Why do people think Fallout 3 was actually good?

Discussion in 'Fallout 3 Discussion' started by KingArthur, Apr 4, 2020.

  1. TomJ

    TomJ Still Mildly Glowing

    214
    Jul 12, 2015
    My point being that there needs to be more flavor to the world. Whether its raiders ruling an area, a merc company using some small farm settlements as a source of supplies, or the successors to a prewar gang running a protection racket in an bombed out neighborhood. They don't need to be that smart, just lazy. Extorting locals for food is easier than raiding. Even gangs have ways to supply drugs and other things to sell, they don't just steal things to sell from people who make them, they work with them. It makes sense that there would be some raiders, whether they are clans with some unique flare or generic pyros like they currently are in some locations, but not everywhere. This would give the world at least some depth that is currently gone. Hell even in Oblivion, they gave the downs different architecture, giving 25 "raider" factions a different paint job wouldn't be difficult.
     
  2. Heisenberg

    Heisenberg Chemistry Teacher

    148
    Feb 17, 2021
    Fallout 3 was the best Fallout game, that's why. There's a reason it has a Metacritic score higher than any other Fallout game, as well as must-have and best seller status.
     
  3. KingArthur

    KingArthur Copper: looks pretty, worth nothing in a fight

    Jun 25, 2018
    It’s held in such high regard because it took a series that was effectively dead and brought it into the public eye again. To say it’s objectively the best is to ignore that what came before was well and truly brilliant world building.

    Though, reading through your posts on other threads, you’re liable to respond to this with blind rage and insults; so I don’t exactly have high hopes for any potential “debate”.
     
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 1
  4. Heisenberg

    Heisenberg Chemistry Teacher

    148
    Feb 17, 2021
    I don't need to defend my argument. I made it, therefore I believe it.

    Some people maybe just need to learn that.
     
  5. laclongquan

    laclongquan Boned Hunter of Sister

    606
    Jan 11, 2008
    With fallout 3 you gotta have the right position to look at it.

    From the point of view of a openworld tactical combat (use lotsa vats) exploration realistic-gunporn game, its top of its class. Nothing come close to it.

    But people like to judge it as roleplay storyfag game (due to fallout background and marketing) it fail badly because thats not beth strong point . Its never is.

    And people keep trying to play it as fps shooter game, mostly because of the way its audience is built up, wide open from start. And on that part it also fail because its not that kind of game.
     
  6. Gizmojunk

    Gizmojunk Carbon Dated and Proud

    Nov 26, 2007
    There is no tactical combat in FO3. VATS is a free/regenerating/magical "I Win" button that multiplies the PC's attacks, while slowing the opponents to a crawl—while simultaniously conferring a 90% damage resistance to the PC against all incoming/retaliatory attacks... and the opponent never get's their own turn at it, just the PC.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2021
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 3
  7. laclongquan

    laclongquan Boned Hunter of Sister

    606
    Jan 11, 2008
    Speaking like a guy only play fallout3 vanilla on console 20 years ago.
     
  8. Gizmojunk

    Gizmojunk Carbon Dated and Proud

    Nov 26, 2007
    Best kind. ;)
    *But it's not 20 years old.

    Seriously though, the game is an insult.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2021
  9. laclongquan

    laclongquan Boned Hunter of Sister

    606
    Jan 11, 2008
    If you look at it from storyfag pov. Yes it is.

    Frankly beth writers are not very good. The best they could do is a bland not-offensive kind of writing. Personality? Chance for inspiration? Humour? What is that?

    Since i dont expect that kind of quality from them... i dont get disappointment or rage.
     
  10. Gizmojunk

    Gizmojunk Carbon Dated and Proud

    Nov 26, 2007
    I could forgive bad writing by the inept, but never its unconscionably bad gameplay—that's pure [defined] mechanics; not creative writing.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2021
  11. laclongquan

    laclongquan Boned Hunter of Sister

    606
    Jan 11, 2008
    If you use any mod that fix enemies leveled list you will find the ai not bad. Melee fighters will throw grenades first befire jump in close.
    And if you increase spawn number the threat level just skyrocket.
    Two simple examples show that these catering to console just reduce difficulty.

    Pc master race dont have these problems because we tinker with the game all the time. Its why i know you play on console
     
  12. Gizmojunk

    Gizmojunk Carbon Dated and Proud

    Nov 26, 2007
    I don't keep a console, and have never bought games for one. I only game on the PC, and only played FO3 to mod it. shrug.gif
    [see sig]

    Leveled lists barely rank among the design problems. Foremost it's FPP, and a piss poor RPG that allows the player to compensate for character weaknesses. Combat is a joke due to VATS being a wholly one sided exploit. The AI is crap; I don't mean predictable patterns, I mean it can't use ladders intelligently (so they took them out), and with social interaction with the PC.

