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

[unfairlight]

Fallout 3 wasn't even really Oblivion with guns because I couldn't really find myself lost in the world or enjoy many of the quests. It really had nearly nothing going for it, it had abysmal gameplay, ugly graphics, a boring world and trash writing. People treat Bethesda games post Morrowind here as a personal 9/11 to be sure, but if we ever have a serious discussion then most would just say that it's not really above 5/10.
I can only really think of Fallout 3 as a worse Fallout New Vegas and Bethesda's worst game if not for Fallout 76.

 

[JDR13]

I found Fallout 3 playable after modding the hell out of it. The vanilla game is terrible. Anyone trying to argue against that is either an idiot or just trolling.

 

[ShadowSpectre]

Fallout 3 is better than Fallout 4. I'll give you that. The game still has no character and was a disappointment. We all just wanted Van Buuren.

 

[EldarEldrad]

What are you talking about? Flatout 3 was the shittiest clusterfuck mess I ever played.

 

[Kyl Von Kull]

Like I said the last time this came up:

Forget all the stupid shit—and there’s a lot of it—the most fundamental problem is simple: the vast majority of the originals took place in settlements. You were interacting with people, with factions, sorting out the problems of a post-apocalyptic society. Fallout 3 takes place almost entirely in the wasteland. There are only two large settlements in the whole game and, nuke aside, you never really feel like you’re having much of an impact on Megaton or Rivet City. That makes for a very different experience; there’s just a lot less roleplaying as a percentage of your playtime.

Instead, Fallout 3 pads out its content with mindless exploration and endless combat. This would be fine if the combat were any good, but Fallout 3 is one of the worst shooters ever made. NO IRON SIGHTS, really?

As an RPG, the SPECIAL and skill systems seem almost vestigial. In the original Fallouts you could complete nearly every quest through violence, stealth or speech. In Fallout 3, it’s violence, violence or violence. Your stats can sometimes get you better rewards, but rarely do they let you change the trajectory or the outcome of a quest. That sucks.

Throw in an incredibly linear story with no meaningful choice and consequence and what are you left with? Just a post-apocalyptic playground.

tl;dr if you’re going to make an action RPG, at the very least it needs to be either a good action game or a good RPG. Fallout 3 is neither.

 

[laclongquan]

There is one original sin, one unsalvageable aspect of the game that I note you avoid to even touching it. The one thing that pin FO3 on the pillar of shame for eternity:

Shit Writings

Writings in FO3 is seeping into gamer's experience and mood, eventually kick them out of the desire to want to play it. And it can never be fixed by mods. Fallout New Vegas escape FO3's sin by write anew what they can, because otherwise it's unbearable to think about.

 

[PrettyDeadman]

It's actually worse.

 

[Jonathan "Zee Nekomimi]

I agree to disagree, while it was a good test for the engine used on new vegas, the plot being "interesting", the overall game feel blend. I still three dog was the dj tough.

 

[curry]

we're gonna look favourably at Fallout 4 after they release Fallout 5

Fallout 4 was much better than Fallout 3. It was actually quite decent.

 

[Darkzone]

we're gonna look favourably at Fallout 4 after they release Fallout 5

Fallout 4 was much better than Fallout 3. It was actually quite decent.

FO4 is better FO3, but it is far from a decent cRPG. What makes FO4 a better game is the settlement building aspect.
I have not played at least 80% of the main story line, but i have build everywhere bases with a good production output and established trade routes with checkpoints between them.
Sadly the cleanup modes are causing bugs and crashes in my games.

 

[Nifft Batuff]

I played through FO3 once (including dlcs) and through FONV twice (including dlcs). I tried to play FO4 at least two times but I quit both times after only 3-4 hours, and then uninstalled the game. It was too much boring in every aspects for me. It is the compendium of all that is it wrong in latest gen gaming (excluding microtransactions and online gaming, but for this fallout 76 happened).

By the way, I am speechless when people criticize fallout 4 and then say that they played the thing for 350+ h. These a serious cases of mental disorders (and psychological conditioning).

 

[Dodo1610]

Fallout 3 was so boring I had to play it through twice to believe it, after all everyone loved it so there had to be something wrong with me I thought back then. I think that was the game that made me realise that most people just enjoy playing shit games for some reason.

 

[Darkzone]

I played through FO3 once (including dlcs) and through FONV twice (including dlcs). I tried to play FO4 at least two times but I quit both times after only 3-4 hours, and then uninstalled the game. It was too much boring in every aspects for me. It is the compendium of all that is it wrong in latest gen gaming (excluding microtransactions and online gaming, but for this fallout 76 happened).

By the way, I am speechless when people criticize fallout 4 and then said that they played the thing for 350+ h. These a serious cases of mental disorders (and psychological conditioning).

