• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

Ogimachi
Member
(07-23-2015, 12:08 PM)
A good read, even more relevant with F4 coming up.

The Blistering Stupidity of Fallout 3, Part 1


This is going to be a ~7,000 word series on some[1] of the things wrong with the central story of Fallout 3. Yes, I know this is a celebrated and beloved game. It made a bunch of GOTY lists back in 2008, and still appears on lists of favorites today. To be honest, I liked it too. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to pretend that the entire story wasn’t a giant heap of sophomoric tripe. None of it fit together, none of it made sense, and it was filled with awful, frustrating situations where you were forced to do stupid things because doing something smart would resolve the problem without requiring the player to go out and shoot things.

If you’re one of those people that can’t stand to hear people say bad things about stuff you like, then this is going to be hard for you. I’ve broken the series into five parts to help soften the blow.

Good luck!

(Yes, I covered a lot of these points way back in 2010 when we covered Fallout 3 on Spoiler Warning. But I wanted a version of this rant that people could take in without needing to sit through 15 hours of 480p video.)


A fundamental misunderstanding.



I loved the pulp-comic look of the art in the original Fallout.

The original Fallout game was a gritty world where you explore the vast California desert in search of a water purification chip. It drew influences from Mad Max, campy 50’s sci-fi movies, and pulpy comics of the same era. It had a streak of pitch-black comedy running throughout it. It wasn’t about the 1950’s, it was about the future that the 1950’s anticipated. It was a game that took place in the future of the past.

Bethesda saw this template and concluded that a Fallout game needed to take place in the desert, it needed to be about water, it should contain screwball comedy, and that it should be the 1950’s forever.

In Fallout 1, you needed a water chip to save the lives of your people who lived in an underground vault. In Fallout 3 you’re trying to clean water for a wasteland that you have no reason to care about, for people who seem to be doing okay without your help, because your idiot dad told you too. (Yes, Dad is an idiot. I know he sounds smart because he’s got the voice of Liam Neeson, and Liam Neeson can make anything sound brilliant, but trust me: Dad is a bone-head. We’ll get to him later.)

They tried to keep the “desert” concept, but moved the game to Washington D.C. where a desert motif makes no sense. They tried to keep the pulp sc-fi tone, but it was often undercut by Bethesda’s putty-faced NPC’s, horrendous washed out color palette[2], and blunt attempts at photo-realism. They completely misunderstood the humor, replacing ‘dark comedy’ with ‘goofball situations’. And finally, the whole 50’s thing was greatly exaggerated and then rendered nonsensical by moving the timeline forward to 200 years after the war.

This fundamental misunderstanding of the Fallout tone and themes infuses the game and is the source of nearly every major design failing.

FYI, 200 Years is actually a very long time.



Just in case you thought I was overselling the pulp sci-fi vibe of the original game, here’s some of the game art.

The original Fallout was a setting where we were just a single generation away from the Old World. People still remembered it, and it still shaped the way people thought. People were still sifting through the ashes, trying to cling to the ruined world. They were still dressing, speaking, and thinking like people from a retro-50’s future. But that tension between the old world and the new can only last so long. It certainly isn’t going to survive for 200 years.

Two hundred years ago, men wore knee-high stockings, powdered wigs, and got married at 14 years old. 200 years is a long time, and technology has transformed us and our culture in countless ways. The change would be at least that dramatic in the other direction, moving from a world of plenty to a world of ruin. To put it another way: 200 years after a nuclear war, people aren’t going to be forming greaser gangs.

200 years after the bombs fell, the old world should just be gone. But no. In Fallout 3 people still dress the same, stores still have Old World food on the shelves, the old machines still work, and people still talk about the war the way we discuss 9/11. Nobody has made any new music, culture, customs, clothing[3], or tools. They haven’t even swept the dang floor.

In this world the bombs fell, people crawled out of the rubble and formed little towns, and then nothing happened for the next 190 years.

