Talk:Fallout 3

Censorship in Japan section

Should this really be called "censorship"? It seems to me that Bethesda is just being sensitive to the situation - "censorship" usually implies that something is being covered up, but they're just changing a few specific things, probably to make the game more sale-able in another market. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowblade (talk • contribs) 17:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Although I disagree with your description of censorship, I do agree think the sub-section's title could possibly be changed. I shall attempt to avoid an analysis of censorship, but I do believe that the sub-section should be renamed to "Self-Censorship." Bethesda was by no means under any obligation to change the title of the quest line by the Japanese goverment in order to sell the game in Japan. Moreover, India did not prohibit the sale of the game either; Microsoft did so. Both instances are forms of self-censorship on the part of the producer of the most epic game ever, and not the respective governments in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.70.154 (talk) 07:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Trivia?

We gonna have a trivia section?The game is keeping up with the Fallout series tradition of having references to books,movies,etc.I've even found a reference to H.P. Lovecraft.--76.208.58.137 (talk) 15:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Trivia isn't something we should use anymore.(124.179.43.86 (talk) 03:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC))

It shouldn't be regarded as "trivia" if there's overwhelming reference to media. I've personally found that most of the game references the book nineteen-eighty seven; Vault 101, "cheng is watching" (in place of "big brother"), found at a terminal in tenpenny tower, the President Eden character and his eyebots, etc. Most of the game's many political systems seem to have overwhelming reference to the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.186.81.19 (talk) 09:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean 1984 Sammayel (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Not only is it orignal research but its not allowed to have it's own section.(58.170.30.15 (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC))

Doesn't need a trivia section. An external link already exists to the Fallout Wiki (The Vault), which contains a very comprehensive listing of trivia and cultural references. 71.238.205.137 (talk) 06:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

See WP:TRIVIA. Trivia sections are expressly discouraged, and the kind of in-game cultural references given as examples above are exactly what we don't want to add to this article. The Fallout Wiki is the better place for that kind of thing. -- Commdor {Talk} 00:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

70 sidequests?

I think it means to say 70 objectives. I'm not sure how many sidequests there really are, but someone should fix this to not confuse any people considering getting the game. --96.242.81.46 (talk) 22:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Well it could be broken down in the same way that The Vault breaks it down, into a category for Side Quests, Unmarked Quests (maybe Minor Side Quests), and Repeatable Quests. There are 17 (major) side quests, 40 unmarked quests (minor side quests), and 15 repeatable quests (could be merged with minor side quests). I agree that adding some more detail (and getting the number right - 72 total) would be beneficial.UncannyGarlic (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

i heard roumors of their being and Anti-Christ karma level in fallout 3 is this true? Hiro kurisaki (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Hiro kurisaki

Nah there isn't a karma level called anti-christ. Not from 1-20 anyway, there might be one called that within levels 21-30 with the BS DLC but i have no idea about that.--92.18.72.30 (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

PS3 Downloadable Content

I think we should make a piece under the Downloadable Content section about the whole PS3 not getting it issue. Do you guys think this would be worth mentioning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChiliDawgz (talk • contribs) 06:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I may have mentioned something to do with that a while ago but forgot to do anything about it. If you want to add a section in yourself I would say give it a go, just make sure you get enough sources and mention the reasons behind PS3 users not getting it, I believe I read soemthing stating that they thought the PS3 version would not sell and that they would consider bringing out the DLC if the demand was high enough. The only reason I haven't added myself is because I rarely go on WIkipedia at home and I cant look at game websites at work. Dark verdant (talk) 09:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

PS3 does not have DLC but the reason for this has not been stated to my knowledge. Chances are that it was a deal made with Microsoft (ie they were paid to make it 360 and PC exclusive) as similar deals have been made in the past. Whether or not it will get the content in the future has conflicting reports with MTV Multiplayer saying that it won't and PSM3 saying that it will. Chances are that it will be released as part of a "Game of the Year Edition" based on Oblivion and Morowind, but that's just an educated guess. There are other, older interviews and articles about it that can be found by digging through NMA's list of articles, but this is a start. All in all, this information should be in the article at the beginning of the Downloadable Content section.UncannyGarlic (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I decided to edit the article to include mention of the DLC's abscense for PS3. I hope you guys are cool with it, because I made sure to include as many citations as I could. I'm not sure what Wikipedia's etiquette is for measuring controversy, so I marked "citation needed" when I mentioned negative fan reaction to the decision. I'd be happy to edit it if someone can suggest how it should be cited, but I wasn't sure if something as simple as a message board thread or two would be considered legitimate. Or, if you feel you could tidy up the article a bit better yourself, I wouldn't have a problem with it.(Timstuff (talk) 12:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC))

