Many a True Nerd "Fallout 3 is Better than you Think"

[CT Phipps]

A two hour essay on Fallout 3's story and choices.



Basically he talks at length about the choices in the beginning, the storyline with the Enclave, the world-building, and so on. I really enjoyed it but it seems basically directed as a 1:1 rebuttal of everything No Mutants Allowed has said about the game.

I loved his talk about Super Mutants in the setting, though, as well as the similarities to the original games.

 

[Ediros]

We already have got a thread for this:
http://nma-fallout.com/threads/fallout-3-is-better-than-you-think-many-a-true-nerd.215644/

Tldr: He is a massive shill. He wasn't like this before, but fuck him.

 

[CT Phipps]

I maintain Fallout 3 as probably my all time favorite video game alongside Skyrim. However, I think part of the problem is that a lot of people think NV and Fallout 3 are in competition with one another when the exact opposite is true. I think of it more like "A Tale of Two Wastelands" in that one is a direct sequel to the other built on the same roots. I also think of two contradictory points that help me love all of the Fallout games.

1. Fallout 3 is a retelling of Fallout 1 and 2.
2. Fallout 3 is not trying to BE Fallout 1 and 2

Fallout 3 is telling its own story with all the classic elements of Fallout (Super Mutants, the Enclave, convincing the bad guy to kill himself) but doing a different feel as well as more tragic/forlorn world.

The Capital Wasteland is a much darker and more foreboding place than California with the effects of the war much more serious. I think that was a better decision than the alternative of just trying to capture the feel of the previous games.

 

[Cobra Commander]

with the effects of the war much more serious

Sure. After 2 centuries; aside James and Madson Li; no one there did something to change this situation right?

meanwhile on the other side of the country, the NCR have 700.000 citizens. They're building a railroad network to link all of their state's cities, you know?

 

[CT Phipps]

Sure. After 2 centuries; aside James and Madson Li; no one there did something to change this situation right?

Yes, because the Roman Empire immediately recovered in the Middle Ages. :-p

meanwhile on the other side of the country, the NCR have 700.000 citizens. They're building a railroad network to link all of their state's cities, you know?

Because the Chosen One and Vault Dweller cleaned up their shit. Thankfully, Ulysses and the Courier nuked their supply lines and hopefully will kill that thing before it spreads.

ANARCHHYYYYYY.



Mind you, I don't consider a united rebuilt United States to be inevitable or even desirable in the setting.

 

[5545Trey]

I know there's another thread to this, and I know that both of these threads are relatively old, but...

Yes, because the Roman Empire immediately recovered in the Middle Ages. :-p

What a brilliant analogy! Even if the Fall of the Roman Empire and nuclear devastation of a fictional Earth have fuck all to do with each other.

Because the Chosen One and Vault Dweller cleaned up their shit.

They were still self-sufficient, and actually doing shit. The Vault Dweller didn't turn Shady Sands into the NCR, they grew as a community all on their own. The Chosen One was a bit more involved with the NCR's expansion, but the NCR was going to expand, regardless.

Thankfully, Ulysses and the Courier nuked their supply lines and hopefully will kill that thing before it spreads.

ANARCHHYYYYYY.

It's a good that nothing in New Vegas has been canonized, yet.

Mind you, I don't consider a united rebuilt United States to be inevitable or even desirable in the setting.

Why? I understand that an entire country wouldn't be rebuilt overnight, or be a successfully tangible goal, but why wouldn't it be a desirable thing, especially after almost two hundred years after the Great War?

 

[Deleted member 116891]

Why? I understand that an entire wouldn't be rebuilt overnight, or be a successful tangible goal, but why wouldn't it be a desirable thing, especially after almost two hundreds year after the Great War?

Because the point can be that the USA's policies and ideology lead to the Great War in the first place, or at least the effective nightmare state it had become by 2077. Simply rebuilding it again can lead to the same mistakes, and thus it is not desirable.

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

So that is the reason why the Fallout world has to remain a crapsack place?

Yeah that is not neither an explanation or a good excuse.

Human society always has inherit drive to develop from simple to more complex.
And after two hundred years there would definitely be such things as nations again.

 

[Deleted member 116891]

And after two hundred years there would definitely be such things as nations again.

I mean, of course, nobody here wants Fallout 3/4's stupid 'crapsack' worlds with no nations.

Was just saying that the USA rising again is not desirable for some in the setting. Maybe other nations acting differently would do a better job? That's what Fallout is partially about, the debate.

Wasn't agreeing with Phipps, was just responding to the post above.

 

[Risewild]

I mean, of course, nobody here wants Fallout 3/4's stupid 'crapsack' worlds with no nations.

Phipps does. He said it many times that he wants the Fallout world to always be anarchy, raiders, and never civilized. In sum, Phipps wants Fallout to stay post apocalyptic chaos forever.

