Why is Fallout 3 so hated?

[Lavo]

- Lame dialogues
- SPECIAL is not so important anymore
- Fckd up quests. Here's example: A guy i lying infront of a city. He said he is dying out of thirsty. I gave him like 20 bottles of clear water and he was still lying there asking for some water. It's an shitty MMORPG-like fetch quest, not real rpg stuff! And such lazy asshats were lying infront of most cities! WTF?!
- Lame story
- Boring locations to explore - seriously, I was excited to explore postnuclear city... but it turned out I CAN'T explore it and have to go through repetitive and boring metro tunnels.
- TERRIBLE GUI! - seriously, alphabetical list instead of nice graphic inventory? Such shit were in early 90s/late 80s games
- Levelling up - its too easy to have skill maxed out, there is not many skills to choose from, watered down perks.
- Bloody mess - first time I used it I bursed laughing, thinking it was some kind of bug... But no! Bodies explode to the moon on purpose, while shooting with lame pistol!
- Game is TOO MUCH themed with 50's! Yes, original Fallouts were taking some themes from 50's (computer looks, cars etc), but they also took style of 80's!
- Boooooring and repetitive locations...
- Less weapons to choose than in F2

So yeah. F3 sucks so bad I don't even want to play it ever again.

 

[shihonage]

The more hate is expressed toward Fallout 3, the more my faith in humanity grows. It's a litmus test, of sorts.

 

[Gaspard]

I find Tagaziel sums up things quite nicely in his articles on his blog. There are not that many, but this article and this one are the ones I have in mind.

Good reading for anyone unfamiliar or barely familiar with the earlier games. When you compare them in such a way you might understand "the hate".

It's also interesting how people "from the outside" come to NMA and demand personalized explanations. If you enjoy the new Fallout that is FO3, please do, but that doesn't make it into a good game. Why assume that your taste alone defines quality? I personally like some very bad films or TV series or books, yet you won't see me going to some film buffs' forum demanding to know why they bash my film

 

[Alesia]

I'm sure that by now at least half of the kids asking that question are trolling - these forums have broken the issue down in so many ways, there's no way you can not understand "what's up with the hate".

I liked Alesia's post about playing the shit out of FO3 and then playing the shit out of NV and then returning to FO3 and understanding its weaknesses. Two years is a long time, but I guess it is progress none the less

I didn't get FO:3 until right before NV came out, so it was more like 6-8mo. I've actually tried NOT to hate Fallout 3 too much for the simple fact that without it I would never have found FO1, 2, and NV. It was my introduction to the Fallout series, poor as it may be. I still play it on PC occasionally with a fuckton mods because that's the only way it really is playable for me.

 

[zegh8578]

Doing a new playthrough lately. So bored I am.

In this one:
¤ Several occasions of gun-upside-down on companions. Sigh.
¤ Jefferson Memorial map marker disappears. Sigh.
¤ Arkansas disappears, and takes his key with him. Sigh.
¤ Commander Danvers disappears. Sigh.
¤ The wedding at Rivet City freezes. Sigh.

I also am reminded why I hate bobbleheads.
My lock pick skill is at 89. To maximise the rest, without the use of the bobblehead would be a waste of skill points. Not that it matters, since my character can have a limited set number of skill points, because of the 100 max.
Stupid bobbleheads -.-

 

[Deleted member 62454]

After having a discussion here with DevilTakeMe sometime ago, about the reaction of the people to FO3, I must retract all my comments in that thread.

I replayed FO2, 3 and New Vegas since then, and played for first time FO1 also. I enjoyed the hell out of the first two games (even when I hate turn-based combat games) and NV, but FO3 was just boring, nostalgia is a very bad thing guys...

I rushed it in less than 6 hours, didn't even finished the Broken Steel quests. It's just a dumbed down ModernTESized (even Morrowind has more freedom plot-wise) version of Fallout 1 and 2. After playing the BI/Obsidian games, you can't finish it more than one time without being bored. I'm still thinking that it isn't that bad like some people here claim, just don't take it as a full-fledged Fallout game.

 

[Oppen]

People just need to remember, if it wasn't for FO3 fallout would still be a dead series.

Some people prefer a dead grandma to a zombie grandma.

 

[drakesbane]

People just need to remember, if it wasn't for FO3 fallout would still be a dead series.

