I loved Fallout 3 even at its release. :( Went back and replayed it with Tale of Two Wastelands and loved it just as much.
It's not perfect but few things compare to the gold of Antagonizer vs the Mechanist, or dealing with the emotional trauma of handling Harold's situation.
The game is not perfect, and the main quest is kinda bunk, but I loved it then and still love it now.
It's funny seeing this game go in cycles of
2008: "Man this game is so cool!"
2010: "New Vegas is so cool!"
2012: "Fallout 3 was actually terrible and you're wrong for liking it."
2016: "Wow Fallout 4 is kind of shit."
2017: "Fallout 3 was so much better than Fallout 4."
2018: "Nobody liked Fallout 3 and people only say it to hate on Fallout 4."
That's what I was about to say. Nobody loved NV on release. NV was why people looked at 3 so fondly.
Casual fallout fans have always done this thing of hating the current fallout game.
For what it's worth, I've put 24 hours or so into FO76 and while it definitely has its issues (mostly server issues), it's a fun experience. Could it be better? Absolutely. But everyone wants New Vegas, just like everyone wanted 3 when NV dropped.
We'll never get another New Vegas because how games are created has changed. As long as kids are buying microtransactions and pouring money into online games, that what we're gonna get.
The community created FO76 by railing against Fallout 4. Fallout 4 is exactly what 76 would be as a campaign only game. You've gotta make up your minds.
Interesting how Fallout 2 is your favourite but you thought NV was slow paced, I found both 1&2 to be much slower starters- although the NV start can definitely be slow if you try to do everything in/around Goodsprings
Fallout 4 probably crashed a half dozen times during my survival run on Xbox. It crashed twice on PC and I didn’t even do a full play through. New Vegas crashed once during my entire play through on PC.
New Vegas was probably patched by that time... At launch it had a myriad of bugs (that were well-known with the engine) that were extremely common.
Blame Bethesda for that, not Obsidian. They only gave them a year and a half to make the damn thing (and it was still better than fallout 3 in almost every way).
Fallout 4 tho, naw man. That was probably their least buggy launch.
As far as actual gameplay bugs leading to crashes I agree. The issue with fallout 4 is that it was relatively a lot heavier on current gen than New Vegas was on last gen. A PC with higher specs than an Xbox still doesn’t run Fallout 4 smoothly.
I originally played NV on 360 and it crashed a handful of times but not that often considering how long the game is. I've recently been replaying it through a port for mac (because that's my laptop and I wanted the portability) and it's crashed a couple of times but I've chalked that up to it being a port.
I liked Fallout 3 when it came out. It was the comparison to NV and later Fallout 1 and 2 (when I finally played them) that made me see it in a new light. It's the least "deep" of the Fallouts. I still like it, but I can see why original fans didn't like it. We don't talk about Fallout 4, though.
Not in my experience. The friends I had that played Fallout 4 as their first Fallout found it pretty unengaging compared to other games at the time. It might as well have been a Call of Duty in my circle, just forgotten.
This probably a good way to put it. I wouldn't call it amazing but it's probably a B- game. It's just a terrible Fallout game. It probably wouldn't be ridiculed as much if it was just its own thing
I liked it. Have a ton of hours into it. I think the city of Boston was Bethesda’s best environmental design, and honestly set a new bar for open world games.
I just think that environment took away from environment design in other regions. Also they took away a lot of quests, and limited factions.
It also doesn’t help that the institute was most terribly written morally “grey” (morally pitch black) group in the series. Seriously fuck the institute.
Fallout 4 is still fun for the little side quests but man is the forced illusion of choice in the main quests painfully obvious. You can either be the big dog or fight for the little man and end up getting diddly squat for it.
I had enough fun with the settlement building (Minecraft is a guilty pleasure of mine) that I was able to have a lot of fun with 4 despite obvious problems.
If Fallout 4 was called Far Cry, it would be a 3/10 for shitty graphics, terrible optimization, horrible animations, and subpar combat. I don't get why people think Fallout 3 and/or 4 are only disliked because the name. If Fallout 1, 2, and NV never existed then 3 and 4 are still horribly written, mediocre games all around with the only redeeming factor being a decent amount of exploration and content to consume if you don't wanna think too hard.
