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

[Black Angel]

Moving goalposts. Moving on.

Maybe I should've clarified, but I was saying that from a perspective of a new player. Personally, I've seen all of the memes regarding Deathclaws, back before I even know a franchise like Fallout existed, and how people are scared to death of the Deathclaws.

However, once I've getting deeper into the system and begin to go into it, like crafting a Dart Gun as I mentioned before, I came to realize how much of a joke the Deathclaws in Fallout 3 is. Yes, they're terrifying for me as a new player, however I think even you can agree that we're discussing this within the context of having played the game multiple times. Like I said, I should've clarified it.

Oh, and you also haven't addressed the fact that even people like Cobra Commander killed an adult Deathclaw with a shitty 10mm pistol.

There's a lot of them. They have armor and weapons that aren't crap. There is at least one sentrybot and merc with a missile launcher, in addition to some turrets. Even just the 3 with one sentrybot and a turret on the easiest route to Rivet City are too much at the very beginning. I should know, because that's what I did literally every run.

Right, and how do you play this game that you think they're literal brickwall? At least within the context of vanilla Fallout 3. Now, I'm gonna tell you from my personal experience. When playing these hiking simulators, I tend to play it sneakily, always crouched all the time and hide whenever I even so much as slightly being detected. Thanks to this playstyle of mine, I have no trouble exploring literally every nooks and cranny that there is to explore, performing sneak attacks which is OP in these games btw, and even utilize subterfuge to deactivate turrets through a terminal if there's any, or just use the perk to deactivate bots. Oh, not to mention the broken VATS system, means you can literally take on an entire group of enemies without a scratch, provided of course you do it right.

Now, again, I'm just gonna repeat that this is not a matter of gitting gud, it's not that I'm a master of this particular gameplay mechanic, or that you're just shit at playing this game that after repeated playthroughs you think those enemies are difficult, it's just that the game's system IS shit. No matter if it's the shooting mechanics or sneaking mechanics, they're all shit because they're a product of a shitty engine and a product of the devs who never truly improved their design. Like I said, even Fallout: New Vegas felt off despite of the many improvement it brought to the table, now imagine Fallout 3's own shitty version of the engine.

Also, in case you still haven't understand what we meant with enemies posing no challenge at all due to level scaling, it's because in vanilla Fallout 3, the DR system ensure that it's too easy to deal damage when you're low levels, since based on the wikia page, the DR of many level scaled enemies are flat while they don't have as much damage, but became so much of a chore later on due to the fact that they have significantly bloated amount of HP as you level up

XD Whether it feels different? That's one hell of a goalpost shift.

1. "Yeah, hmm, I remember some enemies being more difficult than others, of course. Maybe the problem is just that they are kind of still the same enemies? I mean Evergreen Mills is mostly just raiders (and one behemoth, the wiki says). There are raiders all over the game. There are super mutants all over the game, too. Maybe some are high level some are low level? How different do they look from each other?

I mean, play Fallout 1 or 2, and stumble into an area full of super mutants (that you wouldn't normally encounter until the end of the game) or the Enclave in 2, and you will get wrecked, but it won't be unexpected. You know a high level enemy by looking at them. After one playthrough of Fallout, it's pretty easy to assess whether I should run from a random encounter just by looking at the enemies on screen. What type of enemy is it? Are they wearing armor? Are they carrying rifles? How many? In Fallout 3 (and many other games, Bethesda's not the only offender here), I might need to take a few shots at them first and see how much their health drops before I would have any idea whether it was a fight I should take on."
2. "Sure, you can. I don't really see how that's at all relevant to this comparison.

I'm not talking about whether it is literally possible to go to an area or not. I'm talking about whether that area feels different than the rest of the game. Fallout 3's wasteland has some initial charm, but it is largely a big ball of indistinguishable mud, with very similar raiders and super mutants scattered throughout. That is boring."

How does that counts as a fucking goalpost shift? The guy talked about how enemies in Fallout 1/2 vs. 3 having different feel from one another in the first place.

Also, you haven't addressed how relevant it is to savescum to bypass encounters. No matter if it's Fallout 1/2 or 3, you can savescum to bypass encounters, so why bringing it up in the first place?

I love how I didn't even have to say anything and people immediately brought up having to use the dart gun, a gatling laser, or a railway rifle even though there's no way to *start the game with them*. It also takes a while to get them, even if you wanted to save scum around with prior knowledge of exactly where to go while avoiding anything that grants exp. Why did I even bother replying. You all sunk the argument without my help.