Forums are not considered notable and unfortunately the only thing I could quickly find about it being disappointing to PS3 owners is from MTV Multiplayer in a couple of interviews (1 & 2). It'd be nice if someone had reported the numerous complaints on Bethesda's official forum but that just hasn't happened. Something should be added mentioning the complaints about dealing with GFWL when downloading, installing, playing, and replaying Operation Anchorage along with other reactions to OA and the other DLCs as they are released in the reception section. UncannyGarlic (talk) 06:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

DLC Release Date

What's the release date on The Pitt? I've googled around a bit, and 1up says it's on the fifteenth rather than the third, and the fallout wiki claims early march and cites the same source as this article to back it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.169.248 (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Early March is the most recent official word on it and it was given in the following OXM Podcast. In the same interview they say that Broken Steel will be about a month, more or less, after that with 5-6 weeks between releases as their goal. UncannyGarlic (talk) 06:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Spoilers

Guys, the story line of Fallout in this article 3 is a complete spoiler from begin to end with what happens in the game, even the ambushing part of the enclave is in there. The story should contain more general info about the background of the game and not a complete spoiler of the game —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.153.139.117 (talk) 09:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Properly written story sections always provide a complete summary of games' plots on Wikipedia. If you don't want to read spoilers then don't read story sections on Wikipedia, read reviews or the developer's plot summary provided on their website. UncannyGarlic (talk) 07:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the same as a review, a complete telling of the story is needed.(220.239.27.207 (talk) 07:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC))

Could you, or anyone else, point out why this is the case? Or, more to the point, where is it stated in Wikipedia that this must be so? Is it a rule to structure the plot or story as it is reads now? Atlalt (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Have a read of WP:spoiler it should help to understand.Dark verdant (talk) 10:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

People should just do what I did and stop reading where ever they are at in the game. It was nice to have a little re-cap, but I don't wanna ruin the game for myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.157.207.191 (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Broken Steel

This is the info on wikipedia for Broken Steel DLC "Broken Steel is the third downloadable content pack, and continues the story of Fallout 3 beyond the original ending. In the pack, the player joins the ranks of the Brotherhood of Steel and helps rid the Capital Wasteland of the Enclave once and for all."

But what if your character sided with the enclave? (I don't know if that is possible actually, but I think it is) I assume you would work with the enclave to rid D.C. of the brotherhood? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.227.110 (talk) 06:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

There has been no mention of any possibility of siding with the Enclave in Broken Steel as of yet, so any mention of such a possibility should remain absent. UncannyGarlic (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

What they have said, iirc, is they're just ignoring the original endings for the main quest; partly because at least two of them involve dying. I think the info is on The Vault, with a link to the source (one of the devs). Hikari (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed "even if the player chooses the "Sacrifice" option at the end of the game," from the article because it was unsourced and all of the information I've seen has suggested that the ending would be changed which could just as easily mean that the sacrifice option is removed. Without a source (which I'm also asking for on The Vault), the quote is considered speculation, which is why I removed it. UncannyGarlic (talk) 08:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

NPD retail sales figures

I've heard consistently that NPD numbers are about half what's really been sold but I know of no article which states as much. If someone knows of one which mentions how much higher the real sales figures are than the NPD figures, please note it in the reception section or at least post a link here. Thanks. UncannyGarlic (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Revision Query

Can anyone work out what "Players have also experienced various glitches to their play time with some even rendering the game unplayable" is supposed to mean? And if it actually adds anything to the article as it already stood? It seems like it's just repeating what's already stated. Hikari (talk) 11:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you're talking about the Pitt edit? The Pitt still has freezing problems for many players on both PC and 360 (I'm not sure where it freezes) and requires a fan-made patch on the PC to run properly. Unfortunately, all of the information about it is on forums and mod download sites, links follow. Forum post with the problem identified and link to fix: [1]. Direct link to PC fix: [2]. Link to Matt Grandstaff (Gstaff), Bethsoft Community manager acknowledging the problem for the 360: [3]. A reception section should really be created for both DLC and, in the case of the Pitt, it should discuss the innitial release problem (supposedly a corrupt file) and this problem (and note when they're fixed). UncannyGarlic (talk) 08:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, that makes more sense. The initial change has been reverted away by User:Rehevkor. A new "reception" section might be a good idea. If it's describing a different defect, the reverted edit should be put back in a way that actually makes sense too. Hikari (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a link to Bethesda officially acknowledging the freezing issue in The Pitt: forums[4], blog[5]. UncannyGarlic (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I started the section and put in some light base info but it needs to be expanded. UncannyGarlic (talk) 06:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I Am Legend

This section is biggest bullshit I have ever seen.

