Name reasons you thought Fallout 3 was better than New Vegas

[Norzan]

To be honest, it's pretty clear you really dislike Fallout 3, and I think that's why you're not willing to forgive the same sort of flaws that you see in New Vegas.

Except when New Vegas is silly, it's very sporadic and spread out. It's actually more line with Fallout 1 than 2. Even then, there's an in-game explanation, even if it's silly some of the times. Fallout 3 is a constant barrage of nonsense, that very rarely stops and they didn't bother to explain half of that stuff. You're just supposed to turn off your brain, which is an insult.

Fallout 3 literally has a whole DLC where they made a thing that was a joke in previous games, canon. You literally have to pay to see one of the stupidest things Bethesda has ever done to this series.

You think i want to dislike Fallout 3? I don't. But the game gives me no choice with its terrible world building, atrocious rpgs elements and terrible characters and stories.

Norzan is just parroting the same 'immersion breaking' illogical oversights that were slowly gathered over time and are now used as a weapon against Fallout 3. He has a valid point, but these things are far less serious problems than people on this forum make them out to be. I'm the pickiest, most critical person in the world, and I didn't even realize half of these things when I first played Fallout 3. It reminds me of how everyone shits on the movie Signs because 'oh why would aliens come to a planet covered in water if they get hurt by it?'. Who the fuck actually thought of that the first time they watched Signs? Most people just read someone else say it on the internet.

So what, we are now deciding the gravity of each of Fallout 3 problems? They are all equally bad. Not showing where people get their food just makes me wonder how these people are even alive. And if you can't detect this right way, you are not definitely a critical person. These weren't "illogical oversights", this is clearly the case of Bethesda not giving a shit about world building.

And the aliens invading a planet made of the thing they are weak to was one of the earlier complaints with the movie people had. This complaint only became more vocal with the rise of internet reviewers. Doesn't mean it wasn't a complaint before that.

 

[0wing]

I don't have any. Maybe Fascinton D.C. that looks like a faithful to Fallout style but that's just it. Everywhere else New Vegas is atleast a step ahead of 3, tbh.

 

[TerminallyChill]

So what, we are now deciding the gravity of each of Fallout 3 problems? They are all equally bad. Not showing where people get their food just makes me wonder how these people are even alive. And if you can't detect this right way, you are not definitely a critical person. These weren't "illogical oversights", this is clearly the case of Bethesda not giving a shit about world building.

Fallout 3's lack of attention to things like relatable human sociology, psychology, and biology is just a symptom of a larger problem. The game's director simply had different priorities from previous games in the series. For the type of experience that Fallout 3 was attempting to create, questions like 'how do people get their food?' were not expected to be asked by the audience, and for the most part, weren't. Claiming that I am not a critical person for not immediately recognizing a minor detail that also managed to elude most professional critics is a little ridiculous in my opinion. I constantly wondered why there were fucking scorpions in Washington DC, but ultimately their presence is not why Fallout 3 was a mediocre game. It was instead the string of bad decisions leading up to their inclusion.

When people try to say that Fallout 3 is a bad game because there is a town built around a bomb, it's a lot like saying that cancer sucks because you go bald.

 

[Norzan]

Fallout 3's lack of attention to things like relatable human sociology, psychology, and biology is just a symptom of a larger problem. The game's director simply had different priorities from previous games in the series. For the type of experience that Fallout 3 was attempting to create, questions like 'how do people get their food?' were not expected to be asked by the audience, and for the most part, weren't. Claiming that I am not a critical person for not immediately recognizing a minor detail that also managed to elude most professional critics is a little ridiculous in my opinion. I constantly wondered why there were fucking scorpions in Washington DC, but ultimately their presence is not why Fallout 3 was a mediocre game. It was instead the string of bad decisions leading up to their inclusion.

When people try to say that Fallout 3 is a bad game because there is a town built around a bomb, it's a lot like saying that cancer sucks because you go bald.

That's because most of the professional critics were sucking the game's dick and give it constant praise. Some reviewers even said "the story was good and tightly focused". Of course major things like how people even get their food wouldn't be acknowledged by them because they were busy giving it constant undeserved praise.

No one said Fallout 3 is just bad because of Megaton. I just mentioned several things wrong with the world building of Fallout 3. But if i wanted i could write an essay on everything that is wrong with the world building on Fallout 3 on just a basic level.

