Talk:Fallout 3/Archive 5

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)

Look, any time any sequel to anything comes up, a dire hard community of 'fans of the original' appears on the internet to bitch about how the new one sucks. It's not any more relevant to Fallout 3 than it is to every other sequel out there, and if we included it here, we'd have to include it in all of them. Besides, what would you cite, a bunch of message board handles? By all accounts that can be sourced, Fallout 3 is an excellent game, and ALSO in the eyes of many fans of the original two, such as myself. I just don't see how 'some people on the internet hate it' is relevant to anything- especially since this is so ubiquitous. It's getting to the point where the first thing any game designer does when making a sequel/remake/adaption is apologize to the fans or otherwise prepare them for the fact that they're going to hate it. If you actually read the criticisms of the die hards, they're mostly vacuous anyway.

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)

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)

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)

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/Archive 5 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: [[6]]

The removal is here: [[7]]

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 [8]

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 [9]

An example of the Wikia link: [10] - 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Not that I agree with him, but Ron, that whole "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." was uncalled for. What I`m saying is, you could`ve worded it differantly. MetaCow (talk) 02:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Soundtrack: Get Carter

I noticed an almost exact similarity between a little tune at the beginning of the film Get Carter and the ambiant track that plays when youre in the wasteland in Fallout 3. Ive also noticed references to other games and films in Fallout 3. Should there be a section on the article that point out these these references? Thanks. Cathys Son (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Not unless a reliable source has made these specific connections. We should definitely avoid a trivia section. --Leivick (talk) 23:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fallout 3/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ~ Don4of4 ^[Talk] 00:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Criteria

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Very good overall in this category.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	No issues at this point.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(c) (original research)	No issues here.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (focused)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
No issues.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
Continuous minor improvements. Good to see...	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	All images have a fair use rational.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Issues exist: The article lacks images in general. Images in "Plot", "Development", "Marketing and release" and "Controversies" may add to the article. Note: The images do not have to be of copyrighted in-game content! See Halo 3 for a good example.	Neutral

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	This article has qualified for WP:GA status, however the reviewer has minor reservations.

Discussion

Please add any related discussion here.

• Please note that, in regards to images, we use the minimal number possible since the vast majority of images are not free. Adding more than three (including cover art) non-free images is typically frowned on per WP:NFCC. --Teancum (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• The story section doesn't need to have any references because it's generally accepted that since a work's plot sections are referencing the work itself, you don't necessarily need plot citations; it'd maybe be needed if it was to be an FA, but surely not for GA; and since there is currently 3 non-free images in use in the article, and it is frowned upon to have more than 3, it cannot lack images in general (and to find an image related to the article but in the public domain will be a real bitch); and there ain't much I could say in the caption of the cover art but just "box art"; it doesn't have the BBFC or PEGI or ESRB rating in the image, to identify which region it is from, which used to have it until it was changed about six months ago; the caption should just be for the screenshot images, the cover art in the Halo 3 article doesn't have a caption and that is a FA; so according to your concerns in the review, there ain't any real issues and therefore the article should be a Pass!-SCB '92 (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• I do not agree with you on the images issue. Please see my revised review brought about due to your feedback and a review of the article vs similar articles. ~ Don4of4 ^[Talk] 01:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
  • okay, thanks for passing the other parts of the GA criteria; so I guess you want me to put pictures in the article that is something to do with the game's launch that is not copyrighted (like a conference something)? well I couldn't find a photo from the conference, but I found this picture which is the only thing related to the article in the wikimedia commons, but it looks unneccessary for it; I found pictures in FlickR of the Fallout 3 launch party thrown by Bethesda and held in Los Angeles, the celebrities who attended (like Courtney Cox, David Arquette, Lauren Conrad, and Foo Fighters, who also performed), and people lining up in stores (wow, I should put a section in the article about all of this); the bad news is that all these pictures happened to be copyrighted "All rights reserved", so I cannot upload the file, and since I have 3 non-free images, no more is allowed in the article; lots of video game articles don't have and don't need photos which are in the public domain; I know the Fallout 3 launch party happened to be as big a deal of the Halo 3 launch party (which even has its own page about the Halo 3 marketing), but come on; it's not like the article The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time has one; nor Metroid Prime, nor BioShock, and they're all Featured Articles; I think you should get a second opinion about this article or something-SCB '92 (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• Based off of similar articles I will pass this, but I really would like more images. Don4of4 ^[Talk] 00:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment This notion that there's a "magic number" of three preventing image improvement is ridiculous. It's entirely realistic for an article to include more than three non-free images. Five non-free images is excessive if it's two cover arts and three screenshots, not so if it's something like one cover art, two distinctive screenshots, one soundtrack cover art, and one photograph from a celebrity release party or something (if there's no realistic possibility of a free image). I've done a reasonable amount of work with non-free images and I've never heard that "no more than three in total" is advisable. Not saying this should or shouldn't have passed, just saying. Swarm ^{u | t} 15:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

FA consensus

Okay, just wanting to let people know I'm putting this article up for FAC, and if everyone's alright with this-SCB '92 (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

BBFC Classification

The Wiki page shows this as classified 15 by the BBFC and cites a reference (at time of writing, #7) called "Fallout 3 rated 15 by BBFC". However, the link for that reference is the BBFC website which gives it as an 18 certificate. Have I missed something, or should I edit the Wiki page to show this as an 18?