- Dogmeat is in Fallout since first installment.
- This game is about life in post-nuclear word, like lots of others, why should it be an I Am Legend?

79.186.49.199 (talk) 01:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem with this article? It does not mention I am Legend at all. --Leivick (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The offending section already got reverted; it was entirely spurious Hikari (talk) 13:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I have allowed myself to remove that part. You can still heck it out in history. 83.8.6.25 (talk) 06:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Is VGChartz a reliable source?

The information from VGChartz was recently removed and the cited reason was that it's not a reliable source. While I've read about them changing their numbers periodically to more closely match NPD data, I have no clue where wikipedia stands on them as a reliable source. If there is no response to this comment in the next few days then I'm going to undo the edit. UncannyGarlic (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Read this article they're not a professional company/website and often get it wrong, they lack fact checking, estimate data, make educated guesses. Not reliable enough for use in Wikipedia, not when there are more reliable sources out there. Rehevkor ✉ 21:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that I'd read an article like that before (though it was less in depth) and I'd read their rationale on changing the numbers for games in the past, neither of which gave me any confidence in the numbers. That said, the Wikipedia page cited many prominent members of the press sourcing it so I figured I'd use it and it'd be removed if it was unreliable, thus providing a basis for such questions in the future (unless there already is one that I don't know of). Thanks. UncannyGarlic (talk) 01:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if this has come up "officially" on Wikipedia before, but it's worth a on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games or WP:RS. Rehevkor ✉ 03:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Good call, [done]. UncannyGarlic (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Release date for Broken Steel.

Reliable sources IGN.com and gamespy.com both say that broken steel has been delayed to september 2009. Since Bethesda hasn't released an official statement about Broken Steel's release date, I think IGN and Gamespy should be used as sources rather than the current one, and the release date on the page should be switched to September 30, 2009, until Bethesda officially announces it.

IGN says Q3 while GameSpy says September 30. I'm not sure, they don't have an official news post about it and the last official post they have says April. Bethesda is known to be a bit sluggish in these sorts of announcements but it's not uncommon for sites and retailers to have incorrect release dates. Do you know if this was a recent change or if this has been up their for awhile is the real question? —Preceding unsigned comment added by UncannyGarlic (talk • contribs) 04:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Both sites are apparently using placeholder dates, and as sister sites, neither is more acceptable than the other. The last Bethesda statements set Broken Steel's release in late April to early May, and that's what should be in the article until further official statements specify the final date. Also, and this is speculation on my part, the latest update may have signaled that the DLC will indeed be out in early May; game updates that set up the framework for DLC content preceeded both of the previous DLC packs by less than a month, and the pattern may apply here. I'm betting on May 5th or 12th. -- Commdor {Talk} 20:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

IGN and the article mention May 5th, but so far that doesn't seem to be the case?75.139.197.15 (talk) 07:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

If you read the article you'll find that the PC version was removed due to bugs which rendered it unplayable (Beth is claiming it's GFWL for the third time in a row, I'm guessing it's the process they use to transfer the software). It was in fact released on May 5 and, if I'm not mistaken, still available for 360, complete with the bugs for that version. UncannyGarlic (talk) 07:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Point Lookout

I have heard rumors about a fourth DLC pack named Point Lookout, anyone know anything? J4cK0fHe4rt5 (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• A quick googling reveals that Point Lookout is a user made mod. I also found some news about what might be a fourth DLC, however. You might want to check the Fallout wiki though, they might have some info. Fruckert (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
• Another quick googling reveals that no, it was a myth, and that Mod I talked about is actually called "Lookout Point". Sorry about that little mix-up. Fruckert (talk) 02:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• Interesting, the Fallout wiki cites several Amazon-like sites, showing they're selling pre-orders for a Broken Steel and "Point Look" combo pack. Wonder how that got up there but Bethdesa hasn't mentioned anything, not even a hint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.174.3 (talk) 04:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Considering that Amazon had the DLC pack for The Pitt and O:A up a few weeks before Bethesda officially acknowledged it, it wouldn't surprise me if it was real, especially considering that at least one of the sites is taking pre-orders for it. Still, MSN Shopping is the only one of the sites that I'd ever heard of and Amazon doesn't have anything up yet, so we'll see. UncannyGarlic (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

