Support NeoGAF

[starchild excalibur]

I only read what was posted in the OP, but while I haven't played F1 or 2, they seemed to be fair criticisms of the setting and timeline.

Still, I really loved Fallout 3. It wasn't until recently that I realized a lot of people on here actually seem to prefer New Vegas, which is a game that I probably sold and re-bought at least 2 or 3 times before I could get into it. The criticisms about new cultures not having been developed in the 200 years or so since going into the shelters is absolutely fair, but it's not an issue of the game that bugs me really. I guess it's because I like seeing 50s culture juxtaposed against a dystopian future.

*shrug*

 

[aajohnny]

If you truly believed this you wouldn't be getting so worked up over people expressing their opinion that New Vegas is superior to Fallout 3.

There's a difference between expressing and forcing. Forcing your opinion on someone else like it's fact is my problem, not that they prefer one game over the other and I'm not really just talking about NeoGAF but other places I've been at. I don't care that people like Fallout: New Vegas more than 3, it doesn't even matter but like I said, not necessarily just in this thread of NeoGAF but everywhere I seem to go it's always the same hostility towards one another, especially if you like 3.

So this whole rant is pretty much you saying the internet/GAF would be a better place if Fallout 3 threads were circle jerks about how great the game/Bethesda is instead of the other way around.

So this whole reply is saying that you pretty much don't understand what I said at all?

 

[Almighty]

The factions thing is a gimmick imo.

Yeah, you have to chose between NCR and the Legion, but the Legion is pretty much ISIS with Roman attire. Literally, even down to women's treatment. Who would chose such assholes before a democratic (and flawed, yes) government? How's that not black and white? Other choices, like helping Mr House and his hate for the Brotherhood of Steel are a bit better, but the main one is very poor. I even nuked Legion territories when given the chance in one of the DLCs.

The factions could of used some more work, but I still think he is right. If only becuase Fallout New Vegas gave you 4 choices instead of two. If it was like Fallout 3 the NCR or the Legion would be your only choice. In New Vegas you can tell both of those factions to go suck eggs if you want and go with Mr. House or if you prefer tell him to go suck eggs as well and go on your own.

 

[tintin1029]

The factions thing is a gimmick imo.

Yeah, you have to chose between NCR and the Legion, but the Legion is pretty much ISIS with Roman attire. Literally, even down to women's treatment. Who would chose such assholes before a democratic (and flawed, yes) government? How's that not black and white? Other choices, like helping Mr House and his hate for the Brotherhood of Steel are a bit better, but the main one is very poor. I even nuked Legion territories when given the chance in one of the DLCs.

Because there's more than just NCR and Legion in the faction system, each with there own really interesting motives that you can support or utterly destroy. The interesting part isn't choosing either NCR or Legion, it's also choosing what other factions you want to help out the faction you're working for (Do I want the Boomers to help or not)

These aren't supposed to be tough decisions ala walking dead, these are oppurtunities to make literally whatever character you want, which Fallout 3's main story didn't allow, because you could only work for the Bullshit of Steel.

 

[Griss]

Fallout 3 is one of my favourite games of all time, yet I agree with almost everything in the OP? Is that weird? Also, New Vegas is clearly a much better designed and written RPG, but for me it was more of the same, an expansion, and therefore could never have the same initial impact as FO3. If I was going to replay one? NV all the way. It's the better game. But in terms of the experiences I actually had at the time? Fallout 3 grabbed me and blew my mind.

It's funny though, I still remember how confused I was by FO3's setting, because I was convinced that '200 years later' must be some kind of typo or mistake as it made absolutely no fucking sense. Even while playing the game I recognised that the story was full of issues.

Doesn't matter; still a masterpiece.

 

[Almighty]

So this whole reply is saying that you pretty much don't understand what I said at all?

The first statement in that rant was you pretty much telling the people who didn't like Fallout 3(or any game) to shut up about it and go play something else. Then you spent the rest of the rant talking about how you liked Fallout 3 more then New Vegas and dismissing those who disagree with that as Obsidian fanboys engaged in a circle jerk.