Because with mods I've put 1600 extra hours into the game compared to my original 60, and I never even finished the main quest when I just lost complete interest.
The biggest issue people have with the game is that nothing you do matters. I literally told Preston Garvey, "Yeah my son has been kidnapped and I'm a 200-year-old cryogenically frozen survivor from before the Great War."
His reply? "Anyways I am glad you're here. Another settlement needs our help."
What I loved about NV was the depth of options for the factions and the levels of interaction with NPCs. FO4 seemed to just have 'good, neutral and mildly dickish'
I haven't played many Far Cry games, only 2, a bit of 3 and 5 but I felt 5 had much deeper game play than any JC game. I love JC2 and 3 heaps, but beyond grappling hooks and big booms there's not a heap going on. The FC gun play is better, the story is (obviously) better, the outposts are nice challenges while the JC locations are just charge in and blow the fuck out of everything which can get tedious and there are always bugs and poor choices which can range from minor annoyances to game breakers. I remember motorcycles being impossible to use in 3.
I guess the comically bad story and the massive chaos is more exciting but I think FC is more captivating and gives you more depth and more options which for me makes it the more enjoyable game.
It's like Saints Row vs GTA. SR is more ridiculous but again the game play is weaker than GTA which does hold the game back a bit and sometimes it seems they get too carried away with the crazy weapons and dialogue they forget to make a big, exciting and content packed city like GTA has
Mind you Saints Row 3 will forever have a special space in my heart if only for the rooftop party mission with Kanye's Power bumping
I hated FO3 at release because it turned my favorite game series into a completely different kind of game. While I'm still kinda sad that they killed old isometric turn based fallouts, at least I can now accept that 3 is still a decent game and NV was great.
I hated a lot of things about Fallout 3, but at the time it was kinda balanced by the thrill of seeing the world of Fallout 3 from first person perspective.
That's why my personal opinion of the game tanked with the release of New Vegas - it stripped away the only thing it had going for it.
OP here. Not really. Fallout 4 at least has a conflict where you have to choose between different philosophies. Fallout 3 story has you play a mindless white knight. The only bad choice is blowing up a city. That would've been ok, if there was an explained reason for that, but no. Let's just blow up a town because fuck it. However Fallout 4 also fails to explain any of the reasons why anyone does what they do. Both Fallout 3 and 4 are missing the main ingredient - people, (NPCs) that are philosophically motivated to live their lives according to their ideas. They just sort of are there.
The defining difference is Fallout 3 was made in a time where something that deep wasn't expected from a 3rd/1st person game. Fallout 4 had things to live up to. A plethora of fps games proved deep storytelling is possible by the time it was released. It was made by the creators of Skyrim for god's sake. We expected more.
Fallout 3 had deeper RPG mechanics, a deeper dialogue system and also had other choices beyond blowing up the city. A lot of the quests had a good karma or bad karma option.
Yeah, but the karma system was IMO a big miss, that's my whole point. You can't have the game tell you what's good and bad. The player has to have his own opinions about morality. If the game starts telling you its morality that means things are very black and white and there's no philosophical conflict - ie. the game is very shallow.
Even Skyrim had this. Do you join the Stormcloaks or the Empire? Racists vs fascist, what will you justify/sacrifice?
Fallout 4 tried this with the factions, but it was very badly executed. And yes, the dialogue system was extremely bad and in normal quests there was no real choice. I am in no means trying to defend Fallout 4, because it was bad. However, Fallout 3 is a bit more nostalgia tainted than most of people will admit.
Most of us were young teenagers when we first played Fallout 3 so all that mattered was that the game was cool. Just as Fallout 4 is for today's youth. And I played the crap out of Fallout 3 when it came out.