*shrugs*Fruckert (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

One of the sites in question has leaked unannounced EA titles before and been correct, so it's probably safe to assume that there'll be SOMETHING alongside Broken Steel on its shiny disc release. As for why it's not announced, apparently microsoft has some DLC policy that limits how many achievements-worth of DLC can be released per quarter, which would prevent a release prior to July. It's also important to note that Bethesda's only comments have been non-denial denials along the lines of "Point Look is not an announced DLC pack" and the like. I'd question whether or not it's "encyclopedic" (whatever the hell that means) to note the leak before an official announcement tho. 70.75.169.248

• Point Lookout has was announced by Bethesda yesterday (20th May 2009) as the fourth DLC, a fifth expansion, known as Mothership Zeta will be released with the upcoming Game of the Year Edition (Released in October)

(talk) 20:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

DLC in disc form

Not sure if its mentioned in the article or if it needs mentioning but looking at Play.com I have just seen that you can buy Operation Ancorage and The Pitt in Disc form. At present this is only for Xbox 360, whether or not the PS3 will get it as its not technically DLC I have no idea but thought it might need adding to the DLC section. Dark verdant (talk) 10:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It's for both PC and 360, it has been confirmed that the PS3 will not have the two DLC compilation disc released for it (Pete or Todd confirmed it in an interview in the past couple weeks). UncannyGarlic (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation. Dark verdant (talk) 12:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The "Game of The Year" Editions will be released in disc form, with all DLC on PC, 360, and PS3. This was confirmed on the May 19th, 2009 edition of G4's gaming show, X-Play, during The Feed: Gamer Edition (see http://fallout.bethsoft.com/eng/home/pr-051909.php). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.67.70 (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I just picked up the Pitt + Anchorage on a disk for 360 today from GAME in the UK for £14.99. In the manual for it, it says that "coming soon" will be another dick pack containing Broken Steel and Point Lookout86.16.153.191 (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

DlC own article?

I think the Fallout 3 DLC should have it's own article which covers all 3 in more detail than here on the article. Encyclopedic, eh? --Byaku Kitsune (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Byaku Kitsune, will look cleaner and better. Cyberalien18(talk) 23:45 18 May 2009 (UTC)

As long as there is enough information for its own article I'm in agreement. Dark verdant (talk) 08:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

If you look on The Vault you'll find that there is a lot of information to make an article, particularly with Broken Steel. --Byaku Kitsune (talk) 12:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Why? Seems to fit here--67.175.86.191 (talk) 06:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course it fits. What I'm proposing is create an article that covers it in more detail and just link to it from the section on this article. --Byaku Kitsune (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan to me and I think that it would result in better articles for both. Go for it. UncannyGarlic (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

They are similar in size to The Elder Scrolls IV: Knights of the Nine, which does have a separate article. Ausir (talk) 06:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

PS3 DLC

Just noticed that the DLC section has been updated with the latest news, however the pitt says that it will be released 4-6 weeks after operation anchorage, I'm sure the info that was given out was that The Pitt and OA would be released at the same time to get them out quickly to everyone. Dark verdant (talk) 08:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The initial plan as regards PS3 DLC was that it would be in the same order as the Xbox DLC. This has now changed with Bethesda saying that Broken Steel will be the first DLC for the PS3, haven't seen any info on the order after that. - X201 (talk) 08:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

