Fallout 3 Is Better Than You Think - Many A True Nerd

Big No

Big No

Watch as I open and close this door


Interesting video regarding some of Fallout 3's minor strength's here and there. Not major strength's mind you, he's not saying stuff like F3 is explicitly better than NV, in fact I think he said somewhere he prefers NV, but bringing up some of the things we may overlook about the game's mechanics.

Keep in mind he doesn't go into things like "where do towns get crops from" or how the wasteland's ecosystem functions. I don't think he's looking to justify that stuff, I think he knows that they're design flaws. The last 10% of the video is also about how F3 is "post-apocalyse" whereas Fallout technically is about the rebuilding of society which NV showcases but I see what he was going for nonetheless.

Personally, I think this video goes hand in hand with HBomber and MisterCaptions critiques, their's for F3's flaws and this one's for it's strengths.

Edit:
I've made a time list of the stuff he talks about so you don't need to watch the whole thing if you're not inclined.

00:00: Intro
03:00: A look at the game's prologue discussing core gameplay mechanics and early player freedom.
9:22: The wasteland's openess and how the game suggests exploration.
13:00: Megaton discussion and Power of the Atom's moral choice.
18:00: Thematics involving nuclear weapons and the old world.
20:35: Skill checks, killing children and the Paradise Falls slavers.
29:00: Side quests in Megaton and early game weaponry.
33:00: Metro tunnels and wasteland landscape.
36:50: Super Mutants.
43:50: Brotherhood of Steel.
48:45: Colonel Autumn.
51:25: The ending's themes.
54:50: Large set pieces.
57:20: Dungeons.
1:05:00: Storytelling about the world.
1:08:00: Writing.
1:09:17: Story pacing.
1:15:50: Ways to resolve quests.
1:19:20: Lasting consequences.
1:23:40: Radio.
1:23:40: Moral choices.
1:29:20: Karma system.
1:32:50: How "post-apocalypse" the wasteland is.
1:37:15: Random encounters.
1:34:20: Survival and damage resistance.
1:45:30: Combat mechanics and ammunition.
1:50:10: Exploration and roads.
1:53:27: Outro.
 
Last edited:
Gosh, that comment section is cancerous. I wish MATN provided his script for easier debunk because reading is faster and quoting is more convenient. I was 30 minutes in before remembering how fond he was of Fallout 4 and turning the video off, and he wasn't persuasive at all to be short.
 
Looking for minor strenghts of Fallout 3 is pointless, it's like finding a gold nugget in a sea of shit.

And the comment section is really cancerous, like someone saying Fallout 3 is revolutionary of all things when the game is just a crappy S.T.A.L.K.E.R clone with Fallout things.
 
I dunno about the comments, there tends to be quite a few that admit NV is better but F3 is still enjoyable which I can respect. Granted I'm reading the comments from newest to oldest rather than most popular but I digress.
 
Fallout 3 got me into the Fallout franchise to begin with and I played the hell out of it. If it weren't so damn unstable on my PC, I'd still be playing it.
I have to be honest, I'm not going to watch a vid of 2 hours of long, but I'll atleast say what I liked about Fallout 3:

1. The atmosphere felt truly post-apocalyptic. The blue-greenish hue, the lack of civilization in most corners of the map, I loved it. The adventure and feeling of loneliness is part of what appeals to me in the post-apocalypse genre. Fallout 3 nailed that part, in my opinion. The problems with the "logical" part of the lore, which a lot of people seem to find extremely important, I never found that big of an issue. In fact, I never noticed most things until people on this forum mentioned it. I call them purists. Whatever.

2. There was TONS to explore. Just the other day I saw a video of Oxhorn exploring a quite significant part of Washington D.C. I had never seen in all those hundreds of hours I played FO3. The devs must've put a lot of effort in designing the areas so that you wouldn't explore everything whilst following the most logical paths. Whenever you find an unexplored location in FO3, you can prepare yourself for huge areas full of danger, loot and environmental storytelling.

3. Galaxy News Radio > Radio New Vegas
 
Better then I think? HA! Definitely not. Fun game, though.

I like and I just do not play anymore because there is nothing else to do there. I do not give a fuck for exploration, I play fallout for the quests. Since 3 have only 25 quests more or less, no reason to go back.
 