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/0/9AF9EF36E40D6E2D802574BA004BF90F?OpenDocument

RJS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.143.153 (talk) 11:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right, it's 18. Ratings are fairly common targets for vandalism/misinformation that unfortunately pass under the radar. Яehevkor ✉ 12:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Justified by context

I have removed "despite the admission that the portrayal of the drugs was appropriate within the context of the game." as it is misleading. The sentence that this statement was appended to was the minority opinion of the board. It was only the majority opinion of the board was that decided the portrayal was justified by context. Just because Patrick Kolan of IGN cannot comprehend the difference, surely that doesn't mean we must perpetuate his ignorance here. -98.20.136.247 (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Lone wanderer did not die

with the broken steel add on it is revealed that he didn't die...he was left unconscious for 2 weeks but he survived, also I believe you should include the other options for solving the issue (like sending fawkes to trigger it for example) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.199.150.106 (talk) 05:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The Shadow 277 11:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Shadow 277 (talk • contribs)

Yea I always thought that the main characters couldn't die, idk though I haven't finished all the games. btw I fixed your grammar the best I could. Benners88 (talk) 14:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Sequel/Reboot/Spiritual Successor

Although the article states that this is the sequel to Fallout 2, wouldn't it be more of a reboot, seeing as there was a 10-year gap between Fallout 2 and 3? Maybe it's a Red Dead Revolver-Redemption-type thing. I'm not sure :p 76.71.154.34 (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

While it may be a sequel in number only, there are a considerable number of sources to support "sequel" in this case. Яehevkor ✉ 22:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know it is a sequel. The long time in-between FO2 and FO3 has to do with Black Isle Studios/Interplay and Bethesda overtaking the matter. On the Fallout wiki (link to be inserted yet), you can read up on the matter. Scourge Splitter (talk) 06:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Help with writing

I added the section on Controversy and fandom, but I feel the writing is awkward. I would appreciate help with that. SharkD  Talk  21:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Germany ban

Apparently the fact that FO3 was banned in Germany is missing, but this may point to some interesting developments as Bethesda has gotten it unbanned: http://me.ign.com/en/xbox-one-gaming-hardware-xbox-one/115793/news/is-falllout-3-hd-remake-coming-to-ps4-and-xbox-one -- ferret (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Development correction