    EG. The PC as a child gets the BB gun and 50 BBs. The player can make shots (by offset aiming) that the PC should not be able to manage; not to mention they can shoot the entire box at the dad's face, and then ask him for more BBs when they run out.

    The PC can shoot the BOS paladins in the face, then ask to join the Brotherhood.

    EG...again; absurdity ad infinitum.


    The Player can ATTACK the Megaton bomb in the presence of the congregation, and is ignored.

    ... and even then they can disapear with the stealthboy, and the entire town forgets them instantly.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2021
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 1
  13. Norzan

    Norzan Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Apr 7, 2017
    Mods should never, ever be used as evidence that a game has tactical combat. If anything, it's evidence that the vanilla combat is trash and uber easy.

    Without those mods the combat in the PC version is the exact same as the console version.

    Borderlands 1 is much better than Fallout 3 for that, same for STALKER. And there are a lot of other games that also do that far better. If anything, Fallout 3 is bottom tier for that kind of gameplay.

    VATS is also the antithesis of tactical combat. It's a win button that also makes you nigh invincible (i believe it's 90% damage reduction while you are using it). New Vegas reduced that to 25%, actually making it much more dangerous to use out in the open.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2021
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 2
  14. Morgan_

    Morgan_ Duckerz

    Jul 3, 2020
    I don’t mean to derail, but you’ve never played a console or just not bought games for one when you got old enough? Do you not play Nintendo games or just emulate them?
     
  15. Gizmojunk

    Gizmojunk Carbon Dated and Proud

    Nov 26, 2007
    No interest; I have played consoles at friends houses, but would never willingy invest in one. Also not fond of controllers; though they make them for PCs too.
     
  16. mannawyadden

    mannawyadden It Wandered In From the Wastes

    152
    May 3, 2016
    I agree, VATS is not tactical combat, and Borderlands is a better game if the user wants a "gunporn" game. Borderlands doesn't match up to Fallout 3 when it comes to being open-world or having RPG elements such as side quests, dialogue, lore, etc. though. Borderlands was very linear and very tedious to me. You hop from zone to zone advancing the plot...there's no reason to ever return to earlier areas. I was never even able to finish the second game, I had a Pavlovian response and started falling asleep every time the game was launched.

    ---

    Fallout 3 on console is horribly bugged. My save file lags out and crashes to the point that the playthrough itself was ruined. I should've played on PC from the beginning...but I didn't have a good PC back then, and my friend rented the PS3 version from Blockbuster when he was bored one night. Feels like yesterday...

    Anyway, none of Bethesda's games should ever be played on console. They obviously have no idea how to do a successful port of a game that was built on Morrowind's engine.

    Speaking of Morrowind, I see that the only console it was ported to was Xbox. I was surprised that they managed to pull that off, so I did a search and found an interview with Todd Howard from 2020 talking about how they managed to get the port to work!

    :lmao:
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2021
  17. laclongquan

    laclongquan Boned Hunter of Sister

    606
    Jan 11, 2008
    Pc master race doesnt know about your console vanila peasant problem. I play f3 just with patches are in, fose and various other mods are in, texture hd mods are not in because i save resources for extra spawns and bigger maps. Obviously such things are unknown to console peasants and as such they prattle on about how easy it is and how op the vats is.

    Bitch, vats maybe enough for vanilla trio or quartet of hostiles. But pc master race play with 6-8 per encounter and vats in such situation is asking to be mobbed. You want vats to know where they are, but for killing you dont use vats because not enough ap. Get it?

    Like i said, i can smell your console peasantness just by how you describe tactical encounter
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2021
  18. UNATCO Agent

    UNATCO Agent First time out of the vault

    17
    Mar 6, 2022
    Capital Wasteland is still in ruins 200 years after the war because super mutants from Vault 87 were the first to colonize the area. It's almost impossible to establish a coordinated trade circuit when the region is in such disarray. At most, the wasteland has only really been inhabitable for about 30-40 years, give or take. Mostly due to the fact that the Brotherhood has only just turned up in the area and the super mutants are unable to replenish their numbers due to a lack of FEV, which is why they're on the lookout for vaults. People are resettling this previously uninhabitable frontier, and the purpose of the story is to consolidate that.

