Fallout 3 is overbashed here

[tuluse]

Mega64 is a webshow. It's performance art.

Looks just like a bunch of retards to me, no matter how they call it what they do there.

That's kind of the point. They act like retards and record people's reactions. Hilarity ensues.

 

[Whisky]

Truly the work of sophisticated minds!

 

[tuluse]

Did any one call them sophisticated? I mean they started doing this when they were in their teens.

 

[Ermm]

Mega64 is a webshow. It's performance art.

Ooh, now it's an art?

But, as I am easily amused by antics of dumb retards, this show is my guilty pleasure.

 

[Black Shogun]

I don't think we could ever possibly bash Fallout 3 enough, given how sickeningly positive the mainstream opinion of it is.

 

[Makabb]

Fallout 3 is pure genius when it comes to understanding its position in the world and thinking forward. You have to remember that this was before every franchise on Earth was trying to make the change to open-world, and “waypoint hopping” wasn’t the standard means of progression through an RPG. Oblivion, Baldur’s Gate, and Mass Effect had laid the groundwork, but I’ll always be of the mind that Fallout 3 was the first, and maybe the only game ever to get such a massive world so perfect.

 

[laclongquan]

"Perfect" is not an adjective you can use with anything from Bethesda. "Flawed Gem" and "Unfulfilled Promise" are about most positive things you can say.

 

[Genma:TheDestroyer]

*Boom* Here I come to save the day!


His statement is from here;

http://www.technobuffalo.com/2015/10/17/fallout-4-screenshots/



Don't fall for it you plebes.

 

[upwardlymobile]

anyway fo3 is probably the most under-bashed game relative to its sales * actual shittiness in video game history.

 

[Shin]

Fallout 3 was Oblivion with guns, 'nuff said.

 

[pippin]

The only good things about 3 were Point Lookout and The Pitt.

 

[Kefka1134]

The issue with F3 is that it is just not nearly as good as F1 or F2. It has the same trappings (open world, action, post-apocalypse) but in practice it is very dumbed down. Most of the time you aren't really even engaging that world, just sifting through the world map and tagging quests with markers and then auto-piloting to markers, etc. VATS of course is the cherry on top of that cake.

Since Oblivion popped up though I will go and say that that is not an example of being nearly as dumbed down compared to for example Morrowind. As much as Oblivion tended to simplify things it also preserved a good deal of Elder Scrolls intrigue and as such it is clearly possible to make sequels that more clearly encapsulate the excitement of their predecessors. Not all watered down experiences are created alike and F3 falls pretty far on the low end.

For example in Morrowind you had different classes, thief, warrior, mage, and so on, which was of course fun but Oblivion had kind of tiny things like crafting your own spells which for whatever reason hasn't been done in many other games if any I can really think of right this second.

Fallout 3 took away a lot, like iconic but also strategically interesting weapons like the Bozar or the sun laser pistol (or even failing to include something interesting or exciting like the laser gatling from Fallout Tactics). There weren't really any additions to compensate, the highpoint might of been letting you have the giant mech at the end of the game as like a pet for awhile or something but instead it was just this tiny flash that faded away.

 

[Kefka1134]

I'd also add the best parts of F3 were the ones that simply adhered closely to the formula established in F2 and F1, for example fighting random encampments of raiders and finding stashes of weapons and related possibilities that kept you kind of aware of the environment without really overwritting it and so on and so forth.

I only have a couple posts here so I couldn't tell you for certain it is "overbashed" but I believe if you compare it to the experiences of F1 and F2, it can be quite jarring.

One thing I will say though in finality is it does feel like there is a tendency to focus exclusively on these things and not merely the product itself and it's creation. Creating anything, whether it be a game or otherwise, is a demanding thing, and simply making anything at all that provides some level of enjoyment is a worthy thing. If F3 were released simply as some kind of mod it would be heralded for it's depth and stuff like that by comparison to a typical mod, it isn't really fair to apply different standards to something just because it comes from a big company vs coming from some person messing around on an engine in their free time.

 

[Shin]

it isn't really fair to apply different standards to something just because it comes from a big company vs coming from some person messing around on an engine in their free time.

