Why is Fallout 3 so hated?

[Ekans22]

Well I'll be. As Woo said, kind of pointless though - by the time you get to lvl 30, a lot of the skills you care about will be maxed anyway, and since SPECIAL doesn't do much else other than boost your initial skill values...

 

[Alesia]

You simply should not be walking around murdering people, nuking towns and still have the option (even if you dont use it) to become the saviour of the wasteland if you catch my drift.

Each game has issues like this. In New Vegas, you don't even have the option. No matter how much of a murderous, stealing, lying, obscene bastard I am, I've never been able to finish a play with evil karma. Why? Because every feral ghoul, viper, fiend, and Jackal I kill gives me good karma. And it's not like I can just simply avoid ALL of them.

Now, you could argue people think better of me because I'm somehow doing them a service by killing raiders, but what if my heart is still an abyss that cares nothing for them? I doubt in reality if you acted like my one courier who wiped out Goodsprings, then proceeded to kill all the powder gangers, NCR, Legion, wipe out freeside and the strip including every casino, etc.. that people would warm up to you or you'd somehow become a savior just by killing a few raiders.

 

[woo1108]

You simply should not be walking around murdering people, nuking towns and still have the option (even if you dont use it) to become the saviour of the wasteland if you catch my drift.

Each game has issues like this. In New Vegas, you don't even have the option. No matter how much of a murderous, stealing, lying, obscene bastard I am, I've never been able to finish a play with evil karma. Why? Because every feral ghoul, viper, fiend, and Jackal I kill gives me good karma. And it's not like I can just simply avoid ALL of them.

Now, you could argue people think better of me because I'm somehow doing them a service by killing raiders, but what if my heart is still an abyss that cares nothing for them? I doubt in reality if you acted like my one courier who wiped out Goodsprings, then proceeded to kill all the powder gangers, NCR, Legion, wipe out freeside and the strip including every casino, etc.. that people would warm up to you or you'd somehow become a savior just by killing a few raiders.

but actually karma plays very little role in NV.
you can be saint with karma but that means nothing.
and with jsawyer.esp it's fixed.
but actually I think not only both fo3 and NV's karma but also Fo1,2's karma isn't good idea. just throw away karma and use only reputation. it's better for moral problem.

 

[Oppen]

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Almost_Perfect

Well, considering you kind of already beat the game at that point, it could be considered similar to the hint book in Fallout 2.

Each game has issues like this. In New Vegas, you don't even have the option. No matter how much of a murderous, stealing, lying, obscene bastard I am, I've never been able to finish a play with evil karma. Why? Because every feral ghoul, viper, fiend, and Jackal I kill gives me good karma. And it's not like I can just simply avoid ALL of them.

Now, you could argue people think better of me because I'm somehow doing them a service by killing raiders, but what if my heart is still an abyss that cares nothing for them? I doubt in reality if you acted like my one courier who wiped out Goodsprings, then proceeded to kill all the powder gangers, NCR, Legion, wipe out freeside and the strip including every casino, etc.. that people would warm up to you or you'd somehow become a savior just by killing a few raiders.

Even when someone could argue people like you better because "you did a service", karma and factions reputation are different things in New Vegas (and should be in every Fallout, IMO), and doing some kind of service should only affect the latter. If you nuke a town and then kill evil people too, I'd rather assume you like murdering (which should be bad karma) instead of thinking you are trying to somehow balance things.

but actually karma plays very little role in NV.
you can be saint with karma but that means nothing.
and with jsawyer.esp it's fixed.
but actually I think not only both fo3 and NV's karma but also Fo1,2's karma isn't good idea. just throw away karma and use only reputation. it's better for moral problem.