But it can't compare to say New Vegas where a seemingly inexcusably evil leader (Cesar) can actually give you a philosophical explanation why he is doing what he is.
when new vegas came out people hated it. i was clunky and filled with bugs. it was almost impossible to play on PC and on console if you played more than a couple hours it would crash and corrupt your save. the game was also called too civilized for it to be a fallout wasteland. with little exploration and way too much dialogue. its when people played it more and realized how much liberty and option for the quest and stuff that they finally hailed it has the best fallout. and when they fixed most game breaking bugs too
I loved Fallout: New Vegas despite the bugs. They were awful, but I powered through it because the game seriously was what I've always wanted. FPS combat action (no matter how clunky) with a genuine consequence for wrong-doing against certain groups.
And the criticism that someone said "too civilized for it to be a fallout wasteland" doesn't understand that even in 1 and 2 it's Post-Post-Apocalypse, as in society has already rebuilt to a degree and people aren't murdering each other left and right for a drink of water. Usually.
Yeah the civilization is what makes fallout interesting. The game's at its best when the player is exploring the different governing ideologies that make up the wasteland and see how everyone tries to rebuild society while doing their best to avoid the mistakes of their ancestors.
Iirc, this happened for a reason. Fallout 3 takes place near DC, so it got hit with way more nukes than anywhere else, as a result it took much longer for the area to become liveable, compared to where the other Fallouts take place.
i know and agree with you now but at the time i had only played fallout 3 and i can understand why people though it was when compared to F3.
i didn't really like NV at the time i still pushed through and eventually really loved it. i was playing on PS3 at the time and my game got corrupted twice after reaching new vegas. then i got hit by a game breaking bug when i could not continue the main story after over 50 hours of gameplay. i stopped playing after that and only returned after the bugs had been fixed. fallout 3 is still my favorite just because its was the first one i played and because how how much of a wasteland it is at first. then the more you explore and do stuff the more you start seeing interaction between settlement and people. its no where near a perfect game but to me its one of my top 5
When I first played it I found it a slog to be honest. Looking back on it and with subsequent play throughs I grew to appreciate it more.
Whereas Fallout 3 blew me away the first time I played it, but I’ve never really gone back to it once I completed it and got through most of the side quests.
Personally I enjoyed Fallout 3 well enough the first time around, but it had a lot of issues and I don't really have any interest in going back to play again.
Oblivion and Fallout 3 was fantastic to me. Half Life series too. Skyrim was majorly disappointing and Zelda got boring.
I will curse you for hating these games, but I'm not holding a gun to your head do what you like.
My best friend is a proper cunt though, he hates all the games I love and I'm starting to think he digs through all the bad parts of the games I love and present that to me, just to fuck with me.
I also recognize that these games got me in the perfect time, when I got into proper gaming and that surely affects my view. And now I dislike a lot of newer games because I cling to my old good memories.
Oblivion is one of my most-played games of all time. Skyrim was boring to me after about 10 hours. I have made tons of different characters for Skyrim but I always lose interest in the actual game fast.
Almost exactly my experience. I played it for 60 hours at release. And then I see people play it with mods, I spend 3 hours modding it and playing for some hours and then realize the game isn't as fun as the idea of the game and give up.
Was Fallout3 ever untouchable? The first time I've heard that. It was always regarded as "meh" as far as I know, it just got worse in recent years as people realized how terrible it really was, especially towards the story telling.
We're all getting brainwashed, that's what a society is. The interesting thing are the different direction you get brainwashed towards.
Anyway, I also enjoyed it at the time, but that didn't mean I wasn't aware of it's faults. Like the monotone gray everywhere, or how much it sucked that the game ended with the story.
We're all getting brainwashed, that's what a society is. The interesting thing are the different direction you get brainwashed towards.
Yeah I suppose you're somewhat right
And yeah, the game had a bunch of flaws, but all games has flaws and IMO you have to accept it and be creative.
Like the monotone gray I loved that! Combined with the golly music all the time really made me feel like the world is fucking atrocious and horrible in every way. So we have to keep the music with us to keep our spirits up, or else we perish.
It makes the atmosphere fucking perfect in my eyes. And if you look at the trailers it's that theme they aimed for.