Are you retarded? You don't know what you are talking about.
If you like Minecraft and other base building games ( like Subnautica ) then you will like this in FO4. I could not make myself play the main story line and i have given up entirely upon it in this regard. The only reason for me to play the main story would be to get the institute technology and assets as an building option.
You can criticise one thing about a game while loving an other thing about it.

 

[Dr Skeleton]

I now see that F3 is not nearly as bad as I thought before reading the OP, sure the gameplay is shit and the story is retarded, but on the other hand they completely butchered the system from F1/2 when it was ineptly crammed into an awful FPS. They also apparently made an even worse game 10 years later, so it's all fine now.

 

[Wayward Son]

-retained VATS system complete with targeting limbs and percentage points given for probability for bullet impact

You can't "retain" a system that didn't exist in ANY of the previous Fallout games, including the lesser-liked spinoffs Fallout Tactics and the console game Brotherhood of Steel.

You are fake news.

You're being pedantic. Okay it wasn't called VATS in 1/2, but it was a more or less identical system nonetheless, aside from 3's being easier to get hits with

You have to be genuinely mentally deficient to think that slapping aimed shots with invincibility frames and slomo is the same as a turn based mechanic.

Fallout 3, New Vegas, 4 and 76 are travesty and rape.

I disagree only in the case of New Vegas. New Vegas is the rape baby that went on to become a successful doctor.

Also, you admit it has shit writing. And world. And story. You know what everyone loved about the originals? Writing, story and world. The main problem is that Fallout was originally a darker ode to Wasteland (a game I could hush endlessly about). Wasteland had a far more irreverent tone than Fallout. Fallout 2 went back a bit to that slightly irreverent tone and received (much deserved imo) backlash over it. Fallout 3 had the irreverent tone of Fallout 2, but you could feel that they wanted the darker tone of the first game so it ends up accomplishing neither effectively and ends up playing out like shitty satire that takes itself way too seriously. This is in stark contrast with the series’ roots in Wasteland, which barely took itself seriously before the last hour or two and as such made good satire on the dark tropes in post apocalypse media. Nor does it accomplish Fallout 1’s dry, dark humor that was actually well placed and timed.

As well, you mention that SPECIAL is retained. This is a lie. The SPECIAL in Fallout 1 is like a salmon majestically swimming upstream. Fallout 3, in this analogy, is a stuffed fish you threw in the Potomac and when it floated momentarily you shouted “LOOK! IT SWIMS!!”. It does nothing of the sort, short of looking like the real deal in the most basic, shallow ways. You mention the perks yourself so I’ll take this opportunity to point out that no, they are not the same. Whereas in Fallout 1, you have perks 1 every 3 levels that mostly (I will admit there were some of the “add x to y skill” perks, but they were far rarer) had a significant effect on how you played the game’s combat and dialogue systems. On top of this, a similar mechanic that is completely missing in Fallout 3 is Traits. These are similar to perks with two major differences: first, they are chosen at the start and short of one of your few perks (I think you get 7 in the first game) there’s no way to change them, and they come with both a positive and a negative. This made the start of your character build far more interesting. I’ll leave this point here but I can keep elaborating if you wish.

Another point, its world is static. Nothing you do affects it much. I can confidently say this after playing through almost every quest. The only time you can cause a direct effect on the world is the aforementioned nuking of Megaton, which does what again? Locks off a couple minor tasks and removes a store from the game and your dad gives you a slap on the wrist. Doesn’t even affect Megaton’s major quest. Speaking of Moira’s quest, this one actually has some minor effects you can see but that are almost meaningless unless you wear your heart on your sleeve. Basically the less good your data is, the more likely a random encounter with someone who read her book goes wrong. That’s it. Most times it comes down to “which group do I want to die in this town I’m never returning to?”. And that’s at most. Usually it’s even more shallow.

I’d keep going but I have class starting soon.

 

[Jacob]

People calling Called Shots "VATS"

... had Fallout 3 as their first Fallout.

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

I actually like a lot the monocromatic visuals of fallout 3/NV.

They're not bad, but I do think they differ from the more metal + junk look of the originals' interface. I can't quite explain it right.

Also mechanically, the originals often have better interfaces because you don't need to scroll multiple screens to get all the information you need.

Compare the character screens. 1/2/Tactics showed you all you needed to know about your character on a single 640x480 screen and three little tabs.
Fallout 3 makes you switch between FIVE tabs. On modern screens which are far larger. A good chunk of it is also used to show your pip-boy rather than the info you want and need.

This is sadly a dogma behind much of a modern design, be it in games or in website design. Modern designers believe that users can't process too much information on one screen, hence their hide information behind various tabs, or use big blank spaces on the websites.