Can't make the edit myself since i'm not yet confirmed, but under Development - Interplay Entertainment, first line, it says "Black Isle Studios was the developer of the original Fallout and Fallout 2". This is incorrect, Black Isle only did Fallout 2, Interplay developed the original Fallout. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blarrgh1 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Fallout 3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/65NHakesD?url=http://xbox360.ign.com/dor/objects/882301/fallout-3/videos/fallout3_security_071408.html to http://xbox360.ign.com/dor/objects/882301/fallout-3/videos/fallout3_security_071408.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091213214415/http://blogs.ign.com/Bethesda_Softworks/2008/06/06/92163 to http://blogs.ign.com/Bethesda_Softworks/2008/06/06/92163/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120223120338/http://asia.gamespot.com/news/fallout-3-and-oblivion-double-pack-drops-april-3-6350639 to http://asia.gamespot.com/news/fallout-3-and-oblivion-double-pack-drops-april-3-6350639
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/65NMr0aNr?url=http://www.1up.com/news/japan-review-check-fallout-3 to http://www.1up.com/news/japan-review-check-fallout-3
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/65NMyCikt?url=http://uk.gamespot.com/fallout-3/reviews/fallout-3-review-6200091/ to http://uk.gamespot.com/ps3/rpg/fallout3/review.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/65NMlLBOd?url=http://www.1up.com/reviews/fallout-3 to http://www.1up.com/reviews/fallout-3
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/65NO5FXXr?url=http://www.edge-online.com/features/100-best-games-play-today to http://www.next-gen.biz/features/100-best-games-play-today
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100106021334/http://www.atomicgamer.com/articles/672/fallout-3-review to http://www.atomicgamer.com/articles/672/fallout-3-review
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/65NMmBSPf?url=http://www.edge-online.com/reviews/edge-review-fallout-3 to http://www.next-gen.biz/reviews/edge-review-fallout-3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100103233232/http://www.gamespot.com/special_features/editorschoicee307/genre/index.html?page=6 to http://www.gamespot.com/special_features/editorschoicee307/genre/index.html?page=6
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/65NOCPK4N?url=http://www.ign.com/videos/2009/01/16/fallout-3-video-ign-2008-game-of-the-year to http://games.ign.com/dor/articles/944244/ign-game-of-the-year-2008-revealed/videos/igngoty2008_winner_011609.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/65NOFYb7g?url=http://goty.gamespy.com/2008/overall/10.html to http://goty.gamespy.com/2008/overall/10.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/65NOKd7Gf?url=http://www.ugo.com/games/ugos-game-of-the-year-awards-2008 to http://www.ugo.com/games/ugos-game-of-the-year-awards-2008
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/65NOOSz5B?url=http://uk.bestof.ign.com/2008/xbox360/21.html to http://uk.bestof.ign.com/2008/xbox360/21.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/65NOTdZQV?url=http://goty.gamespy.com/2008/pc/12.html to http://goty.gamespy.com/2008/pc/12.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/65NOhpulJ?url=http://www.theplaystationetwork.com/ign-fallout-3-review-theres-been-some-changes/ to http://www.theplaystationetwork.com/ign-fallout-3-review-theres-been-some-changes/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://spawnkill.com/review-fallout-3-game-of-the-year-edition/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Fallout 3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100904203554/http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6236061.html to http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6236061.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://ia801601.us.archive.org/BookReader/BookReaderImages.php?zip=%2F8%2Fitems%2FOXM_2008_04-web%2FOXM_2008_04-web_jp2.zip&file=OXM_2008_04-web_jp2%2FOXM_2008_04-web_0017.jp2&scale=9.859154929577464&rotate=0
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.1up.com/news/bethesda-launches-teaser-site-real
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120918233444/http://www.ugo.com/games/exclusive-fallout-3s-broken-steel-to-change-the-end-of-the-game to http://www.ugo.com/games/exclusive-fallout-3s-broken-steel-to-change-the-end-of-the-game
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100513165203/http://uk.ign.com/decade/best-games-2008.html to http://uk.ign.com/decade/best-games-2008.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120512001052/http://www.americanart.si.edu/exhibitions/archive/2012/games/winninggames.pdf to http://www.americanart.si.edu/exhibitions/archive/2012/games/winninggames.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006073252/http://www.ign.com/top/rpgs/10 to http://www.ign.com/top/rpgs/10
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/65NOingd9?url=http://digitalchumps.com/game-reviews/35-ps3/3990-fallout-3-game-of-the-year-edition.html to http://www.digitalchumps.com/game-reviews/35-ps3/3990-fallout-3-game-of-the-year-edition.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Controversy and Fandom

This category seems unnecessary in the article and having a specific category for fan reaction seems to show bias towards that fandom, and is less professional than a mention in the Reception section such as in the article for Metal Gear Solid 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrysisCore20 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The controversy is notable enough to have caught the eye of several reliable publications. That said, the long quote is probably unnecessary, and the section is not written very well in general, and needs to be reviewed by a better writer. SharkD  Talk  07:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fallout 3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150926194644/http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2009/01/23/no-ending-update-ps3-fallout/ to http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2009/01/23/no-ending-update-ps3-fallout/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.elspa.com/?i=3944

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2018

To add Category:Xbox One X enhanced games to the article. Sources below:

• Fallout 3- Microsoft Store
• Xbox One X enhanced games list - Eurogamer
  Thank you, 68.148.240.210 (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 22:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, 68.148.240.210 (talk) 00:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Brian Fargo's opinion of Fallout 3

Not sure if it is of value to this article (as Tim Cain and Chris Avellone are mentioned) but here is Brian Fargo's opinion of Fallout 3: https://www.gamepressure.com/e.asp?ID=124

"Speaking of which, do you like the direction Bethesda took with Fallout 3 – an open world, first person perspective, and so on?

They did a great job with it. It’s not what the hardcore audience wanted which I totally get but I give them credit. They’ve made a meaningful perk and trait system, they did a great job with the visual style, use of Pip-Boy and music. They’ve captured what Fallout universe should feel like. But it was certainly different than my approach to it." --Kigsz (talk) 23:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Plot contradiction

In the "plot" it is mentioned that Enclave and Brotherhood of Steel in this game both differ from their western counterparts. But the very next sentence remarks that the Enclave is more or less the same. In my opinion the latter is correct, but either way it is a contradiction as it stands now. --131.169.89.168 (talk) 12:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Removed the first part. Not a necessary statement anyway. -- ferret (talk) 12:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)