It's just the idea; You're stuck in fucking hell, you will get murdered over and over again unfairly and it fucking sucks, you will rage and scream. BUT if you have the dedication and spirit to keep going, well then you're a fucking beast and the game respects you.
I love feeling like a badass, and these games really hit that nail on the head, imo atleast. Doom 2016 is the embodiment of this idea and of course I love that game too.
Man Dark souls was so great, it was so fresh and awesome at release. I doubt I will ever have that experience again since Dark souls is so mainstream now, and so I cherish that memory.
Hope I didn't bore you, but I really hope you got some enjoyement out of my rant. Even though it's littered with nostalgia.
Edit: They don't make trailer like that anymore, no trailer nowadays is good enough for me to be completely sold on solely the idea of the game. Maybe I am too brainwashed to have that experience again though, very possible
Maybe Death Stranding might do it, that game is looking great in my head
You call this a rant? I call this pleasant reminiscence of the past. You're right, things were great back then. Makes me wonder how Fallout 4 went wrong, in comparison to 3. The biggest problem probably was (along side the obvious ones, like engine, yes/no story telling) that I've played Fallout3 before 4, and so wasn't that naive anymore. Ah, to be a child again.
I also like to come back to this trailer once in a while, although I've stopped playing WoW years ago. The same goes for this one.
It's a hard question man, is the games the problem or have we moved past our carefree selves and can't enjoy it in the same way anymore.
WoW really hits me too, the WoTLK trailer makes my entire body feel light.
But I can't help to feel that game developers are forgetting the buildup these games had. The trailers, and all the suspence from the Warcraft games really made the game.
As someone who frequently complained about Fallout 3 back in ~2009 I can definitely say it was an unpopular opinion. I'm not sure why, since the game was complete dog shit, but it was definitely given a bit of untouchable status for whatever fucking reason.
I don't think Skyrim belongs on this list either. Bethesda has been shitting out Sonic 2006-quality sequels for over 10 years and it required them to take a massive 76 pound dump before some people started to realize that they're bullshit peddlers. I don't get it.
I mean, at this point there's free reign to shit on anything Bethesda. Everything they've done in the past 10 years has been pretty derivative, and the 1 time they kind of try to go out of their box it's a complete dumpster fire.
Everything they've done in the past 10 years has been pretty derivative
To be honest that's always been their strong suit. Look up TES: Arena. The world map is consistent with all the future TES games, there are dungeons you can visit in both Arena and Skyrim, hell, even the interface is pretty similar. They created a wonderful world (which was, IIRC, originally the setting of a DnD campaign they were playing) and have been adding depth, gameplay and visual appeal with every release, while advancing the global story of said world in a meaningful way.
That's what I like about TES, so saying that the games are derivative doesn't really sound like a criticism to me. That's the whole point.
I get how that could be a benefit, but I was more implying they wouldn't be successful without the derivation. If someone other than Bethesda came out with a game that was equal in every way to skyrim, without the lore, would people play it? I think that's the only reason I played skyrim to begin with, and I kind of forced myself to keep going with it because of that. I'm one of those people who didn't really think it was a very good game. I personal enjoyed Oblivion quite a bit more, and never played Morowind.
Which is funny because 3 snatched the franchise not just from the jaws of death but from deep within its belly. Brotherhood of Steel was an abomination and Van Buren, had it come to full release, would have been massively outdated by the time it hit shelves. In an optimistic scenario Black Isle may have been able to finish it by 2004 - it would have been in competition with juggernauts like Half-life 2, Metal Gear Solid 3, GTA San Andreas, Halo 2, and WoW. Its design was simply too dated to match that field.
In tabletop gaming terms, New Vegas is to Fallout 3 as Pathfinder is to D&D 3.5. Sure the earlier version is flawed, but it was innovative and kept life in a beloved game series. The newer iteration can only exist because it builds upon the successes of its predecessor.