I'm going to make a bet Bethesda added several places where people grow food to Fallout 4 because complained about the lack of it in Fallout 3.

You know how i know Bethesda didn't give a shit about showing people get their food in Fallout 3? Because they bothered with that in Oblivion, a game made 2 years earlier. Several cities there have farms in the outskirts. It means they care more for their original series than Fallout.

 

[TerminallyChill]

That's because most of the professional critics were sucking the game's dick and give it constant praise. Some reviewers even said "the story was good and tightly focused". Of course major things like how people even get their food wouldn't be acknowledged by them because they were busy giving it constant undeserved praise.

They gave it praise because they weren't (understandably) jaded Fallout and Fallout 2 fans. Fallout 3 is not as bad a game as people in the No Mutants Allowed echo chamber want to pretend it is. It handled a bunch of things poorly, but it also did a few things well. It succeeded in doing what the team creating it set out to do. What exactly that team set out to do now is a separate but well deserved criticism.

No one said Fallout 3 is just bad because of Megaton. I just mentioned several things wrong with the world building of Fallout 3. But if i wanted i could write an essay on everything that is wrong with the world building on Fallout 3 on just a basic level.

And I never said the examples you brought up weren't awful, lazy, and illogical. I just disagree that they hurt Fallout 3 in a significant way. Fallout 2 makes less sense in some aspects, but you don't hear about that nearly as much because the game was mechanically solid. Fallout 3 had shaky RPG mechanics underpinning shaky writing, which is why it's such an easy target for people on this forum.

 

[Norzan]

They gave it praise because they weren't (understandably) jaded Fallout and Fallout 2 fans. Fallout 3 is not as bad a game as people in the No Mutants Allowed echo chamber want to pretend it is. It handled a bunch of things poorly, but it also did a few things well. It succeeded in doing what the team creating it set out to do. What exactly that team set out to do now is a separate but well deserved criticism.

Except i'm not a jaded Fallout 1 and 2 fan, Fallout 3 was actually my first Fallout game. Even then, without the baggage of the rest of the series, i found it to be a pretty terrible game. It just fails in all fronts. Whatever Bethesda was trying to do, they failed, miserably.

Whenever people say "NMA hate for Fallout 3 is just an echo chamber and they are just exaggerating", i just roll my eyes so hard that i nearly go blind. This game deserves all the criticism and more. This game is pretty much the final product of whatever Oblivion was trying to be. That product that was really easy to market to a wide audience. Which is why we got Skyrim and Fallout 4, games that are just continuations of the terrible design philosophies of Fallout 3.

Fallout 2 is constantly criticized for its silly stuff and it's why many people prefer Fallout 1 and even some of those people prefer New Vegas over Fallout 2. But that doesn't mean Fallout 3 can't be criticized for having it too. If anything it needs to be more criticized because most of the silliness of Fallout 2 was due to rushed development. The stupid crap Fallout 3 has was deliberate and thoroughly thought through because the game had a 4 year development, while Fallout 2 didn't had a quarter of that time.

And let's not kid ourselves, most of the gaming media is in the pockets of Bethesda. That's why in their reviews, for example of Fallout 3, they just kept praising the VATS system like it was some revolutionary thing and barely talked about anything else. And when they did praise anything else besides VATS, it was vague and nondescript.

 

[TerminallyChill]

Except i'm not a jaded Fallout 1 and 2 fan, Fallout 3 was actually my first Fallout game. Even then, without the baggage of the rest of the series, i found it to be a pretty terrible game. It just fails in all fronts. Whatever Bethesda was trying to do, they failed, miserably.

Really dude? Really? I was thinking about pulling up sales figures and reviews for Fallout 3, but it's not even worth my time. You clearly aren't interested in having a rational discussion. Fallout 3 was a lot of things, but a failure? Hardly.

Whatever people say "NMA hate for Fallout 3 is just an echo chamber", i just roll my eyes so hard that i nearly go blind. This game deserves all the criticism and more. This game is pretty much the final product of whatever Oblivion was trying to be. That product that was really easy to market to a wide audience. Which is why we got Skyrim and Fallout 4, games that are just continuations of the terrible design philosophies of Fallout 3.

Yeah, of course Fallout 3 was just a half-assed attempt at taking a previously successful franchise and marketing it to a wider audience by fusing its traditional gameplay with that of more popular genre. Nobody is disputing that. When you say things like the game deserves "all the criticism and more" though, that makes me question your impartiality. Interplay fan or not, you sound jaded about something. I despise Fallout 4, but at least I can admit that certain 'bad' decisions ultimately helped it in the context of its own success.

