Why does this website dislike Fallout 3 so much?

Discussion in 'Fallout 3 Discussion' started by Jethro, Jul 22, 2018.

  1. Jethro

    Jethro First time out of the vault

    4
    Jul 22, 2018
    It just seems a little bit odd. Fallout 3 is closer to the original games than New Vegas is.
    Fallout 3 has more roleplaying elements implemented and is a vastly superior game to New Vegas.
    It would waste a lot of my time just to regurgitate the same points as Many A True Nerd did:
    And before you ask, I listened to the points of the other side, played both games, and watched another video about FNV vs. FO3 by hbomberguy:
    While both games are great, I sincerely believe that Fallout 3 is better than New Vegas.
     
  2. Pwener

    Pwener FEV is the equivalent of a chest x-ray.

    536
    Aug 15, 2017
    ban_him_sm1.jpg

    No seriously, ban this moron for going through the trouble of making an account just to make this thread and say that Fallout 3 is better than New Vegas.
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2018
    • [Like] [Like] x 7
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 3
  3. Supermarauder

    Supermarauder Supposed PAYDAY Gang Member

    78
    May 23, 2016
    Wat.




    What kind of drugs are you on? Because I'd like some if you could point me to the right guy.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 3
  4. Pwener

    Pwener FEV is the equivalent of a chest x-ray.

    536
    Aug 15, 2017
    Holy hell, her avatar is a Fallout 4 screenshot. This guy MUST be trolling.

    Edit: Here, took a screenshot in case she changes it...

    Screenshot_20180722-011541~01.png
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2018
    • [Like] [Like] x 2
  5. Risewild

    Risewild Carbon Dated and Proud
    Modder Orderite

    Jun 14, 2014
    Don't you mean "played (at least) Fallout, Fallout 2, Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas"?

    Now, why is it that in a couple of months we got 3 or 4 new accounts making threads that are very similar, about a 10 year old game in a forum that is 20 years old?
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 4
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 1
  6. a721402

    a721402 Played FPS for decades still suck at it.

    742
    Mar 29, 2016
    They need something to do before Beth's F76 come out, they can't wait to play their MMS/Minecraft hybrid with Fallout skin and spend all of their own money on microtransaction.
     
  7. Ayelander

    Ayelander Big Man

    174
    Jun 30, 2018
    How many has it been now?
     
  8. Jethro

    Jethro First time out of the vault

    4
    Jul 22, 2018
    I've played a little bit of 1&2, yes. But I don't really enjoy isometric gameplay.

    There's more choice involved. And New Vegas left out the Big Guns and Small guns to dumb it down.

    Wow, ban me because my opinion is different? This is how an echochamber is created. You have yet to argue against me. Who's more of a troll? Someone who's trying to create actual discussion or a shitposter who's butthurt that someone disagrees with him so he resorts to childish insults? I'd say the latter. Please, learn to actually contribute to a conversation rather than incessantly shitposting.

    Hmm... Who is the one trolling? The one who's being completely off-topic on this thread/board or the one discussing Fallout 3?
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  9. Pwener

    Pwener FEV is the equivalent of a chest x-ray.

    536
    Aug 15, 2017
    Oh yes, you're a real master troll aren't you. :clap:

    Oh boy, just wait until a moderator comes online and sees this. They're gonna have a field day with you.

    I hope it's @Hassknecht that gets your ass banned. He always has something witty to say afterwards.
     
  10. Jethro

    Jethro First time out of the vault

    4
    Jul 22, 2018
    Yes, I'm the troll for making on topic posts that you disagree with? Do you even know what a troll is or are you just spouting the latest buzzwords that you hear?

    Very insightful and on-topic with this thread
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  11. Pwener

    Pwener FEV is the equivalent of a chest x-ray.