Apollyon said:
3. Galaxy News Radio > Radio New Vegas
Click to expand...
d63.jpeg
 
Fallout 3 had a lot of problems and can't hold a candle to the originals or NV. But it had plenty of its own strengths, and was a piece of solid gold compared to Fo4. I think some of the hatred 3 gets is unwarranted, and this video is just the pendulum shifting the other way.
 
Terrible comments on youtube? That's like saying NMA has lots of grumps and cranks. What's next, Facebook is a game of 'choose your own echo chamber'? Or that people who think Wikipedia is trash never seem to understand how to check sources?

Incidentally I just watched this video. I didn't completely agree with every point, but it was nice to see someone walk back some of the ridiculous criticisms to basically say 'it's good despite its flaws'. Rather than the usual 'New Vegas is George Washington Mahatma Christ and all must bow down to the holiest of buddhas before saying anything even remotely positive about Fallout 3' crap.
 
Apollyon said:
Galaxy News Radio > Radio New Vegas
Click to expand...
"Howdy, everyone! This is Mr. New Vegas and I think that is bullshit!"

Cobra Commander said:
I like and I just do not play anymore because there is nothing else to do there. I do not give a fuck for exploration, I play fallout for the quests. Since 3 have only 25 quests more or less, no reason to go back.
Click to expand...
Yup. Same thing for me. I like Fallout 3 but the lack of anything else to do after 100%-ing it once just made me stay away from it. Meanwhile in NV I'm on my 3rd 100% Playthrough.
 
At the end of the day Fallout 3 is a masterpiece compared to Fallout 4. I did enjoy the exploration in Fallout 3. That is the only two positives I can honestly think about with Fallout 3.
 
Daniel The NCR Veteran said:
"Howdy, everyone! This is Mr. New Vegas and I think that is bullshit!"
Click to expand...
Three Dog, the guy that casually mentions how the UN declared world peace forever as a joke... UN... Something that was disbanded 25 years before the bombs fell... As if anyone in the Capital Wasteland knows what the hell a UN is by then :lmao:.

Also for some reason Three Dog knows everything that the player does :scratch:. Must be psychic.

Even Margaret is a better radio-host, and she only has a couple lines O.o.

:P
 
Three Dog has as many magic spies as the NCR and the Legion, that's how. These days however I usually find that he never comments on what I do. No idea what mod broke him. It would be better if he didn't know who did the deed most of the time. And also if he mentioned his sources.
 
NMLevesque said:
Three Dog has as many magic spies as the NCR and the Legion, that's how. These days however I usually find that he never comments on what I do. No idea what mod broke him. It would be better if he didn't know who did the deed most of the time. And also if he mentioned his sources.
Click to expand...
Although, (IIRC) the NCR and Legion only know you did something against their own faction interests. They don't know you did all the specific things and the outcome of them (like Three Dog does).
 
As a Post Apocalyptic Looting and Hiking simulator it's okay for consoles. As an RPG tho, let alone an entry in the Fallout series, it falls short in every aspect, but at least it wasn't Fallout 4.
 
So, I feel like everyone here has been quite negative towards this video. I thought I'd give a more nuanced response.

@manyatruenerd, if you are reading this, I want to say this video did actually change my perspective on Fallout 3. I am still anti-Fallout 3 and anti-Bethesda, but it did, as the title implied, make me think Fallout 3 was better than I initially thought.

I think It's worth publicly stating what the positives and negatives of this video, in hopes of opening discussion.