 

[Norzan]

Really dude? Really? I was thinking about pulling up sales figures and reviews for Fallout 3, but it's not even worth my time. You clearly aren't interested in having a rational discussion. Fallout 3 was a lot of things, but a failure? Hardly.

Sales mean nothing when it comes to actual quality. Don't know why you bring that up. Same for reviews, i already said in my post that most of gaming media is in the pocket of Bethesda. You clearly only need to read an handful of reviews from major gaming media outlets and see them just constantly praise the VATS system and nearly nothing else.

I just went to Steam and saw Fallout 3 GOTY with 80% score and Fallout New Vegas with 95%.

I'm not gonna be nice or impartial to a game that is pretty much responsible for the current state of the franchise.

Yeah, of course Fallout 3 was just a half-assed attempt at taking a previously successful franchise and marketing it to a wider audience by fusing its traditional gameplay with that of more popular genre. Nobody is disputing that. When you say things like the game deserves "all the criticism and more" though, that makes me question your impartiality. Interplay fan or not, you sound jaded about something. I despise Fallout 4, but at least I can admit that certain 'bad' decisions ultimately helped it in the context of its own success.

Because if we say nothing about the actual quality of Fallout 3, we just get more games like Fallout 3. Hardly anybody said anything about Fallout 3 except a small subsection of the internet and what happened? We got Fallout 4. We need to put our foot down and demand much better games.

This passiveness of a lot of gamers just irks me. Because the people who are demanding better games just get shat on because the rest doesn't say anything.

 

[TerminallyChill]

Sales mean nothing when it comes to actual quality. Don't know why you bring that up.

You said Bethesda failed at doing what they set out to do. They wanted high sales and good reviews. They got them.

Same for reviews, i already said in my post that most of gaming media is in the pocket of Bethesda. You clearly only read to read an handful of reviews from major gaming media outlets and see them just constantly praise the VATS system and nearly nothing else.

First of all, that's an unproven conspiracy theory, and secondly, that was edited in after I read your original post. I don't know why you continually try to lump me in with some archetypical person who doesn't look at things critically and only trusts mainstream reviews. I've been lurking on No Mutants Allowed for ten years. I'm probably more like you than 99.9% of people in existence.

Because if we say nothing about the actual quality of Fallout 3, we just get more games like Fallout 3. Hardly anybody said anything about Fallout 3 except a small subsection of the internet and what happened? We got Fallout 4. We need to put our foot down and demand much better games.

This passiveness of a lot of gamers just irks me. Because the people who are demanding better games just get shat on because the rest doesn't say anything.

Spare me the call to action. Video games are a luxury. If you can't live without better games, learn how to make them. I've been working on mine for several years now.

 

[Norzan]

You said Bethesda failed at doing what they set out to do. They wanted high sales and good reviews. They got them.

And failed to make a good game.

First of all, that's an unproven conspiracy theory, and secondly, that was edited in after I read your original post. I don't know why you continually try to lump me in with some archetypical person who doesn't look at and things critically and only trusts mainstream reviews. I've been lurking on No Mutants Allowed for ten years. I'm probably more like you than 99.9% of people in existence.

I'm not lumping you with anything.

Dude, you literally only need to read reviews from major gaming sites. They are far too kind and praise unimpressive things like the VATS system. They also praise the morality system and say you have the option to kill or not kill someone. That's it. They praise a morality system that is far too simplistic. What makes even more suspicious is other games that do these systems much better and yet they are criticized in those games. Sorry, but they are definitely in the pockets of Bethesda.

Spare me the call to action. Video games are a luxury. If you can't live without better games, learn how to make them. I've been working on mine for several years now.

Nice, terrible, atrocious mentality to have. It's not like the job of these developers is to develop games. If a chef doesn't make good food, do it yourself.

Are you fucking serious?

Bethesda has been using a dirty tactic to acquire/shut down smaller studios and/or sell games made by those studios without sharing the profits for decades now.