Note that I’m NOT saying that the Bethesda writers should have made up some crazy future-world with all new cultures. If they did, it would barely feel like earth. It might feel something like Zeno Clash, but it certainly wouldn’t feel like the Mad Max / 50’s pulp sci-fi mashup the series is known for. I’m saying that they shouldn’t have moved the story forward 200 years. The Fallout world makes the most sense while you’ve still got some people around to remember the war. The farther you get from N-Day, the harder it is to maintain that unique Fallout flavor, the harder it is to conceive how society would develop, and the harder it is to justify having old-world customs, attitudes, gadgets, and food.

Why was this done? So that the events of Fallout 3 wouldn’t conflict with the events of the previous two games? This 200 year thing is a really ugly hack to solve that problem. And it was a waste, since they ended up retconning and altering lots of big ideas from the earlier games anyway.

Since the writer could barely make a single quest that didn’t implode under the weight of its internal contradictions, they should have made things as easy on themselves and just stuck to the “one generation after the war” idea the series began with. Like all the other missteps, it was a move that caused more problems than it solved and riddled the whole thing with plot holes.

EDIT: It’s been pointed out to me that the first game takes place ~80 years after the bombs fell. I was basing my timeline on the original Fallout Intro Movie, which states that: “Your family was part of that group that entered vault 13. Imprisoned safely behind a large vault door and beneath a mountain of stone, a generation has lived without knowledge of the outside world.” 80+ years is a bit longer than a “generation”, but there’s no point in arguing over contradictory lore. The point stands that in the world of Fallout 3, we have way too many years of nothing at all happening. Fallout 1 had Shady Sands and the Hub, places where humanity was scraping together some kind of new society. In this game people just sit in a pile of rubble, generation after generation.


What we’re NOT going to complain about.




We’re not going to complain about the artistic vandalism of the built-in green filter, even thought I REALLY want to.

I’m not here to pick apart the science of Fallout. I’m not here to go all Neil deGrasse Tyson on the retro-future fantasy science that the Fallout setting rests on. In the real world decontaminating radioactive water is supposedly not that hard[4] but if the writers say that radiation in Fallout sticks to water, then I can accept that just as easily as plasma rifles and deathclaws. I’m not asking for a simulation of real-world physics, but just asking the world stick to its own rules.

In short: It’s fine if green barrels explode like dynamite in Doom, but if a Cacodemon knocks over a glass of water I still expect the glass to hit the floor and break. Having “different” rules doesn’t mean a story has “no rules”.

I’m also not going to nitpick problems with scope or scale. Yes, two Brahamin is not enough cattle for a community of a dozen, a tiny garden can’t feed a whole family, and Tenpenny Tower is actually only a five-minute walk from Megaton. That’s fine. It’s all fine. We understand that in a videogame you explore on foot, some abstraction and compression of space is required. We can accept that a five-meter plot is “a farm”, five cows is “a ranch”, five houses is “a town”, and a mile is “a really long way”.

I’m also not going to complain about how stupid the Vaults are[5]. Yes, the politics and culture of Vault 101 are drivel, but it’s harmless drivel. Once you get out of the Vault it’s easy to ignore and doesn’t constantly generate more plot holes as the story goes on. Vault 101 is silly, not broken.

We’re also not going to complain about Little Lamplight, because that would just distract us from the task at hand. Yes, Lamplight is really infuriating, but like 101 it’s kind of self-contained. Besides, properly deconstructing Lamplight would take another entire article.

Next time we’ll dig into the setting of the game and look at where it all went wrong.

Before anyone tries to "call me out" on my pic or something, I know FNV has its own share of issues, but it's still in another league entirely.
Jackpot
Junior Member
(07-23-2015, 12:11 PM)
Jackpot's Avatar

Weíre not going to complain about the artistic vandalism of the built-in green filter, even thought I REALLY want to.

Iím not here to pick apart the science of Fallout. Iím not here to go all Neil deGrasse Tyson on the retro-future fantasy science that the Fallout setting rests on. In the real world decontaminating radioactive water is supposedly not that hard[4] but if the writers say that radiation in Fallout sticks to water, then I can accept that just as easily as plasma rifles and deathclaws. Iím not asking for a simulation of real-world physics, but just asking the world stick to its own rules.

In short: Itís fine if green barrels explode like dynamite in Doom, but if a Cacodemon knocks over a glass of water I still expect the glass to hit the floor and break. Having ďdifferentĒ rules doesnít mean a story has ďno rulesĒ.