...And the people saying this need to remember that if it wasn't for Fallout 1&2, there'd be no Fallout franchise for FO3 to be spun off from, so it shouldn't crap all over the franchise's roots (not just lore, but overall direction and design of gameplay as well).

...And if Obsidian (for lack of a better proven option) had gotten the rights to the Fallout franchise instead of the money-grubbing sleaze-pit that is Bethesda, we could've not only had a NV that was done much, much better, but the new fallout fans wouldn't have been tainted by the half-assed FPS/hiking sim spinoff of the series known as FO3.

See, I can do it too... except my versions aren't something akin to saying "music would be a dead if it weren't for justin bieber!"

 

[Ekans22]

- Lame dialogues
- SPECIAL is not so important anymore
- Fckd up quests. Here's example: A guy i lying infront of a city. He said he is dying out of thirsty. I gave him like 20 bottles of clear water and he was still lying there asking for some water. It's an shitty MMORPG-like fetch quest, not real rpg stuff! And such lazy asshats were lying infront of most cities! WTF?!
- Lame story
- Boring locations to explore - seriously, I was excited to explore postnuclear city... but it turned out I CAN'T explore it and have to go through repetitive and boring metro tunnels.
- TERRIBLE GUI! - seriously, alphabetical list instead of nice graphic inventory? Such shit were in early 90s/late 80s games
- Levelling up - its too easy to have skill maxed out, there is not many skills to choose from, watered down perks.
- Bloody mess - first time I used it I bursed laughing, thinking it was some kind of bug... But no! Bodies explode to the moon on purpose, while shooting with lame pistol!
- Game is TOO MUCH themed with 50's! Yes, original Fallouts were taking some themes from 50's (computer looks, cars etc), but they also took style of 80's!
- Boooooring and repetitive locations...
- Less weapons to choose than in F2

So yeah. F3 sucks so bad I don't even want to play it ever again.

As someone who first played FO3, then NV... and only very recently beat FO1, and is therefore not touched by nostalgia (for both good and for bad), I thought I'd offer counter points in FO3's defense.

Keep in mind I loved FO1, but to some extent, also didn't understand what all the hype was about (please don't throw a can at me!) Also, I've not played FO2 yet, so all of these counter points are in regards to FO1.

- Lame dialogues

There were some lame dialogues in FO1 as well. Like in Shady Sands, the (literally) copied/pasted dialogues from numerous guys with knives who yell at you that they don't take kindly to strangers, and that you better watch it and not make trouble. It was short, generic, and worst of all, identical for three NPCs.

SPECIAL is not so important anymore

What about (in FO3) an energy weapons build that depends on a high Luck? Or (in terms of RP), a high INT that allows you to shut down John Henry Eden? Just a couple of examples where SPECIAL comes into play.

Fckd up quests. Here's example: A guy i lying infront of a city. He said he is dying out of thirsty. I gave him like 20 bottles of clear water and he was still lying there asking for some water. It's an shitty MMORPG-like fetch quest, not real rpg stuff! And such lazy asshats were lying infront of most cities! WTF?!

- I don't see how the quest you mentioned is unrealistic. Beggars tend to beg every day on account of being poor. There's a beggar in the city I live in - and he's there, without fail, every day on the same street asking for money. Is it a lazy karma-boosting gimmick? Yeah. Is it unrealistic? I don't think so.

- Lame story

Kinda vague, so we could narrow it down to lame quests - in which case, I'm sorry, but the generic "our town is plagued by monster X, go kill them all at cave Y to save us" quest takes the cake for me. Thats FO1 (again Shady Sands) - killing the radscorpians.

- Boring locations to explore - seriously, I was excited to explore postnuclear city... but it turned out I CAN'T explore it and have to go through repetitive and boring metro tunnels.

This I do agree on, about 100 percent. I'm ok with rubble blocking certain roads... but to the extent they did it, so that I was forced to take -their- chosen path, was annoying. And why can't I climb over the rubble? But again, to be analogous...FO1 does the same thing. Want to skip Shady Sands and head straight to Vault 15? Nope... you need a rope! Any option to say, use a high STR/high AGI to climb down the shaft without one? Or find some other way? Nope. Its their way or the highway. Same crap in both games.