Where it succeeds
  • This video gave me a lot of newfound respect for the Escape from Vault 101 quest. Previously I saw it as, just more of the rest of the game, however Many succesfully pointed out many of the areas in which this quest does some unique things that, if they weren't in such a mixed bag game, would be pretty much praised as ingenious quest design.​
  • In general, gave me more respect for how early-game Fallout 3 designed the map. He is correct in his assertion that the game does lead you towards Megaton, and used pretty damning proof. Similarly the idea that​
  • His point about Megaton's general aesthetics being good. While not that unique(It is mostly derivative of Junktown), it does have a very interesting pattern of buildings, and the circular design with buildings layered on top of each other is good. I also agree that Goodsprings, as well as a few other towns in New Vegas are somewhat lackluster in this regard, mostly because they are based around real towns(Though that's not an excuse, they could have added a unique feel to the towns anyway)​
  • He is correct about some of the quests in Fallout 3 being quite good. The Paradise Falls quest as an example. What he seems to fail to realise is that these are, for the most part, a minority. Most of the quests revolve around a tunnel of vampires or a battle between superheroes. The depth of this quest is the exception, not the rule.​
  • He is correct that outer Vegas feels lackluster, and the metro tunnels make Washington DC feel bigger. While this is to be expected, since the old world ruins of New Vegas are treated as secondary to what's happening now(As a Fallout game should be), Fallout 3 does well for it's assigned theme.​
  • He is correct in asserting that Autumn is a lot more established than Lanius. While I believe the confrontation with Lanius is far better handled than the final confrontation with Autumn, he is correct in asserting that Fallout 3 does a better job of setting up Autumn as a major villain.​
  • I mostly agree with his assesment of Fallout 3's ending being a great idea, but poorly executed. Had it followed the style of the originals a lot more(With a town by town breakdown), and avoided the plot hole of having radiation immune companions, the character's death would have been a very good place to end the game.​
  • A lot of Fallout 3 is very cinematic, and I agree with him when he talks about the little moments.​
  • I agree with him that the Museum of Technology was a good dungeon with lots of interesting ideas. Had they maybe made the obstacles a little more than just combat, it'd possibly be even on 1/2/NV level.​
  • He raises a good point about Superhuman Gambit having interesting ways to solve quests. That was quite a good, solid example. I believe Fallout 3 does have some very interesting ways to resolve quests. There are also plenty of quests with just plain bullshit in them, like the talking down Eden with one speech check nonsensically.​
  • Great point about Reign of Grelok being hidden so very few players will see it. That is something that I feel is missing in 4, that players won't find things. 1, 2 and New Vegas do this differently by making different options available for different character builds, but 3s method works too, and It's good you can see parts of the game that nobody else would.​
  • He gives a few good examples of morally interesting questlines. That being said, these are isolated examples. For the most part, the vast majority of moral decisions in the game are treated as straightforwardly good or bad(Nuke a town or don't, commit mass genocide or don't), or sometimes even horrifically bizzare(How date raping a guy in to marriage is somehow treated as a good action)​
  • His whole idea about the game design fitting the world is, pretty much on point. It's hard to argue with the points he's making. I'd suggest that they had the wrong priorities to begin with, and so we shouldn't be seeing it to begin with, but for what world they are trying to establish they are good at establishing that through the world and mechanics.​
  • He raises very valid point about the world being designed in a way that encourages exploration. Personally I think it's better when the games actually give you good reason to find all the locations, however for a game about exploration, it's now pretty much undoubtable in my mind that Fallout 3 does it extremely well.​
Where it Fails​