So, basically you're arguing this based on a newcomer's playthrough?

I thought we're discussing this within context of having played through the game multiple times.

 

[MKSaibot]

Had I not played Fallout 2 way before Fallout was bought by Bethesda, and well before Fallout 3 was released I do wonder how much more or less I would have liked Fallout 3. I will say that had I not played Fallout 2, I can't say for sure that I would have liked New Vegas over 3 by a whole lot.

But that is seriously about the the most positive thing I can say about 3. Its not bad, and I also think Fallout 4 is better then Fallout New Vegas, but no one can say I am not a "true" Fallout fan by saying that unless they had played Fallout 1 (a lot) back in the day. I have hundreds of hours into Fallout 2, I loved the shit out of that game. Conclusion though I like New Vegas over all more then 3, but Fallout 4 is better then both of them.

Oh and I liked Fallout Tactics a lot, loved that game, and its better then NV, 3 and 4. I can almost say I liked Tactics better then Fallout 2, but over all Fallout 2 remains the best single-player rpg experience I have had in my gaming history.

 

[Cobra Commander]

Conclusion though I like New Vegas over all more then 3, but Fallout 4 is better then both of them.

 

[MKSaibot]

Probably the only person to ever post on nma that actually bought Fallout 2 when it was still on shelves at EB Games, played and loved it, but will tell you they think Fallout 4 is better then NV.

 

[Norzan]

Conclusion though I like New Vegas over all more then 3, but Fallout 4 is better then both of them.

Ah yes, a game with laughable rpg mechanics, terrible writing, dumbs down the series even more than 3 and shoves settlement building down your throat is somehow better than NV, one that actually brought back traits when 3 removed them, it has way better writing, character and story. Not to mention way more ways to roleplay and a lot more quests with choices and consequences.

You're allowed to think Fallout 4 is better than NV, but really now? Coming from someone who loves Fallout 2, Fallout 4 should make you boil in anger for how much it butcher the series.

 

[MKSaibot]

Ah yes, a game with laughable rpg mechanics, terrible writing, dumbs down the series even more than 3 and shoves settlement building down your throat is somehow better than NV, one that actually brought back traits when 3 removed them, it has way better writing, character and story. Not to mention way more ways to roleplay and a lot more quests with choices and consequences.

You're allowed to think Fallout 4 is better than NV, but really now? Coming from someone who loves Fallout 2, Fallout 4 should make you boil in anger for how much it butcher the series.

I agree with everything you said, but Fallout 4 is just more fun to play in terms of gameplay. I don't really think 3, NV or 4 are necessarily good Fallout games because I had played Fallout 2 early on. I do not like the engine Fallout 3 or NV uses. I was massively disappointed with Fallout 3. New Vegas is a better game then 3, but Fallout 4 is just more fun imo then both those games. NV is a better RPG in area's, but 4 just has better gameplay. Fallout ended with the first Fallout 3 gameplay trailer imo. Fallout NV was only enjoyable to me over 3 because of its relation to Fallout 2. I have very little hours in 3, more in NV, and twice as much hours in Fallout 4. Three times more hours probably in Fallout 2 then Fallout 4.

I am saying none of Bethesda's Fallout games are great Fallout games, and Obsidian was given what they were given to work with. They did a good job, I liked NV, but 4 is a better Fallout game over all. I do not like the heavy emphasis on base building, and or the player character being voiced. I also cannot stand the legendary weapons in the game, its a joke imo. There is a list of things I do not like about Fallout 4, but I will spare the details.

Thing is Fallout 2 is technically the last Fallout game released from my point of view. We are playing Bethesda Fallout games now, there different. New Vegas is still kind of a Bethesda game in ways to me. So Fallout 4 is better imo.

 

[NMLevesque]

you also haven't addressed

I did. I just don't like wasting my time reiterating clear points ad nauseum to people who can't be bothered to read.

 

[NMLevesque]

So, basically you're arguing this based on a newcomer's playthrough?

I thought we're discussing this within context of having played through the game multiple times.

You can get Advanced Power Armor and probably the strongest energy weapon right at the start of Fo2. If you know where to go, any Fallout game is easy. People talked about exploration (not deliberately going places you know about, prepared with specific gear for it). Then someone said it's not hard enough in Fo3 bc you can just go anywhere. Several shifts later and now apparently we're talking about how easy it is to exploit working knowledge. If it's not abundantly clear yet, I think it's become a waste of time because people can't keep track of what the topic even was in the first place. Let alone the sub-topic that these replies are even about.

