Can you really call yourself a Fallout fan if you love Fallout 4, honestly?

So first and foremost, love the misquote. I said that's the beauty of subjective arguments, not folly. Nice try though.

Secondly, Fallout 3 was designed for both the fans and the people who've never heard of the series. They may not have done the best they could, the game can still be enjoyable.

 

I get what you're saying about the Devil May Cry gameplay. I see what you mean, games can be clunky and bad. In all honesty, for the time, I didn't think Fallout 3 was that bad. It's definitely not as jilted as some people seem to think.

 

This is coming from someone who did not really get into video games until the PS3: I played the first FO this past December, and I thought it was better than FO4 in most every way. The only thing I thought might turn me off at first were the graphics, but l quickly got used to them and it wasn't a problem for me. I am also a console player, but I got used to PC playing too. Now on to my actual point. Stories and lore are the driving force on whether I think a game is good or bad. It can have the smoothest controls or best graphics ever, but if the story is bad, the game is bad. Sure, I think running around shooting everything and exploring is fun, but that gets boring after awhile. The Bethesda FOs completely butchered the lore of the original games. It's completely okay to enjoy those games, but don't try to make an argument that the games can be looked at as spin-offs rather than sequels. They are sequels. No matter how you want to spin it, these games all take place in the same universe and therefore should be consistant with the lore. They are not. FO4 just has horrible writing and even some of the better quests are mediocre at best. That is why I think it's bad.

 

To be fair at the time there was nothing else like it. But it was still clunky and dated in 2008. Plus it was almost immediately surpassed just two years later by the best game in the series.

 

Not to disregard the rest of what you said, which is, in my eyes, valid [Except that I liked 2 the best, honestly.] But this part right here is kind of what I'm getting at. It was innovative in regards to the other titles being produced during the era. Additionally, maybe it didn't turn out the way you would've hoped, but it was cool to see more from Fallout rather than watching the series die in limbo.

 

Series would not have died. Troika bid for it, which would have meant a better outcome for the series overall probably? (Though no NV which would be a bummer)

 

I wouldnt go so far as to call it innovative. When you boil it down to it's moving parts it's really just a 3d translation of the way 2d fallout worked with very heavy influence from Oblivion.

 

But wouldn't that be better than a complete revamping? They worked with what they had to produce something. You said it's a translation of how Fallout 2 worked, with heavy influence from Oblivion. That's accurate, and I liked the way it turned out. Subjectively, good.

 

Will you stop with that shit? Good and bad are objective descriptions.

They had whatever they wanted to have. they could've just moved forward with van Buren. Instead they just set the game on the east coast and went "what's on the east coast" and the answer they game up with was "nothing new lol"

 

I retract the 'died in limbo' comment. I meant more along the lines of 'It's nice to see they tried to take the series, from a dying and bankrupt Interplay, and at least attempt to continue it.

 

I think Ice cream is good. You may think it's bad. If that were the case, who would be right?

 

Taste is subjective.

Quality is not.

I cannot fathom why you're having so much trouble with this super basic concept.

 

Ahahahahahahahaha, no, just no. Todd fucking Howard himself said he would be just as pissed as the fans that got angry if he was a fan seeing what Bethesda is doing to the franchise. Fallout 3 was in no way made for fans of the first two games, it was made for fans of Oblivion. The whole overused definition of Fallout 3, Oblivion with guns, because that's literally it. I know it's kind of unfair to compare Oblivion with Fallout 3, because the former is objectively better than the latter (it's still bad), but that's what Fallout 3 was based off of.

They saw the sucess of Oblivion and jammed their design philosophies into Fallout 3. Doing everything in one playthrough, hardly any choice or consequences, the world is a poinless time of walking between points of interest that have nothing but fetch quests. The main story is as railroady as you get, with no choice to say no to daddy, to BoS, to anything. You do everything with no choice to say no. The majority of the writing is terrible, with one note characters and extremely basic premises fitting for a MMO.

I'm starting to believe you didn't actually played the first two games and just saying you did to make it seem you are unbiased. Call it a crackpot theory, but i have seen this happen too many times to not notice the signs. If you actually played them, you would notice the big drop of quality in Fallout 3 and 4.

 

Not to mention that no matter which faction you choose to side with, the ending dialouge is literally the same. Your choices don't make a bit of difference.

 

The lack of endings for towns and VIP characters is also noticeable.

 

Yeah, nothing changes with them either. Diamond City is still Diamond City, with Myrna still spouting off about how she doesn't serve synths even though they roam around the town if you side with the Institute.

 

As Risewild said a while back, you can like 3, 4 and 76 but if you are gonna defend that they are good in this forum, use actual arguments. Using flowery phrases with absolutely no meaning is not an argument, it's bullshit subjective stuff with no actual logic behind it.

And if this guy is just trolling, i don't care. Gets my postcount up and kills my boredom.

 

Hey, I never said 4 was good; just that you CAN have fun with it, and saying it’s bad is generally just a knee jerk reaction. That well reasoned argument you presented is something I’ll accept. Fair enough. But I also like bad things. Bad things can be fun, like bad movies. The only exception is bad sex, and even that can be fun if.... no that’s the exception.

 

Aw, I wasn't really directing that at you, Aure. And you liking bad things is well known to me at this point. Ha ha.

 

Everyone likes one or two bad things. Some people just don't understand that that doesn't magically make those things good.