Why does Fallout 3 get so much hate? I liked it. Please don't say anything about New Vegas, it's great that you like it and all but it's existence doesn't make 3 bad.
Fallout 3 is my second favorite Bethesda game after Morrowind. No, it doesn't look feel or play like the old games. It is a Bethesda game with a Fallout wrapper. It also has a solid map, memorable side quests and pretty good atmosphere.
Other urls found in this thread:
>I like thing
Okay
What do you think about thing?
NMA and RPGcodex are the main reasons, even going so far to sperg out at wikipedia admins back when FO3 was release.
Of course now you have NVfags(Which don't get me wrong, is a great fucking game) who's first Fallout was NV and feel like they fit in with the cool kids when they shit on FO3.
The main story is shit the world design (not level design, world design) is just as bad. The morality system is horseshit and just goes down to "Do I want to be satan or a literal incarnation of christ?"
It's not a bad game though. If you ignore the story and focus on the sidequests, it's pretty alright
Speaking as someone who's first experience with Fallout was 3, it just wasn't that great. I hated the subway tunnel shit, the story was only interesting until I started paying attention to it, the level scaling was nearly Oblivion-tier ridiculous, and the atmosphere broke every few minutes thanks to audio glitches.
After further playing of the series, the most praise I can give it is that it allowed for New Vegas to exist and brought the series back from the garbage heap that BoS had left it in.
I found the game to be slightly enjoyable the first time through.
Second time, I was bored by Rivet City.
>Why does Fallout 3 get so much hate?
Pretty much because
>It is a Bethesda game with a Fallout wrapper.
Nice meme.
What is bad about the world design?
>90 minutes
what do they eat?
The game isn't hated. It's just that Sup Forums is contrarian as fuck. Most normal people like Fallout 3 over NV. Just that the neckbeards that like NV are really vocal and shit on 3 so they feel better. And this is coming from someone who likes New Vegas best of all.
>doesnt look like an old game
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
(YOU)
There is tons of love for Oblivion on this board and F3 is pretty much an oblivion total conversion.
It's actually a pretty good video.
I kinda like it, but its not as good as New Vegas.
>Most normal people like Fallout 3 over NV
That's because most normal people literally never played Fallout before 3 and base their entire experience of the series on what they saw in 3. It's the same with Final Fantasy 7 and how that game turned the series into a shitfest of cutscenes and casualized combat because the majority never played anything before 7.
did you make this image OP?
>who's first Fallout was NV and feel like they fit in with the cool kids when they shit on FO3.
My first Fallout was 3 and I can't stand 3 now while New Vegas is one of my favourite games ever.
There's a clear difference in the design philosophy behind 3/4 and New Vegas that makes them fundamentally different and changes the appeal.
Lots of stuff.
u wat?
I like New Vegas but this thread is about 3.
i liked it too, it just wasn't as good as nv
>still tripfagging after all this time
>Please don't say anything about New Vegas, it's great that you like it and all but it's existence doesn't make 3 bad.
it emphasizes just how bad fallout 3 and bethesda game design in general is.
It's pretty much a prime example of how to do open world wrong
>entire map is a box with points of interest spread out roughly equidistant from one another (rather than strategically implemented (gameplay- or story-wise))
>nearly the entire map is level-scaled, removing almost any sense apprehension or danger when exploring the world
>most of the entire map feels and plays the same
>only major change of pace in the whole map occurs between DC/Metro and the rest of the world
>Metro a shit because it's annoying and tedious as all fuck to explore
>game tells you to "head to x", leaving the player to follow the arrow straight there instead of organically guiding them to their destination through well thought out world design or quest writing
Those are the complaints I hear most often parroted here.
>There is tons of love for Oblivion on this board
Oblivion is to Fallout 3 as Morrowind is to Fallout New Vegas. The love for the latter HEAVILY outweighs the love the former on this board.
>>doesnt look like an old game
>u wat?