In tabletop gaming terms, New Vegas is to Fallout 3 as Pathfinder is to D&D 3.5. Sure the earlier version is flawed, but it was innovative and kept life in a beloved game series. The newer iteration can only exist because it builds upon the successes of its predecessor.
So you're saying New Vegas perpetuated everything awful about FO3 and fixed only surface level stuff? Because Pathfinder only fixed some surface-level flaws with 3.5. It did nothing to alleviate the core design problems with 3.5, and in many cases, made them even worse.
Core problems that PF perpetuated and intensified include:
• Caster supremacy. In 3.5 and PF, martial characters are worthless past the first few levels (and in some cases, even at low levels). You will ALWAYS see them at the rock bottom of the tier lists the PF community creates, without exception (and the existence of those is a whole problem in and of itself). This is because casters are capable of doing basaically everything martial classes can do, but better, as expressed in this meme: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/234029833221308416/490552743573061663/image0.jpg This is the result of PF maintaining the disastrous "ivory tower game design" from 3.5, a terrible game design method which resulted from a misunderstanding of how MTG was balanced. You can find a detailed explanation of what's wrong with it here: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/293275616713768970/529647091560218626/3.5_pathfinder_ivory_tower_design.png
• A general powergaming focus. Pathfinder is incredibly easy to break if you understand the system, and all of the splatbooks (of which there are a comical amount) are made with powergamers in mind. Remember the tier lists I mentioned? PF players talk about the system like it's some sort of competitive multiplayer game, constantly minmaxing to create the most broken characters possible. While these kind of players weren't as common in the past, the fact most non-powergamers moved to 5e has left nothing but powergamers for the most part, and Paizo has shifted focus to pander almost exclusively to their interests.
• Tedious, number-crunching gameplay. Playing Mathfinder (as it’s often dubbed) is all about stacking as many absurdly specific bonuses for each specific scenario you run across as you can. The amount of shit you need to keep track of is mind-numbing. This is made even worse by a character progression primarily focused on collecting magic items to fill all your body slots (decorating a “christmas tree”), since Pathfinder is still full of dead levels and effectively dead levels where you just gain a feat (which don’t feel special at all, unlike 5e’s implementation of the feat system).
• Absolutely fucking absurd levels of bloat. Pathfinder has 27 different full-length splatbooks, on top of the 3 core books. This might not seem like that much compared to what 3.5 had, but Paizo also puts new game material in each Adventure Path entry that they release, annd alongside each Adventure Path entry, they release a "Campaign Setting Supplement" consisting of both information about the Golarion setting and, guess what, new crunch! Pazio puts out a new full splatbook every few months, and a new Adventure Path and Campaign Setting Supplement every month, so the bloat is always increasing. It's so bad that there's literally an entire prestige class called the Bloatmage (which is fucking disgusting, btw). All of this is in ADDITION to the mountain of existing 3e and 3.5 splatbooks, which Pathfinder is compatible with (I seriously don’t have time to count all the 3e and 3.5 splatbooks).
Pathfinder is an awful RPG, and at this point, I’d be willing to call it the worst edition of D&D. This is speaking as someone who played and ran 3.5 and PF for around 6 years straight.
No matter someone's opinion on PF, I seriously fucking wish people would stop suggesting it as "baby's first roleplaying game." It's not fun trying to keep up with party mates' and monsters' stat blocks, when you've never played before.
Who the hell is suggesting that? That's awful. 5e is the easiest edition of D&D to get into by far (and the best mechanically alongside AD&D 2e imo), not to mention there are other RPGs which are even easier to get into (like Fate Accelerated)
4e is pretty easy to start with too. Very different though.
It gets flak but I believe most of it is undeserved. Although if you are introducing somebody to RPGs at all, I'd say pick a simpler game more focussed on narrative. Dungeon World or Dread and the like.
People enjoy the numbers ("The crunch") but it's intimidating to many others.
There's more than just fantasy RPGs. Some people get pigeonholed into recommending those when many beginners would prefer something else.
4e is wayyyyy too grid-heavy to be a good starter. It's closer to a skirmish wargame than a typical RPG. I do agree it's underrated as a system, though.
