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

[Falksi]

First time through FO3 I really enjoyed myself. For all it's flaws, it had some interesting quests + areas, and the VATS system was gimmick which just didn't get old, esp with bloody mess.

Second time through I realized just how shallow and lacking it was as an RPG. The depth is virtually none-existent, and I didn't feel like I could go off on a new tangent of adventure.

New Vegas wasn't better or worse for me, just different.

Think the hate for it is OTT, but then again you'll find me on other forums saying how overrated both games are too. They're just OK games, worth a go but shouldn't be classed as "classics" like they are with some.

 

[Hellraiser]

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

Tactics is only slightly less retarded than the bethesturd calling itself Fallout 3 in the writing department. Mind controlled deathclaws FFS. Also it gave toddster an excuse how BOS got on the east coast and probably the idea for the ending sacrifice choice, I wouldn't be surprised if toddster and his goons played through it on easy in realtime mode when "researching" the franchise for FO3. The game should be considered the direct prequel to the retardation of bethesturd Fallout 3.

If tactics did not have Fallout slapped onto it it would be lost and forgotten beneath better tactical games. There is literally nothing memorable about it except the setting it inherited from the first two games.

 

[MWaser]

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?

It is perfectly fair to claim a game was bad regardless of how well it did or what other people think about it, because everyone has their own set of measurements to determine a quality rating for a product. Your "bad" and my "bad" can be radically different. There's no objective measure for most aspects (you can only really objectively judge technical aspects like performance for when it comes to indisputably good things in video games, since even desired levels of considered-good things like balance can radically differ between observers).

For purchasing things en masse, what matters most is the mass appeal and marketing, most of all. Marketing, company/brand recognition always does a large part, and I can almost guarantee you that if a game like Skyrim was released with completely identical gameplay and writing but with only altered trademarks™, by a different company with no prior history, its long-term commercial success would also differ by large. Only spectacular failures of either product or external reasons for customer base alienation can nullify the good sales effects of marketing, and similarly mass appeal can widen to the point where it's unable to grasp interest from anyone.

What is quality, then? Does a game like Dwarf Fortress, for example, with way overcomplicated simulation mechanics and complex gameplay structure have less quality than widespread success of other games which feature random generation at large? It's impossible to tell, because even 'fun' which you mentioned as the important judging aspect is subjective in people, and just because more people find it fun, that doesn't mean it's better, but maybe just that it's simpler and majority of mainstream customers will prefer that to complexity (even if they verbally claim otherwise). Mechanics such as level scaling easily make a game more accessible and more enjoyable to the majority of playerbase that won't power-game or optimize builds, and if done reasonably (not like in Oblivion, where the level scaling is not just annoying due to its nonsense and flattening the character progression curve, but actually fucked up to the point where actual casual players will get the most fucked by it and it's counterproductive), it will lead to a game being more accessible, more casual, more fun, and sell better. That doesn't mean that it doesn't come with its share of drawbacks that can have arguments made for it for why it makes the game "worse".

Key point being, to me, for instance, a bigger insult for a game than it being just "bad" is a game being soulless, and feeling like it was made with the intention to capitalize on marketing sales trends or rip-off more popular products and their aspects, where there was no solid concept for it aside from just having it be as the intention of being a product, which, understandably, is how mainstream AAA vidya companies have to operate.

 

[Sigourn]

Bro this is RPG Codex. Do you really need someone to explain to you how bad most people's taste is?

"Bad taste" doesn't exist. They could accuse you of having bad taste as well and they would be just as right to do it, with the bonus that they wouldn't do it under the pretense of being high RPG connoisseurs by which their opinion MUST be the right one.

FO NV is an unpolished buggy mess but it has enough redeemable parts that it is fixable by mods that it can become a decent to good experience.

Many people disagree.

Nothing saves the atrocious horse shite that is FO 3 or 4.

Many people disagree. In fact you will find that the reason Bethesda keeps making multiplatform RPGs is because, guess what, people playing on console with no access to mods still love their games. So you could say they don't even need saving.

My opinion is based on facts.

lmao

This is like a faggot saying women are objectively unattractive. Surprises me how someone can be so obtuse yet feel so in the right at the same time.

 

[Sigourn]

First time through FO3 I really enjoyed myself. For all it's flaws, it had some interesting quests + areas, and the VATS system was gimmick which just didn't get old, esp with bloody mess.

Second time through I realized just how shallow and lacking it was as an RPG. The depth is virtually none-existent, and I didn't feel like I could go off on a new tangent of adventure.