So yeah I think I understood that rant pretty well and it is pretty clear that your problem is that you don't like people criticizing a game you like. To that I say tough shit pretty much. I would also like it if every Alpha Protocol thread talked about how awesome that game is as well. Sadly when people point out all the time that its gameplay could be better(and that is putting it nicely) I have to agree that they have a point. Because while I personally thought the gameplay wasn't that bad a lot of the criticism is legit and I can't just brush it off as fanboys being fanboys.

 

[tintin1029]

I'm glad you played through Dungeon Siege 3 and Neverwinter Nights 2's base campaign and came to this conclusion. Really putting in the extra mile there.

Ouch

 

[funkypie]

Just finished fo3 and I found the game to be pretty average/garbage.

Looking forward to new Vegas though.

 

[aajohnny]

The first statement in that rant was you pretty much telling the people who didn't like Fallout 3(or any game) to shut up about it and go play something else. Then you spent the rest of the rant talking about how you liked Fallout 3 more then New Vegas and dismissing those who disagree with that as Obsidian fanboys engaged in a circle jerk.

So yeah I think I understood that rant pretty well and it is pretty clear that your problem is that you don't like people criticizing a game you like. To that I say tough shit pretty much. I would also like it if every Alpha Protocol thread talked about how awesome that game is as well. Sadly when people point out all the time that its gameplay could be better(and that is putting it nicely) I have to agree that they have a point. Because while I personally thought the gameplay wasn't that bad a lot of the criticism is legit and I can't just brush it off as fanboys being fanboys.

I posted that because I'm tired of the same argument over the same two games. Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas. I don't understand the need people seem to have to put Fallout 3 down and it just seems one sided to me is all and there's always some sort of hostility towards people who just happened to like Fallout 3. No I'm not asking for Fallout 3 praise, No, I'm not saying to put New Vegas down but it's an observation I've had that's getting tiresome, can't seem to escape it. I think people are misunderstanding my post. Oh well.

 

[Dangansona]

I usually don't point out Junior posters, but I guess it really does take people from the outside to tell how bad it gets.

In case it was ever in doubt, we aren't all like that, guys.

It's OK, I'm starting to recognize the pattern. A studio or game (x) becomes popular to hate, and a group of people decide whenever a thread is mildly related to "x" they drive by shit post it. If not they make their own threads which on reddit would be called karma whoring. Then you have people like me, or in this case Johnny, who ask for that kind of hyperbole to stop because it's not criticism, it's attacking people with different opinions.

Then the users who actually give good criticism of a game get confused and think they are being told they are only allowed to say good things about games get pissed off. That's the saddest part. It's like a triangle of arguing where no one knows who they should be responding too.

It's not only on neogaf though, and obviously this community has far more positives than negatives.

There's a difference between expressing and forcing. Forcing your opinion on someone else like it's fact is my problem, not that they prefer one game over the other and I'm not really just talking about NeoGAF but other places I've been at. I don't care that people like Fallout: New Vegas more than 3, it doesn't even matter but like I said, not necessarily just in this thread of NeoGAF but everywhere I seem to go it's always the same hostility towards one another, especially if you like 3.

 

[Metroidvania]

The factions thing is a gimmick imo.

Yeah, you have to chose between NCR and the Legion, but the Legion is pretty much ISIS with Roman attire. Literally, even down to women's treatment. Who would chose such assholes before a democratic (and flawed, yes) government? How's that not black and white? Other choices, like helping Mr House and his hate for the Brotherhood of Steel are a bit better, but the main one is very poor. I even nuked Legion territories when given the chance in one of the DLCs.

Well, compare that to Fo3, where it's the Brotherhood or nothing....you at least have a choice of determining the outcome in NV.

Role-playing is a thing, and the Legion makes for a much more nuanced evil playthrough (there are actual benefits and justification, however you may personally disagree with it), than FO3's.

The "worldbuilding" of the previous Fallouts was as dense as could be. Details everywhere. Some of the best worldbuilding in cRPG history. Which is why they're both fairly short games unless you dig through every single bit of content possible.

They're better sandbox games as well, with more to do and see in many creative orders depending on the player's ingenuity and character skills.

What FO3 improves is cutting out the D&D esque worldmap and creating a seamless world. Which at times can be breathtaking, certainly beats out a pixelated map with a dot going from desert square to desert square. But the stuff in that world actually has inferior worldbuilding to the point of being utterly inane, hence the article this thread is about.