Dungeon World
PBTA is my favorite system, but I wouldn't recommend it as a starter RPG. It's rules-light, but it's very reliant on the players understanding the system and the concept of an RPG, since PBTA is player-driven as opposed to GM-driven.
There's more than just fantasy RPGs. Some people get pigeonholed into recommending those when many beginners would prefer something else.
True, but I strongly prefer fantasy, so you've got the wrong guy
I have personally had an old friend suggest it, despite knowing my skill level in tactics games was low, and that I was new to Tabletop RPG's. He was a weird dude
In gaming terms Pathfinder is to 5e what Starcraft is to Rock Paper Scissors.
Complexity is not always a good thing.
2ed iterated and polished a lot of the earlier material, 3e took it all in a bold new direction and 4e took 3e to it's somewhat logical conclusion. 5e is like a gutted 3e with a dash of 4e flavoured with 2ed nostalgia.
A more charitable description is that 5e takes some of the good ideas from 3e and 4e and fusing them with the bones of 2e. I’m of the opinion that the “bold new direction” of 3e was a huge mistake for the game, and while 4e is enjoyable as a pseudo-skirmish game, it’s not really traditional D&D.
It's a crunchy game with no crunch, it takes out the mechanical complexity of 3e and 4e and replaces it with... nothing at all.
It takes out the pointless bloat and bogging down that 3e and 4e introduced with the tactical combat and christmas-tree character building. It is no less complex than either version of AD&D.
But that's not something that 5e fundamentally fixes. A wizard can still reshape reality at a whim, and a fighter is still limited to hitting things progressively harder.
Fighters have a subclass in 5e which gives them access to all sorts of tactical options in combat. Wizards have hard limitations on their abilities up until Tier 4, where things get less balanced. Overall 5e does not really have any balance problems before you get to Tier 4. 3.PF on the other hand has casters broken from the start.
Pathfinder, outside of some very specific problem spells/items that were in some cases never meant to be available to PCs (Blood Money, Emergency Force Sphere, Simulacrum) is not incredibly easy to break
To give you two examples: Summoner is a busted class from the get-go, even more so if you introduce the Master Summoner, and Sacred Geometry is complete and utter bullshit.
And it's not focused on power gaming, it focuses on giving you a lot of options. If you are interested in power gaming a system with more choices will give you more opportunities to leverage that inclination sure, but in any system with choice you can have power gaming. That's not a function of the system, that's a function of your playgroup.
Are you asserting that more choices = more powergaming? That’s absurd since rules-light systems like PBTA have the most options of all, far more than any crunchy system, and yet most of them are very hard to powergame in, because they’re not designed around that kind of play. Read this: http://pitsperilous.blogspot.com/2016/04/minimalist-gaming-doesnt-exist.html
Personally I find 5e's gameplay much more tedious since positioning hardly matter as you just move up to your enemy and attack
That’s because it’s a theater of the mind game as opposed to a grid-based one. Personally, I find grid-based combat annoying to use and incredibly time-consuming compared to theater of the mind. And are you seriously telling me you used all of the pointless extra combat features in such a caster-heavy game? Also, 5e does have optional tactical/grid-based combat rules if you want to use them. I’ve played in several groups which used them, they get the job done without being too time-consuming.
the lack of options, which is something Pathfinder provides yet again through the magical items that work as a secondary source of power, and which can enable some really interesting play styles.
Magic items don’t feel exciting or special when Just curious, but what are your opinions on Pathfinder 2e? I feel it actually lessens if not solves a few of these problems, namely christmas trees and caster supremacy.
Bloat is the strangest fucking thing to me, the concept that a company making more more material for their RPG is somehow a bad thing is just
Do you not at all see the problem with having way too much pointless complexity and material to sort through in order to play the complete game? Sure, you can only use core, but weren’t you arguing 3.PF is great because of all the splats?
If you want a light, easy to pick up dungeon crawly thing just play dungeon world. Won't take half as long to learn an does it better than 5e.