I share the same opinion. I really enjoyed it the first time, but the second time I couldn't muster the strength. Out of all Bethesda games I've played (MW, SK, FO3, FNV) it is the one I dropped the quickest on repeat playthroughs. I just don't find the game to be replayable from any perspective, as the quests are too few, the main quest is on rails for the most part, and the gameplay itself is simply boring. I remember "exploring" the wastes but feeling like I was in a literal ocean of rubble, with enemies randomly spawning around me. Just boring stuff all around. New Vegas on the other hand deals with exploration differently, i.e. you don't have to walk too much to find something, and roads are actual roads that take you from point A to point B.

 

[Volrath]

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.

You are a fucking retard.

 

[Sykar]

Bro this is RPG Codex. Do you really need someone to explain to you how bad most people's taste is?

"Bad taste" doesn't exist. They could accuse you of having bad taste as well and they would be just as right to do it, with the bonus that they wouldn't do it under the pretense of being high RPG connoisseurs by which their opinion MUST be the right one.

FO NV is an unpolished buggy mess but it has enough redeemable parts that it is fixable by mods that it can become a decent to good experience.

Many people disagree.

Nothing saves the atrocious horse shite that is FO 3 or 4.

Many people disagree. In fact you will find that the reason Bethesda keeps making multiplatform RPGs is because, guess what, people playing on console with no access to mods still love their games. So you could say they don't even need saving.

My opinion is based on facts.

lmao

This is like a faggot saying women are objectively unattractive. Surprises me how someone can be so obtuse yet feel so in the right at the same time.

And yet you cannot defend the game from any criticism apart from wishy washy "made me feel good first time I played it" and "many played it!". Says enough about what a colossal grade A retard you are.

 

[Sigourn]

For purchasing things en masse, what matters most is the mass appeal and marketing, most of all. Marketing, company/brand recognition always does a large part, and I can almost guarantee you that if a game like Skyrim was released with completely identical gameplay and writing but with only altered trademarks™, by a different company with no prior history, its long-term commercial success would also differ by large.

Of course. But Bethesda, at given points in its history, was:

1. The company who made Morrowind.
2. The company who made Oblivion.
3. The company that made Oblivion and Fallout 3.
4. The company that made Skyrim.

And they will also be remembered as the company that made Fallout 76, whose consequences we are yet to see in full. But the point is that people buy Bethesda's games because they like Bethesda's games or because they think their games look interesting.

Key point being, to me, for instance, a bigger insult for a game than it being just "bad" is a game being soulless, and feeling like it was made with the intention to capitalize on marketing sales trends or rip-off more popular products and their aspects, where there was no solid concept for it aside from just having it be as the intention of being a product, which, understandably, is how mainstream AAA vidya companies have to operate.

I disagree with games being soulless the way you phrase it, because it seems to imply a game that caters to a wide demographic can't be made with soul. And believe me, you don't make Skyrim if you don't have a soul. You make something like another FIFA, which is literally update your players, teams, and tweak a few mechanics here and there. Skyrim is a mainstream AAA labor of love. Ironically something like Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire feels like a soulless game, a game that was built up to specifications but without really understanding what the audience wanted.

 

[Sigourn]

And yet you cannot defend the game from any criticism apart from wishy washy "made me feel good first time I played it" and "many played it!". Says enough about what a colossal grade A retard you are.

For what purpose? You've already made clear that if you don't like a game then people who like it must have bad taste. Whatever I say about Fallout 3 (you should have asked me to six years ago, when I still liked it) is pointless. Like I said earlier, if a gay man tells you women are disgusting, who are you to refute him? He is gay, his words are true for him and that's ultimately what matters. Every claim of his will only prove your point that women are attractive (e.g. women are ugly because they have breasts and no penis). Likewise someone who loves Fallout 3 may tell you that the opening was fantastic and to you the opening sucked.

A game being fun makes it good. Its purpose is to be enjoyable. A mechanically perfect game can still be a boring game, and a mechanically imperfected, flawed game can still be loved by many (look no further than Morrowind, a game with so many gamebreaking issues it's not even funny). That's a fact of life, learn to live with it.

