Why is Fallout 3 so hated?

[Chaito]

Personally, I think New Vegas improved upon Fallout 3 immensely. I don't need Fallout to be turn-based anymore. We have Wasteland 2 for that. New Vegas actually felt like a RPG. Fallout 3 felt like a shooter.

Bingo!

But that is mainly because Obsidian's part in the game.

I am playing NV now (I hated F3 so much that waited a lot to start NV) and I am very glad of what they made with that poor engine and gameplay they had. TONS of RPG more than F3, tons of Storyline, tons of loyalty to the F and F2 canon.

Still it is too simplified and it is a pity the quantity of bugs it has but again is far miles better than The elder scrolls: Fallout (3).

I'm tired of seeing reviews of people saying that NV is a shame compared to TES:Fallout, really makes me sick. They clearly don't seek the same as we do when playing an RPG game.

 

[Per]

I think it was on this site there was a review for FO3 where they treated it as another game. Called it Capital Wasteland: Requiem or something like that. If you pretend it's not a fallout game, it makes the game much more palatable.

I wonder what mysterious site that was!

 

[MrMagic]

Alright guys, I have read through all of your replies, and I understand now why most of you have such aversion towards it. In fact, it has opened my eyes a bit. FO3 was not very well thought out, I agree. The more I think about it, the more I realize how retarded the gameworld is, so that's pretty much cleared up. I have always hated the story, no doubt about that. It was cliched and childish, IMO. The ending was cheesy as all hell too, but the story was weak in the game and I ignored it most of the time. Gameplay for me was alright, but it really was not an RPG in any sense. It may have had skill points and perks, but it was not an RPG. VATS was also a disgraceful attempt at putting turn based combat into the game. There is a lot to hate, but for me, I take it out of the series, as someone else in this thread said, and I think of it as a spin-off. I've played a lot of games and watched a lot of movies and read a lot of books as well. There have been many cases where there were parts I really disliked about a book, movie or game, and yet I still enjoyed it because there were some other things to like, for me at least. FO3 can not and does not live up to the originals. Even dated as they are, they are still my favorite games. But there was some fun to be had in FO3, even if it was half-hearted, short lived and a bit immature. I feel that FO3 was designed for a different generation. Today, games are fast paced and have actiony crap in them, and fewer games incorporate thought and planning into them. An example is the newest Hitman game. I was pretty excited when it was announced, but a bit dissapointed when I played it. It was still fun and I liked it, but it wasn't like the other Hitman games. They tried to make it an action-stealth game, rather than what the originals were. Some of the levels stood true to the originals, but not all. So I think gamers are becoming lazy and just want to see endless amounts of cool shit strewn at them when they play, and I think developers are tailoring games to this new mentality and completely ignoring older gamers (and the intellectually mature younger gamers) who want a game that challenges them; and not challenge through difficulty as many games are coming to, but challenge through thought-process.

 

[Wintermind]

I think it was on this site there was a review for FO3 where they treated it as another game. Called it Capital Wasteland: Requiem or something like that. If you pretend it's not a fallout game, it makes the game much more palatable.

I wonder what mysterious site that was!

It must surely be a place of wonder and happiness and genius!

 

[arikel]

Greetings everyone! I tend to visit the main page an awful lot but now I have lots of time to browse at work so thought I'd throw in my first 2 cents right here. A lot of members have already explained more clearly and eloquently than I ever could some of the specifics that make fallout 3 jar with many older fans tastes. I don't especially hate FO3 in that I do find it fun to roam around in and blast the occasional raider, but that's primarily all it is, and I could never be bothered to finish the questlines, and here is where I have to draw an analogy that struck me this afternoon:

FO3 is to the Fallout Series as the Star Wars Prequels are to the Original Movies. The parallels are numerous, with interesting storylines replaced by trite cliches, bad writing on all levels, horrible characters introduced all over the place, along with crapping all over the original lore. At least in Fallout fandom we have the luxury of blaming this on a new developer, Star Wars got screwed by it's own creator.

Even though the game isn't so bad in and of itself , just like the SW prequels are passable sci fi action flicks if you don't conisder the originals, it changed everything so much and in such silly and wrongheaded ways that older fans can't help but be pissed off at it, even if they like it as an actual game.

 

[TorontoReign]

Greetings everyone! I tend to visit the main page an awful lot but now I have lots of time to browse at work so thought I'd throw in my first 2 cents right here. A lot of members have already explained more clearly and eloquently than I ever could some of the specifics that make fallout 3 jar with many older fans tastes. I don't especially hate FO3 in that I do find it fun to roam around in and blast the occasional raider, but that's primarily all it is, and I could never be bothered to finish the questlines, and here is where I have to draw an analogy that struck me this afternoon:

FO3 is to the Fallout Series as the Star Wars Prequels are to the Original Movies. The parallels are numerous, with interesting storylines replaced by trite cliches, bad writing on all levels, horrible characters introduced all over the place, along with crapping all over the original lore. At least in Fallout fandom we have the luxury of blaming this on a new developer, Star Wars got screwed by it's own creator.

Even though the game isn't so bad in and of itself , just like the SW prequels are passable sci fi action flicks if you don't conisder the originals, it changed everything so much and in such silly and wrongheaded ways that older fans can't help but be pissed off at it, even if they like it as an actual game.

Agreed. Well done new guy. Stick around.

 

[Crni Vuk]

why is fallout 3 hated? That is actually a catch question around here.

 

[Gaddes]

I didn't like Fo3 because it just wasn't that great of a game. The story and writing are pathetic to the point of weeping hilarity, the choices/Consequences are almost no where to be found and the characters are life less and boring with very few (maybe 2 or 3) that I personally had any interest in.