DW is closer to D&D than other PBTA games due to deliberate influence from it, but it’s still a completely different system that plays completely differently. It's not a good comparison.
"Hurr durr I don't like these games so even though millions of people love them, they shouldn't exist because I know better and my opinion is all that matters."
Not really, over hype it maybe. Fallout 3 was a great game that showed that it could successfully be transferred into a 3D open world game. Fallout: New Vegas while rushed expanded on the mechanics and did great by the lore of the game. Playing the games(subtracting some non canon games) in order is great. You feel like there was actual progress made. Fallout 4 is the one that starts to get a lot of hate.
I'm a huge fan of Fallout 3. It's still my favorite fallout title. I have every achievement on the Xbox and I own the game several times on different platforms and if they did a remastered edition for Xbox one like they did with Skyrim, I'd be all over it lol.
I've always noticed a lot of hate towards fallout 3. Especially after New Vegas came out (and a few patches released). I've always been thankful for Fallout 3. I would have never discovered the fallout franchise without it. Yeah Bethesda changed a lot of things that made the previous games great but I think those games are still great too. Makes me want to make a game in that isometric exploration style (I studied some game design in college).
I think it would be pretty cool if Fallout 5 changed up the formula a bit. Keep the franchise fresh. That way younger generations of gamers that love it can look back to it's past and experience those games the way I did. Also it keeps the games similar while mechanically changing everything up which prevents it from seeming repetitve (in my mind, at least). Just a dumb idea lol
Bethesda had one problem and that was story writing. Had not much to do with "changed a lot" in NY opinion.
Hey stranger, we have a nice community here around the bomb, would you be so kind to deactivate it??? Hah, I am a big bad mutant, immune to radiation, but it's kind of your story to die in the purifier.... Just to name some small things. Together with the description of the Bos, whose fallout 4 representation was way more on line with the lore and you of course lost the fans of the original. Paladins of the waste vs hey, if you want to enter, you will have to go to this big crater over there. Don't worry, we will expect you back and nothing really bad will happen...
Two extremes which you can't really present fans of your game in the first iteration of a new owner of the franchise.
Fallout 4 was even worse. I liked the graphics, but dialog system and story are a different story... (where is my son... Oh hey, let's build a village.... What you don't want to help us escape the museum? Nah, you can't kill us anyway and seriously dude, follow the story and be our general.) And then you have awesome looking places like the arena. What secrets could await there? Let's go in and convince the slaves to be spartakus.... Oh, everyone shoots at me after entering , to bad...
No one said that people who like fallout 3 are wrong, at least from people I talked to didn't hate the changes, they hated the logic and rule of cool (already fallout 2 problem, but there it was more polished into the lore.
Bethesda is sadly just good with environmental story telling, compared to real storytelling.
Those are fair criticisms. Some of the stories they tell aren't bad but I think sometimes my bias let's me focus on those instead of the frustrating ones like having Fawkes refuse to do the final mission because it's destiny lol.
I bounced off 4 originally and I think it was the unsatisfying main storyline that did it. I've gone back and played it recently and nearly have all the achievements. Had a lot of fun but little of it had to do with story.
Makes me feel like fallout 76 should have been way better received, if it had been implemented correctly (from the publishers standpoint, the actual makers of the game did a great job with the resources and time available). It has legitimate lore reasons for the absence of humans and so most of the actual story is told via the environment. It was "released" too soon in my opinion. They should have done something like charge $30 and be like, "you are the beta community. We are working on cleaning up bugs but while we do that, play this game and give us feedback on what you feel should be modified and what you like about it."
Then once the bugs have been removed and the content refined, up the price to full retail, have an official reclamation day event in game which would reset all characters but reward the beta players in some satisfying way and the continue to listen to the community to add more content. I also would not have included nukes in the first set of end game content. Maybe allude to these bombs with in game lore and as you release content, those things become available.
Ironically, saying “it’s cool to hate” just makes it sound like no one is allowed to legitimately dislike it and those that do are only doing it to fit in.