I don't agree. In fact, inside a given faction, moral should play a bigger role than between factions. What is considered "evil" is mostly one of three things: I'll call the most obvious one "stupid evilness", which is trying intentionally to do what is conventionally wrong, just because; another one is "doing whatever it takes", i.e., ends justify means. This one would be important inside a given faction, for example, an NCR citizen that is more concerned about individuals might like you better if you give Helios One's energy to Freeside, because he might think they need it worse, but a more 'bigger picture' concerned one might see that as hurting the Republic ideals, since you are giving energy to the anarchists. But both are pro NCR, though. The last kind of "evil" is being selfish. You don't WANT to do bad to others, and if it doesn't conflict with your own interests you might even try to help others, but your only priority is your own benefit. And none of these three cases are really solved by the faction reputations system. It's not descriptive for what your character does on that cases, and is actually quite different functionally in the second case, since with reputation only EVERY NCR CITIZEN (at least, every citizen that still wants to be one) will like you if you have good reputation with the NCR.

 

[Languorous_Maiar]

Well, considering you kind of already beat the game at that point, it could be considered similar to the hint book in Fallout 2.

Basically you can take perk without beating them game, so no, it can't be concidered smiliar thing.
Also, some optional book is something completely different than perk, which should be balanced.

 

[Mameluk]

I think Karma system should be either remodelled or abandoned, since at this state the results it gives are simply lulzy. I've had an impression it worked slightly better in NV than in FO3, but still - killing raiders, gangers and feral ghouls gave you good karma. Allright, it's justifiable.
BUT!
Stealing stuff from homicidal junkies terrorizing half of Vegas or slaver army trying to impose its totalitarian ideology on Mojave gave you negative karma!
That's what bothered me the most with karma in NV. "- Look, I'm depleting your enemies' supplies, I'm doing you a favor, people!" "-Nah, man, that's not right, we're gonna have to lower your karma."
And yeah, I would always finish the game as Messiah, not because I always played as a good guy, refraining from mindless slaughter was enough.

 

[Ekans22]

I don't agree. In fact, inside a given faction, moral should play a bigger role than between factions. What is considered "evil" is mostly one of three things: I'll call the most obvious one "stupid evilness", which is trying intentionally to do what is conventionally wrong, just because; another one is "doing whatever it takes", i.e., ends justify means. This one would be important inside a given faction, for example, an NCR citizen that is more concerned about individuals might like you better if you give Helios One's energy to Freeside, because he might think they need it worse, but a more 'bigger picture' concerned one might see that as hurting the Republic ideals, since you are giving energy to the anarchists. But both are pro NCR, though. The last kind of "evil" is being selfish. You don't WANT to do bad to others, and if it doesn't conflict with your own interests you might even try to help others, but your only priority is your own benefit. And none of these three cases are really solved by the faction reputations system. It's not descriptive for what your character does on that cases, and is actually quite different functionally in the second case, since with reputation only EVERY NCR CITIZEN (at least, every citizen that still wants to be one) will like you if you have good reputation with the NCR.

Does this mean that no faction can be either 'black' or white', morally? Or if so, how does that fit into a 100 % separated reputation/karma system? For NV, I think separating them makes perfect sense. But what about a game that has factions that are more clear-cut good and bad? (Or maybe a self-respecting RPG shouldn't have such simplistic factions in the first place - Personally think they can have their place, but they should be smaller sized and rare).

 

[Oppen]

I don't agree. In fact, inside a given faction, moral should play a bigger role than between factions. What is considered "evil" is mostly one of three things: I'll call the most obvious one "stupid evilness", which is trying intentionally to do what is conventionally wrong, just because; another one is "doing whatever it takes", i.e., ends justify means. This one would be important inside a given faction, for example, an NCR citizen that is more concerned about individuals might like you better if you give Helios One's energy to Freeside, because he might think they need it worse, but a more 'bigger picture' concerned one might see that as hurting the Republic ideals, since you are giving energy to the anarchists. But both are pro NCR, though. The last kind of "evil" is being selfish. You don't WANT to do bad to others, and if it doesn't conflict with your own interests you might even try to help others, but your only priority is your own benefit. And none of these three cases are really solved by the faction reputations system. It's not descriptive for what your character does on that cases, and is actually quite different functionally in the second case, since with reputation only EVERY NCR CITIZEN (at least, every citizen that still wants to be one) will like you if you have good reputation with the NCR.

Does this mean that no faction can be either 'black' or white', morally? Or if so, how does that fit into a 100 % separated reputation/karma system? For NV, I think separating them makes perfect sense. But what about a game that has factions that are more clear-cut good and bad? (Or maybe a self-respecting RPG shouldn't have such simplistic factions in the first place - Personally think they can have their place, but they should be smaller sized and rare).