The totally disregard for the new factions also bugged me to no end. They introduce Riley's Rangers and The Talon Mercs. but don't develop them any further than a very basic introduction. The lack of any sort of farming or food production (outside of Mirelurks and such) and I could keep going but everyone has pretty much summed up out I feel about FO3.

 

[mobucks]

I liked Jericho and Ch... Ch... the ghoul follower. His name eludes me.

 

[TorontoReign]

I liked Jericho and Ch... Ch... the ghoul follower. His name eludes me.

Charon.

 

[Walpknut]

Charon is an example of how badly they handled the lore. He runs, wears power armor and uses big guns with no problem. That's not how Ghouls should be.

In FO1, 2 and New Vegas they were more frail, like Set, Harold and Raul.

 

[Wintermind]

This also means that Charon had, at some point, acquired power armor training. And FO3 ghouls were entirely the opposite or the slow, somewhat lethagic, fragilish ghouls.

 

[Makta]

Charon is an example of how badly they handled the lore. He runs, wears power armor and uses big guns with no problem. That's not how Ghouls should be.

In FO1, 2 and New Vegas they were more frail, like Set, Harold and Raul.

Funny how you mention the power armor.. Seeing how Ghouls in all games can wear them

 

[mobucks]

My ghoul companion in fallout 2 was pretty hearty. Sure he couldn't run, but he could take some good hits before going down.

 

[Makta]

My ghoul companion in fallout 2 was pretty hearty. Sure he couldn't run, but he could take some good hits before going down.

In the original game i think he had one the the highest health pools out of all companions.. Besides that he was kinda meh.

 

[SnapSlav]

That was always the design idea behind Ghouls, especially once they became playable in FOT. As a "race" they emphasized their longevity, survivability, luck, and combined experience, but they were not physically very hardy. They were slow and weak, but incredibly skilled and gifted. The whole Power Armor thing just didn't make any sense as it was introduced in FO3. I can scavenge any piece of clothing, or absurdly heavy pile of metal plates bolted to a suit of armor, and wear them without any difficulty. But if I scavenge some armor that OPERATES ITSELF, I suddenly can't wear it? Why the fuck not? Okay, maybe I'd need some training to be able to use it effectively, but the notion that I couldn't wear it at all was just ridiculous. It's the same with ghouls.

However, more than their physical depictions, I was much more irritated by the way all ghouls were represented in FO3 (which carried over into FONV, for the most part) to have the exact same gargle-sounding raspy voices.

 

[shihonage]

Fallout 1 was a window into another world. Fallout 2 had a crap lulzy world, but was saved by solid gameplay mechanics.

Fallout 3 had has neither. That game has nothing going for it. The game redefines mediocrity as a concept.

Terrible dialogue, horrible kinetic feel of movement and combat, "walking simulator", meaningless stats, horrible interface that made clunky Fallout 1 inventory look good, nonsensical EVERYTHING, godawful in-game models and animations...

In a sane world, it should've gotten a 4/10 in most reviews.

I feel that FO3 was designed for a different generation. Today, games are fast paced and have actiony crap in them, and fewer games incorporate thought and planning into them.

There's nothing wrong with good action or fast pacing. Fallout 3 just doesn't have any of that, either.

Ironically, Bethesda did make a post-apocalyptic FPS with great atmosphere and workable combat, a game that didn't insult its lore. It even had talking heads and driveable vehicles.

It was called Terminator: Future Shock, and it is a much better game than Fallout 3 could ever hope to be.

It also happens to be older than a number of Fallout 3 fans.

 

[Dukeanumberone]

Everyone has their own reasons to like or dislike anything, Fallout 3 is no exemption.

There are many reasons why many on this board don't like it, mainly because it is a drastic departure in game play, aesthetic etc etc etc. Whether those are good or bad for the IP is personal preference issue, others are more universal, such as the bad dialogue writing, lack of world consequence and negligible main quest options. The faulty logic thing (radiation in low amounts) doesn't bother me so much because it is set on a divergent '50s earth (bit of a stretch there from the go), ( food and meds) I would alter, and make almost everything craft able, but those are some of my preferences, everyone has their own huge list of fannon.

I think what most of the old guard hate so much is the style over substance. Which I am fine with, if I want something like the old games I can play them, they sit next to my other Fallout games, they aren't going anywhere.

 

[Beavis]

fallout 3 had plenty of flaws but all in all it was a fun game to play

I enjoy all sorts of games ranging from rpgs to grand theft auto and Madden.

FO 3 was my first foray into the fallout universe and I thoroughly enjoyed it. When I later played New Vegas I found out what I was missing out on in fo 3. NV was amazing and I hope Bethesda incorporates a lot of things that obsidian introduced in nv for fo 4.

I recently ordered fo 1 from Amazon and hope I get to play it soon.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I think what most of the old guard hate so much is the style over substance. Which I am fine with, if I want something like the old games I can play them, they sit next to my other Fallout games, they aren't going anywhere.

uh, no.

Seriously, if you have ever some time go and dig trough all those "why F3 sucks" topics or "Why do you hate Fallout 3!".

And you will very fast realize that pretty much no one wanted a carbon copy of either F1 or F2.

People just asked for a game in the same spirit like the previous games which really is nothing wrong to expect. Now just as how many of us feared, Bethesda was rather going for the Oblivion demographic then Fallout fans. I mean if there is something Bethesda can do well, then it is to alinate fanbases, even their own ones. Just to tell you this, I enjoyed Morrowind a lot.