Oh, for sure. FO3 was crazy in that you actually got to explore in a 3d world...until you realized, to some extent, that the justification for that, in several instances was, 'it's just kinda....there'.

New Vegas has some of those same 'weak areas', but makes an effort in others to tie them into the faction conflicts.

Just because I like Fallout 3 and enjoyed it more than New Vegas doesn't make me a Fallout 3 fanboy. If I don't like a game I don't decide to spend every waking second finding every flaw about it and then spew it all out on the internet treating it as fact. I move on. There are valid points raised but overall it's still just opinion. I posted that because I'm tired of the same argument over the same two games. Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas. I don't understand the need people seem to have to put Fallout 3 down and it just seems one sided to me is all and there's always some sort of hostility towards people who just happened to like Fallout 3.

Anyone saying you can't like FO3, or that your opinion of liking it is invalid, is an idiot, to be frank. But at the same time, dismissing criticism because you're feeling persecuted and responding with 'it's just opinion', when you're on a video games discussion forum, feels a bit nonsensical....

 

[Neff]

I too hate classic games that don't have great graphics.

So graphics is your judgment on these two ground breaking games. Alright.

Who said anything about hating? Or graphics?

I've watched videos, and I dislike the presentation, concept, perspective, and style of play of Fallout 1 & 2.

Fallout 3, while no looker itself, simply better encapsulates the kind of post-apocalyptic RPG I've always wanted to play.

 

[lazygecko]

What FO3 improves is cutting out the D&D esque worldmap and creating a seamless world. Which at times can be breathtaking, certainly beats out a pixelated map with a dot going from desert square to desert square. But the stuff in that world actually has inferior worldbuilding to the point of being utterly inane, hence the article this thread is about.

See, this is where I disagree. I don't know why it seems that it's just me who feels more bothered by this, but the shortcomings in design resulting from seamless worldbuilding are just too apparent for me and greatly diminish the immersion and sense of space. All the locations just end up feeling so condensed and "lite" in the way they are represented. With zones separated by a map, you can focus more on the stuff that matters and instead imply a greater world, and enable the player's imagination to do so. With the seamless worlds as they are made due to practical limitations, the whole world is instead explicitly presented to you in a fashion that asks for way more suspension of disbelief.

With the way the pendulum has shifted way more towards seamless design in the industry as a whole, I take issue with this underlying notion that it's just naturally superior. Very few games can do this in a really believable fashion to me, and certainly not those with the scope of an RPG.

 

[TheVoidDragon]

The main point is that there's no real reason why James couldn't have just given the project to the Enclave and there's no actual reason given why the Enclave are evil other than "they're evil." You can say the President was going to put an FEV in the project, but that wasn't the Enclave's plan, that was specifically Eden's plan, if you weren't captured from the flashbang that makes no sense (there totally could've been a armor set you were wearing at the time that would make you impeccable to the bang) there would've been no plan to put an FEV virus in the water at all. Also this is a bit off topic lets not forget the fact that the Purifier didn't actually need to exist in the first place, considering most of the towns have their own purifire to begin with, including your robot butler in Megaton.

James refused to hand over the project at first because it was his work along with his friends, no one elses. The Enclave had just walked in and said it was there's now. He politely declined, and because of that they shot one of the scientists.

The Enclave were going to use the purifier to get control over the wasteland, Autumn said people would come to them for water and protection. It would have given them control of one of the most important parts of the wasteland.

As far as i know there isn't anything in the game that you could have been wearing that should realistically have protected you from the grenade.

The purifier did need to exist. Some of the towns would have had their own version, but it would have been smaller scale and not everyone would have had access to it. The purifier would have provided water for the entire wasteland.

Plus the fact that there are literally a hundered better uses for the G.E.C.K. Hmmm, a matter converter device? Yep, let's use it to purify water.

The intended use of the G.E.C.K in Fallout 3 was this:

The G.E.C.K. will collapse all matter within its given radius and recombine it to form a living, breathing, fertile virgin landscape and allow life to begin anew.

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Garden_of_Eden_Creation_Kit

That wouldn't have really been too helpful when there wasn't any clean water in the wasteland.

