Gamefaqs says FO3 one of greatest games of decade.

[Plautus]

Game of the decade? Fallout 3 is nowhere near the game of the decade.

I'd have to say it's either Half-Life 2, Civilization IV, or Bioshock. Those games are infinitely more deserving than Failout 3.

Great list you have there. I would probably add in Red Dead Redemption for its setting, soundtrack and nuanced, emotionally driven plot, or perhaps Mass Effect for creating a rich and comprehensive science fiction environment; however, if I were to give the title to one game, I couldn't.

For me, the two best games of the decade -and indeed most important games of the decade- are Half-life 2 and Civilization IV. Half-Life 2 delivers a mature and brilliant narrative experience at a flawless pace and revolutionized physics engines in games. Civilization IV is an intelligent and deep game that manages to be mature and intriguing without a brown color scheme and endless violence, in addition to having near limitless replay value.

Unfortunately for faithful Fallout fans, Fallout 3 is bound to be popular because it provides instant gratification. Bethesda gave the people exactly what they want when they shoved out an illogical, needlessly violent and mindlessly simple shooting game rather than challenging the player to think and rise to the challenge of complex narrative. It hardly surprises me that the younger gaming demographics ate Fallout 3 up like pigs eat slops; it gave them everything and they had to do nothing. Fallout 3's success, to me, speaks to greater issues with people -specifically young people- because it doesn't require effort for reward; it breeds entitlement and conceit. All of Fallout 3 and the philosophy behind it can be summed up accurately by Father Elijah: "RobCo piece of trash... dulls your mind".

EDIT: Sorry for the double-post!

Anyways, I read some of that one user who hates the traditional Fallout music's posts. I find it interesting that the typical Fallout 3 fan doesn't appreciate any of the older Big Band and Swing music included in the game. To me, the music was the only good part of Fallout 3 (separate from the game itself, not in the game), although it is infuriating to hear some of the comments related to the music like, "OMG I can't believe Beth hired people to make this for the game!!1!" But then, should I have expected better?

 

[Korin]

Anyways, I read some of that one user who hates the traditional Fallout music's posts. I find it interesting that the typical Fallout 3 fan doesn't appreciate any of the older Big Band and Swing music included in the game. To me, the music was the only good part of Fallout 3 (separate from the game itself, not in the game), although it is infuriating to hear some of the comments related to the music like, "OMG I can't believe Beth hired people to make this for the game!!1!" But then, should I have expected better?

Really? You must be crazy. You can't YouTube hardly any music from that era without finding the top rated comment(s) to be "Fallout 3/Bioshock brought me here.". I think your understanding of the 'typical' Fallout 3 fan is widely inaccurate. Despite the fact there are Fallout 3 fans who speak like they've had a full frontal lobotomy there are plenty who genuinely appreciate the quality of such music. But it's easy to paint F3 fans as some nebulous target for straw man attacks.

 

[Akratus]

Anyways, I read some of that one user who hates the traditional Fallout music's posts. I find it interesting that the typical Fallout 3 fan doesn't appreciate any of the older Big Band and Swing music included in the game. To me, the music was the only good part of Fallout 3 (separate from the game itself, not in the game), although it is infuriating to hear some of the comments related to the music like, "OMG I can't believe Beth hired people to make this for the game!!1!" But then, should I have expected better?

Really? You must be crazy. You can't YouTube hardly any music from that era without finding the top rated comment(s) to be "Fallout 3/Bioshock brought me here.". I think your understanding of the 'typical' Fallout 3 fan is widely inaccurate. Despite the fact there are Fallout 3 fans who speak like they've had a full frontal lobotomy there are plenty who genuinely appreciate the quality of such music. But it's easy to paint F3 fans as some nebulous target for straw man attacks.

Indeed, the loudest and most obnoxious always misrepresent their involved group of individuals. I was introduced to fallout by the third installment and I've really grown a healthy disappointment in that game since then.

 

[BOS_Warlord]

new vegas was all around better than FO3 but for some reason it gets no recognition. I dont know why. Bugs aside it had a better plot, setting and gameplay. Plus way better add on content.

