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

[laclongquan]

Fallout 3 is that retarded clown character in school. In reunion people keep asking each other "but surely he couldnt have been that SPECIAL?", and getting answered "yes, he was that retarded."

 

[Wayward Son]

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.

Being better than fallout 4 isn’t a qualifier for good. However as for fallout 3 ?> Fallout 4, it depends what you want. If you’re looking for an open world shooter, fallout 4 is better.

 

[Lemming42]

Didn't say Fo3 was good, it's not a good game. I can't agree that Fo4 is a better open world shooter though. 3's dungeons were generally more interesting from what I remember (the cthulu place, the rube goldberg machine, etc), and Fo4's aforementioned bullet sponginess absolutely killed the game for me.

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?

Sure, here's a few:

Spoiler

Structurally, these match anything from Fallout 1 and beat literally everything, as far as I know, from Fo4. They're all sabotaged by atrocious writing that makes them actively irritating to play, but the quest design is the best Bethesda has ever done, and it's a real shame that they gave up completely for Fo4.

 

[redactir]

None of the graphs shown reference other quests nor have qualifiers for their own branching based upon how you solved previous quests.
Which is to say the quests don't mean anything to one another.

Fallout games are arguably a special rpg. You could imagine different rpgs who might just enable/disable entire quests as their idea of explicit plot consequences.
But Fallout games demand the devs try with much more effort to connect things.
Even if they are no longer the standard bearers, we know the direction they were meant to go.

FO3 = not it
FO4 = not it

FNV = soothing, but not quite there

 

[Lemming42]

Fallout 2 definitely has interconnected quests, but Fallout 1 doesn't really. The only one I can immediately think of is Decker's guy in the Hub hiring you faster based on your actions in Junktown. Add to that a couple of actions that are only triggered if you chanced upon something else earlier in the game, like blackmailing Iguana Bob (Fallout 3 also has one example of this that I can think of). Most of Fallout 1's quests are fairly standalone - rescuing Tandi, dealing with the Skulz, doing Decker's quests or the Thieves Guild's quests, dealing with the Regulators, finding the Deathclaw for Butch etc don't really impact any future quests.

Fallout's world definitely feels infinitely more connected than Fallout 3's, because Fallout 3 is a nonsense theme park of disjointed "cool" stuff, but the criticisms that Fo3's quests are too standalone and isolated from one another is one that could be levelled at much of Fallout 1 as well.

New Vegas feels pretty interconnected thanks to the faction system. It's obviously very imperfect and clunky but it does make it feel like your actions in seemingly-isolated quests are having impacts on your future options. Most of the quests having options which feed into the central conflict - ie, being able to handle the Kings in a way that suits your chosen faction - helps it all feel properly gelled together.

New Vegas also has the cool trick of having quests lead the player into other quests. Fallout 3 attempts it with the Wasteland Survival Guide and the Shoot Them In the Head quest, both of which send you near to or directly to locations that contain more sidequests.

 

[MWaser]

I'll just quote myself from the last time I talked about this declinefest

Fallout 3 is okay if it's your first step ever into that kind of games, it was somewhat nice to have a game where you get to gunshoot and level up at the same time, but it's also filled to brim with stupid shit, and once the novelty of the RPG shooty gameplay (which back then at least was not something you saw much of) runs out then you're not left with much of anything. I didn't even bother with the DLCs after the main quest which I think says a lot about the game's novelty running out fast. And nowadays that Fallout NV exists there is literally no reason to ever play Fallout 3 unless you like to make comparisons of decline.

Fallout 3 in many regards is simply unforgiveably dumb, even the things I remember finding "interesting" from the first time I played it are fucking stupid in retrospection (like the VR segment). New Vegas not only showed how much better the quest design can be, it also showed how much better mechanically the 3D Fallout games can be. Which, of course, was lost in the winds when Bethesda didn't learn anything from that, and Fallout 4 was instead Skyrim with quite literally enchanted guns mechanically, and writing wise... well, I don't think there's anything new to gain from discussing the writing of Fallout 4, I feel like it's quite literally common knowledge that not only is it bad, but moreso even unusable as you don't even get to see what real dialogue options you're picking.