 

[RPGam3r]

Ugh these threads have to fucking stop. If you hate them so much just play you're beloved Fallout 1, 2 and New Vegas then or make your own Fallout. This Bethesda/Fallout 3 hate and the New Vegas circle jerk is annoying. Let's make another thread because my opinion is right and yours is wrong! I wish people would just play games they enjoy and like and people would not play and not complain about the ones they dislike. Instead they have the need to tear apart every game they doesn't fit their "standard".

Here's my opinion but I'm sure I'm wrong!

Fallout 3 was all around more fun
Fallout New Vegas felt like a expansion pack in a boring desert

I enjoyed both games but hate me all you want but I think people like New Vegas because they convince themselves it's better because it was made by a handful of people who happened to work on the older Fallout games. I honestly don't see how the writing is THAT much better or how it's such an amazing game (comparing to Fallout 3) but if it really is I'd hope so because they didn't have to build a game from the ground up and build a wasteland.... they built a desert.

I sadly wasted a few minutes of my time replying to a thread that is full of hate and pessimism but I'm tired of people treating their opinion as right and every time this topic comes up (which is very often) whoever liked Fallout 3 is wrong, Fallout 3 is terrible, Obsidian are gods and are perfect and New Vegas were like the originals, flawless. Same shit. This, This never changes.

/Rant

I enjoyed this post. This is how I feel for the most part, the anti Bethesda stance that many people here gets very old.

 

[lazygecko]

I can't help it, when I first played FO3 I was overjoyed by the feeling of walking through a 3D Fallout (even if it felt slightly more Mad Max than Fallout 1 and 2 did). That feeling is irreplaceable.

Wouldn't something like The Witcher 3 be a good compromise between the two? Bring back the car from Fallout 2, make the travel distances a bit longer? To avoid that feeling of looking over a hill and realizing that faraway settlement is actually just around the corner from you.

I have yet to play The Witcher 3 so I can't comment on that really. But if you're going to portray a seamless world with a realistic scale, having options for fast traversal is a key component. Just Cause 2 has a much more realistic sense of scale (those mountains and their vistas make The Throat of the World in Skyrim weep with jealousy) and accomplishes this since you can gain ground quickly with the grapple hook + parachute mechanics.

There's several reasons why seamless worlds often end up as they do though, and it can be more than just a mere fear of boring the player. It probably has more to do with having a reasonable time frame to finish developing the game, sprinkled with some technical issues when designing for consoles.

 

[ChoklitCow]

FO3 is one of my favorite games of all time, and this article was a great read.

I was definitely one of those players as the author mentioned who "spend several hours screwing around in subways and killing ghouls between story beats, and by the time you reach the next signpost on your journey the details of the previous scene might seen a little vague."

I remember having some WTF moments regarding the purifier, but I would spend so much time exploring between story missions that by the end I had been desensitized to all that was happening with the "story" and was just enjoying surviving the wasteland.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

I don't really feel like explaining why I like Fallout 3 more because it really won't matter, do you really think your opinion will change?

"These threads criticizing FO3 need to stop! Waaah!"
"Why? The criticisms are on point. If you disagree with them, feel free to elaborate."
"No, I don't wanna."

Pathetic.

I'll never understand the hate for Fallout 3, its one of my favourite games. I fucking love it.

Good for you. Maybe you should try reading the criticism, and then you will understand? Just a thought. I mean, you can still like something and be critical of it...

There's a difference between expressing and forcing. Forcing your opinion on someone else like it's fact is my problem

What are you talking about? Who's forcing anything? Someone wrote an article criticizing FO3. Someone on GAF made a thread about said article. Did someone force you to click the thread, and then click the article, and then whine like a baby in said thread?

One thing I agree with: it's your problem, all right. Just not for the reasons you think.

It's telling to me that none of the repeated Fallout 3 defenders are engaging in any critical discussion of either game, except one guy who defended Dad's decisions point by point. You guys are just sticking to meta discussion and basically saying people are hipsters and that's the only reason these discussions exist.

There's a bandwagon element to be sure, but that's not really what's happening in the bulk of this thread.