 

[Mysterious Stranger13]

new vegas was all around better than FO3 but for some reason it gets no recognition. I dont know why. Bugs aside it had a better plot, setting and gameplay. Plus way better add on content.

The Bugs were because Bethesda rushed the develpment, not giving Obisdian enough time to fix up the bugs

 

[SouthboundSoul]

If it wasn't a Fallout game, I bet most of you would love it. I like it, it's the only Bethesda game I like. Even though it sucks as a Fallout game. I think it should beat Halo, not because I like it, but because I think it would be funny to see something beat a game as over rated as Halo. That being said, I'd love to see any game beat Halo.

 

[White Knight]

If it wasn't a Fallout game, I bet most of you would love it.

No, we'd all still hate it for its stupid moral choices and bad writing, but having the Fallout name on it just makes things worse.

 

[Felspawn]

go go thread Necromancy...

 

[CaveJohnson]

FO3 was a great game, but I don't know where I'd rank it. Ranking is kind of dumb.

 

[Todd Howard's #1 Fan]

I find it extraordinary that GameFAQS would limit itself to a span of ten years. Fallout 3 shattered the very pillars of entertainment in general, bringing about a new era of prosperity in an industry head over heels, gasping for a breathe of fresh air. Fallout 3 was far more than the fresh air the industry so craved, it was more than a simple piece of entertainment or a classic work of art, it's one of the lasting legacies of the human race.

 

[BFox17]

I find it extraordinary that GameFAQS would limit itself to a span of ten years. Fallout 3 shattered the very pillars of entertainment in general, bringing about a new era of prosperity in an industry head over heels, gasping for a breathe of fresh air. Fallout 3 was far more than the fresh air the industry so craved, it was more than a simple piece of entertainment or a classic work of art, it's one of the lasting legacies of the human race.

A lasting legacy of the human race? I really think that's exaggerating a bit, Fallout 3 is most definitely not the greatest game of the past decade or even more than a decade, which is what you seem to be implying. There are so many other games worthy of being the best of the past two decades. I can think of at least one other game more deserving, even at least more so than Fallout 3.

I liked Fallout 3, it had certain charms, but even I can see that the writing and the story is fairly poor. Bethesda seemed to go for emphasis on the whole "shooting stuff is cool" approach due to how overpowered VATS was (and how boring it got to use after a while). At least New Vegas toned it down. Even though the game appealed to the masses, that doesn't make it the best game of the past decade. Period.

 

[Walpknut]

Dude, you are arguing with the most obvious troll.

 

[BFox17]

Dude, you are arguing with the most obvious troll.

I find it hard to tell the difference between those people and serious people sometimes.

 

[White Knight]

Dude, you are arguing with the most obvious troll.

I find it hard to tell the difference between those people and serious people sometimes.

Isn't it rather obvious a user named Todd Howard's #1 fan on forum that prefers the older games would be a troll

 

[BFox17]

Dude, you are arguing with the most obvious troll.

I find it hard to tell the difference between those people and serious people sometimes.

Isn't it rather obvious a user named Todd Howard's #1 fan on forum that prefers the older games would be a troll

Yeah, should have seen that coming.

 

[FOvet]

There's more to a game than story and writing--there's the fun factor which is VERY important. The best written game will suck if it's not fun to play.

Besides, the main story was not written very well, but the world was. There was a LOT of back story provided via holotapes and computer entries. So the main quest was lacking, but there was more to the game than the main quest.

I think FO3 deserves to be recognized as the great game it is. Is it perfect? No, it leaves a lot to be desired. Is it good? Yes, even better than merely good. It seems to me a lot of FO criticism is colored from the bias of those pissed off at Bethesda--and it isn't wrong to be mad at them, but at least recognize the bias in your opinions.

I am a fan of FO1 and FO2 (never played tactics...yet), and I can still admit the merits of FO3 and FONV, because they are good games that don't deserve all the hate I'm seeing.