  • He used the fact that running away from the Vault 101 guards is technically treated as valid as a response to the critique they are dehumanised. While pacifism is an option, the game still dehumanises them quite strongly by making them immediatly hostile, and the game does a poor job of signposting that you can avoid confrontation here. In Fallout 1, and through a lot of Fallout 2 and New Vegas, outside of Random Encounters, human antagonists you come across are quite often not initally hostile, and instead treated as people with motives and reasons, somewhere that Fallout 3 is often lackluster.
  • Mistook "Open-Endedness" for the (IMO) shallow Bethesda interpretation of "You can go anywhere". This is a fault interpretation because A. "You can go anywhere at the beggining of the game regardless of how unprepared" is in itself a shallow interpretation of "You can go anywhere" to begin with. Every Fallout game has let you go everywhere, it's just that 3 puts on kid gloves and avoids making high-level enemies in certain areas, because it doesn't trust a player who goes off the beaten path to realise that different routes will be different difficulties, and B. While you can technically go anywhere, major objectives are shoehorned behind certain longwinded unecessary questing sequence. And yes New Vegas does this too to an extent, though New Vegas is very much held-back by it's similarities to 3.
  • His attempt to justify Megaton as "Shandified". Being technically near a lot of wildlife that could be hunted, while it can be used as an excuse to justify what they eat, is poor shandification. The Agriculture we see frequently in towns in previous entries is shandified because it makes sense for sedentary towns over the decades to set up agriculture, a sedentary town that's been there for decades technically being able to get food from hunters is more of a slap-dash excuse than the town genuinely being shandified. Similarly TECHNICALLY having a backstory as to why the town has a bomb is not the same as the town having a natural feeling conflict.
  • His defence of Power of Atom falls short. He tries to justify it as being a choice and giving Roleplaying opportunities by disingenously saying "I thought this was what people wanted", when, as he said himself, it's a very super-hero, super-villain esque choice, and giving your character the option to be history's worst monster is not a very interesting take on the RP thing. Similarly the consequences he pointed out while it is technically true, you do lose out on a lot of what the town has if you blow up the town(Which, since consequences ought to be proportionate to the decision, is pretty standard) as previous commentors on the subject have pointed out, Moira survives no matter what, meaning that one of the biggest quests it has to offer is still safe even if you blow up an entire town.
  • Treating the ability to lose your only lead, or the ability to turn in your employer to the other side as unique. These things have been staples of the franchise from the beggining. In fact 1 and 2 quite literally rely on this in the first act (He is right that New Vegas doesn't do this though)
  • Tries to establish "Being haunted by the old-world" as a consistent theme. You can read themes in to any piece of media, however I think those are only useful if the piece of media at hand portrays itself as deep enough to have those themes. Fallout 3s consistently poor writing makes me doubt this as an intentional theme.
  • He claims most quests do contain alternate options and skill checks. While technically true, most are also shallow in the options they give you, and the amount of opportunities for skill checks are on average far less.
  • Misundesrstands criticism of Little Lamplight as "Not being able to kill children is unrealistic"(How you can miss the point this much is beyond me) failing to realise that the problem with Little Lamplight is that it quite literally railroads you in to solving it certain ways, and forbids you from progressing any other way, completely arbritrarily. Locking mandatory quest objectives behind a literal entire town that you have to interact with to some degree for no apparent reason is railroading, and antithetical to everything Fallout stands for.
  • In his "Every Fallout game is unrealistic" tangent, specifies that "Stimpaks wouldn't heal you instantly, and you couldn't become better at hacking with no experience", failing to realise that those are technical limitations, the making mandatory characters immortal for no good reason is a conscious effort on the part of the game designers, and creates a safe, consequence free tone for a game that ought be anything but.
  • On the topic of this, he justifies the game making child NPCs immortal with "It would make it unavailable in some countries, or draw the ire of reactionary groups" BOTH of which were equally as much concerns for Fallout 1 and 2. They responded to this by making different versions of the game for places with stricter laws, and by not caring how a bunch of reactionaries respond. He tries and justifies this by "Fallout 1 was a smaller studio with less concerns", HOWEVER this acts as more proof that Bethesda is unfit to handle the franchise IMO. If you have to be worried about being large and mainstream more than the originals did, perhaps the franchise would be better handled by a smaller studio who doesn't have these same concerns.Saying their size and circumstances give them no choice suggests that the company is in the wrong position to handle the franchise, not that this lets them off the hook.
  • His idea of Fallout 3 having three seperate biomes and New Vegas not really having that feels forced, where he's intentionally downplaying New Vegas's strengths in this area to make 3 seem better by contrast.