 

[d1r]

Fallout 3/4 expects the player to be the big badass as soon as he leaves the Vault, wielding the Fat Man / Minigun (Power Armor) on his right arm, while killing millions of Super Mutants from the get go. It's just pure world exploration, and killing without any big restrictions, nor consideration on how the player would play the game differently. Both games have an awfully bad story and writing, but kept the player going because of the novelty of VATS and the interesting world building (great exploration aspect) in Fallout 3, and the epic monster slaying and item hunting in Borderlands 4. A lot of people obviously like these kind of games, because they give you the power from the start on, making you become that one powerful deity, who destroys 500 super mutants with one swoop. It's just another form of escapism, and that's what most games are all about at the end. I think that a lot of people who actually prefer 3 over NV, are people, who have problems to accept, that a player character CAN BE WEAK, and that a player character CAN FAIL QUESTS from time to time. That his player character isn't this deity, who can manage every quest, who can wield any weapon, and so on...

 

[Sykar]

For purchasing things en masse, what matters most is the mass appeal and marketing, most of all. Marketing, company/brand recognition always does a large part, and I can almost guarantee you that if a game like Skyrim was released with completely identical gameplay and writing but with only altered trademarks™, by a different company with no prior history, its long-term commercial success would also differ by large.

Of course. But Bethesda, at given points in its history, was:

1. The company who made Morrowind.
2. The company who made Oblivion.
3. The company that made Oblivion and Fallout 3.
4. The company that made Skyrim.

And they will also be remembered as the company that made Fallout 76, whose consequences we are yet to see in full. But the point is that people buy Bethesda's games because they like Bethesda's games or because they think their games look interesting.

Key point being, to me, for instance, a bigger insult for a game than it being just "bad" is a game being soulless, and feeling like it was made with the intention to capitalize on marketing sales trends or rip-off more popular products and their aspects, where there was no solid concept for it aside from just having it be as the intention of being a product, which, understandably, is how mainstream AAA vidya companies have to operate.

I disagree with games being soulless the way you phrase it, because it seems to imply a game that caters to a wide demographic can't be made with soul. And believe me, you don't make Skyrim if you don't have a soul. You make something like another FIFA, which is literally update your players, teams, and tweak a few mechanics here and there. Skyrim is a mainstream AAA labor of love. Ironically something like Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire feels like a soulless game, a game that was built up to specifications but without really understanding what the audience wanted.

Morrowind was decent but a buggy mess with awful animations and a heap of problems. The only decent to good game you listed. No idea why you mentioned Obliviturd twice since it is the worst ES game by far. Skydcrap is still bad and only a step above Oblivishit. Failderp 3 is in a category of if its own in terms of awfulness. People buy their games because they are fucking retards with no standards.

 

[Takamori]

Problem with F3 and F4 it misses the entire point of the franchise. Yay wacky violence, 50s america and funny random encounters. Its like they based the game on Fallout 2 easter eggs or special encounters, skipped Fallout 1 entirely. And just glanced the wiki for lore stuff, gave up in the middle of the process.
I played FO3 to be really disappointed with the game, short story, the quests were just ending A or B just to add some sort of "choice" element and the story in general lacked in quality control shit not making sense or being logical with the timeline. Don't even need to mention the gunplay being shit and the equipment being really uninteresting to deal with. At least Vegas tried to band aid the itemization issue, but the core gameplay was fucked anyway. At least story was enjoyable even if incomplete in some parts.
FO3 is not even a 5, its a 4. The game "works" and its moddable, but still a buggy mess with not much content to offer. I remember listening to the main argument that the "atmosphere" was the cool part? I guess they meant the feeling of exploring urban ruins for stuff? There is STALKER and done this miles way better without the need to shit all over a established franchise.

 

[Sykar]

And yet you cannot defend the game from any criticism apart from wishy washy "made me feel good first time I played it" and "many played it!". Says enough about what a colossal grade A retard you are.

For what purpose? You've already made clear that if you don't like a game then people who like it must have bad taste. Whatever I say about Fallout 3 (you should have asked me to six years ago, when I still liked it) is pointless. Like I said earlier, if a gay man tells you women are disgusting, who are you to refute him? He is gay, his words are true for him and that's ultimately what matters. Every claim of his will only prove your point that women are attractive (e.g. women are ugly because they have breasts and no penis). Likewise someone who loves Fallout 3 may tell you that the opening was fantastic and to you the opening sucked.

A game being fun makes it good. Its purpose is to be enjoyable. A mechanically perfect game can still be a boring game, and a mechanically imperfected, flawed game can still be loved by many (look no further than Morrowind, a game with so many gamebreaking issues it's not even funny). That's a fact of life, learn to live with it.

The opening? You man that god awful shit tutorial that wasted an hour of your time starting with you getting squeezed out of your mommys vagina? Which was so terrible that one of the most popular mods literally cuts it away? And you want to be taking seriously?
No a game being "fun" does not make it good. A lot of dumb shit can be fun. Does not make it good. It is fun eating McDonalds food once in a while. That however does not make it good food, it is from a nutritional perspective objectively awful.
Yeah flawed games can be fun and good. Too bad that Failderp 3 is objectively awful and only fun to braindead retards.