 

[Diggfinger]

-retained VATS system complete with targeting limbs and percentage points given for probability for bullet impact
-retained the perk system in its entirety, obviously different perks but mechanically it works the same
-retained the SPECIAL system, lets you dole out points for it at character creation just like the classics
-retained the dark/seedy side of the FO series, slavery, prostitution, extreme gory violence, drug abuse, etc. either all present in the game or heavily implied meh
-you can still make major choices that drastically impact the game, I.e. the ability to wipe an entire town off the map, among others, also plenty of quests that have multiple solutions
-retains the original skill/tag system, albeit with some streamlining throw in, but level ups still work the same way
-managed to work AP into real time FPS gameplay

I’m not saying FO3 is by any means a great or even a very good game. The combat/shooting is terrible and I hate the graphics/general aesthetic. But I think it’s time Fallout fans grow up and admit that FO3 could have been way worse. It is, for all intents and purposes, the gameplay of FO1/2 transplanted into an open world FPS. Did Bethesda miss the mark when it came to writing, tone, and some of the deeper intricacies of the series themes? Yes, that’s an argument that could be made. But come on, it could have been FO4, for instance, which actually is a complete and utter train wreck of experience and not even an RPG.

“Bbbbut Bethesda ruined the story ((( omg they made a DLC with aliens and one of the developers said he likes slapstick humor that means it’s shit!” The same people spouting this, btw, will defend all the retarded shit in FO2 to the grave.

Im with you to some extend, with the caveat that the meaningful choices and interesting character development (for the most part) was out the window.

However, I generally enjoyed playing the game (at least until F:NV came out). It was indeed exciting the see the Fallout-world in 3D. And although nothing new was added, I liked seeing the mutants, raiders etc. up close.
Also really liked the VATS-system, which works perfectly on consoles btw. (probably less brilliant if playing on PC).


Naturally, I wish Bashitsta never touches Fallout again with a 10-foot pole. However, admittedly, the success of F3 was what finally brought New Vegas about and it brought the franchise to a whole new generation of gamers which is great for the IP as such.

Let's hope that the Troika (or at least Obsidian?) some day get their hands on it again

 

[Ranarama]

All I remember is everything being brown, stupid cutscenes being the only thing preventing you from killing the bad guy, and needing mods to fix everything.

 

[Nifft Batuff]

Are you retarded? You don't know what you are talking about.
If you like Minecraft and other base building games ( like Subnautica ) then you will like this in FO4. I could not make myself play the main story line and i have given up entirely upon it in this regard. The only reason for me to play the main story would be to get the institute technology and assets as an building option.
You can criticise one thing about a game while loving an other thing about it.

Ok..., you can find something that you like in everything I suppose. I liked Subnautica a lot too (never played minecraft) but I found also these aspects of gameplay mediocre at best in FO4. But you see, your comment say a lot about how skewed the game is.

 

[Wayward Son]

I played through FO3 once (including dlcs) and through FONV twice (including dlcs). I tried to play FO4 at least two times but I quit both times after only 3-4 hours, and then uninstalled the game. It was too much boring in every aspects for me. It is the compendium of all that is it wrong in latest gen gaming (excluding microtransactions and online gaming, but for this fallout 76 happened).

By the way, I am speechless when people criticize fallout 4 and then said that they played the thing for 350+ h. These a serious cases of mental disorders (and psychological conditioning).

Are you retarded? You don't know what you are talking about.
If you like Minecraft and other base building games ( like Subnautica ) then you will like this in FO4. I could not make myself play the main story line and i have given up entirely upon it in this regard. The only reason for me to play the main story would be to get the institute technology and assets as an building option.
You can criticise one thing about a game while loving an other thing about it.

Yeah this was the only thing my brother enjoyed about the game and he played it for a hundred hours or so I think

 

[Kaethar]

I liked most of the side quests in FO3 tbh, only thing I disliked about the game was some parts of the main quest.

 

[jf8350143]

Bethesda's most games are never awful, it's just quite mediocre.

With one exception, Fallout 76. That's some next level shit.

 

[Lemming42]

Fallout 3 is easily better than Fallout 4, I don't know how people can say otherwise. At least everyone agrees the quest design (not writing or dialogue, but things like branching, alternate solutions, skill-checks, multiple paths) is better in Fo3, right? We've done this many times before over the years across various threads, but I can whip out the fucking flowcharts that prove that Fo3's quest design is sound, if we really have to.

So putting that aside, it's a choice between two awful styles of combat. At least in Fo3 enemies go down quickly and VATS lets you essentially skip the godawful combat. In Fallout 4, every other enemy is a major bullet sponge, and the LEGENDARY shit is just abysmal.

 

[Kaethar]

I can whip out the fucking flowcharts that prove that Fo3's quest design is sound, if we really have to.

Can I see those?