In the end, at its time of release Fallout 3 was mediocre-bad, some of its stuff was nice but it was very obviously handled by either incompetent or lazy people who couldn't manage or couldn't be assed to create a coherent world and narrative. And after NV released, it retrospectively became borderline unplayable.

And ffs, Fallout 3 even had a giant robot, because for some reason Bethesda fucking loves giant robots. Numidium and Akulakhan, anyone?

 

[HoboForEternity]

everytime this topic came up in the general RPG page:

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Did any FPS game feature a VATS-style combat before Fallout 3?

 

[Jeru]

I remember my first time with Fallout 3. This feeling of authors respect towards one of best cRPGs and total immersion when I've heard "ka-ching" sound when I've killed first monster in Fallout 3. Tears of joy poured down my cheecks and I've said to myself - that is something that Fallout were missing !

 

[Corvinus]

Brethren, read the objective truth:

Fallout is a great game. The best CRPG(?).

Fallout 2 is a typical sequel - more of everything which made the initial game good, but ultimately a lesser product, due to reuse of assets, change of tone and inclusion of bad leftover concepts from the original. Still a good game, though.

Fallout Tactics is worse in tone and execution than Fallout 2, especially in the roleplaying department, but brings some new concepts such as being a squad-level tactical game. The game is still fairly true to the Fallout world, and still above decent.

Anything else bearing the name "Fallout" is a popamole shit slurry served with a side of bubonic plague, and anyone defending them - for whatever reason - is an agent of decline, an apologist fit only to be cooked by an industrial-grade plasma caster.

 

[LizardWizard]

Fallout 4. It was actually quite decent.

 

[baturinsky]

There are two things I like in FO3.
1. How destroyed Washington looks.
2. Tenpenny Tower #notallghouls quest line.

 

[Akratus]

[Intelligence] So what you're saying is that the RPG Codex is too critical of the third fallout installment made by Bethesda Game Studios?

 

[madbringer]

"Fallout 3 was not as bad as you thought it is".

Yeah not shit, it was worse.

 

[Rinslin Merwind]

Brethren, read the objective truth

Fallout 2 is a typical sequel - more of everything which made the initial game good, but ultimately a lesser product, due to reuse of assets, change of tone and inclusion of bad leftover concepts from the original. Still a good game, though.

but ultimately a lesser product, due to reuse of assets, change of tone and inclusion of bad leftover concepts from the original.

I disagree, especially on changing tone and reused assets. Just because devs decided to use assets from previous good game - it doesn't make sequel less good. Alternative would be remaking everything from zero and this is not always good idea.
Changing tone was alright, especially if we consider that source of inspiration for Fallout games wasn't some grim dark literature, it was science fiction. Feeling that "tone" doesn't fit the game is completely subjective opinion and ruin your statement of "objective truth".
And sequel was able to avoid "bad leftover concepts" from the original if people had wisdom to point out on these concepts when first game was released and not after fucking sequel came out. I mean if you claim that some game had no flaws, at least don't be surprised that flaws (that actually existed in first game) will pop out in sequel, like worms from tasty apple.

Back on track.
Fallout 3 was boring shit, I was barely able to finish this turd.

 

[Jack Of Owls]

Fallout 2 is a typical sequel - more of everything which made the initial game good, but ultimately a lesser product, due to reuse of assets, change of tone and inclusion of bad leftover concepts from the original. Still a good game, though

This. Seemed overlong too. That's when I had a conceptual breakthrough that many RPG fans (a good number of them on the Codex) had autism\asperger or some type of mental illness like undiagnosed schizophrenia - when they wanted to play FO2 with mods that actually restored huge chunks of cut content that even the original developers found boring or dumb and realized severely fucked with the atmosphere/pacing of the game. FO2 is not a bad game - in fact, it should be played by all Fallout fans at least once - but I'd rather play FO3 again with new mods that add decent quest content.

