Well, the OP is right about one thing - free roaming is the one thing Fallout 3 got pretty much nailed, and it isn't as prominent in Zelda games as it was before.

Then again - doing one thing properly and cocking up almost every other thing that made the previous games good isn't exactly that great of an outcome, now is it (and vice versa)?

Will buy when its cheap!

Guys its not fair to compare the two, I think zelda needs to be more like fable 2!

The problem I have with this argument is, taking away the items, a good player can beat Zelda:OoT with 3 hearts. I haven't tried a TP 3-heart run personally, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least to know it's possible. The combat would not be a limiting factor. Contrast that to fallout 3, where enemies can 1-hit kill you if you encounter them too early and there's no way to dodge it short of luck.

So, if the Zelda designers want to keep an overarching narrative going, they need to enforce artificial barriers to going places the story is not ready for yet. Fallout 3, through its game design, can enforce this through overpowered enemies. Zelda cannot, without losing its innate Zelda-like combat.

That said, I think Zelda retains a more than sufficient amount of exploring and adventuring. I will admit that I would like there to be some more places, but TP in particular is filled with little nooks and crannies that serve no story-driven purpose.

Now, don't get me wrong; I like both games, and Fallout 3 definitely gets the whole 'exploring' aspect done better than Zelda; I just don't think that its methods are even possible to port over to Zelda, and I am not sure I'd want it to if it meant losing the Zelda feel.

Overpowered enemies? In Fallout 3?

Unless you manage to run into one of the few Deathclaw nests in the game or start a fight with the Outcasts, I don't see how you could run into anything you can't beat, even in the early stages.

The raiders are pretty much pussies unless you've been deliberately ignoring your weapon skills, no wild animal can stand up to you short of a Yao Guai, the Orc Marauders that have nothing in common with Super Mutants are a joke until more Brutes start spawning (at about character level 10) - and the Enclave doesn't even show up until you advance the main story far enough, which you may never do since it's so weak anyway.

And just in case you run into trouble: Circle Strafing + VATS = Victory. Works against any and all non-human targets, including Deathclaws if you're careful enough.

And for the record: I had a silenced 10mm pistol, several hunting and assault rifles, grenades, mines, a freakin' GATLING LASER, and a solid set of combat armor after about 2½ hours of gameplay. Honestly, the game's actively trying to drown you in guns and munitions. How anyone could have overpowering combat-related problems in Fallout 3 is beyond me.

Wait... are enemies leveled in Fallout 3 a la Oblivion? Please say no.... x.x

There is some leveling, yes, but it's not nearly as bad or obvious as in Oblivion. You'll never see raiders with power armor and plasma rifles, for example.

Enemies scale in certain areas, but are capped.

So you can walk through many areas at level 20, and effectively mow every living creature down. However, at level 1, many areas are still going to feature super mutants - but might not be the most powerful available.

Okay, I meant more that the game is designed in such a way that a level 1 character cannot reasonably expect to beat the biggest, baddest bosses.  In Zelda, with the exception of a few enemies that require a certain item to kill (bombs, etc), almost all the enemies are killable from the beginning of the game without 'levelling' at all.  It may take more skill and a few more hits, but you *can* kill almost anything so long as you have a sword.  At the very least, you'd be able to disable them long enough to move further

In Fallout, there exist things that no matter your skill level, a new character wouldn't be able to kill or disable.  They're both equally effective methods to try and keep players on the straight-and-narrow, and both have their respective strengths and weaknesses.  I don't think they are really comparable in such a way that you can say that one could easily be applied to the other.  It requires an entirely different approach to the story and level design, and in my opinion,  Fallout's would take away from the 'feeling' that I get when I play Zelda, or Okami, or any of those.  There's enough room in the marketplace for both types of games; I don't think we need to say that one should become the other.

Um. Didn't you just read his reply? He said he was able to take down the most powerful enemies in the game using very specific techniques, and was able to get the most powerful weapon in the game (a Gatling Laser) within 2 and 1/2 hours. That means that 100% of enemies are killable from level 1.

Heck, with strategy, you can kill Behemoths at level 1 (I killed one around level 7, but it took me awhile to find one - It took me 30 minutes to take him down, but I did - unharmed). That's the point. In Fallout, with strategy, 100% of enemies are killable (unlike what you just said) whereas in Zelda, some enemies are immune to attacks, forcing you to obtain specific items to beat them (and you said this yourself).