Yup, noticed it too. Because FO3's plot holes just can't be defended. The best you can say is, "I don't mind them and still enjoy the game". And that's OK. I sorta enjoyed the game too, since I played it for 55 hours (My experience was kind of like ChoklitCow's, I guess). Doesn't mean I'm blind to its myriad of plot holes, though.

James refused to hand over the project at first because it was his work along with his friends, no one elses. The Enclave had just walked in and said it was there's now. He politely declined, and because of that they shot one of the scientists.

So he refused for selfish reasons? The whole point of the project was supposed to be this selfless endeavour to get "clean water for everyone", but now he gets pouty because someone else wants to make it happen too? Ridiculous.

The Enclave were going to use the purifier to get control over the wasteland, Autumn said people would come to them for water and protection. It would have given them control of one of the most important parts of the wasteland.

The horror! People getting clean water! What a monster this Autumn is!

The purifier did need to exist. Some of the towns would have had their own version, but it would have been smaller scale and not everyone would have had access to it. The purifier would have provided water for the entire wasteland.

The article explains why this is just not the case at all. Water isn't even an issue in the world Bethesda so clumsily created.

 

[Octavianus]

James refused to hand over the project at first because it was his work along with his friends, no one elses. The Enclave had just walked in and said it was there's now. He politely declined, and because of that they shot one of the scientists.

The Enclave were going to use the purifier to get control over the wasteland, Autumn said people would come to them for water and protection. It would have given them control of one of the most important parts of the wasteland.

As far as i know there isn't anything in the game that you could have been wearing that should realistically have protected you from the grenade.

The purifier did need to exist. Some of the towns would have had their own version, but it would have been smaller scale and not everyone would have had access to it. The purifier would have provided water for the entire wasteland.



The intended use of the G.E.C.K in Fallout 3 was this:


http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Garden_of_Eden_Creation_Kit

That wouldn't have really been too helpful when there wasn't any clean water in the wasteland.

..... how is that not helpful? Surely people could maybe transport water into the wasteland from elsewhere.

 

[joecanada]

It's telling to me that none of the repeated Fallout 3 defenders are engaging in any critical discussion of either game, except one guy who defended Dad's decisions point by point. You guys are just sticking to meta discussion and basically saying people are hipsters and that's the only reason these discussions exist.

There's a bandwagon element to be sure, but that's not really what's happening in the bulk of this thread.

What's telling to me is that most fo3 haters didn't even understand the story in the first place and rely on that gif that makes no sense. " But they had no reason to be there!"
Riiight they were just going to let you, and the brotherhood, their hated enemies go anywhere and do anything which obviously includes grabbing important resources

 

[Rushersauce]

What I dislike about Fallout 3 is that pisses over the Fallout lore. Supermutants are dumb dumb. The BoS are saviors of the wasteland, the Enclave... Should I say anything? And a big etc.

 

[Almighty]

What's telling to me is that most fo3 haters didn't even understand the story in the first place and rely on that gif that makes no sense. " But they had no reason to be there!"
Riiight they were just going to let you, and the brotherhood, their hated enemies go anywhere and do anything which obviously includes grabbing important resources

They let them do that for what 20ish plus years so why now is my question? I might of forgot, but did the game ever explain how the Enclave knew this time the water purifier was going to work? Unlike the last time when James and co. couldn't make it work so they have to make a move to control it right this minute.

 

[joecanada]

They let them do that for what 20ish plus years so why now is my question? I might of forgot, but did the game ever explain how the Enclave knew this time the water purifier was going to work? Unlike the last time when James and co. couldn't make it work so they have to make a move to control it right this minute.

Hey there's a lot of holes in the story no doubt and they probably never even answered your valid question, but the point is its a RPG, you should make your character how you want within the story. The more the story tells me what my character is doing or should do the more likely I'm going to say screw this it's not what i'd do this character sucks.
In Fallout 3 they appear to make the story based on what you may do when they probably should have done more after.
For instance you can go into the room with radiation but you may have your ghoul companion with you. They should have planned for that better rather than giving a lazy dialogue option in case you brought him.
At the end, the enclave clearly hate you and would stop you from doing anything but they shouldn't have placed so much importance on the actual purifier. It should be about power, control of resources, etc... Many times less is more in stories. Also you can be good or bad so the power should be what all factions are really trying to deny you except I assume they don't know about the virus

 

[Gucci Messiah]

I agree that the FO3/Bethesda hate is out of control but it's usually the same handful of posters taking every opportunity to worship New Vegas and deride 3 so it's easy to put them on ignore. It's okay to have a different opinion but the hyperbole and dismissive attitudes make it a chore to discuss the two games sometimes.