He's just being purposefully retarded, trying to twist your words to make you sound like you're saying Fallout 3 doesn't look horribly dated (which it did even back then). Granted, this isn't too big of a complaint. Morrowind looked like fucking hammered shit when it came out and that game is still lauded here.
>My first Fallout was 3 and I can't stand 3 now while New Vegas is one of my favourite games ever.
>There's a clear difference in the design philosophy behind 3/4 and New Vegas that makes them fundamentally different and changes the appeal.
Pretty much this too. I started with Fallout 3 and, while it was cool then, as soon as I played New Vegas 3 just became obsolete. It was just better from both a gameplay and a writing standpoint. I don't hear anyone saying that Fallout 3 has anything over NV other than the MUH ATMOSPHERE shitters who can't define their point any better than that.
F3 was my first fallout game. I liked it quite a bit. Having played NV and 1&2, 3 is only better than 4.
Panel 6: I'll give him that one. NV didn't handle this any better than 3 as far as cause and effect. Still much better writing and option pool in NV.
Panel 8: Having small factions is not a bad thing. Supporting actors appear for a reason. The legion was the first time (in a video game) I've ever questioned if the Slaver McBeatswomen was in the wrong. Ceaser's Legion was very compelling and would have been much better had it the opportunity to grow. The depth of thought required to understand the motivations and effects of the players in NV compared to 3 is just sad.
Panel 10: >empty and boring
FUCK YOU YOU PIECE OF SHIT GODDAMNIT I WILL FUCKING CHEW THE TONGUE OUT OF YOUR THROAT!!!! IT'S THE FUCKING POST-APOCALYPSE! IN THE DESERT! IT'S FUCKING EEEEMPTTTTYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fallout 3 is great and all but when you go back, play the first 2 and realize how superior they are you wonder why Bethesda didn't make 3 more like 1 and 2. Then you start understanding the lore in 1 and 2 compared to 3. The only thing keeping 3 from being a noncanon spin-off from 1 and 2 is the 3 in front of its name.
None of those things personally bothered me but they seem legitimate enough.
Because the lore of the originals was the best part of them and 3 is a complete dumpster fire with the Fallout lore.
OP here it is because as much as like a good bethesda game out is clear they are incompetent in a lot of ways and seem to strike gold through sheer luck and lack of competition.
Elder Scrolls was always Bethesda's own franchise and Oblivion was not very far from a typical Elder Scrolls game. Fallout 3 was buying out an existing IP they never had any hand in and didn't understand.
1 is my favorite in the series and i don't give 2 shits about the lore. I would say the atmosphere is much more important.
I get that 3 was a disappointment for a lot of fans but the other option was that the series stayed dead.
But Fallout NV also has morality.
I kind of couple the two. The lore of the technology/locations/people adds to the atmosphere. Things like learning bottlecaps are used as currency and why paints a whole lot more depth to the world you're in. The lore is atmosphere through writing but you're right. I should've mentioned the incredible sound and visual atmosphere (which Fallout 3 only vaguely got in relation to the older ones)
At least it has something resembling nuance. Also it's faction based.
No it isn't. The author is a notorious kiss-ass and hack.
yeah it is, despite whatever flaws that literal who has outside of it.
The main story is shit, but if you just want a wasteland exploration sim, it's alright now and then.
I do find exploring more enjoyable than in NV, even if everything else about NV is much better.
Have you even watched it or are you still pissed he didn't support gamergay?
wow that follows the how to draw a reddit comic to a T.
The story is stupid and restrictive and there is very little room to actually roleplay. That's its only real major fault, and the rest of the game is fine. The reason it's compared to NV so frequently is because NV's story and roleplaying potential just absolutely blows F3 the fuck out of the water. Also, this is Sup Forums, a sensationalist contrarian hivemind of toxicity. Fallout 3 isn't great and it's also popular with normies which automatically combines to make it the worst thing ever in the eyes of the average Sup Forumsirgin.