  • He misses the point with Supermutants. He claims that Mutants have mostly been "Big Dumb Brutes" since Fallout 1, ignoring that even in Fallout 1 the dumb mutants are treated sympathetically, Harry is treated as a somewhat sympathetic character who has a kind-heart and is just following orders, he is not treated as a gore-bag hanging savage with no discernable motives. Even if mutants are mostly dumb, that is still not an excuse for them to form a society with priorities and ideals that make them look like orcs, dumb people should still be treated in the Fallout canon as people with motives and emotions, reaching the point where they are "Hanging Gore-Bags" by definition means that they are no longer being treated as real, relatable people. He also falsely asserts that most supermutants shoot you on sight. Other than random encounters(Which exist mostly for the purposes of pushing enemies your way) every Supermutant in the game can be talked to and dealt with passively.
  • He makes the mistake of believing that since he can assign clever motives to things, that it is Bethesda's intention. While yes, Supermutants are looking for FEV, this much is obvious, the idea of this primarily being because they drove out the intelligent ones, them being in vault-tec headquarters(As one of several generic enemy types, and the one most likely to show up in high-tech areas), and them just so happening to have similar motives to the Vault Dweller are in no way implied to be actual thought out motives, and given that the game overall has Canterbury Commons level writing, it's hard to assume they are.
  • He misunderstands criticisms of the Brotherhood as being "They've changed", it's not that they've changed, it's that they've been changed poorly. A more open Brotherhood that's sympathetic to the outside world can work, see Tactics. The problem however, is that their motives for changing mostly seem to boil down to "We want to help outsiders", with very little depth to them, making them good-intending heroes. It's not being adapted, it's being adapted poorly that's the problem.
  • He falsely asserts that it makes no sense for Lanius to back down. It does. Lanius isn't backing down out of cowardice, or because you've changed his mind. He's backing down because he's an intelligent commander who is incredibly aware that Legion has limitations, and if you point him to the fact that Legion is unequipped as it stands to take on NCR(Which may I remind you requires 100 Speech, you literally need to be as good as you can possibly be at speaking to convince this guy to stand down), he backs down. A victory now resulting in a drawn out tactical failure down the line is antithetical to Lanius, a figure whose entire idea is being undefeatable. If he will inevitably be defeated down the line, that goes against what Lanius represents.
  • He establishes Fallout 3 as filled with "Interesting Dungeons", and New Vegas as not really having them, firstly not only does he ignore many of the New Vegas ones, but secondly, most of the examples he gives for Fallout 3 are straight up combat grinds with a few extra details here and there, New Vegas's dungeons on the other hand often have non-combat interactions, for instance Festus, or the robots in REPCONN HQ for instance. While in terms of locations Fallout 3 has many more ,New Vegas has ones with more interesting twists.
  • I disagree that collectibles and loot are good "Rewards for Exploring", they are lazy attempts at rewards. Good rewards for exploring are genuinely interesting things to find, like the REPCONN HQ, the Nightkin's farm, the Grub 'n Gulp, The Thorn. Rewarding you with loot at the end of a generic dungeon is the laziest way to encourage players to explore.
  • He falsely asserts that we don't need any of the exposition at the beggining of New Vegas, when we do. New Vegas can't introduce The NCR and Legion as naturally as 1, 2 and 3 can introduce their conflicts more naturally since you are an outsider with no additional context. Taking a history lesson upon first meeting a faction in New Vegas makes little sense since, you as a Courier are undoubtedly already aware of the existence of Legion and the NCR.
  • Having occasionally good writing isn't proof that the writing overall is good. You can nitpick fun lines all you want, but Fallout 3 overall has weak plot points, weak character development, very black and white conflicts, and overall is generally poor in writing. The occasional good line doesn't make up for that.
  • The problem with the plot isn't it's structure. Yes the world slowly introduces you to major factions. This isn't the problem. The problem is how one-dimensional every aspect of the plot is, how the writing, while it can be good, overall has consistently weak character building and world building.
  • He misunderstands Hbomberguy's criticism of Fallout 3s story. His criticism was more that the game forces you to follow entirely in other character's footsteps AND that the game railroads you down a rather linear path. New Vegas's first act basically allows you to ignore Benny altoghether, and is overall very nonlinear.
  • The map-side comparison to supposedly prove that 3s plot shouldn't be directly compared to New Vegas's, funnily enough proves to me several major flaws in Fallout 3. Firstly that the towns in Fallout 3 are so unconnected that you can't find most content through the main towns. A good fleshed-out world should have towns be aware of one another, and interact with one another in a tangible way. The other flaw it proves is that Fallout 3 is terrible at signposting it's content. New Vegas wants you to find most of it's content, and experience it, whereas Fallout 3 for some arbitrary reason moves most of it's content to far off locations that players can't find. Another thing to point out here is that the content being so detached from all other content means the player has no discernible reason to discover most of it, whereas New Vegas allows you to get involved in all major quest locations by virtue of being on the same road as the main quest, Fallout 3 fails in this regard, and basically gives the player no good reason to uncover most content without directly interfering with their other goals.
