Agreed. It really isn't.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Blistering Stupidity of Fallout 3
- Thread starter Ogimachi
- Start date
tintin1029
Member
It's all finished, dude. Look it up.
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
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
Acerac
Banned
I too hate classic games that don't have great graphics.
Moon_frogger
Member
Meh, I get that Fallout 1 is the best game in the series followed by 2 and New Vegas. I wholeheartedly agree that fallout 3 is probably at the bottom of the ladder but man.....I still had so many, many hours of enjoyment from it. The half assed narrative did not in any way detract from the sheer joy of exploring the washington DC wasteland sandbox and growing my character from a pathetic weakling into a smooth talking killing machine. I know there is a general seething hatred for bethesda among fallout fans, but at least they allowed obsidian to make new vegas, and vats was a pretty great combat system imho.
SparkleMotion
Member
Hmm, well...that's very good for a first try. You know what? I have a ball.
Perhaps you'd like to bounce it?
Give it a decade or so and Fallout 3 will look and feel cruder than its predecessors. It's like saying you can't go back to Street Fighter 2 after playing Street Fighter EX.
Solid Samus
Banned
I'll just put it like this. If you don't see how the writing is that much better, it's because you never even made an attempt at comparing the two. Maybe you haven't played either game in a long time and just don't remember. Either or, NV's better writing is pretty much objective, and I don't see how anyone who's played that game recently enough to actually remember the writing and dialogue could possibly disagree tbh. Some of the shit that characters (and the player character) say and do in Fallout 3 is downright silly. Acting like the only reason people prefer NV's writing is because Obsidian made it, is downright reductive, given that people have provided you with clear and well-reasoned explanations as to why they appreciate the writing in NV more. Obsidian isn't a god to me, I'll point and laugh at Alpha Protocol all day, but I can also recognize when writing, quest design, and character dialogue have been meaningfully improved as well, and NV does represent a clear improvement. The way you imply that Obsidian had it easy when it came to world design just because they built a desert makes it clear to me that you're not aware of just how much care went into desigining that world and its lore, either. It's one thing to prefer Fallout 3's world, but if you can't even recognize what NV's world got right then I don't think you're really in a place to try and chide it.
Seriously, I challenge y'all to install Fallout 3 sometime and play through it while paying some honest to god attention. Play through the game this year and tell me the writing is half as good as you remember it. I'll wait. It will not hold up.
Spot on my ass. If ya can't address the arguments made in this thread outside of handwaving them away, misrepresenting their origins, and attempting to invalidate all criticism based solely on the grounds that "Well I like that game! Therefore don't you dare complain about it!"... then you might as well not even attempt to contribute, because not contributing is basically what you're already doing.
Dangansona
Member
Thank you for being just a tiny bit more fed up with these threads than me to have the drive to write this spot on rant.
tintin1029
Member
Not that this is the case, but some people just don't understand what good/bad writing is. they'll eat up any story no matter how bad it is, so saying that it's objective is kind of a ridiculous thing to say. There are people out there that will totally do what you just suggested, look at you dead in the face and say that the story is better, because they don't know what a good story actually is.
Solid Samus
Banned
Just because there's someone out there ballsy enough to make the claim that Tales of Symphonia has better writing than The Last of Us doesn't make the fact that TLOU has better writing into something that's not a fact.
TheVoidDragon
Member
Has this been posted yet?
I've seen this posted in other places so many times and it just makes no sense at all. The 'summary' attempts to make the plot seem really bad by mostly ignoring the explanations in the game or just saying things that do not make any sense at all. For example:
- He died to stop the Enclave getting control of the project. They came in and pretty much tried to force them to give them have control, he died trying to stop them.
- Why shouldn't the water purifier exist? It was created over several years by a group of scientists who wanted to provide clean water to the wasteland.
- The radiation was released because the reactor was specifically overloaded, so it doesn't make sense to say "released radiation it shouldn't have".
- Colonel Autumn was there to get control of the project, saying he "had no reason to be there" doesn't make any sense at all.
- Autumn survived by injecting himself with some anti-radiation thing, you can see him perform the animation.
- No reason the flash grenade shouldn't have worked
- From what i remember you were captured so they could get the codes for the purifier. The reason not to give it was because you didn't want the Enclave to have control over it.