 

[Almighty]

Hey there's a lot of holes in the story no doubt and they probably never even answered your valid question, but the point is its a RPG, you should make your character how you want within the story. The more the story tells me what my character is doing or should do the more likely I'm going to say screw this it's not what i'd do this character sucks.

Isn't that basically the problem people have with Fallout 3 though at least when it comes to the main story? I mean the game pretty much says the Enclave is bad go fight them and the Brothehood is good go help them. Meanwhile the playing has no say in pretty much any of it. I mean unless I am misunderstanding you it's easy to say the game is an RPG so i don't want the developers to railroad me or spell everything out to me, but Bethesda did exactly that and then to make it worse at least for me they did a really shit job with everyone motivations on top of that.

 

[Cave Johnson]

I agree that the FO3/Bethesda hate is out of control but it's usually the same handful of posters taking every opportunity to worship New Vegas and deride 3 so it's easy to put them on ignore. It's okay to have a different opinion but the hyperbole and dismissive attitudes make it a chore to discuss the two games sometimes.

You should follow your own advice. There are pages in this thread that explains their criticism in detail but you are almost no more different than other FO3 defenders in this thread shooting non-discussionary remarks.

 

[Fractal]

Played Fallout 3 a while ago so I don't remember every little story detail, but I don't remember any major plot holes as mentioned in this thread.

About the purifier, I remember BoS wanting to activate it for the sake of providing the entire Capital Wasteland with clean water, no strings attached (the good), Colonel Autumn wanting to activate it for the sake of controlling the population of the Capital Wasteland, while the game establishes the Enclave aren't really nice people (the bad), and the President AI wanting to activate the purifier to kill everyone in the Capital Wasteland with his virus due to genetic mutations (the ugly). It's a simple plot, mostly black and white, definitely less complex and satisfying than the New Vegas one, but still, it works. After all, the main plot is not really an essential part, it's there just to keep the game together while giving you the liberty of exploring on your own without getting in the way.

I do agree about that crap where radiation resistant companions refuse to do the logical thing and start talking about some "destiny" instead, but still, to me that's more in line with bad writing, but not necessarily a plot hole. If they wouldn't acknowledge the situation at all, then it would be a proper plot hole.

 

[Acerac]

I agree that the FO3/Bethesda hate is out of control but it's usually the same handful of posters taking every opportunity to worship New Vegas and deride 3 so it's easy to put them on ignore. It's okay to have a different opinion but the hyperbole and dismissive attitudes make it a chore to discuss the two games sometimes.

Why don't you respond to their valid criticisms instead of having an utterly dismissive attitude yourself?

 

[lazygecko]

Why don't you respond to their valid criticisms instead of having an utterly dismissive attitude yourself?

I wish I could understand the thought process which rationalizes these kinds of responses. If you disagree, why aren't you bringing actual arguments and points with your replies? That's called having a debate. It's what forums are for. I sincerely don't understand why so many participants (if you can call it that) just want to shut down discussion instead.

 

[tuxfool]

I wish I could understand the thought process which rationalizes these kinds of responses. If you disagree, why aren't you bringing actual arguments and points with your replies? That's called having a debate. It's what forums are for. I sincerely don't understand why so many participants (if you can call it that) just want to shut down discussion instead.

Now you're complaining that somebody isn't providing a valid argument when that person is complaining that somebody else isn't providing a valid argument. Or have I read that wrong?

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

If the world got destroyed and the 1950s were all you knew, of fucking course it would be the basis for society 200 years later.

 

[joecanada]

Isn't that basically the problem people have with Fallout 3 though at least when it comes to the main story? I mean the game pretty much says the Enclave is bad go fight them and the Brothehood is good go help them. Meanwhile the playing has no say in pretty much any of it. I mean unless I am misunderstanding you it's easy to say the game is an RPG so i don't want the developers to railroad me or spell everything out to me, but Bethesda did exactly that and then to make it worse at least for me they did a really shit job with everyone motivations on top of that.