New Vegas only has morality because Bethesda wouldn't allow Obsidian to scrap it, so they instead made it completely meaningless and left it in the game. Morality literally affects 1 thing in the entire game, and that's the perk you're allowed to select once you reach level 50. Other than that, karma is a complete non functioning "feature."
>the other option was that the series stayed dead.
Well, it's not like the series had to be bought by Bethesda of all people. It's not crazy to think that if another developer had gotten the franchise rights instead of them that they could've done better with the series than Bethesda did.
New Vegas's morality system barely affects anything and is more there for roleplay than actual karmic benefit and punishment. I mean what, one or two followers will refuse to follow you if you're evil and the final perk in the game is dependent on what Karma level you're at? Besides that it just affects some dialogue I think and a few other miscellaneous things. It's not like the constant hit squads Fallout 3 sends at you if you become anything other than Neutral (which you will because Fallout 3 hands out positive Karma like candy).
I am in full agreement that Fallout 3 is nowhere near the level of the originals but I think it stands well enough on it's own.
i give it a 7/10, would pirate again
If they wanted it to stand on its own they shouldn't have slapped the Fallout brand on it. At the very least they shouldn't have called it Fallout 3 since it continued nothing from the previous games and required no knowledge of them.
Hmm yes, well, interesting point, but uh, what do they eat?
>we
>I am the spokesperson for Sup Forums
fuck off
also FO3 does have better atmosphere and exploration
If Fallout 3 got anything right it was the environmental story telling. Like you said NV is superior in literally every other field but it doesn't have things like the Dunwich building, all the skeletons with clues to what they were doing when the bomb dropped (deeper than simple actions; for example the bank robbers from Point Lookout), audio logbooks etc. NV had stuff like this occasionally like the Vaults but not to much far outside from that.
Fallout 3 should've been labeled a spin-off. It would get infinitely less flack than it does if it was just titled "Fallout: DC" or something. It would be treated like a more fun Fallout: Tactics. If they did make 3 a spin-off they'd have to do the same for 4 or else the 3 spin-off would rightfully get flack for influencing the shit that was 4.
>atmosphere
endless green wasteland where nothing makes sense
>exploration
pointless landmarks on your minimap you wander between until you get bored
>This hasn't been posted yet
New Vegas DOES make 3 bad. This argument has to stop.
When you first played 3, there was a good chance you didn't play the first two fallout games. You think to yourself, "this is really fun, a really great RPG with a cool setting." Then you play New Vegas and read a little more about the companies behind each Fallout game and realize that Fallout 3 is shallow and not really related at all to the series.
3 is still fun to play, just like Skyrim is still fun. But they aren't good games of their series.
>not posting the bait version where the nv side is scribbled out and covered with angry commentary
>I think it stands well enough on it's own.
So does Doom 3. Problem is both it and Fallout 3 are part of a series. As such, it's only natural to compare them to other games in said series and, when you do that, they just come up short. It's not really of question of them being good or bad, it's a problem of not being good enough when compared to the others in the series.
But hey, at least 3 is better than 4! That fucking game is just a trainwreck on its own as well as when compared to the rest of the series.
>we
Pro-tip, green text is for quoting another post. As I never used "we" in my post and never implied it it wouldn't be good form to greentext as you did, user.
The more you know~
An RPG filled with choice!
This is a dumb graphic. There are much better and less immature sounding ways to say New Vegas is the better game.
Fallout 3 was a true classic.
Now New Vegas was just some shitty DLC outsourced to some random studio that added way too many stupid memes like muh roman legion cosplay and one wheel robots straight from Duck Tales, they also made super mutants look really weird.
If you're a true Fallout fan, you sure as fuck would skip that poorly made spin-off.
>3 is still fun to play, just like Skyrim is still fun. But they aren't good games of their series.
anyone who says any variation of this is retarded. you like something but you know it's considered bad where you're posting about it so you try to appease the hivemind by saying it's bad in the same breath you talk about how much you like it.