Iím also not going to nitpick problems with scope or scale. Yes, two Brahamin is not enough cattle for a community of a dozen, a tiny garden canít feed a whole family, and Tenpenny Tower is actually only a five-minute walk from Megaton. Thatís fine. Itís all fine. We understand that in a videogame you explore on foot, some abstraction and compression of space is required. We can accept that a five-meter plot is ďa farmĒ, five cows is ďa ranchĒ, five houses is ďa townĒ, and a mile is ďa really long wayĒ.

Iím also not going to complain about how stupid the Vaults are[5]. Yes, the politics and culture of Vault 101 are drivel, but itís harmless drivel. Once you get out of the Vault itís easy to ignore and doesnít constantly generate more plot holes as the story goes on. Vault 101 is silly, not broken.

Weíre also not going to complain about Little Lamplight, because that would just distract us from the task at hand. Yes, Lamplight is really infuriating, but like 101 itís kind of self-contained. Besides, properly deconstructing Lamplight would take another entire article.

They complained about a lot of stuff they said they weren't.
Jigorath
Banned
(07-23-2015, 12:12 PM)
Fallout 3 is a very poorly thought out RPG. This isn't really a new or controversial opinion anymore.
Finale Fireworker
Member
(07-23-2015, 12:14 PM)
Finale Fireworker's Avatar
I thought this was going to be really interesting in a Red Letter Media sort of way, but now I'm not so sure. I'll wait until I've read the whole thing first, but so from the excerpt above I'm not hugely impressed yet.

I don't think is as controversial as the writer thinks it is, either.
aravuus
Member
(07-23-2015, 12:14 PM)
aravuus's Avatar
Yeah, just read the analysis a week ago and I have to say I agree with all the points the writer makes. Fallout 3 felt like a very shallow sandbox.

A very enjoyable shallow sandbox, though. Going to be getting FO4 day one but I sure hope they either learned something from NV or at the very least hired better writers.
Occam
Member
(07-23-2015, 12:15 PM)
Occam's Avatar
Well of course it makes no sense that there is food or stuff like cigarettes from 200 years ago that's still usable. The monsters don't make sense, either. It's damn fun, though, so who cares if it isn't realistic?
Jigorath
Banned
(07-23-2015, 12:15 PM)
And he completely plagiarizes Mr.Btongue, yeah not reading anymore.
SliceSabre
Banned
(07-23-2015, 12:15 PM)
A lot of this just comes off as asinine rambling and seems to not take into account this is a video game.
Ogimachi
Member
(07-23-2015, 12:19 PM)

Originally Posted by Jackpot

They complained about a lot of stuff they said they weren't.

Hm? I think the only one that he does complain about a couple of times are problems with scope or scale.

He doesn't bring up/expand upon the issues with the Vaults, Lamplight or science, really.

Originally Posted by Finale Fireworker

I thought this was going to be really interesting in a Red Letter Media sort of way, but now I'm not so sure. I'll wait until I've read the whole thing first, but so from the excerpt above I'm not hugely impressed yet.

I don't think is as controversial as the writer thinks it is, either.

I guess RLM is a fair comparison. It picks the story and the writing apart in a similar fashion, but it's still mainly about the main quest and the main characters/factions, not as all-encompassing and comprehensive as some of Plinkett's reviews.
I could probably write a piece just as long about how they messed with Fallout lore and canon, so yes, F3's issues go much deeper.

And you're right, not as controversial anymore after so long, but that seems to be the rule with Bethesda games for some reason.
Magic Mushroom
Member
(07-23-2015, 12:20 PM)
Magic Mushroom's Avatar
Story is one thing, but the god awful combat is a bigger deal breaker for me.

