Fallout4 changed our general opinion on Fallout3

Chaito

Chaito

Led Storm.
Hi guys, this is an intresting point.

I read this forums in different eras of my life, and it is good how the "general social idea" changes with time.

We were really critical on FO3. I have spoken myself a lot of shit of it. Also having it considered a bad game on my anger.

Now recently played like 150 hours on FO4 (finished it with all endings though), I really MISS (On the future, don't remember I said this haha) Fallout 3. With all the stuff I hate from it, really Fallout 4 left me that taste, of how deep can fall.

And I see this a lot into this forums, opinions on FO3 rather got "better" after FO4. I think it is not just me! hahaha.
 
In Fallout 3 you could argue that Bethesda did try really hard, and they did try and respect the legacy the originals left, they just came up a little short.

Fallout 4, they didn't even try. It was a money-grab and everyone knew it.
 
JO'Geran said:
Fallout 4, they didn't even try. It was a money-grab and everyone knew it.
Click to expand...
Or, judging by Petey's words, it is the game they (and pretty much they only) want to play. Finally.
Because there are only three guys in BS & BGS, yes-s. Even if it was true, that doesn't cut them slack since Fallout: Nevada done by one person and Fallout 1.5 Resurrection by four people on the pretty much not "their" engine (like Gamebryo really is for BGS).

Anyway, Fallout 3 clearly show that this is not the new low for bethesda (but be true to yourselves, it's definitely an up after Oblivion). Unlike FO4, which is worse than actual TES4, putting the gfx comparison aside. Stop praising combat and movement, it's still dogshit, ffs.
 
Last edited:
I'm willing to admit that for a game that is primarily a first person shooter in this current era of hand-holdy super linear consolish FPS games that don't necessarily focus on player movement and speed and precision, the movement and shooting mechanics in FO4 are not bad, while they were pretty clunky and annoying in FO3 and FONV.

Compared to what I consider a GOOD First Person Shooter, they are all terrible, but against the backdrop of latter day FPS games FO4 doesn't contrast as much as it compares.

My opinion of the FPS genre colors this heavily, since I much prefer the arena shooter style movement of Quake 2 and the focus on accurate hip firing while moving at ridiculous speeds and in acrobatic ways, over the gameplay of pretty much any recent FPS.

I can enjoy these more recent style games that all feel like they are stamped from the COD mold, but I find them very shallow in terms of the learning curve and thus they have very little longevity for me. The slow limited movement, the lack of double jumping, the boring corridor maps and having to limit your movements to even have a hope of decent aiming with your weapon are all deal breakers for me if I want a shooter game to take seriously and invest time in it to become accomplished and skilled.
 
It's truly a testament to the state of the series if people start looking back at Fallout 3 favorably with "at least it was/had X"-excuses for what it is.

Nah, my opinion on it hasn't changed. The game is what it is regardless of if the sequel is worse or better.
 
The game has just gotten worse after Fallout 4.

If F4 did one thing right, it was that it made me really interested in the lore to see what it messed up, and looking at it has just made Fallout 3 somewhat bland.

I agree with an above user through, Fallout 3 had effort, they tried to make a good Fallout game, and while it isn't a good fallout game, it's not exactly a bad fallout game. It just sits there in the middle, playing it safe.

If New Vegas is how well a sequel can be, than Fallout 4 is just how bad a sequel an be.

Fallout 4 feels like it does t have any effort put into it. Just compare the DLCs to each other.
As much as people shit on Mothership Zeta, we can at least say that the content was bad, but compare that to say cutting out a part of the game and releasing it later or even the Workshop Wasteland DLCs, we can at least say that there was effort in that DLC.

I know Oblivion had the same treatment as Fallout 4, with bad DLCs being released for it, but we still regard Shivering Isles as decent.

Who in the next ten years will talk about Far Harbor or Nuka World?
I really don't know the answer, but we still talk about Fallout 3 DLC, for better or for worse.

So yeah, Fallout 3 has just gotten worse over time, but I still consider it a better effort than 4, they at least knew how a Fallout game worked, even if it was rather niave.
But look at 4, we have PR guys who don't even know the Lord of the series, like that's kind of his job, he should give us an answer on why the lore is so messed up.

