Fallout 3 is overbashed here

[Akratus]

You're mom's vagina is overbashed

 

[taxalot]

Fallout 3 has bad writing.

 

[Gnidrologist]

Then prove it. :euphoric:

 

[typical user]

Fallout 3 is bad.

 

[Eirinjas]

I enjoyed Fallout 3, for what it was, but I couldn't bring myself to finish the DLC or explore the entire world map. In fact, I went the whole game without ever finding Dogmeat. I got sick of quest NPCs dying on me - I'd return to complete a mission and find some Deathclaw or whatnot killed the person I needed to talk to. The leveling system was shit. Fawkes was basically indestructible, so just having him with you made the game way easier than it needed to be.

Example of some of it's shit writing:

 

[Drakortha]

It at least had a better post-apocalyptic setting than Boston in Fallout 4. Fallout 4 just feels like 20 years after a zombie outbreak or something.

 

[CrawlingDead]

I actually liked Fallout 3, and I do enjoy Fallout 4. However, the fan-base doesn't allow me to make critical assessments of the game, so I post here.

 

[Akratus]

I actually liked Fallout 3, and I do enjoy Fallout 4. However, the fan-base doesn't allow me to make critical assessments of the game, so I post here.

:D :D :D :D :D : D

 

[typical user]

I actually liked Fallout 3, and I do enjoy Fallout 4.

I know people have opinions and stuff but you set the bar really really low. Boring game with annoying combat and stupid quests designed for kindergarden. That's the best description I can give to this game.

However, the fan-base doesn't allow me to make critical assessments of the game, so I post here.

Bethesda fanbase does not accept constructive criticism and has dissonance when someone points out their games are shit? What a surprise really. Eheh, no, actually not.

 

[Metro]

Fallout 4 has more redeeming value than 3 because the combat is fluid and varied. 3's combat is clunky with stilted animations. Both games have awful writing with derpy quests but at least in 4 you can ignore it and treat it as a first person Diablo.

 

[pippin]

Fallout 4 has more redeeming value than 3 because the combat is fluid and varied. 3's combat is clunky with stilted animations. Both games have awful writing with derpy quests but at least in 4 you can ignore it and treat it as a first person Diablo.

So it's more of a Borderlands 3 than a FO game then?

 

[CrawlingDead]

I actually liked Fallout 3, and I do enjoy Fallout 4.

I know people have opinions and stuff but you set the bar really really low. Boring game with annoying combat and stupid quests designed for kindergarden. That's the best description I can give to this game.

I don't think it's a bad game, just not what I would consider to be an overall great RPG. To be honest, I don't think any of Bethesda's titles have been really great RPGs in general -- just their own style of open-world, sandbox, hiking-simulator with all kinds of bugs and glitches.

Btw, my bar is set by the original Fallouts and Arcanum, not Fallout 4. I would probably throw a little Wizardry 8 in there.

 

[CrawlingDead]

Fallout 4 has more redeeming value than 3 because the combat is fluid and varied. 3's combat is clunky with stilted animations. Both games have awful writing with derpy quests but at least in 4 you can ignore it and treat it as a first person Diablo.

So it's more of a Borderlands 3 than a FO game then?

It's a classic Bethesda title -- shallow quests, even shallower characters, strong-focus on combat and dungeon exploration, open-world, bugs.

 

[Jaesun]

Joined... oh fuck it...

 

[Metro]

Fallout 4 has more redeeming value than 3 because the combat is fluid and varied. 3's combat is clunky with stilted animations. Both games have awful writing with derpy quests but at least in 4 you can ignore it and treat it as a first person Diablo.

So it's more of a Borderlands 3 than a FO game then?

Yep. I've made that comparison many times on the 'Dex. It's Borderlands 3 with less gun variation but more exploration. And really... that's fine. No one expects a proper RPG from Bethesda so they might as well go the Borderlands route.

 

[JarlFrank]

Anyone who claims Fallout 3 is overbashed here should be bashed more because he's clearly underbashed.

 

[Somberlain]

But getting bashed in the head too many times may make you like Fallout 3.

 

[SquidLord]

Fallout 4 has more redeeming value than 3 because the combat is fluid and varied. 3's combat is clunky with stilted animations. Both games have awful writing with derpy quests but at least in 4 you can ignore it and treat it as a first person Diablo.

So it's more of a Borderlands 3 than a FO game then?

Not really because a huge part of what Borderlands is is a coop game. Take out coop and borderlands is an average loot collection shooter with rpg elements not awful not great. Add a few friends and it's a blast. All the Diablos are the same way really they aren't meant to be single player. Diablo is a vary good multiplayer action rpg but a shitty single player rpg.

 

[Crispy]

HHR was a master troll.

Actually, no, he wasn't. Take a stroll on over to RPG Watch and you'll see that p. much everything he posted here he meant. There, his style is identical and consistent. He's much more accepted within their walls than ours.

Hard to believe, I know, but HHR was legit.

 

[Jacob]

Dunno, but fo4's guns feels better and looks better than borderlands'

Fuck signature

 

[Metro]

Fallout 4 has more redeeming value than 3 because the combat is fluid and varied. 3's combat is clunky with stilted animations. Both games have awful writing with derpy quests but at least in 4 you can ignore it and treat it as a first person Diablo.

So it's more of a Borderlands 3 than a FO game then?

Not really because a huge part of what Borderlands is is a coop game. Take out coop and borderlands is an average loot collection shooter with rpg elements not awful not great. Add a few friends and it's a blast. All the Diablos are the same way really they aren't meant to be single player. Diablo is a vary good multiplayer action rpg but a shitty single player rpg.

I've played Borderplands multiplayer. It's more tedious than anything else.

 

[SquidLord]

Fallout 4 has more redeeming value than 3 because the combat is fluid and varied. 3's combat is clunky with stilted animations. Both games have awful writing with derpy quests but at least in 4 you can ignore it and treat it as a first person Diablo.

So it's more of a Borderlands 3 than a FO game then?

Not really because a huge part of what Borderlands is is a coop game. Take out coop and borderlands is an average loot collection shooter with rpg elements not awful not great. Add a few friends and it's a blast. All the Diablos are the same way really they aren't meant to be single player. Diablo is a vary good multiplayer action rpg but a shitty single player rpg.

I've played Borderplands multiplayer. It's more tedious than anything else.

But in that case you're wrong and your friends suck, Fallout 4 doesn't have that excuse it just sucks and if people like it they are mentally deficient.

 

[pippin]

"It's fun with friends" is probably the laziest excuse to defend a game or any kind of entertainment. Everything's fun with friends because you're hanging out with your friends, and that's it. It has nothing to do with a game being good or not.

 

[xkilljoy98]

I agree that it is over bashed by fans of the older games to say the least.

Someone on NMA even compared bethesda to nazis.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

 

[xkilljoy98]

But in that case you're wrong and your friends suck, Fallout 4 doesn't have that excuse it just sucks and if people like it they are mentally deficient.

So people with other opinions are wrong?

Yep, sure does makes sense /s


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk