FO3 is not nearly as bad as you hystronic nerds make it out to be

[Beastro]

Breaks the flow of combat and is essentially a popmole feature for people who suck at shooters.

I don't see it in Bethesda (or rather, Todd) to even think deeply enough to make it something like that.

IMO, it was first and foremost a cool fun adaption of VATS from the originals, especially to show off the gibs physics in slow mo that otherwise might not be easily seen and appreciated. From that then came the trouble of fixing the player in one spot which made them a target, which then resulted in the invincibility being put in to see the cool funness from being ruined.

That players would then use it as a crutch I think wasn't considered before hand and prolly dismissed once it arose afterwards as the matter became too complex for something that was just meant to be enjoyable.

The same issue comes up in Skyrim with the shouts and how you get one of the most useful and broken ones right off the bat with Unrelenting Force. It's too cool to allow it to be buried deeper in the game (especially where reviewers will never have time to find it) even if it disables enemies too easily and can allow one shots if you knock them off of high ground.

They needed it in early to be the "Whoa, this is awesome!!!" thing which is why it's not just the first shout you learn, but tied to the main quest so you can't really avoid it unless you forego the MQ almost entirely.

 

[DavidBVal]

But I think it’s time Fallout fans grow up and admit that FO3 could have been way worse.

That's easy to say...now. We didn't know what was coming.

 

[Sigourn]

If there's anything I'm annoyed at it's when the juvenile way this forum often operates under detract from a good discussion. In this case it's those which dislike the Bethesda haters doing their own round of smacktalk that misses the matter. That isn't me saying that's exactly what you may be doing here by and large, Sig, but comments like that show you're not just wanting to debate matter.

There's no need to debate anything.
Maybe ThatsRightImInIt wanted to debate about Fallout 3, but JackOfOwls moved the discussion away into something that can't be argued against, because it is a fact: that Fallout 3 is "Fallout 3" in name only (because what else would have Bethesda called it otherwise?) and thus it makes no sense to rate it based on the standards set by the previous games, unless you admit you are doing that purely because you want to do it (since the game never tried to be like those games). Then you have FeelTheRads barge in with the same retarded and uncalled for comments of "hurr durr you like shitty games and are butthurt at people disliking the game", which JackOfowls never said or implied, because otherwise he would have to concede he is an autistic butthurt retard who is still crying over something that happened over a decade ago.

Like I said: what is up for debate? That some people like Fallout 3 and others don't? That what you claim are absolutely negatives and positives are seen as the exact opposite by other people? To me these threads are an excuse to circlejerk over the opinion that Fallout 3 bad classic Fallout good.

 

[Maggot]

"fun" is not an argument, it's a feeling

 

[Deleted Member 16721]

Fun is all that matters. If you enjoy playing Fallout 3 good for you. If you don't, play something else. The end goal is to have fun, even if your version of that is shitposting about how terrible Fallout 3 is in an online forum.

 

[Quillon]

but JackOfOwls moved the discussion away into something that can't be argued against, because it is a fact: that Fallout 3 is "Fallout 3" in name only (because what else would have Bethesda called it otherwise?) and thus it makes no sense to rate it based on the standards set by the previous games, unless you admit you are doing that purely because you want to do it (since the game never tried to be like those games).

Are you retadred? What can't be argued against when people already pointed out that Fallout 3 is a sequel instead of a reboot. <this can't be argued against, because it is a fact Bethesda rebooted Doom and called it Doom, not Doom 5 or whatever.

 

[Tigranes]

Why is it so hard to believe that you can play Fallout 3 and not have fun, find it very unfun?

Who knows?

 

[Beastro]

Why is it so hard to believe that you can play Fallout 3 and not have fun, find it very unfun?

It's not just that but what degree you're having fun and maybe feeling that you want something more substantial.

There have been a lot of games I felt were almost the perfect fit for what I wanted, the only trouble was something was missing and I knew that missing bit was never going to be filled. Many a 4X game was that due to how bad their AIs were. In the case of Fallout 3 there's a lot more that's off, but the step down in world building from the previous games was a major one and is what NV largely fixed even if it remained hobbled by the issues with the engine and such.

 

[Makabb]

There's only fallout 1 and 2

 

[Beastro]

There's only fallout 1 and 2

And FONV is their prophet~

 

[undecaf]

If you don't, play something else.

Story of my life circa 2009.

 

[Bohrain]

I actually thought about playing the game again with the DLC's couple of years ago, since I heard that some of them were far better than the actual game.
But the game just tries it's best to make second playthroughs as miserable as possible. First of all there is the lengthy and unskippable intro. Then there is the fact aside from your combat style your build doesn't really afffect much about what you do. And since there are no major mutually exclusive choices such as choosing a faction, the content is mostly the same.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

And I've got to hand it to Fallout 3 fans: at least they use "fun" as an argument. New Vegas autists, including myself, are too concerned with muh worldbuilding to even pay attention to the fact these are videogames. If it's not fun, it's shit. New Vegas has a shit videogame world, something you can't mod out of the game.

It may be an argument but it's a pointless once since it amounts to "It's good because I like it". You consider whatever you like about the game to be part of the fun, whether you're a stock photo of a gamer jumping in joy because he scored a headshot in a PvE game or a scholar perusing obscure dialogue trees with a expression.

 

[barghwata]

It is easy to see FO3 as absolute garbage when comparing it to the previous fallout games and new vegas, but if you were to go into it blind with no knowledge of what fallout even is; i am sure it would just seem like an average rpg.