    536
    Aug 15, 2017
    Well what the hell did you expect? Do you see anyone agreeing with you? Or following your 'ahem' "topic?" Hell no. You come to the last bastion of true original Fallout fans, a forum that is now two decades old, a forum filled with people who have nothing but disdain towards Bethesda's Fallout games, and your first action after joining is saying New Vegas is worse than Fallout 3 (a game I like btw) but what's more, you dare say New Vegas is DUMBED DOWN. Even though they did not remove skills because 1. they added the Survival skill 2. Small Guns became Guns 3. the Heavy Weapons skill was spread out into Energy Weapons, Guns and Explosives. They then added strength requirements to all weapons and what can be considered heavy weapons were given some of the highest strength requirements in the game.

    And you call all that dumbed down.

    You are either a troll or a complete and utter retard. The latter I can forgive. The former? Well, I'll let the moderators handle that one.
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2018
  12. Hassknecht

    Hassknecht For hate's sake. Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Aug 16, 2010
    I'm not banning anyone for liking Fallout 3 over New Vegas, what the fuck is wrong with you?
    So yeah, this topic might quite possibly be

    but if you bunch of raging autists jump to the occasion every single time, well, that's your issue. It's not forbidden on this forum to like Fallout 3, and trolling only works if you let it. So instead of going full apeshit, how about trying some arguments, eh?
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 6
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 3
  13. Jethro

    Jethro First time out of the vault

    4
    Jul 22, 2018
    I never said that. I just said that, in my opinion, that Fallout 3 is a superior game. In fact, I LOVE both of them AND I used to think New Vegas was better. The fact of the matter, is that you're too closed minded to even CONSIDER that Fallout 3 is actually better than New Vegas. In Fallout 3, there's no notification pausing the game and telling you that now a faction hates you. You actually feel within the environment the effects of your actions. If you're too much of a goody two-shoes some Talon Company mercs try to kill you. If you're evil, you can get in certain places just because of your reputation.
    And speaking of the environment, New Vegas severely is lacking in this department. I know it sounds retarded, but even though it's a desert it's fucking boring. You can go for a long time without ever interacting with anything. The only real changes in biome is the Colorado river and Jacobstown. But in Fallout 3, it's very well done. From the bustling dense cities of the surrounding D.C. areas to the glorious ruins of our great American monuments to the forests of dead trees to the radioactive swamp-like areas.
    Another thing, Fallout 3 is hardly ever boring. It has more random encounters than the original isometric games. Plus all the random encounters all depend on each other. You can play a long time without seeing some of the many random encounters due to the large volume of them. In New Vegas I barely get any random encounters.
    Then about quests and stuff. Fallout New Vegas is superior in the writing department. But with endings, it's very hard to say which one is better. In New Vegas, you just side with a faction and do some quests until the endgame where you get a little post-game slideshow about the fates of various people and factions in the Mojave. With no post-game. In Fallout 3, originally you have to sacrifice to the greater good. No post-game either. But at least in Fallout 3 there is a very valid reason why they didn't include a post-game, you fucking died. In New Vegas you just "wander" with no real conclusion. Fallout 3 had a concept where it begins with your birth and ends with your death. Good concept, but poorly executed. The quests in New Vegas take you along the same damn roads over and over. It's very linear in that perspective. Not to mention that most quests take you to almost every location. But in Fallout 3, it takes you across the map multiple times AND there's some areas that are left out for you to explore.
    Speaking of exploration, New Vegas sucks at that. Most places in the Mojave are boarded up and there's lots of invisible barriers. In Fallout 3, most buildings were explorable and had a perfect risk:reward ratio in the "dungeons". Don't get me started on the Metro. You can LITERALLY get lost in that thing. Exploration in Fallout 3 is very rewarding. In fact, it emphasizes this early in the game. If the Overseer's door was too difficult to unlock, you can find a key by exploring. Then in his office, there are multiple ways to get in the terminal to open the tunnel. You can pick a lock to get a password or hack the terminal. Also you can find this fun little text-adventure. Which I didn't even know about until Many A True Nerd mentioned it.
    Now that I think of it, Fallout 3 emphasizes roleplay and dialogue early on. When you turn ten, you can use dialogue to make Butch pussy out of the fight. Violence is a secondary option. Same with when the Tunnel Snakes are bullying Amata. You can join in or stop them. If you join in there's like one choice that I can recall. But if you defend her, there's multiple ways to defuse the situation. Talk to Butch, Talk to Wally Mack, or get in a fight with them. The game teaches you that violence isn't the only answer. In fact, there's like one part where you get taught combat. This is encourage people to get more into roleplaying but if roleplaying wasn't your cup of tea, Bethesda wouldn't stop you from using violence as a means to an end (except for Little Lamplight). But in New Vegas, they let you build your character and then they immediately tell you to go down to Sunny Smiles to learn how combat and crafting works. Yeah you can ignore this quest, but it makes some other quests unavailable. If you're an average Joe who's new to Fallout games but LOVES shooters, then you would probably do less roleplaying. Also the gunplay in Fallout 3 is UTTER GARBAGE. But that is just another reason to use non-violent means. Sometimes it is REQUIRED to not be violent (Little Lamplight, for example). The better gunplay in NV makes it easier to play it like a Call of Duty game.
    Also I see some people call Bethesda "Bugthesda" or "Bugfestda", etc. But didn't New Vegas have a shit ton of bugs when it was released? So shouldn't we call Obsidian "Bugsidian"?
    Also back to the point on the enviroment of the games. I personally prefer the combination of jazz music along with empty devastated cities over Vegas swing music with an empty desert. Speaking of Call of Duty, if Woods had a look at New Vegas he'd repeat the "Sand, sand, and more fucking sand" line.
     