>almost every location affects the story in some way
O man almost though this wasn't bait, here your free (you)
>There are much better and less immature sounding ways to say New Vegas is the better game.
Yeah but they aren't easily spammable in every thread since they aren't a picture.
After you make your point in a "much better and less immature sounding way" enough times you eventually just say fuck it and start posting image macros to do it for you.
It's not like you're actually going to convince anyone of anything either way.
@387566292
VERY weak bait.
come on step it up NV fags
I liked Backyard Wrestling and I KNOW that game is fucking trash.
FOOD ANALOGY: McDonald's is trash, but sometimes I enjoy eating a Big Mac, even though I know it's trash.
This guy gets it.
It's not like bethesda made fallout worse, in fact they're doing die hard fallout fans a service. I've had worse, tactics wasn't RPG at all and i still replay it time to time, the combat is still top notch despite being on a fucked up engine. Fallout BoS wasn't RPG in any "BIT" and i still replay it again during ps2 and on emulator now. Interplay fucked everything up worse and wasted everyone's time, i hate interplay more than bethesda, plus they keep redoing shitty medieval rpg on expired formula on expired engines.
>Fallout BoS wasn't RPG in any "BIT" and i still replay it again during ps2 and on emulator now.
Holy shit, you've literally shit taste. Go kys.
>not supporting gaymurgay
I never planned to watch it and "wow" it's one more reason i'm not watching. "wow" faggot.
>Holy shit, you've literally shit taste. Go kys.
Nah, try again Nu-Vegas babbies.
>you must sacrifice yourself
>why
>blah blah DESTINY blah blah FATHER
>can't this other guy do it, he eats radiation like a cheeseburger
>IF YOU ARE AN TRUE HERO YOU HAVE TO DO IT YOURSELF
>was literally fixed in a DLC patch
Literally worse than the chanology kids.
Aside from what that other dude said, the intense asset reuse, lack of unique loot (all the uniques are just slightly tweaked versions of the base item without even any model changes), and almost non-existent enemy variety are also factors.
The only interesting area on the map is DC, but DC is broken into small bite sized chunks separated by those god awful metro tunnels, and on top of that half the buildings in DC are boarded up.
it basically boils down to, decent ideas and the atmosphere to back it up (Ignoring how absolutely retarded the setting is), that completely falls apart because of some combination of laziness and incompetence ruining the execution.
Its not, say, awful, but theres very little positive you can say about Fallout 3, and its stacked against a lot of very obvious easy-to-point-out flaws on top of being the supposed successor to games that are, you know, actually RPGs.
Brace yourself. Long read.
There's nothing really wrong with Fallout 3's writing and presentation, nor is there anything wrong with New Vegas'.
Both games present their writing with different philosophies and manners. Fallout 3 has a generally clear right and wrong with black and white morality. New Vegas doesn't.
Fallout 3 puts you on a road to destiny and a clash against evil, despite your karma stance. Good and evil are generally clearly defined with very few choices of in between, and even then, those are generally the 'fuck this shit lmao i'm out' kind of true neutral.
New Vegas lets you start as a literally fucking who, build up your legend, and have a bigger effect on the world, but one you earn for yourself, instead of just having it be handed to you as you walk along.
Neither are bad or good games objectively speaking, however Fallout 3's story of the super good saints vs the evil dicks is pretty cliche and has been done shittons of times before, and isn't what people have come to expect from the Fallout franchise, considering 1 and 2's wide moral scale.
That said, New Vegas gets a lot of unfair dicksucking from people who have probably never touched 1 or 2, because it doesn't follow Bethesda's conventional story style. I've been going through Fallout 3 and New Vegas lately, and the differences between the stories are incredibly apparent. It's an issue of style, however. Not of quality. For every "trust me, i have high speech" thing you hear about in Fallout 3, you can find similar shit in New Vegas.