    For all the things Fallout 3 gets criticized for, I'm quite surprised that a lack of iron sights is one of them. Personally, I find iron sights an eyesore. It takes up a considerable portion of the screen and distracts from the action, which is why I always disable the "True Iron Sights" setting in New Vegas. One of the worst things about Fallout 4's gunplay is that it had no such option. These games aren't modern military shooters and they don't need iron sights. What Fallout 3's gunplay really suffers from is a lack of pace, something which is consistent throughout every modern Fallout game. Doom, Quake, and countless other first person shooters manage to maximize the benefits of having no iron sights in the fast paced nature of their combat. Iron sights in Fallout are really just an unnecessary eyesore, but having them really doesn't change the combat all too much. It just adds to the tedium. The original games had no such problem, which is why combat in those games feels more seamless and engaging. Fallout has never been able to perfectly translate into an FPS, I would argue even a TPS would accommodate the mechanics and systems of the franchise better than whatever Bethesda did with it. Iron sights doesn't improve the combat, it's a band-aid so people will shut up about wanting COD gunplay in the game.

    Fallout 3 is probably not as refined as the originals. I would agree there's probably a lot more thought put into New Vegas or 1&2 than Fallout 3, but it's far from being a "bad" game. Maybe a bad follow-up to some people? Overall Fallout 3 still managed to be better than it's contemporaries, Fallout 4 and Fallout 76, although that is an admittedly low bar.
     
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 1
  19. Sn1p3r187

    Sn1p3r187 Carolinian Shaolin Monk

    Apr 7, 2014
    Why do people think Fallout 3 was actually good?

    -Why does Bethesda waste their potential with every release?
    There's your answer

    They're like the R* and Take Two of RPGs. But far more dense. At least R* knows theyre screwing over their fanbase and doing things they actively dont want. Doesn't make it okay but I think theyre smart enough to know what some of their fans want and smart enough to take (some) feedback. Which is why RDR2 happened. Bethesda doesn't have that, theyre completely blind and moronic and choosing to opt of listening to their critics, fans, or listening to writing advice to make a story that makes sense without shitting on what was previously established. They're a total lack of comprehension
     
  20. 5545Trey

    5545Trey Underground Deviant

    652
    Jun 25, 2014
    There's so many things wrong with just this first paragraph that it'd take even longer to get to the other two. Placing Super Mutants in the Capital Wasteland is, in itself, quite an issue that's been discussed at length. If you already know why that's often debated, there's no reason to further elucidate why this is an issue. The way SMs are portrayed in Fallout 3, if they were the first to "colonize" the region, why haven't they gain control of the few human settlements in the game? Why hasn't the entire region been overwhelmed by the SMs? The game does a poor job trying to convey the intent of the Super Mutants, because they're constantly encountered in places that wouldn't even have the FEV that they're looking for, and it's not as if the player is going to know about their intent just by talking about to them. The wasteland is STILL inhabitable — FO3's world is stagnant and unstable and your arguments trying to rationalize the game's broken world-building only makes everything worse. You make it seem as if people just started "re-settling" in the wasteland when that's what they've been doing for the past 200 years. SMs aren't the reason why there's hasn't much progress since then; progress isn't being made because the developers didn't take into consideration how this area would function 200 years after the war. No, that's not the purpose of the story. Period.

    It's really not surprising, considering how unorthodox and lazy it is to have a zoom-in function in a game that takes place in First-Person when Iron Sights would've suffice. It's a much smarter way of narrowing the spread of your weapon without it swaying across the screen as in Fallout 3.

    They do if they're gonna continue making combat in modern Fallout tolerable without resorting to V.A.T.S. as a crutch.

    Quake and Doom are Arena Shooters. What, do you want a Fallout where everything moves at breakneck speeds with twitch-like gameplay? Fallout isn't a Military Shooter, but it's not a fast-paced one, either, so what works in those games probably wouldn't work for Fallout. Iron Sights DO work for Fallout, and it actually has a noticeable effect on how guns are fired, rather than having the screen zoom in on the weapon.

    It's definitely less refined than the originals.

    It's blatantly obvious more thought was put into those games because they were made by people who actually gave a damn about Fallout.

    A game with very sub-par writing, gimped RPG mechanics, terrible world-building, and a badly implemented combat system that's the focus for much of said game seems enough to constitute it as such. Just because there are worse games to play doesn't excuse the shortcomings of that specific game.

    Why bother bringing it up in the first place if it doesn't really say much? It's agreed, even here, that Fallout 3 isn't as bad as FO4 or FO76. Again, just because those games are worse, doesn't excuse how bad of a "Fallout" game 3 really is.