5545Trey
Underground Deviant
Worthless or not, they still added a tiny piece to the skills. I do not see why they needed to removed because they were poorly implemented in one game.
Do you think Fallout 3 is guilty pleasure?
- Thread starter Sn1p3r187
- Start date
Dr Fallout
Centurion
Added? I would say took away, nowhere near as much as Skyrim mind.
Oblivion came right in the wake of the Lord of the Rings hype, something Morrowind did not
Then Skyrim came right in the Game of Thrones hype, and capitalized on that
Just the obviousness of that was enough to irritate me, it seemed too unoriginal.
Then Skyrim came right in the Game of Thrones hype, and capitalized on that
Just the obviousness of that was enough to irritate me, it seemed too unoriginal.
Chromevod
Nope.
600 hours is pushing it... by a lot. After years I'm only just recently coming up on the 600 mark for New Vegas, a game I consider far superior with such a myriad of options that no playthrough will be exactly the same.
I'm all for being pleasantly surprised by Fallout 4, but I seriously doubt I'll be able to play it for 600 hours. More likely I'll end up going back to New Vegas, unless there's a huge mod project that takes New Vegas and ports it into the Fallout 4 engine, like what they're doing in Skyrim with Morrowind. Then I'll give "Fallout 4" another shot. Barring that, just modding Fallout 4 until it's unrecognizable will suffice as well.
God I hope someone takes the time to make a mod to remove the voice and give the full dialogue options. If I knew how to mod, I'd do it myself, but I don't. Maybe I should learn.
Atomic Postman
Vault Archives Overseer
No, it most certainly is not.
Skyrim is a guilty pleasure for me, but Fallout 3 is just awful.
As a way of prepping for Fallout 4 and also doing stuff I never did in Fallout 3, I've been doing a completionist run (all bobbleheads, locations and sidequests) to give it a second chance. Nope. The whole time I just keep thinking "I could be playing New Vegas."
Skyrim is a guilty pleasure for me, but Fallout 3 is just awful.
As a way of prepping for Fallout 4 and also doing stuff I never did in Fallout 3, I've been doing a completionist run (all bobbleheads, locations and sidequests) to give it a second chance. Nope. The whole time I just keep thinking "I could be playing New Vegas."
Dr Fallout
Centurion
Agreed. Fallout 3 has no redeeming features.
Battlecross
Banned
That's such an insane statement.
Chromevod
Nope.
There is enjoyment to be had from just exploring in Fallout 3. Some people like just exploring the ruined buildings to see what's inside. Hell, that's what I enjoyed the first time I played through, and I still enjoyed it more recently despite despising the story. Also keep in mind context, that when Fallout 3 game out, it really was only kind of Bethesda was the big dog in huge, open world games. For an open world FPS from 2008, it's not too bad. It's just that now the market's saturated with them, and just having a big world to explore isn't enough. There's a simple joy in just picking a direction, and seeing what's around the next bend. That's appealing to a lot of people. It's appealing to me as well. It's a simple joy, and one I am not ashamed of. It's when you take that fun area to romp around in and try to justify... anything that the illusion falls apart. That doesn't take away from the fun, but it doesn't forgive the bad worldbuilding either.
PossibleCabbage
Vault 22 Survivor
Yeah, the one thing that Fallout 3 really does well is nail the feeling of the desolation and loneliness that comes from living in a world that really messed itself up. When it's not punctuated by silly NPCs, bad writing, or boring combat, and you haven't yet noticed how repetitive some of the environments are, it really does get across the atmosphere and the notion that the wasteland really is terrible and that whole nuclear war thing wasn't well thought out.
I think that New Vegas didn't do that, in fact NV didn't even try, is a large part of why some Bethfans didn't care for NV. Obsidian was just interested in telling a story about rebuilding, rather than "man, nuclear war is bad."
I think that New Vegas didn't do that, in fact NV didn't even try, is a large part of why some Bethfans didn't care for NV. Obsidian was just interested in telling a story about rebuilding, rather than "man, nuclear war is bad."
Dr Fallout
Centurion
Oh really? What's good about it?
Combat sucks, dialogue sucks, quests suck, exploration is mediocre (rather play Morrowind) so it sucks.
FalloutFan85
First time out of the vault
Skyrim sucks just as much as Fallout 3. Also, why do people keep bringing up mods? They are not an official part of the game, and if you need mods to enjoy a game, then the game is shit. $60 bucks for game you have to make enjoyable yourself, why support lazy developers?
"I think that New Vegas didn't do that, in fact NV didn't even try, is a large part of why some Bethfans didn't care for NV. Obsidian was just interested in telling a story about rebuilding, rather than "man, nuclear war is bad.""
Then that is a sad state of affairs and explains why Fallout 4 is going the way it did, gamers do not want quality.
"I think that New Vegas didn't do that, in fact NV didn't even try, is a large part of why some Bethfans didn't care for NV. Obsidian was just interested in telling a story about rebuilding, rather than "man, nuclear war is bad.""
Then that is a sad state of affairs and explains why Fallout 4 is going the way it did, gamers do not want quality.
Last edited:
Dr Fallout
Centurion
Most gameers don't want that. Some like us do however.
Big No
Watch as I open and close this door
I find it a bit messed up to say that most gamers don't want quality titles. I mean who really says "I'd like this game more if it sucked badly". I just think that gamers are unwittingly treating bad titles as perfections of gaming since they enjoyed them, not because they actively want bad titles.
Dr Fallout
Centurion
Are you kidding? I know some gamers who look at Fallout 1 and 2 writing and say it's boring and too complicated for them and that gameplay is more important.
Big No
Watch as I open and close this door
I don't think that equates to gamers wanting games to be "dumb plotted". They probably didn't enjoy F1 and F2 because of it's turn-based style, I highly doubt they hated it because the plot is good. Hating a game because the gameplay isn't too your liking doesn't equate to "I hate the plot" to me.
In the case of gameplay being more important, I think a game should have it's plot and gameplay go hand in hand. If you had a plot as good as Fallout 1's but with the gameplay of Ride to Hell: Retribution, the game would probably fall apart even though it's plot would be great. I just think that gameplay and plot should be held equal.
Dr Fallout
Centurion
They hate the plot, not because they want dumb games, mainly because it's not actiony enough for them.
Big No
Watch as I open and close this door
Well, in the event that they're young guys then that may explain why, young people tend to like action stuff than a slow story. Although what other games do they play? If it's mostly COD, FIFA or Halo than it's to be expected that they'd despise F1.
Dr Fallout
Centurion
Straight on the dot. They're nice guys, but are limited to shooters more then strategy and RPGs. They dislike even Bethesda's 'RPGs' mainly because of the poor gameplay.