Ya those problems are there in Fallout 3 in that they spelled out the wrong kind of stuff as you mentioned like who's good and who's evil. I would have preferred more like an option of
"Holy shit that wanderer is going to release a virus we should all stop him or get that virus "
So the brotherhood would attack you too if necessary

I mean luckily for me I skip through dialogue pretty quick so some stuff if it doesn't gel with my expectations or if it's like Moira lol I just skip through it.

Skyrim was pretty annoying too but you can skip alot

 

[Metroidvania]

Now you're complaining that somebody isn't providing a valid argument when that person is complaining that somebody else isn't providing a valid argument. Or have I read that wrong?

IT's a bit echo-y, sure, but you can't respond/engage with an argument until it's presented,

Recently ITT, it's been 'I like Fallout 3 and y'all are hating on Bethesda'....which you can't really engage what's good/bad in comparison with NV without further elaboration.

 

[lazygecko]

Now you're complaining that somebody isn't providing a valid argument when that person is complaining that somebody else isn't providing a valid argument. Or have I read that wrong?

It wasn't addressed at Acerac if that's what you're thinking.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

Ugh these threads have to fucking stop. If you hate them so much just play you're beloved Fallout 1, 2 and New Vegas then or make your own Fallout.

 

[tuxfool]

IT's a bit echo-y, sure, but you can't respond/engage with an argument until it's presented,

Recently ITT, it's been 'I like Fallout 3 and y'all are hating on Bethesda'....which you can't really engage what's good/bad in comparison with NV without further elaboration.

It wasn't addressed at Acerac if that's what you're thinking.

Yes. The article and plenty of people are taking a dump on FO3's story with well defined arguments (regardless of quality). The people wringing their hands are just crying that people are taking a dump on FO3 and not addressing the arguments. When called to do so, they don't.

 

[Tigress]

If you ignore the two games that clearly represented the march forward of new societies in the wake of that bomb... Until the 3rd game depicts it all as being more regressive than it was in the first.

I don't really care if you want to shrug off the first two games. They used this IP foe the built in prestige. It wasn't a new series. 90% of the shit referenced or represented in Fallout 3 was in Fallout 1.

Fallout 3 was in a totally different area of the country. Even today with cars and airplanes different areas of the country still have different cultures and even different amounts of development. It's not that hard to believe that in a post apocalypse world where you really aren't going to get much travel one area of the country stays devastated more and doesn't recover as easily (Hell, we have in the world various countries in very varied states of development).

Fallout 3 has faults (I am one who strongly believes Vegas was better) but I really don't think it's that hard to believe it doesn't recover as quickly and just cause there are areas in the west more recovered doesn't mean other areas recover as well.

And as some one who loves New Vegas but also loved 3 even though it was more flawed, it does seem like some people just don't want to even give 3 a fair shake and find fault with everything it does. And a lot of people who just hate Bethesda and will jump at any reason to hate on them (or hold a grudge against them for changing fallout and will jump at any reason). No, it's not the perfect game. But it still was a fun game and it had its merits. And I expect to have some similar faults with 4 and still love it. I just hope we get lucky and Bethesda Softworks decides to cash in on the Fallout hype and give Obsidian another one to do. I'd love to see what they do with the changes Bethesda did to the engine/gameplay and what they add (as well as how they approach it as an RPG as they definitely do the RP part better).

 

[TemplaerDude]

If I were Obsidian I wouldn't even answer that call from Bethesda, not after the way they got treated last go around.

 

[Octavianus]

If the world got destroyed and the 1950s were all you knew, of fucking course it would be the basis for society 200 years later.

2077 as people from the 1950's might have imagined it would be like.... and why?
The wole world got nuked and it's been 200 years. So not only do you have a massive event which basically causes a clean slate but it's also 200 years down the road. 200 years in which people had to survive under completely different circumstances. People would have moved on at that point.

 

[28 Posts Later]

Oh god, in Part two he rips off MrBtongue even harder. Even mentions the whole "What do they Eat?" thing.