  14. Hassknecht

    Hassknecht For hate's sake. Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Aug 16, 2010
    Because there are no factions that can hate you, or rather, change their opinion of you.
    As opposed to New Vegas, where all these mechanics are much more pronounced?
    Ah, the bustling dense cities that are just ruins full of loot, mutants and invisible walls guiding you through pre-set paths through the subways.
    But I agree on one thing, Fallout 3 did have great landscape design. The green tint was a bit too much, but the art direction of the architecture was great and generally the landscape was well done.
    Random encounters? You mean stuff like "radscorpions attack wastelanders"? Yeah, NV lacked a bit in those departments. So sad.
    NV gives a proper ending to all the important characters and settlements and everything. Fallout 3 lets you die for no reason at all. "Hey, buddy that is immune to radiation, how about you flip that switch?" - "Nah, this is your heroic quest!" That part had to be one of the worst examples of writing in RPG history. Tacking on that DLC that retconned the ending didn't really help, the quests were silly and what's really the point of playing past the ending when nothing changes? There's still Enclave troops and Super Mutants and everything around, all the time. NV couldn't really work well with playing past the ending because the ending had an impact on the world. With the short development time it was impossible to implement all that.
    Turns out NV is a different type of cRPG than Fallout 3. It's not about random exploration of conveniently placed locations to keep you occupied, it's about the story and the peopel.
    Except that none of the choices you make actually have much of an effect. So you can make Butch pussy out. Or be mean to him, or whatever. The end result is always the same. Nothing changes, it's all hot air that does nothing. In New Vegas, your choices have an effect. You can fuck your status with a faction and not being able to get back with them. Your companions will react to your status as well. In Fallout 3 you need to kill. In NV you don't, fully pacifist and non-violent playthroughs are possible and encouraged.
    Yeah, NV was buggy as crap. They had a little over a year of development time on an engine that was new to them, while Bethesda had years of dev time on their own engine and it was still buggy as hell. To this day Fallout 3 is nigh unplayable without loads of tricks, while NV is actually quite stable out of the box now.
    Can't comment on the music, I refuse to listen to nothing but 50s music in a game set in 22xx. At least NV brought back some of the classic ambient music.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 13
  15. Alphons

    Alphons National Beholder

    Aug 9, 2017
    Don't know why everyone thinks that FO3 is hated here. I like FO3 and I've been active here for almost a year without a problem.