They hire the smaller studio to make some game using their Bethesda Softworks as the publisher for the game, make up contracts that bind the smaller studio to what appears to be reasonable clauses (stuff like, you have to have completed this amount of quality work in this time) then they send someone to the smaller studio to check on the progress, then they start saying it is not quality work (because that was never specified in the contract), then they push the smaller game studio to redo it, they do that a few times and the studio can't finish the game in time (or if it does, Bethesda sells the game, doesn't pay the smaller studio and still sues the smaller studio because it broke the quality and time clauses), Bethesda put the studio in the courts and sue the studio, smaller studios can't deal with the court fees because they weren't getting paid the money Bethesda owed them (because Bethesda said the work is not of acceptable quality, so no payment), Bethesda sues the hell out of the studio and the studio has no chance, Bethesda usually acquires the studio and/or the IP, Bethesda shuts down the studio and gets all the IPs and can sell the games that studio made for them without sharing the profits. Bethesda wins.
This is well known (and they tried the same with Obsidian, which almost worked and if it wasn't for Kickstarter Obsidian would be no more).
For example there is the Human Head Studios case with Prey 2, there is the Headfirst Productions case where Bethesda didn't pay them what they owed and the studio had to close, how they screwed MADia with the Echelon game, how they acquired Arkane Studio, etc.

Here's a quote from another forum. If they are capable of this, what's stopping them from buying good reviews? Someone from the development of New Vegas said that Bethesda paid major gaming outlets not to give overwhelming praise to New Vegas. Because in the contract of Obsidian with New Vegas, they would get an extra fee if the game got great reviews.

 

[TerminallyChill]

Nice, terrible, atrocious mentality to have. It's not like the job of these developers is to develop games. But fuck that, do it yourself.

How is doing something yourself worse than demanding someone else do it like some kind of entitled consumer? I'm done with this discussion, Norzan. I don't understand your desire to excessively attack my character. I agreed with pretty much every criticism you had about Fallout 3. I only doubted its significance to the game as a whole.

 

[Norzan]

How is doing something yourself worse than demanding someone else do it like some kind of entitled consumer? I'm done with this discussion, Norzan. I don't understand your desire to excessively attack my character. I agreed with pretty much every criticism you had about Fallout 3. I only doubted its significance to the game as a whole.

Because we are the ones who basically pay their salary? Kind of weird to say that.

None of my posts were meant to attack your character personally. If they sounded like it, it wasn't my intention. Just think that's a weird mentality to have.

Sometimes i have a hard time conveying my arguments without sounding like an asshole or that i'm seemingly attacking someone, because English is my second language.

I just get somewhat aggravated when people try to give arbitrary values to criticism.

 

[TerminallyChill]

Sometimes i have a hard time conveying my arguments without sounding like an asshole or that i'm seemingly attacking someone, because English is my second language.

That's ok, sometimes even we native speakers struggle with this. Sorry if I ever came off as condescending.

 

[Atomkilla]

Now kiss.

 

[TerminallyChill]

Now kiss.

I knew you were going to fucking say something.

 

[Atomkilla]

Are you suggesting you are prescient?
Btw, @Norzan, put some avatar.

Anyway, back to the discussion, don't want to derail this anymore.

 

[Norzan]

Now kiss.

I was just predicting that someone would say this eventually.

@Atomkilla
I'm going to come up with something for an avatar.

Edit: There, because Marcus is awesome.

 

[Risewild]

Yeah I really preferred this alot too keep the game little more changeling and also made use guns weapons that you might not of wanted but had too. Do you know any mods for FNV that change back to a more fo3 kinda repair system !?

While we can change values of the repair system, even change how much you can repair to. The changes don't do anything. It is hardcoded.

Norzan is just parroting the same 'immersion breaking' illogical oversights that were slowly gathered over time and are now used as a weapon against Fallout 3. He has a valid point, but these things are far less serious problems than people on this forum make them out to be. I'm the pickiest, most critical person in the world, and I didn't even realize half of these things when I first played Fallout 3. It reminds me of how everyone shits on the movie Signs because 'oh why would aliens come to a planet covered in water if they get hurt by it?'. Who the fuck actually thought of that the first time they watched Signs? Most people just read someone else say it on the internet.