 

[Urthor]

I spent a really unusually long time looking for the edgy button. Is this what it feels like to feel old

 

[Jack Of Owls]

There are two things I like in FO3.
1. How destroyed Washington looks.
2. Tenpenny Tower #notallghouls quest line.

I agree about the latter but, man, that mock-up of the Washington Monument is one of the most disappointing things ever in gaming with it's, um, dramatically reduced scale, shall we say? I've made tree forts as a kid with leftover wormy wood found near local mills that had greater scale than that thing.

 

[Glop_dweller]

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

Vats was not retained; Vats was a location on the map in Fallout; it was the storage for FEV, in the Mariposa army base—the ONLY place that had FEV. V.A.T.S. in FO3 was a bastardized "I Win" option that ostensibly imitated the aimed shot feature from the series—a feature that was not available to all character builds. It does not in any way reflect or even nod to the turn based combat of the series proper; enemies in FO3 do not get their turn to fire back. V.A.T.S. in FO3 slows time (unique to FO3; was not in the Fallout series), and when it does this, it also adds a 90% damage resistance to incoming attacks... So yes, this was a cheap 'I Win' cheat that the player got for free when their (totally unrelated to Fallout) AP count regenerated. It was absurd.

-retained the perk system in its entirety, obviously different perks but mechanically it works the same

BoguS. The perks in FO3 were watered down swill by comparison; to afford the lunacy of a perk every level. Perks in Fallout were game changing—quite literally bending the standard rules. There were even PC builds where they would only got perks every fourth level.

-retained the SPECIAL system, lets you dole out points for it at character creation just like the classics

In name only. In Fallout, the stats were tightly integrated into the character and combat systems. In FO3 they were cosmetic.

-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

Fo3 butchered the setting—utterly. They pushed a skewed nonsense world obsessed with the 1950's. instead of a post millennium future with 1950's aesthetics. The world of the Fallout series [before Bethesda poisoned it] was that of their expected world of tomorrow—not a futuristic theme park based on the world that they had [circa 1955].

-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

Bull. The one lunatic option was to nuke Megaton, and that only made it a ghoul town—not erased from the map. In Fallout, when a nuke detonated, the map was gone. The series traditionally respected atomic weaponry; there were only a few in the entire pair of games, and they were used with an irony to it. FO3 made nukes trivial, and even salted the landscape with mini-nukes for the player to collect; it was nonsense. The Fatman was a great idea; that there was more than one or two rounds for it in the game was shameful, and just as bad as its neutered effect on the landscape.

-retains the original skill/tag system, albeit with some streamlining throw in, but level ups still work the same way

No they did not. Fallout's skill system prevented 'perfect' PCs No matter how expert they got, there was ALWAYS margin for error; and usually a slight margin for flukish success. FO3 discarded this, and replaced it with a threshold system that assured success before even allowing the option to attempt the task. The streamlining was pitiful. Consider the Medic skill. In FO3, the medic skill magically improves the effectiveness of standard medical supplies; and even allows them to cure ailments for which they were not designed, intended —nor even plausible for them— to cure. Stimpaks in FO3 heal concussions and broken bones.

Fallout had a First Aid skill, and a Doctor skill. First Aid was basic bandaging and sports medicine; and trivially improved by casual study of found information sources. This meant that anyone could manage basic wound treatment. However the Doctor skill was a dedicated development path. One could ONLY improve it via skill points—skill points that took away from developing other skills. Doctor skill afforded dialog options with other doctors. The ONLY way to correct crippling injury was to see (or be) a doctor; this was beyond First Aid.