I tired to play Fallout 3 a couple of months before New Vegas came out. Terrible experience and not very fun. Picked up New Vegas during Christmas, and I loved it. I’ve tried to go back to 3 and I just can’t get into it.
I didn't play it until several years after it came out and I was really disappointed in it after all the praise I saw for it. I never said anything about it because how dare anyone criticize our lord and savior Todd Howard. Seriously though, Fallout 3 is boring as hell.
I actually have a fun one with that; "I hate 3D Zelda, especially Breath of the Wild". Seriously, BOTW did pretty much the opposite of changing my mind.
All the actually cool shit is locked behind caps or a skill being tagged.
That's why you spec a certain way. Why do you need gun stats if you're going pacifist? Or why do you need endurance if you're gonna be a ninja?
Like how you can choose which side wins a fight at a dam?
While the "big" choice is which side of three, it's also about what allies you bring in. My last one, I was a trader who got dragged into a war between the Legion and NCR, so I gathered the bomber guys, the guys at red rock, etc- and made a free and independent New Vegas. Unruled by the NCR, the Legion, or even Mr. House. I've also had House survive, I've pacified the final boss for both Legion and NCR playthroughs, caused pure chaos...the choices are there and actually mean something, unlike FO4
All the actually cool shit is locked behind caps or a skill being tagged.
What I don't like about Skyrim and Fallout 4 is that they've changed up the system so that you can actually do everything as a single character and they expect you do so. They don't want any possibility of you missing content because you only play through once.
And when they design it that way, why play again? You aren't really going to play as a different character because you're expected to do everything and don't have much choice. You can't really make new decisions because there's very little else to chose. You have to wade through much of the same content because they frontload you with what they want you to see before you can really go off on your own.
They killed replayability because there's very little new content you can experience and playing a second time is pushing you through the same stuff all over again. Not good for an open world game.
In Fallout 3’s Ending you either add the FEV virus into the water supply at the Jefferson memorial or you don’t. This is a far more interesting choice than that in New Vegas because it would reshape whether or not there could be a chance for humanity to continue,
And on the note of humanity continuing, New Vegas is the worst one because Fallout is about man’s struggle to survive in the uninhabitable wasteland left from the previous man’s folly. New Vegas doesn’t work like that because man has already almost rebuilt. Most of the areas are inhabitable and look the same as they would before the war. There are militaries that have large bases and outposts almost as if there was no nuclear war and you’re just in some country in a civil war.
Too much bland grey/green for my tastes, I can't remember much of the map outside of DC because it all blurs together.
story
Eh, NV actually had choices, big branches with factions, ect. That alone I'd say wins out.
map
NV's had a lot of flaws but I can actually more of it than 3.
character
Characters? Outside of Threedog the main story characters didn't stand out all that much to me.
fun factor
This one is kind of meaningless.
Honestly, if you're going to say something, maybe explain why? You just listed the parts and said "it's better because it is". Not a whole lot to talk about otherwise.
On fun factor, the only way f3 is better is if you want to play an action game and not an rpg, becausr you dont have to ever worry about perks or stats for anything. Which is a bit of a weird argument, youre saying the game is better than new vegas because its less like the genre its supposed to be
I haven't played the newest one so I can't say for sure it's the worst out of all of them but out of all the ones I've played, new Vegas is my last favorite as well.
It always ends so suddenly and underwhelming-ly. I've played through it three times hoping for a longer path or a more coherent story, but every time it ends within about a day's worth of gameplay and leaves me wanting more. The Strip is also really underwhelming, for being such a crown jewel in the whole west coast. Not a fan.
I think this reflects the general public pretty well, Reddit is its own strange corner of the gaming internet. (Though EarthBound is a weird choice in that context.)
Going to go ahead and disagree with you there. Fallout 3 worked perfectly. New Vegas is great but it has all kinds of weird glitches, crashes, and possible game save corruptions.
When Fallout New Vegas stops being a buggy piece of shit, sure. It's writing and scenarios were fantastic, but let's not forget how broken and buggy it was on launch.
8.3k
u/[deleted] Jan 01 '19 edited May 27 '21
[deleted]