- TERRIBLE GUI! - seriously, alphabetical list instead of nice graphic inventory? Such shit were in early 90s/late 80s games

Alphabetical names meant I could quickly get to the item I wanted, so long as I knew what it was called. If its pictures instead, and I have a huge enough inventory, then there's no pattern that lets me quickly get to the item I want, and so I have to scroll down more. This didn't happen much in FO1 though, and honestly, I could go either way. Just mentioning one 'good' thing about using names instead of pics.

- Levelling up - its too easy to have skill maxed out, there is not many skills to choose from, watered down perks.

Totally agree that maxing a skill is too easy in FO3, and also that you can end up being good at 'too many skills' by max lvl - as one person put it, "less character in the character". However, FO1 did some things that really pissed me off too. For example, skills can reach 200 %, which is great...means super specialization. Yet, I found that with a science skill as low as like...28 friggin' %, I was almost always fine. Is there an example where I would need science at 200 %? (I'm asking vets, I've only played it once). Or even >150 %? Maybe there is and I just haven't found it. IF its the case where, technically you can go all the way to 200 %, but for some skills you'll never want to - then whats the point?

- Bloody mess - first time I used it I bursed laughing, thinking it was some kind of bug... But no! Bodies explode to the moon on purpose, while shooting with lame pistol!

Bloody Mess is stupid. And in fact, even without it, lets face it - the physics in FO3 in general are really screwy. You shoot someone in the head with a pistol...and their head 'falls' off? Wtf...FO1 definitely wins in realism here, though again, with poorer graphics and more left up to the imagination, its arguably easier. But yeah, I head the whole limbs just 'falling off' when they get shot in FO3.

Game is TOO MUCH themed with 50's! Yes, original Fallouts were taking some themes from 50's (computer looks, cars etc), but they also took style of 80's!

As someone who loves the 50's era with profoundness, and doesn't care that much about the 80's (I'm a 90's kid), I can't comment on this one without obvious bias. I would say its personal taste though.

- Boooooring and repetitive locations...

- No two areas looked the same to me in FO3. Well, except for those damn tunnels beneath DC. God those sucked. But for the most part, both FO1 and FO3 did not make the DA 2 (dragon age 2) mistake of re-visting the same locations, or the ME 1 (Mass effect 1) mistake of copy/pasting environments due to rushed development.

- Less weapons to choose than in F2

Granted, but since they're having to program in 3-space with better graphics, each individual weapon costs more (as opposed to just a picture)

Now I still wouldn't say FO3 is better than FO1 necessarily (though I think I enjoyed it more). To a large extent, it really is an apples-to-oranges comparison. But I feel like a lot of the things people complain about in FO3 are also there in FO1. I say FO3 is marginally better than 1, but its hard, and I like them for different reasons.

 

[shihonage]

...

When did Jay Carney start visiting these forums?

Sorry, I would provide a point by point debunking, but there's so many fallacies to dig through there, and I've done this so many times before...

Like the high school girls, Fallout3 fans always remain the same age...

 

[Alesia]

To a large extent, it really is an apples-to-oranges comparison.

That is the truth, but not because it's different platforms or FPS vs. turn based. The reason it's apples to oranges, and its been said a million times, FO:3 is just another game set in a PA wasteland that just has the Fallout title slapped on it along with a few copy & paste elements from the originals that had no business being there.

 

[woo1108]

fo3 fanboys always defence fo3 with Fo1.
actually, Fo1 isn't that great compare with Fo2 or Arcanum even Wasteland.

The reason is Fo1 was just kind of downgrade remake of Wasteland(though value of replay and motivation was greatly improved, dungeons became bad, lots of skill removed and only playing with 1 person isn't good idea I thnk..), at Fo2 the independent from Wasteland and stand it's own and at Arcanum every elements of RPG was evolved.

But the reason Fo1 is still a great RPG is
1.well placed quest and skill usage.
2. Very good motivation
3. Awsome kill motion.
4. well made story line(Actually it was just reuse of plot of wasteland though)
5.Impressive ending

For fo3
for 1, quests are awfully placed and skill usage even worse.
for 2, main quest is just sucks and moving map is just waste of time and quests are sucks so there's too little motivation for fo3
for 3 everyone knows fo3's story is just sucks
for 5 .....well....fuxx beth
so fo3 didn't inherit any good point of Fo1.