- The final battle was over control of it, not about turning it on. The Enclave wanted to use it to control the Wasteland.
- Until the DLC, your companion refusing to go in was likely there as it fit with the theme of the legend of the Lone Wander and a heroic sacrifice.
Etc.
There are just so many problems with that, almost every sentence there is wrong in some way.
Stevey
Member
Gnome Scat
Member
Well maybe I like blisters.
Thank you for proving my point.
You know exactly what a good story is right? because your perception of what a good or bad story is correct and everybody should have the same exact feeling as you!
People have different views and takes on things, just because they don't see it eye to eye with you doesn't make them right or wrong.
You okay there buddy? I actually played through both within the past 5 months. I didn't even say the Fallout 3 story was amazing but that people should stop shunning people who like Fallout 3. The Obsidian task force at hand!
That's what's bothering me the most about topics like this. People don't really tend to look with a critical view to the games they have fond memories of/are looking forward to and it really hurts discussion on games like this. I don't really care whether you like Fallout 3 more than New Vegas, but at least try to come with good counterarguments instead of "lol, he's wrong because I liked the game".
There was actually a great post on this lack of criticism on the Fallout subreddit in the topic about the news that FO4 won't have level caps and of course it was downvoted while completely vapid responses as "Great news!" were upvoted hundreds of times. Thisis the post I'm talking about.
Solid Samus
Banned
Man, you're on a roll here with these non-responses. I get that you don't like criticism of Fallout 3 but you haven't said anything beyond "how dare you criticize Fallout 3, that's just, like, your opinion, man". And you haven't actually addressed any of the criticisms, you've just made assumptions about the people who make them while handwaving away the reasons for their preference given in this and in other threads.
Obsidian task force... Maybe you should check out my posting history sometime. Shit, I should probably quit laying it on so damn heavy myself when I start on the whole F3 v NV argument. I've done a lot more to defend Bethesda as of late than I have to tear them down. At any rate, I don't shun people who prefer Fallout 3. Very few people here do, I think you're arguing a straw man, and it seems to me that in your eyes any strong criticism of Fallout 3 is 'shunning the people who liked it', which from my perspective is kinda crap. And honestly, I do not see how anyone with an eye for the shit couldn't have seen a very stark difference in the quality of writing having allegedly played both games in the last few months, it's especially clear when one has the opportunity to make a more direct comparison like playing the games back to back. You can pull the 'that's your opinion, man' card, but in response to that I'll pull actual examples and make my case like that.
tintin1029
Member
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.
Solid Samus
Banned
To the bolded, now THAT's what an on-point statement looks like.
afternoon delight
Member
"My son, I need to make these cryptic recordings, in case anyone else finds them... Wait... If someone else found them, you wouldn't be listening to this...."
tintin1029
Member
A story being full of plot holes isn't opinion based. It's literal fact, if you actually payed attention to what the story is, it makes no fucking sense
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? I'm not trying to win people over to Fallout 3, I was just pointing out that these threads are ALWAYS made in every forum I go to and it's the same fucking thing. We get Fallout 3 story is terrible and that you hate it but I see the same hostility towards people who disagree. You're telling me I make "non-responses" but do you really think that if I went into depth on how I prefer Fallout 3 to New Vegas your mind will change? lol.
Octavianus
Banned
It already looks and feels cruder than its predecessors though.
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.
tintin1029
Member
Ultimadrago
Member
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.
Solid Samus
Banned
Not at all, I prefer NeoGAF over the other forums out there because it tends to be a bit more laid back and more mature than others but WHENEVER Fallout pops up it's always on the hatred of Bethesda/Fallout 3 and the praise of Obsidian/Fallout:New Vegas and it's just tiresome.
I've been playing New Vegas this last month expecting to find something groundbreaking thanks to the hyperbole that surrounds it and what did I find? A slightly better written game, yes, but aside from that is more of the same, with exactly the same flaws and praising aspects. It's more a 90 hours expansion than a new game.
I know this opinion will probably be unpopular but imo it's Obsidian weakest game to date.
I know this opinion will probably be unpopular but imo it's Obsidian weakest game to date.
Alebrije
Member
Time to waste time on the endless ocean glitch.
