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

SquidVan said:
Why can't we just slap the name Fallout on every game ever and just judge it based on its merits! Who cares that you called Fortnite "Falloutnite"? Or that it's "Call of Fallout" or "Gears of Fallout"? That's not the point! Quit judging it based on the repertoire and expectations the series has led us to. Instead judge it based on its own merits or you have actual brain cancer.
Click to expand...

I know you meant that as a joke, but I would be fine with that.

Plus, I think criticizing games is fine, but doing so based on other games is retarded. Fallout 4's dialogue isn't bad because it's different from FNV/FO2, it's objectively bad because it lacks any way for you to ask meaningful questions.
 
I mean sequels don’t exist in a vacuum man. I get what you’re saying and even without the context of being part of a series? Yes, Fallout 4’s still bad especially with dialogue. But you don’t get to slap the name of something to something and go “What? You expected it to be anything like the very thing we named it after?” That’s stupid as well. You set expectations when you make follow ups in a series. People know this. There is no vacuum of existence that we get to perceive things through and it’s naive to believe we do.
 
And what if the sequels are better than the originals? Does it matter if they didn't follow the same style?
upload_2021-3-1_13-44-25.png
 
Not judging a sequel based on what the previous games did is the thing that is actually retarded. Don't slap a number in your title if you are not gonna bother improving what the previous games did poorly. Hence why Fallout 3, 4, and 76 are shit.
 
So the only mistake Bethesda really made was adding a number in the title? Or that they didn't follow the original formula.
 
MASSIVE_FARTS said:
Plus, I think criticizing games is fine, but doing so based on other games is retarded. Fallout 4's dialogue isn't bad because it's different from FNV/FO2, it's objectively bad because it lacks any way for you to ask meaningful questions.
Click to expand...
Except if you have no point of reference you can't make these sorts of judgements:

Say Fallout 4 was the first game in a series. It probably wouldn't be judged nearly as harshly because it's creating it's own franchise. The Dialogue Wheel is only bad because previous Fallout games had fleshed out conversations and RPG Mechanics, without previous games as reference, it's just it's own game with it's own funky dialogue system.

Sure you could say the flaws in the writing are bad, but then again Fallout 2 had flaws in writing. The difference is we judge them in relation to Fallout 1 which was a masterwork in world building, and in that regard Fallout 2 (At least in my view) comes much closer to meeting that standard.

You can't say "We should judge it on it's objective merits" because games don't exist in some vacuum where perfect objective merits can be analysed. They exist in a climate of games, and in relation to other games, and so inherently subjective comparisons to other games will be the only metric of judgement.

If Fallout 4 was both the first piece of science fiction ever written, and the first game ever released, it would be hailed as a genre defining masterpiece. It's precisely because it's not either of those things that we can judge it has flaws in design, and outright bad and derivative writing.
 
SquidVan said:
I mean sequels don’t exist in a vacuum man. I get what you’re saying and even without the context of being part of a series? Yes, Fallout 4’s still bad especially with dialogue. But you don’t get to slap the name of something to something and go “What? You expected it to be anything like the very thing we named it after?” That’s stupid as well. You set expectations when you make follow ups in a series. People know this. There is no vacuum of existence that we get to perceive things through and it’s naive to believe we do.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think we can agree on that. I think it's totally fair for your expectations to factor into how you feel personally about a game, but that shouldn't factor into your judgement of the game's overall quality. You know what I mean? I think doing that helps reduce bias.

It's like you've got two lenses for looking at a game: one how you feel personally, the other how you feel critically. Ex. saying "Man, the new dialogue system really bums me out. It's not the same."
vs
"This game deserves a 1/10 because it changes the dialogue system. It doesn't feel as deep."

The first is an anecdote, the second is a logical fallacy.
 
Last edited:
Probably this was posted on the old thread, but... MATN video got debunked, hard.



Long video, for sure, but by God, its really good and shows how a lot of MATN arguments dont make any sense at all.
 
Frankly, I don't see why the Enclave wouldn't be on the other side of the continent if you're expanding the game. They had fucking nuclear powered helicopters. Lewis and Clark crossed the country on foot and you're telling me a bunch of guys with power armor couldn't do the same, let alone with Vertibirds?

I also would like to see Enclave Remnants or at least US government remnants.

But I get the suspension of disbelief is something people never recovered.
 
To be able to go, they could even. But why? Capital wasteland SUX. There's nothing there. It would have been better to have gone to Hopeville.

but ok, it wasn’t a thing at the time of the game, but they could then have gone anywhere but a radioactive pit.
 