That and I agree with Huber that the setting isn't very appealing, I prefer Horizon's green version of the post-apocalyptic.
lazygecko
Member
(07-23-2015, 12:20 PM)
lazygecko's Avatar
The plot of Fallout 3 was to Fallout 1 what Highlander 3 was to Highlander 1. Sure, it was a sort of "return to form" after the embarrassment we had to endure from Interplay inbetween, but ultimately it felt like a pointless retread right down to copying the same story beats scene by scene. Fallout 3 felt like a poorly thought out amalgam of the plots from Fallout 1 and 2 (and President Eden being almost literally an amalgam of the big villains from the two)

I’m also not going to nitpick problems with scope or scale. Yes, two Brahamin is not enough cattle for a community of a dozen, a tiny garden can’t feed a whole family, and Tenpenny Tower is actually only a five-minute walk from Megaton. That’s fine. It’s all fine. We understand that in a videogame you explore on foot, some abstraction and compression of space is required.

Unlike the author this is also one of my biggest gripes with Bethesda's seamless world format. The world being designed in such a compressed way goes directly against the barren wasteland setting trying to be portrayed (and thus you get the "theme park wasteland" feeling), and the abstraction feels a lot more evident and in your face compared to the separate zones divided by a world map. The older games felt a lot more immersive in that regard.

I do not view going to modern seamless open world design as some huge leap forward. You're merely trading one type of abstraction for another.
Acquiescence
Member
(07-23-2015, 12:20 PM)
Acquiescence's Avatar
I just want to say, I disliked Fallout 3 before it was cool.
SomedayTheFire
Member
(07-23-2015, 12:21 PM)
SomedayTheFire's Avatar
It's a very boring game with a very bland aesthetic. I could have liked it more if I was actually into the location but the (completely and utterly) barren wasteland grated after a while. I get why it was so bland but like come on.
Roshin
Member
(07-23-2015, 12:22 PM)
I like the games (FO3 and FO: NV), but I've never been able to get into the whole 1950ís alternate America thing. It feels restrictive and silly.I never liked it. I tend to ignore the stories and just play them as any other videogames.

I say this as someone who loves old SF-movies, SF in general, and videogames.
GrantDaNasty
Member
(07-23-2015, 12:27 PM)
GrantDaNasty's Avatar
I remember being really cynical about Fallout 3 based on the initial previews given to media outlets.

I remember (after getting on the hypetrain near release) trying desperately to get a copy running on my PC at the time which was not ready for it.

I remember spending over 80 hours on FO3 plus all the DLC when I finally had a decent PC a few months post-release.

I tried replaying it a few months ago, and I can't go back. New Vegas I can replay, FO3 just...I dunno, I get excited at the thought, re-install it and then just...lose all desire to play it an hour in.

I really hope FO4 has learned valuable lessons from 3. I'll play it when it comes out regardless, but here's hoping it has more lasting appeal.
Technosteve
Junior Member
(07-23-2015, 12:28 PM)
Technosteve's Avatar

Originally Posted by Magic Mushroom

Story is one thing, but the god awful combat is a bigger deal breaker for me.

That and I agree with Huber that the setting isn't very appealing, I prefer Horizon's green version of the post-apocalyptic.

I loved the combat, played on pc
Stallion Dan
Member
(07-23-2015, 12:31 PM)
Stallion Dan's Avatar
What silly reasons for complaining, cannot see farms, people do not have jobs, not understanding the story or ramifications of it....and the next part he doesn't even know what the enclave want. Really? I give up
CaptainGyro
Banned
(07-23-2015, 12:33 PM)
I dunno. I tried for a page or two but I can't get into it. Something about the guy's tone just rubs me the wrong way, he's obviously angry with some things and he's trying to show me just how absurd these things are by highlighting them in italics, but I really can't bring myself to care. But maybe it's just me. I know somebody once posted a quote by the Classic Gaming Room guy where he talks about how he tries to focus on the positives of games instead of dwelling on the negatives, and that's the kind of guy I am.
LeBart
Member
(07-23-2015, 12:33 PM)
LeBart's Avatar
I really don't think we need another year of "Bethesda ruined Fallout" comments. That's so 2008.
Ogimachi
Member
(07-23-2015, 12:39 PM)

Originally Posted by Roshin

I like the games (FO3 and FO: NV), but I've never been able to get into the whole 1950’s alternate America thing. It feels restrictive and silly.I never liked it. I tend to ignore the stories and just play them as any other videogames.

I say this as someone who loves old SF-movies, SF in general, and videogames.