But for Fo2, NV
Fo2 also has 1,2,3,4,5
For NV skill usage is little bit bad compare with fo1,2 but far better than 3. So NV also has 1,2,4,5.

 

[Ekans22]

When did Jay Carney start visiting these forums?

Sorry, I would provide a point by point debunking, but there's so many fallacies to dig through there, and I've done this so many times before...

Like the high school girls, Fallout3 fans always remain the same age...

Not sure what politics has to do with Fallout. 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.

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).

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)

fo3 fanboys always defence fo3 with Fo1.
actually, Fo1 isn't that great compare with Fo2 or Arcanum even Wasteland.

Again, I'm not a FO3 fanboy. Can see why it seems that way - giving a list of defense points for FO3 - but I honest-to-God feel like all FO games are comparably good, and that shouldn't make me a FO3 fanboy.

But the reason Fo1 is still a great RPG is
1.well placed quest and skill usage.
2. Very good motivation
3. Awsome kill motion.
4. well made story line(Actually it was just reuse of plot of wasteland though)
5.Impressive ending

1. Skills in FO3 - lockpicking lets me pick locks, sneaking lets me sneak, and guns makes me good with... guns. I thought it was fine in both games. My only gripe in FO3 is that science should have been replaced with 'Hack', as it didn't seem to do much else :/
2. FO1 had great motivation compared to FO3, but only because of that thrice-damned time limit. It was a nice hardcore touch though that did make the game feel more alive in some ways. But seeking out a Liam-Neeson voice-acted father and trying to figure out why he abandoned me was (at least for me) fun motivation too.
3. What is kill motion? Sorry I'm ignorant.
4. I didn't know FO1 was based on wasteland. Need to try that game. I do agree I liked FO1's overall storyline more... the super mutants being the baddies... that was awesome! Super mutants in FO3 felt like they were just slapped in there as a namesake, and especially after playing FO1, that irks me.
5. Both had good endings..well FO1 was more epic (felt like you were saving the human race almost). FO3 was delightfully mundane and charming in its own way. But yeah, I liked FO1's ending better....probably because I liked FO1's overall storyline better. But FO3 wasn't 'terrible', but definitely not nearly as good as FO1.

And some fans of the FO originals (as I'm sure you know) would actually say FO1 is better than FO2, as they didn't like FO2's.. humor, I guess? Anyway I will say, once again, that I've not played FO2 yet. Starting it now and so far I like it MUCH more than FO1, myself. (again barring the exceptional story of FO1 - I do think FO1 is easily my favorite in regards to main storyline. NV is my favorite in terms of 'background story/atmosphere'.)

But go figure, everyone's unique, everyone's got preferences! And apparently, aesthetic taste in gaming is related to one's maturity. Who would have thought. (I'm just yanking chains/being a sarcastic ass again).




[/quote]

 

[Ekans22]

Also, playing FO1 'did' help me understand where fans of the originals/not-so-fans of the new ones are coming from, even if I don't entirely agree with all their points. Another thing I loved about FO1 compared to 3 and NV is, it felt harder! At first I hated the interface, then I loved it. I miss those old-school games that could kick my ass until I figured them out (Baldur's Gate, X-COM(old one), etc)

But as one person already pointed out somewhere around here - the main demographics wants casual gameplay, and so thats where the money is.

Also, after playing FO1, understand why this site is called no mutants allowed . Very cool.

EDIT: Also, not to derail OP, but does anyone know how sneaking with companions in FO2 works? Do they use my sneak or do they use their owns sneak which is independent of mine? Or are they ignored completely? Would help for some initial builds!

 

[Oppen]

There were some lame dialogues in FO1 as well. Like in Shady Sands, the (literally) copied/pasted dialogues from numerous guys with knives who yell at you that they don't take kindly to strangers, and that you better watch it and not make trouble. It was short, generic, and worst of all, identical for three NPCs.

I can't say for sure, but I don't think OP meant the random floatings (which would be something like random people in the cities tell you in FO 3), which aren't really important (and are monologues), but actual conversations being lame.

- I don't see how the quest you mentioned is unrealistic. Beggars tend to beg every day on account of being poor. There's a beggar in the city I live in - and he's there, without fail, every day on the same street asking for money. Is it a lazy karma-boosting gimmick? Yeah. Is it unrealistic? I don't think so.

