"Fallout 3 is Garbage, And Here's Why", video by hbomberguy

R.Graves said:
BLASPHEMY!
Click to expand...
Black Angel said:
Eh, compared to Bethesda Game Studio, Obsidian obviously much more competent.
Click to expand...
Lucas9 said:
Obsidian is competent with Fallout games. It's all I ever need.
Click to expand...
They're both incompetent but in different ways. Beth is obviously more so simply because they either have no idea what they're doing or have very little interest in making a Fallout game that even resembles or includes the fundamental ideas from the first two games that made them so memorable. Their games (TES included) fall apart the very second you start to question something going on in the worlds they create. They don't hold up to even the slightest bit of scrutiny and get credited as "masters of world creation" by people who obviously never learned to develop their critical thinking skills.

Obsidian's games are often a technical mess at launch and remain so even after numerous patches. The community has to rely on unofficial patches created by the modding community, which also leaves consoles players with a game that is fundamentally broken and will never be fixed. You can ignore this all you want and try to pretend Obsidian is some great game developer just because they do Fallout better than Bethesda. But the reality is that there is no excuse for such poor programming on Obsidian's part; it exists in almost every game they produce.
 
Riven326 said:
Obsidian's games are often a technical mess at launch and remain so even after numerous patches. The community has to rely on unofficial patches created by the modding community, which also leaves consoles players with a game that is fundamentally broken and will never be fixed. You can ignore this all you want and try to pretend Obsidian is some great game developer just because they do Fallout better than Bethesda. But the reality is that there is no excuse for such poor programming on Obsidian's part; it exists in almost every game they produce.
Click to expand...

After a few patches, I never had any problem with Fallout: New Vegas. It's the reality: Yukichigai's Unofficial Patch (bug fixes), New Vegas Stutter Remover, and New Vegas Anti-Crash.

But Fallout 4? You can't fix what's fundamentally broken.

Why even bring up Obsidian's qualities as a game developer is beyond me. It's the best at what it does: create a good Fallout game. Like I said, that's all I need.
 
Lucas9 said:
After a few patches, I never had any problem with Fallout: New Vegas. It's the reality: Yukichigai's Unofficial Patch (bug fixes), New Vegas Stutter Remover, and New Vegas Anti-Crash.

But Fallout 4? You can't fix what's fundamentally broken.

Why even bring up Obsidian's qualities as a game developer is beyond me. It's the best at what it does: create a good Fallout game. Like I said, that's all I need.
Click to expand...
Yes, it requires a number of community made mods just to run the base game well. Console players have no access to such mods so their games remains forever broken. Fallout 3 may be an inferior Fallout experience when directly compared to New Vegas, but on a technical level it is a superior game.

You can go ahead and dismiss my criticisms of Obsidian's efforts if you like; It's "all you need" from a Fallout game and that's your prerogative. But know that this is the sort of thing that Bethesda fans get accused of all the time, and I think rightly so. It's a big part of why their games haven't improved in key areas that desperately need it. They know their diehard fans will ignore any problems and only focus on what Bethesda does right.
 
Riven326 said:
You can go ahead and dismiss my criticisms of Obsidian's efforts if you like
Click to expand...

I don't dismiss criticism, but acting like choosing between Bethesda and Obsidian like it's such a difficult choice is pointless. Obsidian makes better Fallout games, buggy or not I'd rather have Obsidian. When the IP is theirs and they have all the time in the world to develop their game, that's when I will criticize it.
 
Lucas9 said:
I don't dismiss criticism, but acting like choosing between Bethesda and Obsidian like it's such a difficult choice is pointless. Obsidian makes better Fallout games, buggy or not I'd rather have Obsidian. When the IP is theirs and they have all the time in the world to develop their game, that's when I will criticize it.
Click to expand...
Says he doesn't dismiss criticism and then proceeds to dismiss criticism until specific conditions are met. I think we're done here.
 
Riven326 said:
Fallout 3 may be an inferior Fallout experience when directly compared to New Vegas, but on a technical level it is a superior game.
Click to expand...
I agreed with everything else you're saying but this is just wrong. Fallout 3 was a buggy mess, it had more or less the same problems as New Vegas only with a green filter instead of a yellow one, the only real difference is that I can now play New Vegas on console without worrying about it freezing, while Fallout 3 freezes every 2 hours or so.
 
Riven326 said:
Says he doesn't dismiss criticism and then proceeds to dismiss criticism until specific conditions are met. I think we're done here.
Click to expand...