Although I love the setting, I definitely see where you're coming from. Not even the people behind the original games had a consensus on the boundaries there.
For instance, MCA said in the Fallout Bible that he feels artificial intelligence is too much of a 90s/00s concept, but all games in the series have it. F3 in a bigger way than any other.

It's what the future looked like as imagined in the 50s, so the themes and elements that dominate the setting are basically the same as sci-fi stuff from that era.
Modern SF has several themes that were never considered back then, so if one is to stay true to the whole concept of Fallout, they'll never play any role in it. SO yes, overall it's quite restrictive.
Sapphire Dreams
Member
(07-23-2015, 12:39 PM)
Sapphire Dreams's Avatar
I know this is a very unpopular opinion but... New Vagas isn't THAT MUCH better.
Carcetti
Member
(07-23-2015, 12:40 PM)
Carcetti's Avatar
Wasn't a great read. Might've been better without the tired Angry Gamer shtick.
PositronicMan
Member
(07-23-2015, 12:43 PM)
PositronicMan's Avatar
Titling any article with the words "blistering stupidity" is sure to garner objectivity and constructive thoughts. >_>
60EffPeeEss
Member
(07-23-2015, 12:43 PM)
60EffPeeEss's Avatar
I played Fallout 3 for a good amount of time before I even thought about any of the stuff mentioned in that article, or by the famous MrBTongue.

But I will say that after the brainless enjoyment wears off and you begin to analyse the game as a critical object, it begins to fall apart and become much less worth the enjoyment it gives. You begin to realise how dumb Lamplight is, how dumb the characters are, how bad the world building is.

It really isn't a classic game at all. Its just stupid Hollywood bullshit entertainment.

New Vegas does it much, much better.
Tobor
Look!
A crack addict with a tag!
(07-23-2015, 12:43 PM)
Tobor's Avatar
Fallout 3 was one of the best games of last gen.

I'm glad Bethesda is still in charge and I eagerly await the next blistering stupidity, which I'm sure I'll equally enjoy.
CaptainGyro
Banned
(07-23-2015, 12:49 PM)

Originally Posted by Carcetti

Wasn't a great read. Might've been better without the tired Angry Gamer shtick.

Yeah after watching the Moviebob Pixels review, I have to say that the whole angry thing has really become unbearable and overdone. Shit I thought it was overdone at least 5 years ago.


Time to get a new shtick/fad all you internet personalities
MattKeil
BIGTIME TV MOGUL #2
(07-23-2015, 12:50 PM)
MattKeil's Avatar
If loving Liberty Prime is wrong, I don't wanna be right.

Signed,
A Fallout fan from Day One who is really a Wasteland fan who considered Fallout better than nothing at the time
BigTnaples
Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
(07-23-2015, 12:51 PM)
BigTnaples's Avatar
Still better than New Vegas.
SPCTRE
Member
(07-23-2015, 12:52 PM)
SPCTRE's Avatar

The original Fallout game was a gritty world where you explore the vast California desert in search of a water purification chip. It drew influences from Mad Max, campy 50ís sci-fi movies, and pulpy comics of the same era. It had a streak of pitch-black comedy running throughout it. It wasnít about the 1950ís, it was about the future that the 1950ís anticipated. It was a game that took place in the future of the past.

Bethesda saw this template and concluded that a Fallout game needed to take place in the desert, it needed to be about water, it should contain screwball comedy, and that it should be the 1950ís forever.

I love FO3, but that part made me chuckle.
Denton
Banned
(07-23-2015, 12:55 PM)
Fallout 3 is indeed stupid and shitty and I enjoyed the shit out of it including all DLCs.

It would be nice if FO4 wasnt stupid and shitty, but that would require Bethesda replacing their writer and design teams. And I dont see that happening.
dark_inferno
Member
(07-23-2015, 01:00 PM)
dark_inferno's Avatar
Best thing about Fallout 3.

"Hey mutant... You dont die when you go in this radioactive room yeah? Okay i go and die then..."