    As to your points, they were all brought so many times, so here are some recent threads
    http://www.nma-fallout.com/threads/fallout-3-is-better-than-you-think-many-a-true-nerd.215644/
    http://www.nma-fallout.com/threads/i-like-fallout-3.215947/

    And a video by @Valdietosi
     
  16. Risewild

    Risewild Carbon Dated and Proud
    Modder Orderite

    Jun 14, 2014
    Then you might not understand how Fallout 3 is so far from what Fallout was supposed to be. This means you can't compare the vision of Fallout and how Fallout 3 just craps on all of it.
    And this is coming from me, that enjoyed playing Fallout 3 and haven't really stopped playing it for at least 8 years or so.
    I enjoy the game, but I also see how bad it is compared to the other Fallout games, with the exception of Fallout 4, which improved in small areas but overall is a much more boring and worst RPG than Fallout 3.
    I posted this just ten days ago:
    http://www.nma-fallout.com/threads/my-defense-of-fallout-3.216066/#post-4288292

    Now let me add to that post:
    Fallout 3 has way less choices than Fallout, Fallout 2 or Fallout New Vegas. It is very linear and also doesn't use character skills like it is supposed to do, it uses too much player skill.

    Also New Vegas added Survival skill which is the opposite of "dumbing down", it adds an entire new mechanic to the game that adds way more options and character builds. Also affects and plays a huge role on Hardcore Mode that once again shows how Fallout 3 is more dumbed down than New Vegas was.

    Fallout New Vegas also added:
    1. Real iron sights (which is one of the things that improved the combat from Fallout 3).
    2. Real crafting for food, medicine and chems, ammo, etc.
    3. Ammo types (that actually influence the combat, instead of just being a gimmick) that make combat be more than just shoot the weapon that deals more damage for longer and defeat the enemy (another things that improves the combat from Fallout 3).
    4. DT and still kept DR (adding a more in depth strategy in combat, improving once more the combat from Fallout 3).
    5. Weapon mods (which improve even more the combat and the feel of different weapons from Fallout 3).
    6. Different looking unique weapons (that make collecting/owning weapons more fun/stylish for some people).
    7. Thrown Weapons like spears, hatchets, knives, tomahawks (once again improving the combat from Fallout 3).
    8. New weapon types like Grenade Launchers, Grenade Machineguns, Light Machineguns, Holorifles, Microbreeder/Recharger weapons, Archimedes/Euclides, timed explosives and explosives with a detonator, Plasma Casters, Arc Welders, Sonic Emiters, Pulse Guns, Flare Guns, Shoulder Mounted "big guns", etc.
    9. Special Unarmed attacks (once again improving even further the combat from Fallout 3).
    10. Strength requirement to weapons to "function" properly/without penalties (making combat more complex, which is the total opposite of dumbing down).
    11. More than twice the number of weapons (Fallout 3 has 71 and FNV has 150+), not counting Unique variants of weapons. If we count all the different weapons we have:
    • FO3: 8 unarmed weapons. FNV: 33 unarmed weapons
    • FO3: 18 melee "blunt" weapons. FNV: 21 melee "blunt" weapons
    • FO3: 26 melee "bladed" weapons. FNV: 33 melee "bladed" weapons
    • FO3: 5 "thrown" explosives. FNV: 12 "thrown" explosives
    • FO3: 5 "placed" explosives. FNV: 13 "placed" explosives
    • FO3: 10 two handed energy weapons. FNV: 15 two handed energy weapons.
    • FO3: 14 one handed energy weapons. FNV: 17 one handed energy weapons.
    • FO3: 17 "big guns". FNV: 31 "big guns"
    • FO3: 2 submachine guns. FNV: 8 submachine guns.
    • FO3: 5 shotguns. FNV: 9 shotguns.
    • FO3: 15 rifles. FNV: 25 rifles.
    • FO3: 12 pistols. FNV: 18 pistols.
    • FO3: 0 thrown weapons. FNV: 7 thrown weapons.
    For a grand total of FO3 having 137 weapons while Fallout New Vegas has 242 weapons.​
    1. Companion Perks.
    2. Companion quests.
    3. Companion growth using their quests (companions gain different abilities depending on how you help them do their quests).
    4. Companion control Wheels.
    5. Skill magazines and magazines that improve stuff like critical %
    6. Traits which allow a more in-depth personalization of the character right at game start
    7. Better and more perks (anyone remember the Fallout 3 perks that just add skill points?)
    8. The choice of working for 4 different factions (including your own faction) and choose which one to support (while Fallout 3 forces the player to join the BoS and fight the Enclave)
    9. Quests with so many branches and allow so many options that would blow off Fallout 3 mind (if it had a mind)
    10. Consistent "World building".
    11. Improved the game engine. Need proof? Try and run Fallout 3 out of the box on Windows 10 and see how it goes without using other tools/mods/tweaks (answer: It won't run). Now do the same with Fallout New Vegas and notice how the game will work without doing/editing/adding anything extra.
    12. Fallout New Vegas also use your character's skills way more than Fallout 3 does:
    • Fallout New Vegas uses Barter checks in 40 different places (dialogue or quests), in contrast Fallout 3 uses Barter checks 6 times.
    • Fallout New Vegas uses Explosives checks in 14 different places, in contrast Fallout 3 uses Explosives checks in 3 different places.
    • Fallout New Vegas uses Guns checks in 6 different places, Fallout 3 doesn't use Small Guns of Big Guns in any checks.
    • Fallout New Vegas uses Lockpick checks in 2 different places, while Fallout 3 doesn't use any lockpick check.
    • Fallout New Vegas uses Medicine checks in 18 different places, Fallout 3 uses Medicine checks 7 times.
    • Fallout New Vegas uses Repair checks in 16 different places, Fallout 3 uses Repair checks 12 times.
    • Fallout New Vegas uses Science checks in 21 different places, Fallout 3 uses Science checks 8 times.
    • Fallout New Vegas uses Speech checks in 77 different places, Fallout 3 uses Speech checks 122 times.
    • Fallout New Vegas uses Survival checks 10+ times (I can't remember how many the game uses in dialogue with Ulysses), Fallout 3 doesn't have Survival.
    All the other skills I didn't mentioned means that there are no skill checks in either game.