I get the feeling that Fallout 4 wasn't a project close to Bethesda, which then makes me question why even buy the IP.
I mean, F3 didn't have nearly as many quests as some of the early games, or maybe it did and it's just so bland they just melt together.

No, F3 is just an okay game, it hasn't aged well and it makes me realise that Bethesda hasn't learned a thing from their mistakes.
 
Fallout 3 is like the whole game was "San Fran" from fallout 2. In writing quality.

That's shitty enough.

But fo4 was like the whole game was "little lamplight" from fallout 3. In writing quality.

The writing just gets worse and worse as the series goes on with NV being the one exception.
 
R.Graves said:
Fallout 3 is like the whole game was "San Fran" from fallout 2.
Click to expand...
To be fair, San Fransisco, while obviously playing on asian stereotypes and scientology jokes, wasn't nescessarily contradictory to itself or anything else.

The lore of the area seemed consistent with itself, wasn't too implausible, and didn't take away anything from previous installments/areas. It was just a little bit silly. Plus it was so isolated and different from the rest of the Fallout world, that if you really didn't like it, you could just ignore most of it and it wouldn't have any impact on the lore.

Compared with Fallout 3 where the plot actively contradicts itself, they've moved pretty much every main trope to the East Coast using shoddy explanations, and the whole ideals of previously established factions like the Brotherhood are changed radically for the worse, San Fran is fairly inoffensive.
 
Only San Fran? Not the whole south part of the FO2 map? That's generous.
 
R.Graves said:
>ignore San Fran
>Can't beat game

And there is shit in San Fran hat is fo3 levels stupid.
Click to expand...
But that logic is not a bad point for SanFran.... see:
>Ignore Cathedral
>Can't beat game

>Ignore the Hoover Dam
>Can't beat game


:/

I aggree San Fran was one of the least intresting places to dig into the lore, but damn is not bad.
 
Also I believe that it was another way to fly by vertibird to Enclave on paper, but didn't reach on development. Right? I need to play FO2:RP, maybe they've implemented. Lot of years since I don't play my favourite game, this stuff can't happen. :P
 
Nope. I still dislike Fallout 3 more than I dislike Fallout 4. Fallout 4 I can actually have some fun with in a mindless sort of way. Fallout 3 actively enrages me in a way that Fallout 4 does not. Fallout 4 actually has some mechanical things that I can muck about with and have fun with. If I literally just play it as one of those early-access survival games and ignore the story completely, I can have fun. I also still love the feel and use of power armor in Fallout 4.

The only things I like from Fallout 3 are purely from what little nostalgia remains from it being the first Fallout I played, and that's the wandering around with Dogmeat and RL-3. I got the Tale of Two Wastelands Mod, and now I can have Dogmeat and RL-3 in the Mojave where I wanted them all along.
 
Fallout 3 and FNV will still be my favorite game over fallout 4. Looking back FO3 was better game as stuck to more orginal things and had RGP elements where as thats all gone in Fallout 4. I miss places such as rivet city ect. And just finding all the places out in the wastes. And dam the dialogue menu what a sight for sore eyes that is
 
lolpop109 said:
Fallout 3 and FNV will still be my favorite game over fallout 4. Looking back FO3 was better game as stuck to more orginal things and had RGP elements where as thats all gone in Fallout 4. I miss places such as rivet city ect. And just finding all the places out in the wastes. And dam the dialogue menu what a sight for sore eyes that is
Click to expand...

Not the classics?

Fallout 3 looks like a "good game" near FO4, but compared to the classics (Or NV) is really poor in a lot of aspects.

That is the intention of the post FO3 looked bad alongside other magnificent games in the franchise, but FO4 boosted it up since it went really really down.
 
Chaito said:
Not the classics?

Fallout 3 looks like a "good game" near FO4, but compared to the classics (Or NV) is really poor in a lot of aspects.

That is the intention of the post FO3 looked bad alongside other magnificent games in the franchise, but FO4 boosted it up since it went really really down.
Click to expand...

I was born at the right time really. I only got into FO3 and FNV to start and played only little bit of fallout 1 and 2. (Will defo replay them at anytime). To my personally i perfer FO3 and FNV. Over the classics but if rated on originality and time of making ect. Yeah they would be right up of course
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top