Overall Fallout 3 was shit. But the intro was a nice touch. New Vegas on the other hand felt more Fallout than Fallout 3.
spatenfloot
Member
(07-23-2015, 01:02 PM)
spatenfloot's Avatar
We can afford all the writing we need, my dear sweet America, but not all the writing we want. One fine day, we may revisit the tyranny of Bethesda. But that day is not yet come!
HeelPower
Member
(07-23-2015, 01:05 PM)
HeelPower's Avatar

Originally Posted by BigTnaples

Still better than New Vegas.

Can't believe that buggy,ugly mess is now seen to be better...

FO3 is the better game ,but still isn't that good.
MattKeil
BIGTIME TV MOGUL #2
(07-23-2015, 01:06 PM)
MattKeil's Avatar

So Dad wants to turn the Jefferson Memorial into a giant water purifier. This will let him purify the entire Potomac. I guess we need to do some pretty serious hand-waving here, since 200 years of no rain would mean there’s no water, anywhere, ever. But whatever. There’s no rain, but the water also hasn’t dried up. Sigh. Fine.

"Blistering stupidity," indeed. The Potomac River has two sources: One in the mountains of West Virginia and one in the mountains of Virginia. No rain in the Capital Wasteland for 200 years does not mean no rain or snow has fallen in either of those two very distant places for 200 years. 400 miles and a major elevation change can result in very different weather. And if the river is flowing through irradiated areas, that water isn't going to be safe to drink when it arrives in the Capital Wasteland, and isn't going to solve the drought there. Hence the need for the purification tech.

This guy must have hated Mad Max: Fury Road, what with spending the entire film trying to figure out how all those people at the bottom of Immortan Joe's citadel ate and drank on a daily basis.
Keasar
Member
(07-23-2015, 01:10 PM)
Keasar's Avatar

Originally Posted by HeelPower

Can't believe that buggy,ugly mess is now seen to be better...

FO3 is the better game ,but still isn't that good.

Because the story, character dialogue, world building and world logic of New Vegas shone much brighter? Sure, the bugs were bad, but nowadays you can fix those with 1 mod and you will have the greatest of times.
Femmeworth
Banned
(07-23-2015, 01:10 PM)
Femmeworth's Avatar

Originally Posted by Tobor

Fallout 3 was one of the best games of last gen.

Last gen feels insulted.
kswiston
Member
(07-23-2015, 01:11 PM)
kswiston's Avatar
Wasn't Fallout 3 set 30-40 years after Fallout 2? If 1950's for 200 years is stupid, why does the second game get a pass for doing the same thing 160 years later?
PeskyToaster
(07-23-2015, 01:11 PM)
PeskyToaster's Avatar
Mrbtongue already told me all of these things.
MattKeil
BIGTIME TV MOGUL #2
(07-23-2015, 01:14 PM)
MattKeil's Avatar

Originally Posted by kswiston

Wasn't Fallout 3 set 30-40 years after Fallout 2. If 1950's for 200 years is stupid, why does the second game get a pass for doing the same thing 160 years later?

Because OMG Fallout 2 was OSSUM!

The Fallout games have always been silly. I don't know where this notion that the first two have "dark humor" while the Bethesda one is "goofy shit" comes from. I see very little difference between them, but I was never a 100% Fallout fanboy. To me, Fallout was very much a "Well, we're never getting Wasteland 2, so I guess I'll play this" kind of thing. I love the games, but I don't get the people who seem to consider them sacred somehow.
StevieWhite
Member
(07-23-2015, 01:16 PM)
StevieWhite's Avatar

Originally Posted by LeBart

I really don't think we need another year of "Bethesda ruined Fallout" comments. That's so 2008.

Boggles the mind that people are still taking the time to write about this nearly 7 years later. Hey, everyone needs a hobby, I guess.
lazygecko
Member
(07-23-2015, 01:17 PM)
lazygecko's Avatar

Originally Posted by kswiston

Wasn't Fallout 3 set 30-40 years after Fallout 2. If 1950's for 200 years is stupid, why does the second game get a pass for doing the same thing 160 years later?

