Talk:Fallout 3

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)

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)

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)