About negative critics

I think this article is biased, a lot of fallout 1 and 2 fans have been very disapointed by this game which is Action/rpg and that original fallout feeling have been changed to be more politically correct. you should check the french version of wikipedia about it, because the current english article looks a lot like an advertisement directly from the publisher/dev... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.20.215 (talk) 22:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The important word you mentioned above is "fans". We cannot add information into the article from fans rantings on forums, as that would constitue original research. Dark verdant (talk) 08:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms from noteworthy sources or a large number of smaller publications are included but given the amount of critical praise the game has received it's natural for there to be a larger amount of positive reception than negative. Also a majority of the praise is aimed at specific elements of the game and thus informative. If the praise was all general reaction excepts then you'd have a point but as is, it's pretty well written. The only major problem that I can find in the reception section is a general lack of specific praise and criticisms leveled against the first two DLCs (having written those, I'm at fault). Fan base reactions are not included because they are not reliable sources. UncannyGarlic (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the deny of the "old fanbase" is not reliable in this form but there should be done about the fact this game is a huge failure in the eyes of ppl. who used to play the first 2 episodes because the artice in this form is just not: reliable. 188.180.64.42 (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that we've discussed including NMA's review of the game which was conducted by a developer for Iron Tower Studios and most objected on the basis that NMA is not a notable source since it is not a journalistic publication (the site operators have stated this on a number of occasions, in case it wasn't clear from the fact that they are a fan site). I personally feel that it would be beneficial to have a section about the reaction of the old fan base given the amount of gossip about them surrounding Fallout 3 but given that there really aren't any articles about it, it would be entirely personal research, thus not fitting the quality requirements of Wikipedia (and rightly so). If or when a journalistic publication writes an article about the situation it may be appropriate and possible to include a short section on the situation, but not until then. UncannyGarlic (talk) 04:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want reviews from journalists you can check this mini online article from a famous french PC gaming newspaper here, where the game scores 5/10, because it wasn't a fallout game anymore but a "casual gamer walk". And I think that "old fanbase" opinion is still valuable, as a part of the fallout history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.20.215 (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

What's Wikipedia's official policy on foreign sources? I'm guessing that due to the large number of English sources that it wouldn't be acceptable. I've known of their review but the language barrier (yes, Google's translator can get you the general gist of things) always prevented me from using it when there were so many English reviews. UncannyGarlic (talk) 05:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Party of five?

This suggests that there are two extra party members that can be added.
Little note about GAMEGUIDE: even the people at WP:NOT do not know which section to redirect it to. It's sort of like that barge full of garbage nobody wanted. And if you are buying game guides with one fact in them, you should probably get someone else to do your shopping for you.
If 67.21.191.34 or anyone else knows of a citation for this, please bring it here for discussion. Anarchangel (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Watt's with the DRUGS ?

I find it weird, why is it some big problem you only see how they look and that's all, when you use them its instant it won't show you how he's injecting himself or taking pills or is this possible on Xbox ? i played on PC version and i don't think its suggestive. --DarckArchon (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Read the section again, the offending content was edited out before release in order to be rated (thus released) in Australia. Speculation at the time was that it was a PR stunt (part of the push to make the game look mature) with the presupposition that Bethesda knew that the game would get turned down for a rating in Australia. There is no statement that suggests as much that I know of from a notable source and the game guide combined with the removal of the animations suggest otherwise. UncannyGarlic (talk) 06:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The Deep Blue and Worlds End?

I was just wondering, where is the source for this information? So far it seems made up. I haven't seen or heard anything about this outside of this article and their are no sources. 69.136.90.97 (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing a hoax. Rehevkor ✉ 21:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I googled it and all I could find was links back to the wikipedia page so chances are someone was having a good chuckle. Point Lookout was leaked from reputable sources but it wasn't considered fit to be posted until it was confirmed by, if I recall correctly, Bethesa. UncannyGarlic (talk) 00:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Two tags in DLC section

These sections need to be updated, some of the info is like 4 months old. They also need to be cleaned up. 72.237.55.2 (talk) 00:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

/Feel free to update them or do what really needs to be done and create individual articles for each of them (as has been done for Oblivion's Nights of the Nine DLC). The truth is that they are the way they are because no one bothered to create individual articles for them as they were released, the entries were merely updated to give a brief overview and complimentary reactions sections were created to give a brief overview of the general reactions. UncannyGarlic (talk) 02:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Where the heck is the Characters seciton?

It just occurred to me that this article has no characters section. Because of this, characters and factions (such as the Ghouls) have to be explained wherever they're brought up (such as the enemies section) I propose the creation of a characters section and the relocation of all strictly character-describing information into the section.

24.21.108.124 (talk) 08:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Fallout 3 really isn't a character driven game and most of the characters that do show up are only important for small segments of the game. What or who specifically do you feel needs a character section? UncannyGarlic (talk) 05:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, hello!?!

Does anybody else see how this article has been messed with. There isn't a sexual name or act in this entire game, yet some loser actually spent time on 'vandalizing' the page. Could someone fix this please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.63.47 (talk) 04:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed

I think I caught most of the vandalism...if you see anything else, you can certainly edit it yourself.

-RK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.58.234.21 (talk) 05:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)