 

[Butter]

Bro this is RPG Codex. Do you really need someone to explain to you how bad most people's taste is?

"Bad taste" doesn't exist. They could accuse you of having bad taste as well and they would be just as right to do it, with the bonus that they wouldn't do it under the pretense of being high RPG connoisseurs by which their opinion MUST be the right one.

You have bad taste if you can't defend your preferences. I'll take weak arguments over "lots of people liked Skyrim and FO4, and lots of people can't be wrong".

 

[Morality Games]

Bro this is RPG Codex. Do you really need someone to explain to you how bad most people's taste is?

"Bad taste" doesn't exist. They could accuse you of having bad taste as well and they would be just as right to do it, with the bonus that they wouldn't do it under the pretense of being high RPG connoisseurs by which their opinion MUST be the right one.

Taste being subjective doesn't really preclude the possibility of taste being bad. Sort of like the "universal grammar" theory of language (the idea that all the different grammatical systems arise from abstract governing conditions within the human brain) -- you can always trace a person's taste back to its perceptual roots.

Ergo, some types of gameplay require intensive engagement and focus on the part of the player while others basically reinforce bad habits and behaviors (like hiking sims and attention deficit disorder).

The argument that is taste is equal is only in respect to what players find entertaining -- games of high and low game play quality are equally compelling to the players who like them -- not "why" they find it entertaining and the effect this entertainment has on them.

We say taste is bad because it cultivates bad interests and bad traits.

The same would be true of reading books to entertain yourself vs doing drugs. One person entertains themselves by trying to expand their vision and intellect, the other by smothering it.

 

[Sigourn]

People who like games I don't like are fucking retards with no standards.

The defense rests.

 

[Sigourn]

We say taste is bad because it cultivates bad interests and bad traits.

Funny coming from one of the most racist, sexist videogame forums on the Internet that is also the only one that loves old school cRPGs so much... almost as if classic cRPGs had a tendency to cultivate bad interests and bad traits.

 

[Butter]

Imagine thinking racism and sexism are bad.

 

[DalekFlay]

Funny coming from one of the most racist, sexist videogame forums on the Internet that is also the only one that loves old school cRPGs so much... almost as if classic cRPGs had a tendency to cultivate bad interests and bad traits.

I'm one of the least racist/sexist people on here and even I think this comment is fucking retarded.

 

[Sigourn]

Funny coming from one of the most racist, sexist videogame forums on the Internet that is also the only one that loves old school cRPGs so much... almost as if classic cRPGs had a tendency to cultivate bad interests and bad traits.

I'm one of the least racist/sexist people on here and even I think this comment is fucking retarded.

Good for you. The cRPG has played more cRPGs than anyone else on this forum and he still thinks Skyrim is one of the best RPGs ever made. Exceptions exists.

Then again, if you love New Vegas you haven't descended into pure cRPG love yet.

 

[Falksi]

My thoughts are that Fallout as a game, whichever one you play, has certain unique qualities which are very appealing and draw you in (the 50's culture, the world, the humour etc.). I played Fallout 3 first and to have all that thrown at me from the off was brilliant, and one of the main reasons I enjoyed it so much.

However had I seen all that in previous games, I may not have enjoyed it half as much. Certainly when I played any of the Fallout games after that, it was old hat and thus harder to get into them.

Maybe the whole franchize is just something which lives off these unique elements, and once enjoyed the appeal of subsequent games in the series dwindles somewhat?

 

[Deleted Member 22431]

Someone retardo this thread already.

 

[Sykar]

People who like games I don't like are fucking retards with no standards.

The defense rests.

Except you dumbfuck have defended nothing. Because you cannot defend the god awful story, the terrible dialogue, the crap graphics, nonsensical world building, terrible shooter mechanics, brain-dead cheat mode VATS, etc.

 

[Duralux for Durabux]

(the 50's culture, the world, the humour etc.). I played Fallout 3 first and to have all that thrown at me from the off was brilliant, and one of the main reasons I enjoyed it so much.

the 50's culture, the world, the humour etc.)

that thrown at me from the off was brilliant

The humour

Brilliant

Fallout 3

 

[Deleted Member 22431]

Anyone of your fucks who touched FO3 and FO4 is a closeted popamole degenerate. Disgusting behavior, really. I can't tell if one is worse than the other because I never touched them and I will never will.