Lastly, I don't mean to offend anyone--I just want to point out how biased some of these opinions I am reading are.

 

[SnapSlav]

The thing is, bias ITSELF gets the wrong rap; it's closed-mindedness or ignorance that're so detestable.

People keep bringing up FONV's sales as if they were CLEARLY due to FO3's popularity, and that alone. Um, what about its OWN publicity it had? How about how they sold it on the premise of "Yes, we recognized what people liked about the last title, and what they didn't like, and we decided to improve upon the former, and do proper the latter"? How about that people RECOGNIZED that Obsidian was behind it and, biased or not, that alone fed them the anticipation they needed to yearn for its purchase? FONV sold based on its own merits, too; FO3 was not at all responsible for that, whether or not it had an influence. I personally wasn't interested in the game at all when I first heard about it, because of FO3, and yet when I actually read about it, learned that Obsidian was behind it, learned what awesome features they were implementing, scoured the internet for all the latest screenshots and videos and developer diaries... only THEN had I decided I had to buy this game.

People keep using FONV as a clear example that Bethesda can learn to improve upon their mistakes. These people probably don't even understand the DIFFERENCE between a Producer and a Developer (and I know that many genuinely don't). Bethesda had nothing to do with FONV's creation, besides barking orders and making unreasonable demands and getting to pocket money from it at the end of the day. EA wasn't the force that brought us Dead Space, that was Visceral's doing; EA was simply the bankroll. Microsoft wasn't the creator of Halo, that was Bungie; Microsoft just gets to claim ownership.

People keep looking at solid, deserved criticism of FO3, and solid, deserved criticism of Bethesda, and assuming that they're somehow related, or that one is due to the other. They are neither. FO3 sucks for the reasons that FO3 sucks; Bethesda sucks for the reasons that Bethesda sucks. FO3 doesn't suck because of Bethesda, nor does Bethesda suck because of FO3. EVERYONE knows this, and those who don't are simply in denial, or truly inept at simple logic (take your pick). If a user criticized FO3, and in the same post criticized Bethesda (such as myself, as I often will), those are 2 distinct subjects with no correlation to one another. Similarly, just because they're criticizing one, but not both, that has no implications as to their opinions towards the other. Maybe they're a fan of Bethesda but disliked FO3? At the end of the day, the hate and spite Bethesda is getting is because of BETHESDA, and the same is true of their blight we call Fallout 3.

People keep citing numbers, as if they represent anything meaningful, but of course the thread has already covered this fallacy...

People keep brushing aside the faults of a game just because of its virtues. Yes, FO3 can be fun to play, but that doesn't mean it's a great game. Chess is not a very thrilling, cathartic, "fun" game, but it is AMAZING. You can't ignore FO3's horrid writing just because its ample, cathartic, cheap rewards give your synaptic responses a primitive jolt. It's a quick-fix of fun, and nothing more. Fun is important, but it's far from all-encompassing. The high-caliber voice cast doesn't make the voice acting great, because the talent is a meager sliver of a parcel of a fraction of the voices you listen to, which are by and large ATROCIOUS. The game has its high points, and it's without a doubt true that it "revitalized" the franchise, but that ignores the very point itself. One good turn doesn't undo a bad one. FO3's enjoyable aspects don't make it a great game, as a whole. It's CERTAINLY not deserving of "Game of the Decade".

 

[TorontoReign]

^ Give this man a medal.

 

[FOvet]

My point was similiar to yours, Snap (I love to read your post btw, you put so much heart into them). Yes, you can't ignore the crap mixed into the game, but you can't ignore the GOOD in it, either. At the end of the day, is FO3 really much worse than most other games that come about? I'd say it's better than many, and deserving of it's GoTY award---albeit 'decade' is a stretch; that ought to go to MGS4 or the Assassin's Creed series.

 

[TucoX]

im grateful to Bethesda for making Fallout3, because even if it is not as great as it could be it revived the franchise, introduced few neat concepts (VATS, 1'st person wasteland exploring - as it is way more satisfying than isometric exploring) and reinspired the genre.