    The big tragedy of Skill checks in Fallout 3 is that Speech is used a lot (even more than Fallout New Vegas), but since it is a % chance, most players will not invest in Speech or Charisma, because they can still pass those checks even with base skill (not to mention Skill Bobblehead, Apparel giving Charisma and/or Speech, drink alcoholic drinks and pop a chem).

    And on top of this, Fallout New Vegas had at least 1/5 of the planned content, quests, map, characters, etc cut off and/or never implemented because they run out of time. So Fallout New Vegas is only a part of what the game was supposed to be, and yet, it is still superior to Fallout 3 in many things, and added a lot of good content and improvements (I just mentioned a few up there).
    And this came from a small studio, with a small budget (their budget was so small they had a limit of 10.000 lines of dialogue for all of their DLCs together), that had never used or worked with the game engine and only had 18 months to learn how to use the tools and to do the game. Versus Bethesda Fallout 3 which had 4 years to plan and make Fallout 3, using an engine they have been using for 6 years and made 2 different games already using it.
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2018
    • [Like] [Like] x 10
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 1
  17. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    Or maybe it really isn't?

    Let us be truly honest here for a min. like REALLY honest, painfully honest!

    Neither Fallout 3 nor Las Vegas are the continuation of Fallout 1 and 2. Albeit, New Vegas is definetly the closest we got in like 20 years since Van Buren was canceled. For that to be true and to actually succesfully continue what Fallout 2 and more importantly Fallout 1 was, not only the dialog and story have to be a continuation but the looks and gameplay too, and don't tell me that's an 'engine' limitation or 'not modern':



    There are top down games with turn based combat relased today, and they rock.

    Now, I understand that this kind of gameplay and look is not everyones cup of tea, I will be honest I totally loathe racing games and racing sims and most things that have to do with driving around circles with others beating a timer. But I would never explain to someone that Need for Speed made as first person shooter, would be an improvemen to the franchise. Because it simply wouldn't be. It wouldn't be an update, nor an improvement or anything like that. I would simply butcher an established franchise, to suit my personal taste, and that's silly. The things you end up, are stuff like Fallout 4 and Fallout 69. Games that are barely recognizeable as RPGs leave alone Fallout games.