Both games have their flaws, and both games have their merits. I think it's unfair to say one is objectively better or inferior to the other based on this. They're different styles of games by different developers, for different fanbases.
Take the hate you see for 3 over NV with a grain of salt, because it's NV's demographic being mad that Fallout as a franchise isn't done in the same style anymore.
Which I wanna also clarify that it's not a bad thing that NV's demo is mad that they can't get more games that cater to them. The general gaming industry today doesn't want intellectual storylines, or more accurately, they don't give a fuck about it. The people you see praising Morrowind for its story aren't the people you see praising Skyrim for its story or world, they're people who like the writing, the scope of the universe, and how expansive everything is.
So yeah, to summarize, F3 and FNV are hard to compare because they're games meant with different standards in mind for one another's gameplay mechanics, story, and worldbuilding, and this is why you'll find so much division in the fanbase over them.
FNV>F3>F4>F1=F2
Accurate imo
t. CoD fag
Morality in NV also affects some companions.
Anyone that could like dialogue or writing like this in a video game has to be on some sort of subhuman level and not worth talking to as a person.
Fallout 3 fans are living cringemachines.
>taking video game writing this serious
Are you an English major, hmm? Or just an autist?
>here's the ending
>it's a shit ending that makes no sense
>here's a fixed ending, that'll be $9.99 plus tip
Not to mention the "fix" gives you bad karma for not sacrificing yourself, which still negates the entire point.
>bad karma for not sacrificing yourself
Why were they so intent on doubling down on this bullshit? What karma is there to be gained from a pointless sacrifice?
>Please don't say anything about New Vegas, it's great that you like it and all but it's existence doesn't make 3 bad
I disagree. I'd be lying if I said I didn't have fun with Fallout 3 when it came out but NV's launch made everyone realize that in many aspects F3 was worse, despite a much bigger team, budget and development time. It made it glaringly obvious how much wasted potential there was in the title.
Guys shit on my opinion but - new vegas was my first fallout game, spent 40 hours in it and done a lot of shit - time spent looting or exploring so to speak was minimal, I've followed the story and had a blast. It crashed and never went back for some reason...
I've then installed fallout 3 and tried to stick tightly to the story but also explore every detail of the game... it felt horrible - no detail to be found, I've uninstalled it after like 5 - 6 hours.
Then... I've installed fallout 4 - and uninstalled it 1 hour later.
Now 1 year and a half later, I've tried fallout 4 again and for some stupid reason I've enjoyed it for like solid 50 hours, but not because of the story - I felt like the gameplay was a bit fun and the ONLY memorable thing about it were the American history references in Boston in the puzzle quest for the Railroad... hell actually a lot of side quests inside boston were memorable for some reason walking in a tightly packed post apocalyptic city that is actually somewhat full of details and packed with things to find is actually fun... the story of fallout 4 on the other hand ... complete garbage.
THE BIGGEST problem with fallout 4 as I've tried to start a new game after major game breaking bugs started to pop in at hour 50 was that it feels time consuming... everything takes ages - most things are very bad designed, majority of quests are just hey there fellow hero go kill that or loot that for me and come back for a reward quests..
Then I've decided to try fallout 1... don't ask me why I just tried it.. and guess what - it's amazing in the sense that it's fast paces, it has good story and I don't know exactly how a shitty graphics ancient isometric game does that but it forces you to pay attention.. to be aware of the situation you are in.
After I finish 1 and 2 I'll probably install new vegas play 2 hours and uninstall it again... but in the end new vegas was still more memorable than 3 and 4 story wise.
>fallout 3 over fallout 4
literally no one has this opinion
I do. Fallout 4 is total, irredeemable trash.
Not an argument.
>there was a good chance you didn't play the first two fallout games
Underage please go.
He's not wrong, FO3 brought a large number of new fans who never played the first two or even heard about them.
I started with New Vegas and then went back and played the classics. NV > 2 > 1