 

[Cobra Commander]

Phipps does. He said it many times that he wants the Fallout world to always be anarchy, raiders, and never civilized. In sum, Phipps wants Fallout to stay post apocalyptic chaos forever.

Which would be stupid.

Unless you make an atmosphere where humanity is already doomed, it's only a matter of time (the book Metro 2033 is a good example)

Course, there is nothing wrong in desiring this state of despair in future fallouts, but there it is just a matter of pulling back the timeline.

 

[Norzan]

I love that Fallout 76 is only 25 years after the bombs fell, but somehow looks better than Fallout 3 Capital Wasteland, which is 200 years after. Bethesda had the right time to make a completely devastated wasteland that would make sense to be so, but then make it better looking than one 200 years later.

 

[Deleted member 116891]

Phipps does. He said it many times that he wants the Fallout world to always be anarchy, raiders, and never civilized. In sum, Phipps wants Fallout to stay post apocalyptic chaos forever

Yeah, I know Phipps's view. Just thought since he was not posting so much I could get away with saying 'no-one here.'

The one man who defended Fallout 3 on here, and was afforded some respect due to either his persistence or his quality of argument (I tend towards thinking the former.) Good to keep us on our toes. Certainly better than the usual idiots like mkfndggrfl.

But yeah, almost all of us are not into blasted hellscapes 200 years after the war.

 

[Norzan]

The one man who defended Fallout 3 on here, and was afforded some respect due to either his persistence or his quality of argument (I tend towards thinking the former.) Good to keep us on our toes. Certainly better than the usual idiots like mkfndggrfl.

His arguments are complete nonsense most of the time and don't think many respect him here. He just decided to stick around even after several arguments where people said he was wrong about Fallout 3.

 

[Deleted member 116891]

His arguments are complete nonsense most of the time and don't think many respect him here. He just decided to stick around even after several arguments where people said he was wrong about Fallout 3.

Given you are one of the most ardent critics of Fallout 3 on here and one of his chief opponents I shall bow to your wisdom on that.

 

[Norzan]

Given you are one of the most ardent critics of Fallout 3 on here and one of his chief opponents I shall bow to your wisdom on that.

I wasn't even here when people argued with him for a rather long length of time about Fallout 3 (i did read the thread and oh boy). I only argued with him about Fallout 3 like once or twice, he tends to give up after a while.

Most people that come here to argue with the forum about Fallout 3 and 4 tend to leave when people make good arguments as to why they are bad (because they think by criticizing the games we are criticize them personally, which is stupid). But i guess because Phipps decided to stick around, people just became fine with him being here. We still tell him he's wrong when he claims Fallout 3 is good.

 

[Cobra Commander]

problem of CT P. is that the guy is too passionate about those shiny things.

he keeps repeating how that moment after leaving the vault, with the sun blinding the player and such is wonderful (and it is ..but imho Pitt's bridge is more spectacular) and already worth the whole game.

seems to me very insignificant to "be worth the game" Do not you think?

 

[Pwener]

We still tell him he's wrong when he claims Fallout 3 is good.

It's a good video game; balanced, decent voice acting, good music, not too buggy for the sheer amount of content, still holds up graphically and the list goes on. It just falls short of Fallout 1 which is objectively a superior product and the argument can be made that it is indeed "art" as subjective as the term can be.

Fallout 3 is just that however; a video game. It doesn't aspire to be more like New Vegas did or thread new and creative ground like Fallout 2 (as idiotic as some of the references can be).

Bethesda was content with recycling F1 and F2, and honestly, being their first Fallout, I can't blame them. They played it safe plot-wise and thematically while risking everything else - it being their first FPS/RPG and not being certain that combination would be received well. I didn't like Fallout 3 at first, returning it a few days after buying it. After a year I went back to it, and I have loved it ever since.

As a video game, Fallout 3 is good. As anything more than that, it's not good.

 

[Norzan]

It's a good video game

No, it's not. The story is garbage, the exploration is pointless, the writing is juvenile, the choice and consequences are so few and meaningless, the shooting is shit. This is without comparing with the first two games.

balanced

It's one of the most unbalanced RPGs ever made. The player is always overpowered.

decent voice acting

Its voice acting is fucking laughable.

good music

Found it forgettable.

not too buggy for the sheer amount of content

It's glitched to fuck and i heard people complaining how much a pain in the ass it is in Windows 10. Meanwhile, i just installed New Vegas and crashed like three times and got no bugs in 250 hours.

It doesn't aspire to be more like New Vegas did

You mean it doesn't aspire to be good? That's a terrible thing to aspire to.

It's hilarious saying Fallout 3 is a "good video game" and then go around screaming that the gaming industry is doomed. You are defending one of the worst games the industry has ever shat out. Fallout 3 is objectively, factually terrible from every possible design standpoint.

As a video game, Fallout 3 is good.

That's an insult to actual good games.

 

[Pwener]

I thought we could have a pleasant back and forth where I knew I would not be able to convince you but still enjoy the stimulating exchange. I guess not.