    So please, don't try to explain to me how Fallout 3 is not 'as bad' as I or we think. Because it really is. In more ways than people even think. Fallout 3 and the design decisions behind it, is what what gave us garbage like F4 and hell god knows if that travesty online bullshit that Bethesda is now promoting really sells many games and does well, this will be the future of Fallout, you know it, Bethesda knows it. Fallout has become the Turtles of gaming, where once a mature RPG has become a pew-pew-I-wana-buy-expensive-skins child shooter. And yeah, if you tell people that you're a Fallout fan, they will soon think OH! So you also love fort knight! AWESOME!

    Man, that rant feelt good! I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did. I need now a cigarette - I don't smoke though, it's just a saying.
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2018
    • [Like] [Like] x 6
  18. Norzan

    Norzan Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Apr 7, 2017
    Ahhahahahahaha.

    Let's just summarize because i'm becoming tired of repeating myself:

    Fallout 3

    A game where most quests only have two outcomes and it's either white or black morality and when they have more than two it's the "which limb you want to cut off?" like the Tenpenny Tower quest.

    The main questline is super linear, you are forced to help your dad and BoS even if you are the worst monster in the wasteland. Not to mention poorly written and just a terrible amalgamation of the story of the first two games.

    The intro barely allows you to come up with your own backstory in a game with CHARACTER CREATION. You are stuck as a 19 year old with a dead mother and living father. Hardly any of the "choices" in the vault matter.

    The world building is complete garbage with nonsensical location placement (Old Olney next to Replubic of Dave) and every location has something. Even though it's been 200 years since the bombs fell, how do some of these places have stuff in it when raiders and scavengers exist?

    Systems like traits, that were optional i might add so you didn't need to use them, were removed for no reason.

    Lore is completely destroyed like Super Mutants being turned into mindless ogres. Brotherhood of Steel somehow being the in the East Coast, even they were losing with the NCR at the time and were forced into their bunkers to avoid being destroyed. Characters like Harold are just brought into the game for no reason except: "Hey, that's the character from the first two games".

    New Vegas

    A majority of the quests are not so black and white, a lot of them have more than two different outcomes and some of them can be tackled by up to 5 different builds.

    https://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/How_Little_We_Know



    The main questline has four different paths where you can pick four different factions. Each with their own motives and goals that can suit a wide variety of characters. Not to mention becoming enemies to the opposing factions, cutting you off from the quests of those factions.

    The intro allows me to come up with my own backstory because 90% of it left to the player. I can grow attached to this character because it's mine and not made by the devs like in Fallout 3.

    The world building is fantastic with location placement actually making sense. There's no constantly finding something new in every location because sometimes when a location has nothing, then it has nothing because that's how it is. It's not a damn theme park like in Fallout 3.

    Traits were brought back and other stuff was improved.

    Conclusion:

    You can like Fallout 3 more than New Vegas, but saying the former has more roleplaying elements than the latter is factually, objectively false.

    And the fact you haven't even played the first two games but claim Fallout 3 is closer to the originals than New Vegas is laughable. New Vegas is the closest the franchise ever got to the first two games, all it needed was turn based isometric gameplay. The themes of the first two were continued in New Vegas and expanded upon, unlike Fallout 3 where it just butchers the themes into a laughable mess.


    I fucking knew Fallout 3 zealots would start using that video from ManyaTrueNerd as an "argument" to convince anyone that hates Fallout 3 that the game is not bad. He cherry picks so much and makes so much stuff look bigger than they really are. And a lot of the stuff is small potatoes compared to the overall picture of Fallout 3. Not to mention taking shots at New Vegas to make the game seem worse than it is.
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2018
    • [Like] [Like] x 9
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 1
  19. Cliffy McEdgeface

    Cliffy McEdgeface bitch I will cut you

    899
    Jun 28, 2018
    Thanks so fucking much, ManyATrueNerd.

    My take on it: anything FO3 does, FNV does better. No exceptions. Quest design, loot, choices and consequences, world building, music, skill checks and general skill use, perks, even combat (which is largely inherited from FO3) is better because of FNV's improvements.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 3
  20. Hassknecht

    Hassknecht For hate's sake. Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Aug 16, 2010
    Fallout 3 had better architecture. Sorry, but it's true. Doesn't help the game, though.