 

[pippin]

Ironically, Fallout was born as a side project from a person (Tim Cain) messing around in his free time. And it's only reasonable to expect some degree of quality in the work of a company which has all kinds of resources at hand to make a good product. But Fallout 3 fails to compare as a Fallout game compared to 1 and 2.

 

[Kefka1134]

I just meant that the game itself was a product of a really dedicated modder, it would probably be considered a solid effort.

It doesn't really matter though, I probably would of just left the comment out in retrospect. The point is objectively yeah F3 isn't really overbashed in many ways it's not the same kind of experience offered by F1 or 2, or even Fallout Tactics to be honest that game was a lot of fun but I don't know many people who have heard of it really let alone played it.

Except for that insane defend against the ghouls mission where you had to save every single person in order to get the perfect clear.... that was.... yeah.

 

[rado907]

Fallout 3 was Oblivion with guns, 'nuff said.

Nah, that's the problem - F3 wasn't Oblivion with guns. An Oblivion with guns would have been a better game. The difference is that Oblivion had cities with quests, and at least three possible builds (melee, ranged, magic). All F3 had was boring wildernesss. AFAIR you could level both a melee and a ranged weapon - so there was one build and that was that.

Oblivion was a hiking sim that at least tried to be an RPG. F3 was just a hiking sim with bad graphics.

 

[pippin]

Nah, that's the problem - F3 wasn't Oblivion with guns. An Oblivion with guns would have been a better game. The difference is that Oblivion had cities with quests, and at least three possible builds (melee, ranged, magic). All F3 had was boring wildernesss. AFAIR you could level both a melee and a ranged weapon - so there was one build and that was that.

Oblivion was a hiking sim that at least tried to be an RPG. F3 was just a hiking sim with bad graphics.

I agree. Oddly enough Oblivion had more content (more noticeable content, at least) than 3.
Fallout 3 introduced the new wave of Bethesda's character design, more based in some sort of Mary Sue experience for the player than an actual rpg experience. At least Oblivion had some nuances of stats and bullshit like that. Fallout 3 was an action game, period.

 

[Jools]

I was gonna reply this:

it's a game well worth playing.

No. It just isn't. It's horrible.

But then I read this, further down:

Even though Oblivion is an awkward and shaky game, I can't help but to be quite captivated by it, if only because due to its stereotypical high fantasy world, it is the closest to what I imagined a Lonewolf game would play like as I was reading them when I was just a little boy, alone in a fantasy world, and moving around trying to figure out what's going on, and never knowing what kind of dangerous situation or shady character you're going to come across next. It's why I completed every single quest in it. It's a shame that the Lonewolf game that was in development was canned.

You need help, bro. Professionally trained help.

 

[Makabb]

Who said Fallout 3 looks like crap?

 

[Absinthe]

I just meant that the game itself was a product of a really dedicated modder, it would probably be considered a solid effort.

I'm pretty sure most of us don't give a rat's ass if it's "good for AAA", "good for a mid-tier studio," "good for an indie", or "good for a modder." What matters is if it's actually good, as in "worth playing." You don't get a pass for whatever your crew and budget was. If you fuck up, you're still a fuck-up, no matter your excuses.

 

[Makabb]

I just meant that the game itself was a product of a really dedicated modder, it would probably be considered a solid effort.

I'm pretty sure most of us don't give a rat's ass if it's "good for AAA", "good for a mid-tier studio," "good for an indie", or "good for a modder." What matters is if it's actually good, as in "worth playing." You don't get a pass for whatever your crew and budget was. If you fuck up, you're still a fuck-up, no matter your excuses.

If this was done by one modder no one would complain probably.

 

[Atlantico]

Fallout 3... ugh... only is overbashed if the only comparison is Fallout 4.

 

[Innsmouth Dweller]

There's no such thing as overbashing. Especially in case of Fo3.

Where Fallout 3 truly shines is in its sheer creativity and originality.

What creativity? What originality?

 

[Curious_Tongue]

There's no such thing as overbashing. Especially in case of Fo3.

Where Fallout 3 truly shines is in its sheer creativity and originality.

What creativity? What originality?

HHR was a master troll.