 

[Black Angel]

I did. I just don't like wasting my time reiterating clear points ad nauseum to people who can't be bothered to read.

From what I see to this reply of yours, you're saying that you have addressed the fact that Cobra Commander killed a Deathclaw with a 10mm Pistol. I don't see it, but I've already clarified my initial point.

You can get Advanced Power Armor and probably the strongest energy weapon right at the start of Fo2. If you know where to go, any Fallout game is easy.

You're insinuating that you can't do that in Fallout 3! Want to get something immediately in that game, just go ahead! Not to mention the fact that

1. The world map of Fallout 3 is scaled down so much, means it takes literally minutes to get from one end of the map to another,
2. AND the fact that the world is literally designed so the players can literally go anywhere, anytime from the very start of the game, to the point where there's not much thinking in area placement (remember Republic of Dave's location which is literal seconds away from Old Olney? This is also a problem in Fallout 4 where settlements exists only mere seconds/minutes away from wandering Super Mutants/Raiders)
3. AND finally, the fact that most of enemy's levels are scaled to you means there's really no dangerous enemies at the start

Meanwhile, the design of Fallout 1, 2, and NV's maps are deliberately and carefully crafted to immediately let the players know, that "These areas are meant for high level characters!", and obviously the devs didn't do it while taking players savescumming to bruteforce their way to endgame areas in mind!

People talked about exploration (not deliberately going places you know about, prepared with specific gear for it). Then someone said it's not hard enough in Fo3 bc you can just go anywhere. Several shifts later and now apparently we're talking about how easy it is to exploit working knowledge. If it's not abundantly clear yet, I think it's become a waste of time because people can't keep track of what the topic even was in the first place. Let alone the sub-topic that these replies are even about.

I think the problem is that you're treating multiple person as a single hivemind that have the EXACT same thinking. Yes, we're all preaching to the choir, but, for instance, I'm talking personally from my experience of having played through the game multiple times, Norzan's points are based on the fact that most enemies in Fallout 3 are level-scaled, while Jabberwock's points are based on his experience with the 'feel'; of how in 1/2/NV there are huge chunks of the map that are meant solely for high-level characters, while 3's is a jumbled mess of incoherent design (again, Old Olney-Republic of Dave comes into mind. It has been a huge problem of Bethesda's Fallouts).

And even then, you're guilty of this, too. Jabberwock's points was never related to players own innate tendency to savescum in the face of difficulty, so why bringing that up?

Probably the only person to ever post on nma that actually bought Fallout 2 when it was still on shelves at EB Games, played and loved it, but will tell you they think Fallout 4 is better then NV.

Just because you have fun with Fallout 4, doesn't necessarily means it's 'better' than NV. It's like saying shooters are better than RPGs because you have fun with the former, which is exactly the situation here between 4 and NV.

 

[MKSaibot]

Black Angel you don't know wtf your talking about (jokes). This is like at least the second time I have had regrets on a post because I didn't give it a lot of thought going in, and acted on impulse. I am saying a Fallout Far Cry with a alter ego BoS faction thrown in a blender with the Enclave, and buildable sentry bot companions (= a lot of fun to me) is a better Fallout game then New Vegas. No I got on here to actually admit my post is cringy, impulsive and regretful. Marks the second time I have said something I regretted on here Fallout related, awesome.

No I definitely have been having fun with 4, I do have more hours in it, but I thoroughly did enjoy New Vegas. It has just been awhile since I had last played the game (impulse without much thought part). It also didn't have a lasting impact on me like Fallout 2, or even Tactics for that matter. I play evil characters when I am allowed to play them in any game, but I was not a fan of Caesars Legion. I was not a fan of the BoS in NV, even though they are far more like the BoS in Fallout 2. The midwestern BoS is my favorite BoS, as Tactics did have a impact on me. The Enclave Remnants felt more like a easter egg to me, along with some other features in NV. Over all I just did not like NV as much as a lot of Fallout fans did, but I still enjoyed it.

Long post, sorry, but I did want to add. I was massively disappointed with the New Vegas strip itself. This is due in part to my love for New Reno and everything it had to offer in Fallout 2. I was also not a fan of Mr. House. I wanted New Vegas to be New Reno 2, and I expected it. So I got let down in area's with NV.

 

[Valdetiosi]

So here we go. I have to give props for @Jogre once again so I came up with this, And as side note made me have English lesson with pronouncing stuff.
TLDW; imagine Jogre's post, but with Fingolian slurring added in it.

