be great. --Teancum (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Another link

Per the notice in the External links section, what about adding the MobyGames link? It has a lot of in-game screenshots, something this article is sorely missing.

• Fallout 3 at MobyGames

^^^ It would look like that. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Teancum (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This edition contains radiation

Quote from the article, the section on Retail versions:

"and a large dose of radiation all of which is contained in a Vault-Tec lunchbox.[41][42] " Am I understanding this wrong? Or am I sterile after putting this on my lap? Robin.lemstra (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed but no reaction, ok...Robin.lemstra (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)::

Audio, hidden soundtrack list

Is it just me, or is the show and hide list a bit misplaced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eibx (talk • contribs) 17:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Problem with whole page

There's something wrong with the page. Someone removed the box and added an inappropriate sentence at the top. Someone please fix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kid2500 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Edits to Indian release

As it seems that I have raised the ire of another Wiki editor who keeps removing my edits, please comment on them so I might understand what the problem is.

The original edit is here: [[1]]

The removal is here: [[2]]

The reason given for the removal: "This is original research with unreliable sources" - a generic (unfounded) statement and a scorched earth roll-back.

I reinstated the edit, my response: "There is *0* original research. I added refs that are quite valid. Thank you.)"

The same user then re-edited, at least this time only removing the piece about Indian gamers playing the game regardless because it references a forum (of Indian gamers, who play Fallout 3...) If someone can think of a better link to show that at least some Indian gamers aren't bothered by the controversial matter, please share.

His response this time: (partial revert. Please familiarise yourself with WP:OR and WP:RS, forums and wikis are not reliable sources. None of these sources support what you are saying)

Now, aside from the Indiangamers link, his assertion is simply invalid. I linked to gaming news sites that are not "extremist" or "promotional" in nature.

His claim that the Wiki links that I used are invalid basically invalidates every single internal wiki link. These links were not provided as "proof", or as an attempt to cite some evidence backing up an opinion, but simply informational snippets on the characters mentioned that were at the time of the edits, reliable. Should they ever cease to be, then by all means, they should be removed or corrected (the same as any other ref link, internal or external). After researching the freely available sources for these characters, the links I chose were simply the most detailed.

I was then sent this message: Please familiarise yourself with these: WP:OR & WP:RS. "Original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. Not only do the sources you provided not make any mention to Hinduism, they are also open wikis and unreliable sources regardless, same applies to forums. Rehevkor ✉ 23:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, simply false. The assertion that the sources I provided don't make any mention of Hinduism is puzzling to say the least. The wiki articles, again, are simply links to information relating to the in-game characters, and the claim of unreliable sources is just bollocks.

Onto the burden of proof:

Here are the two links to Hinduism that I provided:

The first from The International Society for Krishna Consciousness [3]

The second from World-Faiths.com, and it gives a succinct and easy to follow definition that (at least in my opinion) does not appear to have any kind of slant [4]

An example of the Wikia link: [5] - I find the fallout.wikia pages to be as well policed (for the volume of traffic) as Wikipedia itself. If I am way off, please set me straight.

The last piece that was completely removed:

Brahmin have been a part of the Fallout (video game) series since the original, released by Interplay in 1997. It is possible that the rising popularity and awareness of video games explains why only the most recent installment in the series has created controversy.

I believe this is absolutely pertinent to the matter at hand. I can certainly see where the second sentence could be removed as opinion, but I think the first stands on its own merit.

I know that this is a pretty darned niche topic, but it interested me, and I felt that the wording was off "most people think" etc... if I am way off here, like I said, set me straight.

Archon888 (talk) 19:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I liked you to both WP:RS and WP:OR which is pretty clear on the matter. Forums and open wikis are not reliable sources and should never be used. The rest was either unsourced or used sources that you used for your own analysis to draw your own conclusions, neither source made no mention of Fallout, neither did the Wikia links make any reference to Hinduism. This is original research and has no place on Wikipedia. Unless you can provide sources that directly support your view there is nothing more I have to say on the sibject. Rehevkor ✉ 19:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Super Mutants

Super Mutants - has anyone ever noticed the similarity (near identical) between supermutants and the large guy after the nuclear explosion in the 'Ren and Stimpy' episode "Double Headers" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.63.63.238 (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, that episode came out in 1995, and FO1 came out in 1997. Of course, The Incredible Hulk came out in 1962... --74.14.117.128 (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Alternate history

How is Fallout an alternate history game? The time line doesn't change for 67 more years. Wouldn't it be an alternate future game? Or is every video-game, ever made that doesn't adhere to real life exactly, an alternate history game? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.236.19 (talk) 04:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It is an alternative history, it diverged before our current time. Why do think there's so much rerto 50's stuff? See the timeline. Rehevkor ✉ 11:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)