In practice, the mechanics of these skills meant that the player had a total of six chances to heal their PC, and other party members, but only three chances to cure crippling injury. So this meant triaging the party so that the Doctor skill was first used on crippled patients, before using it for mere hitpoint recovery. These two skills took different amounts of time per use, and awarded different amounts of XP for successful use.

FO3 trivialized the system, and merged both into a crapy cure-all skill that relied upon stimpaks to work—when both the First Aid and Doctor skills worked without stimpaks in the rest of the series; and stims couldn't cure crippled limbs or blinding. Blinding doesn't even exist in FO3.

-managed to work AP into real time FPS gameplay

Bull. You know what did that? Super Hot. APs == Time. In FO3, AP's are a cooldown, plain and simple—and stupid.

 

[vdweller]

Reported for Retarded harvesting.

 

[Jack Of Owls]

VATS was never a problem for me in FO3\NV because though I considered it a cheat, I simply never used it. But there are autistics and hardcore Fallout 1 & 2 nutballs who complained incessantly that it contributed to ruining the Bethesda games when it was optional. But there are always those with various brain syndromes who still whine about these things, like those guys who bemoaned that Thief games were broken because you could simply just billy club your way through the game. Their looped brains just can't progress past the idea that they have an overpowered item in their inventory or as one of their tools that even though it's entirely optional to use, it's still there, therefore the game is ruined.

 

[ChaDargo]

I think I enjoyed Fallout 3 when I played it, although it's hard to remember exactly why; I was blackout drunk.

 

[Okagron]

VATS was never a problem for me in FO3\NV because though I considered it a cheat, I simply never used it. But there are autistics and hardcore Fallout 1 & 2 nutballs who complained incessantly that it contributed to ruining the Bethesda games when it was optional.

This an atrocious logic, if you can even call it an actual logic. So because it's technically optional, we should not criticize it? That is fucking stupid. We should criticize mechanics that are poorly made and the VATS in Fallout 3 is absolutely atrocious (it's less in New Vegas because you can actually die in it due to having nowhere as much damage reduction compared to Fallout 3 VATS). Something being "optional" doesn't exempt it from being criticized.

The VATS was clearly used in Fallout 3 as a crutch for extremely poor shooting mechanics. Designing actual good shooting? Fuck that, half ass the shooting and then have something that completely trivializes it. And yes, it will bother the player because it makes all other options pointless. Why have multiple options for combat with their own pros and cons when you can just have the win button? This creates the illusion of choice.

 

[Jack Of Owls]

VATS was never a problem for me in FO3\NV because though I considered it a cheat, I simply never used it. But there are autistics and hardcore Fallout 1 & 2 nutballs who complained incessantly that it contributed to ruining the Bethesda games when it was optional.

This an atrocious logic, if you can even call it an actual logic. So because it's technically optional, we should not criticize it? That is fucking stupid. We should criticize mechanics that are poorly made and the VATS in Fallout 3 is absolutely atrocious (it's less in New Vegas because you can actually die in it due to having nowhere as much damage reduction compared to Fallout 3 VATS). Something being "optional" doesn't exempt it from being criticized.

And the VATS was clearly used in Fallout 3 as a crutch for extremely poor shooting mechanics. Designing actual good shooting? Fuck that, half ass the shooting and then have something that completely trivializes it.

Oh, I don't want to take that right away from you to criticize. Sorry if you misunderstood. Just making the point that you guys do tend to go and on and on about it when others are able to move along and just get past it. But you're wrong about your last point. VATS wasn't used as a crutch for poor shooting mechanics... it was used as a crutch for poor shooters and those forced to use controllers. There's nothing inherently wrong with the shooting mechanics in terms of being FPSs rather than isometric. I used mouse-aiming so never had these roblems. Fallout 3\New Vegas\FO4 were all smooth, enjoyable experiences for me however I do have sympathy for those that had to play on consoles and especially those like yourself mired in their thoughts that FO3 wasn't like the original FO games and couldn't enjoy it as its own thing.

 

[Quillon]

There's nothing inherently wrong with the shooting mechanics