I think New Vegas was very buggy on launch.

Does that satisfy you? Do you realize I'm critcizing a 6 year old game from a company that will most likely never make another Fallout title again? Why in the world do you think it is logical to do that when they had less than two years to develop their game?
 
Izak said:
I agreed with everything else you're saying but this is just wrong. Fallout 3 was a buggy mess, it had more or less the same problems as New Vegas only with a green filter instead of a yellow one, the only real difference is that I can now play New Vegas on console without worrying about it freezing, while Fallout 3 freezes every 2 hours or so.
Click to expand...
What console are you playing the game on? I know the PS3 version of F3 has issues, but the Xbox version of the game runs better and is less buggy than NV. At launch, F3 was more stable than NV. NV was practically unplayable regardless of what you played it on. I give Obsidian credit for patching it up, but it's still terribly buggy on Xbox and PC. But at least on PC there are mods that make it better.

Lucas9 said:
I think New Vegas was very buggy on launch.

Does that satisfy you? Do you realize I'm critcizing a 6 year old game from a company that will most likely never make another Fallout title again? Why in the world do you think it is logical to do that when they had less than two years to develop their game?
Click to expand...
Because Bethesda had two years to make Fallout 3 and they had to make all the assets and everything from scratch, and they did. Obsidian was handed the engine and all the assets and told to make New Vegas in the same amount of time. Maybe you don't understand where I'm coming from here; I also preferred NV to F3. But I'm not going to just ignore that game's shortcomings just because Obsidian made a better Fallout game than Bethesda.
 
Bethesda had more than 2 years to develop Fallout 3, and that game was even buggier than New Vegas with many Areas in FO3 being so buggy that things fall through the ground constantly, had less content and it reused a lot of assets constantlly. New Vegas had 18 months of development so they have less than 2 years while also producing 3 times the same content Fo3 had, better writting voice acting and even imrpoved on the systems while adding new Assets in as well...so I don't even get what your point even is...
 
His (only) point was that new vegas had more bugs than a rainforest. But if you I ask me with conditions under which it was made.... That was to be expected.
 
Fallout 3 always bugged out on me, same with Fo4, I find it really pointless to play the "Which one was Less buggy?!!!!!" game because it's like fighting over whose dick is the least crooked. Bethesda always releases Buggy games, at least New Vegas got constant po9st launch support that even rebalanced the combat, all FO3 got were minor fixes and broke things further, while Fo4's updates only seem to exist to break mods regularly.
 
With fallout 4 a game breaking glitch ruined my save before I even got out of vault 111. I've never had any problems that bad out of 3 or New Vegas.
 
I had to completely restart my Survival Character and install a mod that just lets me save whenever I want in Survival because of how often the thing broke.

Hell if you have a mod activated that adds Items to your inventory automatically and you start a new game the game just pukes on itself even it if just is a Read Me holotape, meanwhile FONV has lots of mods that even give you a completely different Pipboy and it can start new characters with no problems...
 
Last edited:
The only bug I've had after about a year of NV on console is getting stuck inside a pipe in old world blues. Ok maybe it wasn't the only one but it was the funniest.
 
Riven326 said:
Fallout 3 may be an inferior Fallout experience when directly compared to New Vegas, but on a technical level it is a superior game.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but this is just plain wrong. 'Cause you know what? I've bought both Fallout 3 GOTY edition and Fallout: New Vegas (without any of the DLCs) on my mid-end PC that can run Skyrim on High at 60 fps, FO3 GOTY edition fucking crash every 30 minutes and freeze every fucking time I Alt+Tab'ed, even with all the optimization and stabilization procedure, tinkering with .ini files, mods and unofficial patches. After I finished FO3 to its completion of also all of the DLCs, I immediately continued New Vegas with only tweaking .ini files and anti-crash mods (without Unofficial Patches) and it only crash like 3-4 times the entire 100 hours run. So, yeah, there's that. I can't speak for Obsidian other, past games, but when comparing FO3 and FNV side by side? Obsidian fucking killed Bethesda there, despite Bethesda had like 15+ years experience working with their engine and Obsidian only had 18 months to ALSO learn working on the engine from scratch. ON TOP OF THAT, when releasing New Vegas, Bethesda fucked up the QA, resulted in New Vegas extremely buggy on release, so I'm sorry if I sounds rude but they are video game developers for some reason, they obviously can handle bugs here and there.