 

[boobio]

This guy is a fan of Fo3; give him a like if you agree.

 

[Sykar]

This guy is a fan of Fo3; give him a like if you agree.

Garbage video. This is much more accurate:

 

[Darth Canoli]

These videos clearly show that anyone making videos about fallout 3 should be locked up.

 

[plasticsoda]

Everytime I think about Fallout 3, I picture Liam Neeson standing in a voice recording studio, looking bored as fuck, recording his lines with the enthusiasm of a cancer patient in his deathbed and then getting his paycheck on the way out.

 

[Sigourn]

This guy is a fan of Fo3; give him a like if you agree.

Garbage video. This is much more accurate:

By accurate I take it to mean inaccurate and biased. Truth is all these "this game is better than I remember" and "this game is actually shit" video analysis are always biased, e.g. no wonder people will explode into bits if you choose the fucking Bloody Mess Perk, for instance, which will also happen in New Vegas.

 

[Sykar]

FO 3 is pretty gory even without Bloody Mess. It is only a minor criticism any way. The video also makes plenty of objective points as to why FO 3 is utter garbage.

 

[Sigourn]

FO 3 is pretty gory even without Bloody Mess. It is only a minor criticism any way. The video also makes plenty of objective points as to why FO 3 is utter garbage.

The video's closing argument is literally "they thought well modeled gory bits was more important than a good RPG", as if the same person was in charge of both things (or if "good RPG" was some objective metric). Nowadays I find anyone who thinks New Vegas to be a genuinely great RPG to be a colosall grade A retard. Vanilla New Vegas is unplayable because of easy it is, how badly it plays, and how that eventually makes any possible choices you can make completely pointless because the base game simply sucks. I've never played more than an hour of Fallout: New Vegas because of bad it was. All I've ever played was my idea of what Fallout: New Vegas should have been, and mods shouldn't be used as a metric to judge a game's worth.

Fallout and Fallout 2 were enjoyable with bug fixes and nothing else. New Vegas isn't. Saying Fallout 3 is garbage and then praising New Vegas is grounds for ignoring.

 

[Duralux for Durabux]

FO 3 is pretty gory even without Bloody Mess. It is only a minor criticism any way. The video also makes plenty of objective points as to why FO 3 is utter garbage.

Not only that, Fallout 3 was released in 2008. 1 year before, Stalker Shadow of Chernobyl was released, if we compare the two games, the difference in quality between the two is massive. Why Fallout 3 was well-known to the public instead of Stalker? Because of the massive advertising campaign and the brainless "games journalist " (IGN and others).
1 Minute is enough to understand that Fallout 3 is a bad FPS game(just by comparison to other games in the same period) .
New vegas is different, at least the game is very interesting story-wise and doesn't rely on the worst part of the game (the combat) instead of Turdout 3.

 

[Sykar]

FO 3 is pretty gory even without Bloody Mess. It is only a minor criticism any way. The video also makes plenty of objective points as to why FO 3 is utter garbage.

The video's closing argument is literally "they thought well modeled gory bits was more important than a good RPG", as if the same person was in charge of both things (or if "good RPG" was some objective metric). Nowadays I find anyone who thinks New Vegas to be a genuinely great RPG to be a colosall grade A retard. Vanilla New Vegas is unplayable because of easy it is, how badly it plays, and how that eventually makes any possible choices you can make completely pointless because the base game simply sucks. I've never played more than an hour of Fallout: New Vegas because of bad it was. All I've ever played was my idea of what Fallout: New Vegas should have been, and mods shouldn't be used as a metric to judge a game's worth.

Fallout and Fallout 2 were enjoyable with bug fixes and nothing else. New Vegas isn't. Saying Fallout 3 is garbage and then praising New Vegas is grounds for ignoring.

Fallout NV was rushed as fuck. FO 3 was a buggy mess too, like ALL Bethshit games, which was piss easy in vanilla as well. Unlike NV though, it was first grade retard writing, characterization, close to 0 actual C&C, no aiming, cheat VATS system, etc.. New Vegas is miles better than FO 3 and only colossal grade A retards think otherwise. Forget RPG FO 3 is not even a good game by any decent standard.

 

[luj1]

NV isn't good. FO3 is beneath consideration. Tactics is better than both.

 

[Sigourn]

Fallout NV was rushed as fuck. FO 3 was a buggy mess too, like ALL Bethshit games, which was piss easy in vanilla as well. Unlike NV though, it was first grade retard writing, characterization, close to 0 actual C&C, no aiming, cheat VATS system, etc.. New Vegas is miles better than FO 3 and only colossal grade A retards think otherwise.

A game is meant to be fun, and Bethesda's games (Morrowind, Oblivion, Fallout 3, SKYRIM, FALLOUT 4) have sold like hotcakes. I put Skyrim and Fallout 4 in big bold letters because it is very true that a game selling well doesn't mean it is good. But if the game was that bad (as you claim) then why did people not only buy Skyrim en masse, but also Fallout 4?

Just accept your idea of a "good game" is not everyone's idea of a "good game". That way you won't look like an absolute retard who thinks his opinion equals fact when it clearly doesn't.

New Vegas is miles better

It's still a bad game though. If you are trying to look like a hardcore RPGer, at least own up to the fact you like shit RPGs. Or, like I said earlier, accept the game people have different tastes, and that doesn't mean a game is objectively better than another, only that it is better on your own, subjective scale. What, you expect me to believe people lie when they say they enjoy Fallout 3 much more than Fallout or Fallout: New Vegas?