Cobra Commander said:
To be able to go, they could even. But why? Capital wasteland SUX. There's nothing there. It would have been better to have gone to Hopeville.

but ok, it wasn’t a thing at the time of the game, but they could then have gone anywhere but a radioactive pit.
Click to expand...

Well, Raven's Rock is a real place and is an enormous nuclear bunker for VIPs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_Rock_Mountain_Complex

Fully aware of my flaws, you could have done Raven's Rock as an enormous final dungeon for the game as you really could rebuild civilization from there.

So I could see why the Enclave would go there.
 
The question is not if the Enclave could not return but if they should return?
Especially as a major bad guy.

I preferred that every Fallout game had their own main "antagonist" with their own ideology and agenda.

I like that there are remnants of the previous antagonist around and that the player can find out what they have been up to since their defeat at the end of previous games, but their time in the sun is now over.
 
No one doubted that the Enclave could go to the East Coast, but the question is why? They had no business going to the East Coast, and all it happened was that they were turned into completely utter jokes that do the dumbest shit. They went from this menacing, imposing group of people to retards that make the dumbest decisions and get easily destroyed.

They literally fight with BoS to press a damn button, when they all they had to was wait for the water purifier to be made, swoop in, and take control of it. Instead they announce that they are there, giving people ample time to prepare a counterattack, and defeat them.
 
What's more funny is that If you cooperate with the Enclave, Colonel Autumn, he kills you. And there is no reason for that, at all. You give him the codes, and he shoots you. I don't know, it's just dumb. You are giving him what he needs without causing any trouble, he could've asked you "Hey, you've given me what I needed most. Why don't you work for me? There is no reason to kill you, we want the same thing."

Or simply, Autumn wants to rebuild the government, and to do that, he has to supply the people of the Wasteland with fresh water so he can tie everyone to himself. He could've simply arranged a partnership with the BOS or pull the settlements/cities to his side by the promise of fresh water and leave the BOS out of the game, and It would cause the whole BOS Chapter to question their goals and current beliefs and eventually, they fall apart. Who are you going to help, when there is no one left to help?
 
killafornia said:
What's more funny is that If you cooperate with the Enclave, Colonel Autumn, he kills you. And there is no reason for that, at all. You give him the codes, and he shoots you. I don't know, it's just dumb. You are giving him what he needs without causing any trouble, he could've asked you "Hey, you've given me what I needed most. Why don't you work for me? There is no reason to kill you, we want the same thing."
Click to expand...
Brace yourself, next Shit Out will be even worse.

They got away with 4's watered-down dialogues, with the excuse being voiced protagonists and NPCs.
While people continue to consume Beth's fieces like it was quality shit, all you can do is hope for a New Vegas remaster by Obsidian, as Beth won't change their ways unless they're about to go bankrupt. Their greediness is almost as great as Konami's, they don't care about any shit besides $$$$$, and sadly there's too many casuals digging their content.

They're complete morons when the subject is Fallout's lore - and other things, as well - so I'm not (in the slighest) surprised that you end up being murdered by Autumn, regardless of your choices. They pretend to understand the Enclave faction, but it just works it's an utter fiasco, they're not fooling anyone with an IQ higher than 30.
 
Last edited:
Best thing Bethesda has done is with the art direction. The original games were really good since they pioneered it, but Bethesda's art department really improved on the game from the power armor to the laser weapons. Everything else was worse though.
 
Morgan_ said:
Best thing Bethesda has done is with the art direction. The original games were really good since they pioneered it, but Bethesda's art department really improved on the game from the power armor to the laser weapons. Everything else was worse though.
Click to expand...
Yeah I have to admit that I prefer their power armor models, or at least what they developed them into.

But the laser and plasma weapons? Retarded. Gimme the classic Wattz rifle over Bethesda’s new slapdash pile-of-scrap metal.
 
KingArthur said:
But the laser and plasma weapons? Retarded. Gimme the classic Wattz rifle over Bethesda’s new slapdash pile-of-scrap metal.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Good god is that shit awful. The Power Armor is more of a mixed bag in my opinion but I can see why people would like some of them a lot. But fuck their energy weapons. They don't even look like fucking weapons. Fallout 3 didn't even have sights and shit ON THE WEAPON. Seriously. How do you aim this? Did they forget these were rifles when designing them? I mean there's more issues but the biggest glaring issue is just that parts of a weapon that are needed for use by a human with plain ol' eyeballs just aren't there.
242
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top