Riven326 said:
Because Bethesda had two years to make Fallout 3 and they had to make all the assets and everything from scratch, and they did. Obsidian was handed the engine and all the assets and told to make New Vegas in the same amount of time. Maybe you don't understand where I'm coming from here; I also preferred NV to F3. But I'm not going to just ignore that game's shortcomings just because Obsidian made a better Fallout game than Bethesda.
Click to expand...
Oh my sweet summer child, do you have any idea why Fallout 3 was called Oblivion with guns? Heck, there's also the thing with them copy-pasting assets here and there, on plus side they had 15+ years experience working on it, and you are trying to tell me it's okay their games are STILL NOT OPTIMIZED FOR WINDOWS 7 AND ABOVE, FUCKING CRASH SO FREQUENTLY ON A RIG THAT CAN RUN SKYRIM ON HIGH AT 60 FPS? Meanwhile, yeah Obsidian basically inherited the engine and doesn't need to work from scratch, but they gotta learn from scratch how to work on it and that's obviously harder than "having to create assets from sratch while having 15+ years of experience with the engine". Oh, and guess what? Like I said, Obsidian fucking killed Bethesda there, having added more stable version of Ironsight, weapon mods, more and better animation, many new assets, a cRPG system that works for an FPS format, and the game runs better after many patches, means it aged better than Fallout 3.
 
I can't talk for console versions but I lost count a few years ago of how many people come to TTW and say that without it they can't play Fallout 3 because not only it is a crash-fest but some also say they can't even start the game with an immediate crash as soon as try to run Fallout 3.

So when people come by and thank us because playing Fallout 3 in Fallout New Vegas version of the game engine enables them to actually play Fallout 3 which otherwise wouldn't be possible for them... Well... Bethesda also releases really buggy messes.

Also, Morrowind (a game I love), Oblivion, Fallout 3, Skyrim and Fallout 4 all also have unofficial patches for a reason, they are all buggy messes even after Bethesda stopped work on them.

I am not trying to excuse Obsidian here, but like mentioned before they had 18 months to learn how to use the engine, make from scratch some resources for it too and make the game, while Bethesda had years upon years of knowing all there is to know about the engine they created and yet still release games with so many bugs that requires day one patches (Fallout 4).

So in sum using the "Obsidian releases buggy games" doesn't really count when "Bethesda releases buggy games" too, while in Obsidian case we can say "Obsidian releases games with deep plots, plenty of choices, interesting characters, good quests, good dialogue and writing in general" but then Bethesda does not release games like that... Well I guess Obsidian has to win in this argument. :confused:
 
Riven326 said:
Because Bethesda had two years to make Fallout 3 and they had to make all the assets and everything from scratch, and they did. Obsidian was handed the engine and all the assets and told to make New Vegas in the same amount of time. Maybe you don't understand where I'm coming from here; I also preferred NV to F3. But I'm not going to just ignore that game's shortcomings just because Obsidian made a better Fallout game than Bethesda.
Click to expand...

They didn't make Fallout 3 from scratch. FALLOUT 1 was made from scratch. Fallout 3 was built on top of Oblivion, and the game, when you really think about it, is basically reused assets of the worst kind: most places look so similar you wouldn't be able to tell (from pictures) they are extremely apart from each other.

Whereas Morrowind had Redoran, Telvanni, Hlaalu, Velothi, Imperial, Ashland, Dwemer, Stronghold, and 6th House styles. Plus a plethora of regions with different climates and the like. New Vegas wasn't made from scratch either, but it wasn't made by Bethesda and that sure makes one big difference: the people at BGS were used to the engine and the GECK, the guys at Obsidian weren't.

I understand pretty well where you are coming from, what I don't understand is why you feel the need to criticize Obsidian when, like I mentioned, they had one and a half years to make a huge amount of content for New Vegas. Of the creative sort, which on a technical level (huge amount of quests, huge amount of faction quests with many different possibiliities, you are bound to come across quest glitches when the player has so much freedom in how to tackle those quests) are a nightmare.

Fuck, I'm actually amazed at how many glitches I encountered with Skyrim's quests, even when they were of the "kill this, return for a reward" type.

EDIT: Oh, and I actually crashed much more often in Fallout 3 than in New Vegas (where I didn't crash a single time) on PC. And I was using mods on Fallout 3 to prevent crashes as well, but every three hours or so the game would stop working.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top