Solid Samus
Banned
You don't have to justify enjoying Fallout 3 more to me, but I am saying that I don't think you could field a convincing argument as to how Fallout 3's writing specifically is anywhere near being on the same footing, or with the same respect to the pre-established lore and worldbuilding, that NV's is - or that Fallout 3 should be exempt from criticism in general. But shit, it's not like you're not right about how often Fallout threads become dumpster fires after becoming F3 vs NV threads. I've complained about that more than once myself, even though you'll see I'm not exactly shy to contribute once they get to that point... it's been especially tiring in relation to Fallout 4 threads, which sometimes become whirlwinds of cynicism based on hindsight reception to a game that came out almost ten years ago. This here is a thread about an article criticizing Fallout 3, though, so it's not entirely unexpected, and if you don't like the contents of the article in the OP, you can always dispute them.
IceDoesntHelp
Banned
I'll never understand the hate for Fallout 3, its one of my favourite games. I fucking love it.
SparkleMotion
Member
No one hates Fallout 3 from what I've read in here. It's just very poorly written compared to New Vegas.
Fallout 3 just gets boring after a while. Lack of enemy variety, super mutants everywhere. Also very bad level design, every metro is the same as the last and none of the cities have any distinct features other than megaton with the nuke and rivet city. The story is also pure nonsense put together by a 5 year old
tintin1029
Member
It is a great game, it's just us crazy writing connoisseurs love to rip it the fuck apart because of how poorly written it's story is.
I implore everyone to read the more parts of the article in the OP it'll blow your fucking mind.
Solid Samus
Banned
There's definitely a contingent of people here who seem to hate Fallout 3, to such a degree that despite its improvements I wonder how they even found themselves enjoying NV relative to the classic Fallouts they seem to love. (it's worth keeping in mind that before Fallout 3, Fallout 1 and 2 were the FFVII/Super Metroid of CRPGs. Many of the fans of those games believed them to be some of the very best games ever made for the quality of their writing and for their player agency and reactivity - elements that were a bit lacking in Fallout 3, what with Bethesda's focus being elsewhere.) For the record, I enjoy Fallout 3 for what it is, and it's a hell of a game when you mod it out.
I have tried giving New Vegas a chance but it's just not working out. I can recognize the qualities that Obsidian bring, but in the end the awkward core gameplay and janky as hell presentation from the switch to Bethesda's format just fails to make it click for me.
And the fact that the much-lauded "world" is mostly a dustbowl with a road around it?
tintin1029
Member
Has anyone here ever played that Fallout Online: Reloaded.
It's really...interesting... in that weird janky sort of way.
It's really...interesting... in that weird janky sort of way.
My problem with the world design is moreso related to all the compromises that come from having to portray a seamless open world, which I regard as another Bethesda legacy dragging the whole thing down. Pretty sure I covered that problem at some earlier point in this thread (the "theme park" complaint).
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.
tintin1029
Member
Metroidvania
People called Romanes they go the house?
What it comes down to, is the sandbox/worldbuilding in FO3 (at the expense of a strong narrative and other intricacies/elements of FO1&2)....
Take that and compare it to the return of said features in New Vegas, at the expense of a loss of some of the world-building's 'interesting bits' aka the theme park.
Personally enjoyed New Vegas for longer, FO3 didn't set itself up for replayability as well, given the binary good/evil nature regarded in the major decisions vs NV's factions.
Take that and compare it to the return of said features in New Vegas, at the expense of a loss of some of the world-building's 'interesting bits' aka the theme park.
Personally enjoyed New Vegas for longer, FO3 didn't set itself up for replayability as well, given the binary good/evil nature regarded in the major decisions vs NV's factions.
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.
That is one of the things that I have noticed as well. Both Fallout 3 and New Vegas suffer from the problem that 80 to 90 percent of the locations just aren't that interesting.
Agreed.
tintin1029
Member
Imagine if the world in F1 and 2 were a full on 3d world to walk around in like F3 or NV. Everyone would hate it and it would be known as the worst thing ever. Because back tracking is known as Literal Satan to the Gaming Press.
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.
tintin1029
Member
No, I mean the overall scale of locations and there distances to other locations. While New Vegas does look like a straight up desert, it's settlements aren't actually that far from each other, they may in fact be closer together than Fallout 3's locations are. Saying there's more Foilage and giant rocks in Fallout 3, making it less boring, is a dumb reason, because having giant rocks all over the place with nothing else is the same thing as having a desert with nothing else. To me at least.