  • In order to assess the criticism that Fallout 3 has no real consequences, he raises New Vegas's reputation system, which is a shallow example. He seemed to skip past the "Towns forgive you after 3 days point", which is the most important point there. Fallout 3 is so consequence free that you can steal and murder with so few repercussions, that even being attacked in the town you are known to be a murderer in is a consequence too far. There is no reason for this, and it makes the world feel fragile where you can murder whoever you want for whatever reason with no comeuppances.
  • The point about Fallout 3s quests being unconsequential is more a reference to how the game handholds you, making sure the right NPCs are always invincible, making sure you always are handheld before making major decisions, making sure that you can never piss off a major quest hub, making it extra difficult to get locked out of quests. In 1, 2 and to a lesser degree New Vegas, making a mistake in a quest could permanently piss the wrong people off or even fail the quest. Having details come up later is a nice touch but every Fallout game has things like that. The game having neat touches doesn't change it from being utterly inconsequential and handholy to the degree it almost never makes any choice stick.
  • He dismisses New Vegas's consequences as unsubtle, failing to recognise that New Vegas frequently has such subtler consequences, which he seems to have missed because ironically he assumed they weren't there. How if you kill the Gun Runners in order to steal their schematics, they will raid Crimson Caravan much later for instance, or how at Hoover Dam depending on how you responded to certain factions they may or may not show up, or how you see Brotherhood patrols more often outside Hidden Valley once you've completed their questline, or how you meet Ringo much much later in the game if you helped out in Goodsprings to get a reward.
  • He says the 50s music is great for the theme, however as has been discussed at length here, Fallout is retrofuturistic, not 50s in the future. 50s music doesn't fit the theme of a world that's been around a lot longer than the 50s.
  • He describes the radio as a great innovation. I disagree, take it or leave it. The music dampens the atmosphere for no apparent reason, the 50s music is directly opposed to the retrofuturistic theme by establishing trends haven't changed since the literal 50s rather than this being a future imagined in the 50s, and finding out what's going on and how people react via radio is somewhat lazy compared to 1 and 2 which, by contrast establish rumours of locations you'll find later via offhand ghost stories. You don't get radio announcements of a monster called a Deathclaw, you hear stories of a ghost/devil/vampire roaming the wastes, you don't get radio announcements about a farm being overrun by ghosts, you find it out through rough rumours. The radio is a very inorganic way of setting up what's going on, compared to ghost stories from around the wasteland which turn out to have some basis, as 1 and 2 do.
  • He criticises Mr New Vegas for neutrally reporting what happens to each faction rather than calling out the player directly, when this is a strength IMO. Mr New Vegas is an actual newsreporter, he tells you what's going on in the wasteland now and mentions the important details, he doesn't spend time explicitly focusing on the actions of one individual. In fact, by focusing so extensively on the Lone Wanderer's actions, 3 dog establishes a tone that the Lone Wanderer's actions are all that's going on in the wasteland rather than Mr New Vegas who establishes there is in fact a bigger picture.
  • Mr New Vegas has as much personality as he claimed 3 Dog does. Mr New Vegas is funny in a silly pun kinda way, charming, makes flirtatious comments towards the audience, is very personal about his song preferences. 3 dogs personality by contrast is, loud. He's a cliched, very loud radio presenter with not much else going for him. Mr New Vegas is much subtler, but much better.
  • His assessment that New Vegas doesn't have moral choices but faction ones inherently ignores that faction choices ARE moral choices. Deciding whether the Khans or the Brotherhood can continue on plagueing the Wasteland or whether to wipe them out, deciding which of the factions is best fit to rule the Mojave,
  • Using a well-recieved piece of DLC to retroactively justify the moral unambiguity of the main game.
  • He claims it's good that Fallout 3 focuses so much on the horror of the apocalypse, and claims that none of Fallout 1 and 2s random encounters are directly relevant to the pre-war world. What he misses is that this is the point. Fallout has always been about the world coming after being more important than what came before. It's not this world that constantly dwells on the pre-war, the pre-war was how we got to this point, but it's more interested in exploring the world that comes after than incessantly focusing on the pre-war. This is a positive not a negative. The point of these games is to explore a wasteland, not getting consistently bombarded with what is ancient history in the game's world.
  • He praises the poor gunplay (First time I've heard that) for encouraging you to learn the mechanics. While yes this is technically true, surely the best way to teach players RPG mechanics, is by making it the main focus of the game, as per 1 and 2.
  • He praises the armour in 3 for encouraging you to make more tactical choices. The flipside of this however is that, armour doesn't work how it should. Power Armour should not be a slightly good option out of many, it should be a walking tank that flattens opponents. DT gets this across since it can majorly reduce attacks. DR does not. Plus I would argue it is potentially possible to have both DT AND a way of having tactically diverse armour, having a major cripple to the way armour works in order to make more types tactically viable is unnecessary.
Overall, my opinion of Fallout 3 has shifted very much from dislike to the common mantra thrown about when it comes to Fallout 4 "Good game, not a good Fallout game".

I can see now why Fallout 3 has it's own merits that it succeeds upon. I do not however accept it as a valid Fallout sequel, simply because I do not believe it expands the Fallout Universe in any particularly good or interesting ways.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top