 

[Black Angel]

Black Angel you don't know wtf your talking about (jokes). This is like at least the second time I have had regrets on a post because I didn't give it a lot of thought going in, and acted on impulse. I am saying a Fallout Far Cry with a alter ego BoS faction thrown in a blender with the Enclave, and buildable sentry bot companions (= a lot of fun to me) is a better Fallout game then New Vegas. No I got on here to actually admit my post is cringy, impulsive and regretful. Marks the second time I have said something I regretted on here Fallout related, awesome.

Please tell me where in Fallout 4 that it was much more faithful to what Fallout 1 and 2 truly is compared to New Vegas.

In case there are none, I think the right word for you to say is that, "Fallout 4 is the better game to play for me than New Vegas."

No I definitely have been having fun with 4, I do have more hours in it, but I thoroughly did enjoy New Vegas. It has just been awhile since I had last played the game (impulse without much thought part). It also didn't have a lasting impact on me like Fallout 2, or even Tactics for that matter. I play evil characters when I am allowed to play them in any game, but I was not a fan of Caesars Legion. I was not a fan of the BoS in NV, even though they are far more like the BoS in Fallout 2. The midwestern BoS is my favorite BoS, as Tactics did have a impact on me. The Enclave Remnants felt more like a easter egg to me, along with some other features in NV. Over all I just did not like NV as much as a lot of Fallout fans did, but I still enjoyed it.

I didn't deny that you have fun with Fallout 4; I'm objecting the statement that Fallout 4 is the better game, let alone the better Fallout game, than New Vegas. It's arguable that Fallout 4 is much more 'playable' than New Vegas if you compare these games from a shooter/hiking simulator perspective; but comparing them as RPGs and then saying Fallout 4 is better than New Vegas is false.

Long post, sorry, but I did want to add. I was massively disappointed with the New Vegas strip itself. This is due in part to my love for New Reno and everything it had to offer in Fallout 2. I was also not a fan of Mr. House. I wanted New Vegas to be New Reno 2, and I expected it. So I got let down in area's with NV.

Yeah, but within the context of comparing Fallout 2 to New Vegas, and then comparing New Vegas to 4, where in Fallout 4 you saw things you liked from Fallout 2?

 

[BigGuyCIA]

Fallout 4 better than 3 AND NV? Like, what kind of weighted comparison are you using to come to this conclusion saibot?

 

[Supermarauder]

@Cobra Commander Amen Brother. Also @MKSaibot , what are you smoking right now?? Because I want some if you got any extra of it.

 

[Daniel The NCR Veteran]

Personally, I've seen all of the memes regarding Deathclaws

All I can say is: A P Y R

 

[Daniel The NCR Veteran]

I agree with everything you said, but Fallout 4 is just more fun to play in terms of gameplay.

Because Fallout is all about mindless shooting and building settlements. Ugh.

 

[Valdetiosi]

Because Fallout is all about mindless shooting and building settlements. Ugh.

It's about deep roleplaying, like racing right before vault entrance so you can change yourself to another guy and forget you were having marriage and all that stuff. Instead you are mercenary, but pretend to be father figure, because it's undercover alias you use as your mercenary title.

See? Wasn't that immersive and very RP like? Nothing like this can't be obtained in New Vegas. You cannot even play as full down cannibal since the game forces you these dialogue options wirh certain people when you take the perk and I don't want to have choices given by game, I want to ignore them and make my own choices.

 

[Daniel The NCR Veteran]

It's about deep roleplaying, like racing right before vault entrance so you can change yourself to another guy and forget you were having marriage and all that stuff. Instead you are mercenary, but pretend to be father figure, because it's undercover alias you use as your mercenary title.

See? Wasn't that immersive and very RP like? Nothing like this can't be obtained in New Vegas. You cannot even play as full down cannibal since the game forces you these dialogue options wirh certain people when you take the perk and I don't want to have choices given by game, I want to ignore them and make my own choices.

Hope you are sarcastic, mate. I can't tell the difference by now...

 

[aP // Elliott]

I wonder if this guy will make a "Fallout 4 is better than you think" video a couple years down the line.

 

[Norzan]

@MKSaibot

Yeah, i'm also confused about you saying Fallout 4 is a better Fallout game than New Vegas. I mean, as a regular shooter maybe, but Fallout is a lot more than just shooting. I think it would be less confusing if you said Fallout 4 is better than NV gameplay wise (this is debatable to me) because in everything else, just no.



And yeah, i wouldn't be surprised if some sort of movement would rise in a few years to suddenly defend Fallout 4, just like i'm seeing recently with Fallout 3.