Maybe a particular faction could be like plainly good or plainly bad. Personally, I don't like that, but what I mean is actually respecting that factions are composed by individuals. Anyway, if such rework (as it's clearly needed in the karma system) would happen, it could be added the possibility for a given faction's reputation to be bound to karma, so there MIGHT exist factions that are good or bad and that would respect you or despise you depending on how good or evil you are.
I forgot to say in my original post that the current karma system only takes care (and fairly bad) of the first case I talked about, so it should be reworked.

Well, considering you kind of already beat the game at that point, it could be considered similar to the hint book in Fallout 2.

Basically you can take perk without beating them game, so no, it can't be concidered smiliar thing.
Also, some optional book is something completely different than perk, which should be balanced.

I agree in the point that you might take it before beating the game, that actually IS a difference.
But the perk is as optional as the book. Both are inside the game, and both are player's call to use or avoid.

 

[Stanislao Moulinsky]

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Almost_Perfect

Well, considering you kind of already beat the game at that point, it could be considered similar to the hint book in Fallout 2.

You can reach lv 30 in FO3 way before completing everything (the main quest is another story). Its utility at that point is relatively limited but still...

But the perk is as optional as the book. Both are inside the game, and both are player's call to use or avoid.

I completed FO2 multiple times without even knowing of the book existence, though. One is a secret/easter egg, the other is supposed to be a normal option you are given.

 

[Ekans22]

I honestly never knew about either the hint book OR the almost perfect perk.

But then again, I never bothered with FO3 DLC.

 

[Oppen]

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Almost_Perfect

Well, considering you kind of already beat the game at that point, it could be considered similar to the hint book in Fallout 2.

You can reach lv 30 in FO3 way before completing everything (the main quest is another story). Its utility at that point is relatively limited but still...

But the perk is as optional as the book. Both are inside the game, and both are player's call to use or avoid.

I completed FO2 multiple times without even knowing of the book existence, though. One is a secret/easter egg, the other is supposed to be a normal option you are given.

As I said in a previous post, I admit the first point marks a clear difference.
Now, the way you're exposing the second one makes it different, but they're equal in the single aspect of being optional to the player and possible, and in the single aspect of lead to an overpowered PC.

 

[maikii]

It's baffling that 95% of the dislike for Fallout 3 (from what I've read) comes from the opinion that it's "not realistic" or "doesn't make sense."

It's a post apocalyptic video game series, with mutated creatures, set in a retro-futuristic world. None of them "make sense." It's called suspension of disbelief.

You guys are missing the forest for the trees.

I can understand not liking the game if you're not privy to it's gameplay, story, etc., but to claim it's bad because it's not realistic is just stupid.

 

[CthuluIsSpy]

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Almost_Perfect

Well, considering you kind of already beat the game at that point, it could be considered similar to the hint book in Fallout 2.

You can reach lv 30 in FO3 way before completing everything (the main quest is another story). Its utility at that point is relatively limited but still...

But the perk is as optional as the book. Both are inside the game, and both are player's call to use or avoid.

I completed FO2 multiple times without even knowing of the book existence, though. One is a secret/easter egg, the other is supposed to be a normal option you are given.

As I said in a previous post, I admit the first point marks a clear difference.
Now, the way you're exposing the second one makes it different, but they're equal in the single aspect of being optional to the player and possible, and in the single aspect of lead to an overpowered PC.

Eh, almost perfect isn't that absurd to me as the one that turns you into a walking nuke. That one is just absurd.

It's baffling that 95% of the dislike for Fallout 3 (from what I've read) comes from the opinion that it's "not realistic" or "doesn't make sense."

It's a post apocalyptic video game series, with mutated creatures, set in a retro-futuristic world. None of them "make sense." It's called suspension of disbelief.

You guys are missing the forest for the trees.

I can understand not liking the game if you're not privy to it's gameplay, story, etc., but to claim it's bad because it's not realistic is just stupid.

Suspension of Disbelief can only do so much. It cannot excuse absurdity.