As the article stated, the 1950's imagery was a lot more understated in the original games. Fallout 2 actually had great worldbuilding which made sense in the timeline. It depicts a California which was moving on and rebuilding. The NCR was formed. Mining towns began to spring up, and bottle caps were phased out as actual money was once more being printed. New Vegas further iterated on the foundations of the Fallout 2 world which is one reason why people like it a lot more than Fallout 3.
danm999
Member
(07-23-2015, 01:20 PM)
danm999's Avatar

Originally Posted by kswiston

Wasn't Fallout 3 set 30-40 years after Fallout 2? If 1950's for 200 years is stupid, why does the second game get a pass for doing the same thing 160 years later?

Fallout 2 didn't really look like the bombs had just hit like Fallout 3 does. New cities and nations were being formed all around you in that game.
Stilton Disco
Member
(07-23-2015, 01:21 PM)
Stilton Disco's Avatar
As flawed as it is, it's still one of my favourite games of all time. Hell, even though I will fully concede that NV was the better made and written game, I still had way more fun with 3 even with it's dumb story, silliness, unrealistic world and less believable characters.

If nothing else, no other game has come close to the giving me the same thrill as following behind Liberty Prime as it blows the shit out of everything while bellowing out anti communist jargon. That moment alone tops anything else that has happened in any other fallout game, and 3 was full of awesome bollocks like that.
NoblesseOblige
Member
(07-23-2015, 01:23 PM)
NoblesseOblige's Avatar
Fallout 3 is great when you mod it and ignore the main storyline.
nynt9
Member
(07-23-2015, 01:23 PM)
nynt9's Avatar

Originally Posted by Stilton Disco

As flawed as it is, it's still one of my favourite games of all time. Hell, even though I will fully concede that NV was the better made and written game, I still had way more fun with 3 even with it's dumb story, silliness, unrealistic world and less believable characters.

If nothing else, no other game has come close to the giving me the same thrill as following behind Victory Prime as it blows the shit out of everything while bellowing out anti communist jargon. That moment alone tops anything else that has happened in any other fallout game, and 3 was full of awesome bollocks like that.

Same. It seems like people here are unwilling to accept that the game can simultaneously be stupid yet enjoyable and a good game. I enjoyed FO3, put many hours into it, but I also think it was really stupid and a hollow imitation of Fallout lore. These opinions aren't mutually exclusive.
JoJo UK
Member
(07-23-2015, 01:24 PM)
JoJo UK's Avatar

Originally Posted by MattKeil

"Blistering stupidity," indeed. The Potomac River has two sources: One in the mountains of West Virginia and one in the mountains of Virginia. No rain in the Capital Wasteland for 200 years does not mean no rain or snow has fallen in either of those two very distant places for 200 years. 400 miles and a major elevation change can result in very different weather. And if the river is flowing through irradiated areas, that water isn't going to be safe to drink when it arrives in the Capital Wasteland, and isn't going to solve the drought there. Hence the need for the purification tech.

This guy must have hated Mad Max: Fury Road, what with spending the entire film trying to figure out how all those people at the bottom of Immortan Joe's citadel ate and drank on a daily basis.

Made me lol :D

The auther of this (to me anyway) comes over as someone who is angry and will complain for the sake of complaining.

Originally Posted by Arabian Mage

I know this is a very unpopular opinion but... New Vagas isn't THAT MUCH better.

Also I kind of agree with this, NV was better but it wasn't streets ahead of FO3, maybe just around a corner.
Bedameister
Member
(07-23-2015, 01:25 PM)
Bedameister's Avatar

Originally Posted by Tobor

Fallout 3 was one of the best games of last gen.

I'm glad Bethesda is still in charge and I eagerly await the next blistering stupidity, which I'm sure I'll equally enjoy.

I fully support this post!
aravuus
Member
(07-23-2015, 01:27 PM)
aravuus's Avatar

Originally Posted by BigTnaples

Still better than New Vegas.

Why do you feel the need to post this in every Fallout thread? I mean, It's okay to like the dumber one of the two games more, I'm just confused as to why you want to make your preference heard all the time without adding nothing to the conversation

e: unless it's some elaborate joke due to your tag or something lol
Woody Invincible
Banned
(07-23-2015, 01:27 PM)
Woody Invincible's Avatar

Originally Posted by Arabian Mage

I know this is a very unpopular opinion but... New Vegas isn't THAT MUCH better.

Completely agree.

Thread Tools