Yup. I think he makes some good points but he blatantly rips off of MrBTongue's excellent analysis without even crediting him.

In Shamus's defence he has been making these criticisms for many years [the let's play of Fallout 3 in which the majority of his complaints are repeated in this set of articles was produced three years before the upload of MrBTongue's video]. For example, a quick search pulls up this old article on the topic of role-playing tabletop games in which similar analysis of a believable fantasy environment is employed.

 

[Jacobi]

People didn't have time or leisure to develop new culture...

 

[Cabal]

I liked Fallout 3. I think that when taken from a point of complete realism, the seams start to tear badly. Honestly the best way to look at it is something like Lost in Space. It's a piece of fiction that isn't grounded in reality. It gives that up in service of the world/story they wanted to create. Not everyone is going to be able to handle that, but in a world where nuclear fallout has created ghouls, giant scorpions and deathclaws, I think it's a little strange to argue things like why the Potomac is dry because it's scientifically improbable,

I get it, some people are not going to be able to suspend reality, and honestly the main quest story wasn't all that compelling to me either. But I had a hell of a lot of fun exploring irradiated wasteland, ghoul infested buildings, and crazy lost societies. It's not high art, but very few games are. It's dumb but its fun and that's what matters to me,

 

[djshauny]

Frankly, you're just trying to handwave off why people could criticise a game you enjoy (and they probably enjoyed too) instead of participating in a critical discussion.

Some people like to discuss media critically. In detail. It's a thing. It's a way to learn about how said media is made, and to set up a rolling conversation that could, in turn, provide some feedback to developers (whether they work on the IP in question or not). It's how games get better.

If you think Obsidian are immune to this, go to RPG Codex right now and see the way Pillars of Eternity is being pulled apart, mainly for having way too much dry exposition.

Or you can just keep stomping into threads shouting "I LIKE GAME YOU JUST BIAS" if you want.

Yeah like it doesnt happen the other way around....

 

[Sblargh]

I loved the "what do they eat" question. It actually is a neat little test of how well thought is the world from a lore perspective. (obviously it says nothing about level design, but it makes sense for open world RPGs to be designed with lore in mind)

 

[old manatee]

Fallout 3's ending had one of the hugest plot holes I've ever seen. It was sad.

 

[joecanada]

I don't mean to be too aggressive here, but your posts describing why the plot works in this game are fairly scattered. The connective tissue between cause and effect is largely absent in the plot of this game, and I think when people try to piece it together in a way that makes sense, it often ends up being, "well, RPGs are about roleplaying and, uh, well, the Enclave are pretty bad and want to hurt you, soooo..."

(As an aside, if RPGs are about roleplaying, isn't FO3 railroading you into being a Brotherhood associate kind of a lot worse than NV giving you three major faction choices, a fistful of minor support choices, and your own damn self 'cause fuck everybody, a better roleplaying experience?)

That isn't really a plot. They set out to create some dramatic/cool moments and didn't really care how they got there. Writers who worked with Bethesda around the Morrowind era have been vocal about that exact kind of directive starting to take hold there.

It's OK. You can still enjoy the game even if the story is kinda stupid. I certainly do.

I honestly don't remember anything about NV and the plot if there was one, I just found the story boring. I think NV just wasn't markedly different enough and I just rushed through it really, I was probably burned out on 200 hours of FO3

However I do agree railroading you into a faction is annoying as hell to me, but really all games do this on some level, its not as though they let you do some sort of complex shit like play double agent or play both sides of the fence or something its all pretty simple for the most part.

FO3 tried too hard and that ended up being a problem as they couldn't close all the loopholes in their own story, but saying the enclave is "bad" is vastly simpler than what I described. What I said was there is a potential virus, a potential resource, and a bunch of enemies. It doesn't take much imagination to see that those factions (with your character in the mix) would clash heads at some point.
There's many videogames that don't do much more than "I'm bad you are good lets fight" anyway, but I am not here to defend any videogame writing , i find it all terrible, but just to say it didn't ruin my enjoyment of the game and was pretty easy to follow.


Honestly I would have to say what stuck to me most in FO3 were all the 50s references they were pretty well done atmosphere wise , if a lot campy, sometimes too campy. but the "better dead than red" theme was pretty well researched.