Not trying to be rude or anything, but different people have different priorities. If it is not a problem for you, it doesn't mean it is not a problem for others.
To me it annoys me to no end that people exist for no reason.
They are in dire need of water, but still live to old age without problems, people are pretty much trapped inside their settlement walls, surrounded by Super Mutants, Raiders, Talon Company, Deathclaws, crazy Robots, Giant ants, Yao-Guai, etc. and somehow manage to kept fed when there isn't enough food or scavengers/hunters around. It annoys me that people have infinite amounts of pre-war food after 200 years, it annoys me that Andale has 4 families that have managed to live in the same 4 houses since the bombs feel, only armed with a couple weapons, no armor and no food, but survived for 200 years because they are inbred and eat human meat that comes from who knows where (the wasteland doesn't have enough humans to sustain 4 families for 200 years) and that can be easily wiped out by 3 raiders, or one Deathclaw, or one Super Mutant, or one Mr Gutsy, or one Sentry Bot, or one Yao-Guai, etc.
It annoys me that a settlement of little kids who kicks out people once they reach 16 years old, have managed to have a successful settlement that have lasted for 200 years while keeping the Super Mutants from the main Super Mutant base at bay using weapons that deal the same damage or very close as a BB gun.
It annoys me that Rivet City exterior is oriented West-East but it's interior is oriented North-South, it annoys me that most buildings are larger inside than outside, it annoys me that buildings have rubble piles inside of them where there is no damage to the walls and ceiling (so where did that large pile of rubble came from?), it annoys me that people have been living in a settlement for many decades or even centuries and there are rubbish and debris everywhere, it annoys me that Mr Handys can just collect pure water out of the air (condensation collectors) but no one in the wasteland can build their own condensation collectors and get pure water. It annoys me that there are NPCs that are essential just because, it annoys me that karma system is so damn useless and broken, it annoys me that I can shoot/throw grenades/use Mini Nukes at Megaton's Bomb and it will not explode (an no one will react either). It annoys me that people complain about dirty water, but the game shows us that there are these things called My First Infirmary that cure radiation for free and right away. It is not nitpicking, it is real annoyances. They actually impact the fun and joy I get from playing the game. I have to try and shutdown/suppress my brain so I pretend I don't notice these things, but my OCD always kicks in and these things spoil a great part of the game for me.
People are all different, what annoys me won't annoy many others, and what annoys many others might not annoy me, but that won't make me say that what annoys them is nitpicking just because it doesn't annoy me.

The reason the BOS is protecting him is due to morale. Morale is one of the most important things to have when your running an army. If your morale is low, people will flee or not fight as hard. 3 Dog helps improve their morale and keep hopes high (3 Dog also plays some kick ass music to boot!)

But the BoS still protects GNR even if Three Dog is dead.

Here's a quote from another forum. If they are capable of this, what's stopping them from buying good reviews? Someone from the development of New Vegas said that Bethesda paid major gaming outlets not to give overwhelming praise to New Vegas. Because in the contract of Obsidian with New Vegas, they would get an extra fee if the game got great reviews.

That quote is actually from here, re-posted on the other forum. I wrote it .

 

[TerminallyChill]

Not trying to be rude or anything, but different people have different priorities. If it is not a problem for you, it doesn't mean it is not a problem for others.

I was never trying to imply that contradicting your own story isn't a problem. It is, and Fallout 3 does it a lot. I just think the significance of the issue gets exaggerated. People are often far less impartial and forgiving to a game's wrtiting when they dislike it for other reasons. The reverse is also true.

It annoys me that in Fallout and Fallout 2 radiactive goo glows green. Not realistic and immersion breaking.

It annoys me that the Gun Runners in Fallout are set up literally right next door a Deathclaw nest. Unrealistic and stupid behavior.

It annoys me that Caesar himself in New Vegas is set up within sniping and artillery distance from NCR territory yet they don't attempt either of these things despite being both desperate and capable of doing so.

Yet if you try to point any of those things out, people will be quick to provide an explanation because they actually like the underlying games. Nobody ever comes to Fallout 3's rescue however, since it largely dropped the ball on being a role-playing game.

Again, I'm not trying to say small immersion breaking details aren't problems. Just that when comparing them to games that have similar flaws, it's a little unfair. Anybody could go over Fallout, Fallout 2, and New Vegas with a fine enough comb or a small enough microscope and pick out things that annoy them. People just love to do it with Fallout 3 and Fallout 4 because those games infamously hated (with good reason).

 

[Cobra Commander]

That quote is actually from here, re-posted on the otherforum. I wrote it

This is pretty fuck up.

but at the same time, they never missed the opportunity to say they would love to make a fallout again. It may be called "do not burn bridges" but still ..... in their place I would want someone's head on a tray (preferably the head of Peter Hines because he is an idiot)