Have you ever seen the film "Ed Wood"? That film pretty much shows how far you can stretch "Suspension of Disbelief"

 

[SnapSlav]

It's baffling that 95% of the dislike for Fallout 3 (from what I've read) comes from the opinion that it's "not realistic" or "doesn't make sense."

It's a post apocalyptic video game series, with mutated creatures, set in a retro-futuristic world. None of them "make sense." It's called suspension of disbelief.

You guys are missing the forest for the trees.

I can understand not liking the game if you're not privy to it's gameplay, story, etc., but to claim it's bad because it's not realistic is just stupid.

Flaws are flaws. Besides, "not realistic" or "doesn't make sense" is NOT 95% of why people hate FO3; they're simply the reasons that are easiest to express. Pointing out that the game mechanics are self-defeating because all challenge is averted by simply sleeping in any makeshift bed for 1 hour or that the intended difficulty in making tough choices is negated when giving 5 bottles of water to any parched wasteland is all you need to do are simply not as easy to illustrate as pointing out that being able to jump 4 feet in the air while carrying 250lbs just feels iffy. The game is bad for WAY more reasons than pressing our collective suspension of disbelief with its sheer volume of absurdity, but that certainly contributes.

If someone sat you down to learn a new variation of Chess, and they told you that every time you lost your Queen you could simply get another one, anyone with a brain who understood how NORMAL Chess worked would have to ask the question, "Then, what's the POINT in losing the Queen in the first place if I can always get it back?" The core precept of any game is that there are rules you have to abide by, and they have to make sense. If your game just abandons any rules simply to cater to popular trends, you have to ask "What's the point?" FO3 is just a shallow gaming experience because that's exactly what it does. That has nothing to do with the issues of lackluster realism or not making sense, but those certainly compound a bad problem and make it even worse.

 

[shihonage]

It's baffling that 95% of the dislike for Fallout 3 (from what I've read) comes from the opinion that it's "not realistic" or "doesn't make sense."

It's a post apocalyptic video game series, with mutated creatures, set in a retro-futuristic world. None of them "make sense." It's called suspension of disbelief.

You guys are missing the forest for the trees.

I can understand not liking the game if you're not privy to it's gameplay, story, etc., but to claim it's bad because it's not realistic is just stupid.

You are missing the point as to how immersion is achieved.

What really happens is that the story-maker proves a successful 'sub-creator'. He makes a Secondary World which your mind can enter. Inside it, what he relates is 'true' : it accords with the laws of that world.

You therefore believe it, while you are, as it were, inside. The moment disbelief arises, the spell is broken ; the magic, or rather art, has failed. You are then out in the Primary World again, looking at the little abortive Secondary World from outside.

The virtual world has to accomodate and protect player's suspension of disbelief, not aggravate and destroy it through internal inconsistencies.

 

[Wish I had a cool name9]

I'm against having a karma system, I don't see how killing raiders for money makes one a good person, especially if you eat them afterward.(been eating fiends in Vegas and i'm apparently one of the good guys).

 

[Oppen]

Eh, almost perfect isn't that absurd to me as the one that turns you into a walking nuke. That one is just absurd.

TBH, I thought that was metaphoric. It's been a while since the last time I've played FO 3. But yeah, that's just overly silly.

 

[CthuluIsSpy]

I'm against having a karma system, I don't see how killing raiders for money makes one a good person, especially if you eat them afterward.(been eating fiends in Vegas and i'm apparently one of the good guys).

Yeah, the Karma system in both games is a bit broken. It's actually worse in FNV since the values it gives you for killing Fiends is ridiculous. You could be the devil himself, and according the game all you have to do is murder some psychopathic crack heads, and suddenly you are the messiah.

Fortunately, J.E Sawyer seems to have fixed that in his mod.

 

[helios1]

Not sure what politics has to do with Fallout.

You're using fallacies and intellectual dishonesty in order to push a narrative that is not aligned with reality. The prize of your post is the part where you compare Fallout 3 dialogue to Fallout 1 character blurbs that appear above their heads.

You do THAT, and expect to be taken seriously by anyone with IQ over 80?

