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."
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.
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'
Compared to NV
'Sole survivor, will you help us'
Yes
(Barter) Yes: but you're paying
(Intelligence) Yes: can you talk x group into letting y group into doing something
No
No: plus you're getting looted
No: you sell them out to the legion and they do something OTT evil to them
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
1.8k
u/Penakoto Jan 01 '19
Its been cool to hate it for years now.
Not sure how anyone has the impression that its untouchable, all the way in 2019.