It's kind of unrealistic mostly because when a beggar asks for money, there are more than one use he can make, and it's not hard to hid from view. A beggar asking for water while having 20 bottles lying around is a little bit inverosimile. Also, I don't know how a simple beggar manages to survive in the Capital Wasteland. It's anarchy there, it's nothing like our cities. Just the mad raiders there are would have fun ripping his guts off.

Kinda vague, so we could narrow it down to lame quests - in which case, I'm sorry, but the generic "our town is plagued by monster X, go kill them all at cave Y to save us" quest takes the cake for me. Thats FO1 (again Shady Sands) - killing the radscorpians.

One mostly introductory quest against too many of that kind.

This I do agree on, about 100 percent. I'm ok with rubble blocking certain roads... but to the extent they did it, so that I was forced to take -their- chosen path, was annoying. And why can't I climb over the rubble? But again, to be analogous...FO1 does the same thing. Want to skip Shady Sands and head straight to Vault 15? Nope... you need a rope! Any option to say, use a high STR/high AGI to climb down the shaft without one? Or find some other way? Nope. Its their way or the highway. Same crap in both games.

You can totally skip Shady Sands. That's not the only place in game where you can find a rope.

Alphabetical names meant I could quickly get to the item I wanted, so long as I knew what it was called. If its pictures instead, and I have a huge enough inventory, then there's no pattern that lets me quickly get to the item I want, and so I have to scroll down more. This didn't happen much in FO1 though, and honestly, I could go either way. Just mentioning one 'good' thing about using names instead of pics.

I agree with this.

Totally agree that maxing a skill is too easy in FO3, and also that you can end up being good at 'too many skills' by max lvl - as one person put it, "less character in the character". However, FO1 did some things that really pissed me off too. For example, skills can reach 200 %, which is great...means super specialization. Yet, I found that with a science skill as low as like...28 friggin' %, I was almost always fine. Is there an example where I would need science at 200 %? (I'm asking vets, I've only played it once). Or even >150 %? Maybe there is and I just haven't found it. IF its the case where, technically you can go all the way to 200 %, but for some skills you'll never want to - then whats the point?

I don't remember how high do you need it, but a high science skill is required to something so important as winning the game without actually fighting the Master, being via diplomacy or via detonating the bomb. Of course, you have other ways to win. That's one of the main strenghts of Fallout in general.

 

[Oppen]

Also, after playing FO1, understand why this site is called no mutants allowed . Very cool.

Yeah, I played FO 2 first (and 3, but didn't finish it until I've played FO 2), so I thought it was a little racist of them at first, and then played FO 1 and understood everything

EDIT: Also, not to derail OP, but does anyone know how sneaking with companions in FO2 works? Do they use my sneak or do they use their owns sneak which is independent of mine? Or are they ignored completely? Would help for some initial builds!

I'm not sure, but I almost always play sneaky and it behaved somewhat like this: they get ignored, except they get in the line of sight of an enemy. But as long as it's only by being heard, they get ignored and only your sneak is checked.

 

[woo1108]

1. Skills in FO3 - lockpicking lets me pick locks, sneaking lets me sneak, and guns makes me good with... guns. I thought it was fine in both games. My only gripe in FO3 is that science should have been replaced with 'Hack', as it didn't seem to do much else :/

I'm not saying about mini game or combat, it's about how to solve the problem. for fo3, the answer is already given, so no need to think about it or try to solve by oneself. for Wasteland, Fo1, Fo2, there's no computer to hack or lock to pick, there's just a locked door and computer with no answer but good clue to solve the problem with player himself. For NV also has same problem, but for NV there's plenty of choice that makes different. and many skills makes that different. but for fo3 there's too little usage of skill for solving problem and mostly answer is already given by journal. it isn't only problem for fo3 but all TES games after oblivion that makes beth's game a poor RPG.

2. FO1 had great motivation compared to FO3, but only because of that thrice-damned time limit. It was a nice hardcore touch though that did make the game feel more alive in some ways. But seeking out a Liam-Neeson voice-acted father and trying to figure out why he abandoned me was (at least for me) fun motivation too.