But I do agree with you that I'm definitely immature for having a different opinion. I mean, if my opinion in gaming was more like yours, than I'd be mature like you. The specifics you give here really clears things up.

Yes, you are entitled to like all sorts of manure. That is entirely your prerogative.

But you, like many other people who come here, are being lazy.

You come to a forum, you post some half-assed pseudo-arguments in DEFENSE if your manure, arguments that have been debunked a thousand times before, and expect those same people who have dealt with your crap a thousand times in the past, to repeat themselves for the thousand-and-oneth time, JUST FOR YOU, because you are precious.

This horse has been beaten to death since 2008. Go read older posts on these forums and educate yourself on what makes Fallout 3 and Fallout1/2 incomparable.

To a reasonably aware individual, the evidence would've been obvious after actually completing Fallout 1, but unfortunately kids these days are not trained to recognize depth and reactivity in games when they see it.

You "beat" Fallout. Hurried your way to the end goal on a straight path. You did not, however, experience it.

Also, being non-sarcastic/serious now, I wouldn't call myself a 'FO3 fan' just because FO3 is my favorite in the series - as it marginally wins over the others. I've liked both NV and FO1 almost just as much, and consider myself more of a fan of the entire series. (Not even sure FO3 is quite my favorite - they're all marginally close for me).

It is truly unfortunate that you can't tell the difference between the immersive and reactive universe of Fallout 1, and the nonsensical mishmash of schizophrenic vignettes that is Fallout 3. The world of Fallout 3 makes zero sense, blatantly and in your face, at every single step it works to destroy any semblance of believability or immersion.

It is also truly unfortunate that you can't tell the difference between decent and horrible writing when you see it.

If anything, the sum total you should get from this, is that you should read more books and develop an actual feeling for language and taste in storytelling.

Then maybe you'll ask yourself how come the cars in Fallout 3 explode, really, or why there's a retarded tree cult, or The Matrix in that game, or why a ghoul would insta-appear after a nuclear blast, or who in their right mind would build a town on a nuclear bomb, or offer a complete stranger to blow it up...

Fallout 3 is the epitome of intellectual laziness in every crevice of its rotten being. Everything that is even remotely salvageable about the game, came directly as a poor imitation of what already existed in Fallout 1.

You should stop mirroring that intellectual laziness on your end and rise above games like this. It's the only way to raise the bar.

But this opens my eyes on how profound the hate is for some people - liking all the FO games about equally isn't enough - if I heaven-forbid enjoy FO3 along with the others, then I'm akin to an immature high school girl(good times... I guess?) or Obama's press secretary (not so good times lol)

On the positive side, with your complete lack of discernment, you're bound to enjoy just about anything. Whether it's a chocolate bar or chocolate-flavored manure, it's all the same to you.

On the negative side, you are polluting your brain with garbage. I would not recommend this in long-term. You are what you eat.

Ok I know I'm posting in an old thread but wow he was being reasonable and respectful of others opinions that the originals are better, and you tell him he's less intelligent for liking something? He was being reasonable and you still act like you're superior and that he's an idiot for also enjoying fallout 3. He even likes and appreciates fallout 1 but he's still an immature little kid because he also likes fallout 3. Stop acting like you're better than other people

 

[naossano]

While i understand the general feeling about having to repeat things over and over, because people didn't took the time to search that deal with the exact same subject, the guy you quoted clearly lost his mind.
I don't know if the guy lost his temper for the reason i mentioned above or if he just wanted to troll a new guy, but IMO, that kind of guy shouldn't, by no means, be considered as representing the whole "side" of people prefering all other Fallout over Fallout 3.
If you see closer, you should see that like 80% of NMA members tend to prefer other fallout than Fallout 3. Yet, you can see a whole range of behavior, between a complete willingness to open discussion about it, and people like the guy above, with an average of folks between those two states.

The same could be said about Fallout 3 fanboy. There are some that try to exchange thought and others that just want to troll for the sake of it. It is up to everyone to make differences between individual and "side".

Same could be said for french, americans, commies, capitalists, nerd, policemen, etc...

Also, there is already a thread called elitist vs fanboy.