Name reasons you thought Fallout 3 was better than New Vegas

That's not even close to what I was implying though. I was jokingly making a point about how Fallout 3 clearly wasn't taken seriously by its developers, which you then declared a 'non-argument' because apparently some lazy Fallout 4 writer said something similar once to defend his lack of familiarity with the source material. I really don't see why you would even disagree on this given your past stance on things. It really just feels like you want to argue with me by attributing opinions to me which I don't possess.

Of course, but that doesn't automatically make Fallout 3 a bad game. It just makes it a horrible entry in the Fallout series.

 

You asked me to forget internal consistency and relate that idea to the real world. I'm not gonna do either.

Yeah, no. That mentality never made a lick of sense to me. If it's a terrible entry in the series, then it's a terrible game overall. It failed at being good its own series.

 

Alright man, you clearly have your mind made up on these things. I was just trying to offer some outside perspective. We can agree to disagree.

 

Yeah, let's just agree to disagree. Kind of tired of arguing about this to be honest.

 

The sense of it is purely financial. Bethesda callously simplified the setting from the more complex elevator pitch, of a future earth where the world developed into the popular 1950's expectations of the future—and all that would mean. Instead they presented a timeless future where the world looks like the 1950's. There were professional game reviewers that mistakenly believed that it was set in an alternate 1950's Earth.

This simplification was for sales purposes; same as the grafted TES style gameplay.... Same reason they stripped out all but a few vestigial RPG elements... RPG in name only; Fallout in name only—by fiat.

This doesn't mean it wasn't a good game—clearly a LOT of people think it was a good game. But it was a good game in none of the ways significant to the Fallout series; even flat-out polar opposite to many tenets of the series... all for the sake of player fawning, and word of mouth. They did not set out to make an RPG, or a Fallout sequel. They were following a cash-funnel game template...

It's like with pinball machines, the art & sound changes with the theme, every one of them looks different, but the underlying activity is always exactly the same. Bethesda has made the same game for twenty years, and each one strips away what mechanics they can from the previous game.... trying to get it to the point where there are no mechanics at all.

 

Fallout 1: Classic pinball machine.

Fallout 2: Updated pinball machine.

Fallout 3: Ski ball.

 

Gonna completely disagree. Even at its bare basics, it's a terrible game to me. Story is terrible with very few even just slightly likable characters, shooting is floaty and your shots lack any impact and the level scaling removes any challenge by making everything scale to you (if anything, it just turns enemies into bullet sponges in endgame).

Even if it had nothing to do with Fallout and it was called Loot, Shoot and Look for my Dad: The game and it was the first in a new IP, i would still consider it terrible. Being part of the Fallout series just exacerbates everything wrong with this game.

This is coming from someone who played Fallout 3 as their first Fallout, so i had no preconceived notions on what the franchise was supposed to be about, except for a very few basic things. Just comparing it as a FPS RPG to other FPS RPGs, it just fails at a very basic level.

 

10/10

Question. If you hated the game so much, how the hell did you end up playing the other ones?

 

In the hopes i would find a better one. I don't dismiss an entire franchise based on a single game. Thankfully Fallout 1, 2 and New Vegas were much better. Like, miles better.

 

So does that mean there was some redeeming quality in Fallout 3 that made you want to give the other games a chance?

 

Nope. Again, i don't dismiss an entire franchise on the very first game i play. I try the others even if i find no redeeming qualities in the first one i played.

Don't think about it, it's just how i work.

 

FO3 was a sandbox walking simulator, with laughable game mechanics, and some impressive art and landscaping design. As a game I don't fault it. Hungry Hungry Hippos was just as good a game as FO3, but far less impressive. FO3 was no Chess, Go, or Connect Four... but it held people's attention well enough, and it presented them with a reactive world that maintained the illusion well enough. (This is an impressive feat all on its own; and at the cost of a game-world with consequences.)

I do wish they had never gotten the name, and the legal right to repeatedly ruin it, but they did, and they do; and they will again. They make terrible Fallout sequels, but they make them in a calculated way. There is no denying how they were able to use Interplay's amazing original IP—bought for a song, to make an absurd fortune at the expense of all its ideals, the original experience, and effect on the player... Sold to an audience that cares nothing for it, save as a backdrop for their own personal walk-about.

 

1. I don't

 

Well of course few mature players actually think that Fallout 3 is better than New Vegas, but you don't believe even a single element of a game that takes over 400 hours to fully explore deserves some miniscule amount of praise?

 

Honestly even if we're just talking about meta merits it was a well received reboot that introduced MANY to the series in the first place, and by proxy for causing New Vegas' existance. The other merits may be more subjective.

 

But I mean like, not even the 3D Deathclaw models? Not even the Mr. Gutsy voices? The cars? There are plenty of things that I can appreciate in Fallout 3 even though I find its existence largely insulting.

 

If i had to stretch to the absolute limit to give any praise to Fallout 3, this would be it. But this comes with its own problem, because New Vegas had to have the gameplay of Fallout 3' due to time constraints. And Fallout 3's gameplay is mediocre at the absolute best.

Imagine if New Vegas had the gameplay of the first two games, but with better graphics, while keeping everything else that made New Vegas great? I would be all over that shit even more than i do now.

 

Hey, don't ask me, I think like ya, with slightly less aggravation.

Imagine if New Vegas didn't exist so you wouldn't even have a point of reference

 

Whoops, I accidentally a word there. My bad.

Ooh, called the fuck out. Are you going to take that, @Norzan?