I don't care about who the hell is Liam-Neeson. Important thing is game. For Fo1, if you don't seek for water, you will see game over. So you should find the water chip and that makes you motivated and seeking not only the chip but also crysis of the world. fot Fo2 and NV has weak motivation compare with Fo1 but their story and world it self makes good motivation. and their wellmade endings multiplies motivation.
But for fo3, poor sotry, poorly placed quest and places, sucking ending makes me boring. And Liam-Neeson was used at Oblivion but that doesn't make game fun.

3. What is kill motion? Sorry I'm ignorant.
4. I didn't know FO1 was based on wasteland. Need to try that game. I do agree I liked FO1's overall storyline more... the super mutants being the baddies... that was awesome! Super mutants in FO3 felt like they were just slapped in there as a namesake, and especially after playing FO1, that irks me.

oops.. it's my mistake. it was about story, 4. But Super mutant of Fo1 isn't just badasses but they are just a human like other wastelander.
They also loves other human, angry with discrimination, and they happy to work for their Ideal.
One of the reason I hate fo3 is making mutant just a monster. but no, they are just human.

For story, fo3's story is just broken and boring.

5. Both had good endings..well FO1 was more epic (felt like you were saving the human race almost). FO3 was delightfully mundane and charming in its own way. But yeah, I liked FO1's ending better....probably because I liked FO1's overall storyline better. But FO3 wasn't 'terrible', but definitely not nearly as good as FO1.

Fo1 was epic because there was no game make ending that way. actually Fo2, and NV has better ending and better method to change ending. but for fo3 there's too little things to chnage the ending and that ending is almost meaningless.
and poor story and poor world makes it worse.

And some fans of the FO originals (as I'm sure you know) would actually say FO1 is better than FO2, as they didn't like FO2's.. humor, I guess? Anyway I will say, once again, that I've not played FO2 yet. Starting it now and so far I like it MUCH more than FO1, myself. (again barring the exceptional story of FO1 - I do think FO1 is easily my favorite in regards to main storyline. NV is my favorite in terms of 'background story/atmosphere'.)

Actually I don't like much about Fo1 because lots of plots was just copy of Wasteland. And many contents became evolved at Fo2 and Arcanum. I don't care for Fo1 fanatics.

 

[shihonage]

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.

 

[Ekans22]

oops.. it's my mistake. it was about story, 4. But Super mutant of Fo1 isn't just badasses but they are just a human like other wastelander.
They also loves other human, angry with discrimination, and they happy to work for their Ideal.
One of the reason I hate fo3 is making mutant just a monster. but no, they are just human.

Thats what I mean - I liked the super mutants being intelligent and even devious in FO1. Like a real, full blown faction. As opposed to dumb-crazed nuts like in FO3 (or like you said, just straight-up monsters).

And I didn't realize you could get the rope from other places, or that high science could enable you to win end fight without combat as an alternative. I've only played it once. Will definitely play it again, with a noncombat character, in a few years or so when I can get to it. Thanks for pointing those things out.

And Shihonage, chill man. The dialogue I'm talking about in Shady Sands were not blurbs. I'm talking about three complete dialogues, identical for 3 NPCs (not to split hairs). If it helps to remember, in all three cases you end the dialogue by either saying, "Lets see how tough you are!" (starts combat); or by saying "I don't want any trouble" (no combat). If you choose latter, they say, in blurbs, that they guess you're an alright guy after all (I'm paraphrasing).

Anyway thats all hair splitting. I didn't mean to light your coals, man. If I did, it was unintentional. FO3 isn't 'my manure'. Its a video game I enjoy every odd saturday on a rainy night.

Giving it a bit more thought (and I'm sure its already been said, for a 1001th time, like a dead horse); I'd say FO3/NV fail miserably as RPGs. They belong in a different genre entirely - FPS with an RPG 'touch'. Sometimes I'm in the mood for that kind of genre. And sometimes I'm in the mood for a traditional RPG. And sometimes I'm in the mood for RTS games like C&C.

Anyway I gotta go - Obama needs me to settle anxiety among gun rights activists in Colorado.

 

[Ekans22]

On the positive side, with your complete lack of discernment, you're bound to enjoy just about anything.

Yup. I try not to let the stuff I don't like about a game stop me from enjoying the stuff I do like about it.