Ten Reasons Why Fallout 4 is worse than Fallout 3

[Norzan]

You can do all of that in FO3 and you still give water to everyone, fallouts never really done a bad guy ending outside tactics. There is no inbetween, none of your choices honestly matter. You can nuke the citadel at the end of broken steel and it doesnt matter. the games over at that point anyway.

Yeah, nuking an entire town out of existence has literal zero reprecussions in Fallout 3, that is if you think your dad being disappointed with you is an actual consequence.

Not to mention you have to be a goody two shoes in Fallout 3 because the main quest forces you into it. You have to activate the purifier, you can't say no and go do something else.

Basically the evil options in Fallout 3 are so fucking shallow and meaningless.

 

[CT Phipps]

Yeah, nuking an entire town out of existence has literal zero reprecussions in Fallout 3, that is if you think your dad being disappointed with you is an actual consequence.

Not to mention you have to be a goody two shoes in Fallout 3 because the main quest forces you into it. You have to activate the purifier, you can't say no and go do something else.

Basically the evil options in Fallout 3 are so fucking shallow and meaningless.

Fallout 3's ending is one of the worst in all of gaming but I give credit to them for fixing it in Broken Steel. You can also wipe out the BOS there, which also corrects that flaw.

 

[Norzan]

You can also wipe out the BOS there, which also corrects that flaw.

No, you can't. They still exist, they just become hostile towards you. Peak Bethesda design, making a choice that could have impact right at the end of the game when you are done with the game anyway, and make the choice meaningless because the faction still exists. So no, the flaw is still there.

You know a game that did this correctly? The game in the same franchise that came two years after Fallout 3.

 

[CT Phipps]

No, you can't. They still exist, they just become hostile towards you.

The Pentagon is fucking gone, dude.

You know a game that did this correctly? The game in the same franchise that came two years after Fallout 3.

I mean you can't actually progress the game past the ending so that's bullshit.

 

[Norzan]

The Pentagon is fucking gone, dude.

That's not the only place in the game with Brotherhood of Steel members. Do you have selective memory?

I mean you can't actually progress the game past the ending so that's bullshit.

What the fuck does have to do with what i said? You can become vilified by factions in New Vegas, be locked out of quests and items and the NCR and the Legion will send hit squads to kill you, those are actual consequences. Not the bullshit in Fallout 3 where your choices hardly matter because Bethesda was afraid to lock people out of content.

Fallout 3 is the same game that turns a person into an instant ghoul after you blew up a town for the dumbest reason because the devs were afraid people were gonna miss out on the survival guide quest.

Also i just read the first post and the sheer insanity to claim that the wasteland needing the player character as a good thing. The setting not needing the player is a GOOD thing, it shows that's independent and it can move forward without the player.

 

[CT Phipps]

Also i just read the first post and the sheer insanity to claim that the wasteland needing the player character as a good thing. The setting not needing the player is a GOOD thing, it shows that's independent and it can move forward without the player.

That is the dumbest fucking statement about a video game I have ever heard in my life.

"It's best to play as if your character doesn't matter."

Go collect flowers in Fallout 76 where nothing you do is important because the entire setting died before the game.

 

[Mr Fish]

Well I wasn't talking to you so I'm confused by you're responding.

I'm a narcissist.

1. You can beeline to the Operation Anchorage DLC and get t51 and a bunch of guns right off the rip in FO3.

2. I'd wager FO4 has as much weird narrative stuff as FO3. Neither game is particularly interesting in that regards.

1. To be fair you have to have foreknowledge of this, beeline for a very specific location (Navarro) then complete an entire DLC. In Fallout 4 this is part of the main quest and is actually just handed to you on a silver platter after killing like a dozen very easy raiders.

2. Fallout 4 is littered with stories to locations and I'd argue it has way more interesting locations as well. Fallout 3 repeats itself way too often.

Fallout 3's ending is one of the worst in all of gaming but I give credit to them for fixing it in Broken Steel. You can also wipe out the BOS there, which also corrects that flaw.

I haven't played Fallout 3 and Broken Steel in a long time but does it actually make any sense at all to 'want' to nuke the BOS after having worked with them for so long?

 

[CT Phipps]

I haven't played Fallout 3 and Broken Steel in a long time but does it actually make any sense at all to 'want' to nuke the BOS after having worked with them for so long?

The benefit of a silent protagonist is you can dictate whatever your character may be out to do. If they don't want the Brotherhood of Steel bringing peace and justice to the Wasteland then getting rid of them is a pretty good idea. Once the Pentagon and Enclave are both destroyed, the Lone Wanderer can more or less do whatever they want.

If they're a slave from Paradise Falls, this is a valid choice.

 

[Norzan]

That is the dumbest fucking statement about a video game I have ever heard in my life.

Saying a setting needs a single person to not collapse is arguably the dumbest fucking thing someone has ever said in the history of ever really. A setting shouldn't have to rely on a single person to not disappear, that's the sign of an horrendously written setting.

One of the best things about New Vegas is how the Mojave doesn't need you, the Hoover Dam war will happen with you or without you. Of course from a gameplay standpoint, the game doesn't happen if you don't do anything, but the writing and worldbuilding pretty much says this would happen if the Courier did nothing.

Not to mention the Capital Wasteland doesn't need the Lone Wanderer, they somehow survived for 200 fucking years in a complete hellhole with no way to get a steady supply of food and water, the fuck they need that character for? They are apparently some of the toughest motherfuckers to ever be put in a videogame, defying all logic and sense.

If they don't want the Brotherhood of Steel bringing peace and justice to the Wasteland then getting rid of them is a pretty good idea.

And yet you spend the entire base game and most of Broken Steel being their bitch, being told what to do and apparently the character likes it because you are never given any chance to say no. So it's completely out of character that right at the end you decide to nuke them. Utter and complete nonsense.

 

[Resardiv]

Saying a setting needs a single person to not collapse is arguably the dumbest fucking thing someone has ever said in the history of ever really. A setting shouldn't have to rely on a single person to not disappear, that's the sign of an horrendously written setting.

Even Jesus died, and that didn't ruin his story. Step up your game writers

 

[CT Phipps]

Saying a setting needs a single person to not collapse is arguably the dumbest fucking thing someone has ever said in the history of ever really. A setting shouldn't have to rely on a single person to not disappear, that's the sign of an horrendously written setting.

No, it's the sign of a setting...in crisis.

It's also the premise of all the Fallout games but Fallout 4.

Seriously, you're arguing that the games should be written as to not need the fucking protagonist for the story.

I'm dumbstruck.

What is the point of playing in a post-apocalypse game if you're not going to have an effect?

 

[Norzan]

No, it's the sign of a setting...in crisis.

Yes, after 200 years only NOW they are in crisis. Peak writing, i bow down to the sheer genius of Emil Pagliarulo.

Seriously, you're arguing that the games should be written as to not need the fucking protagonist for the story.

Not needing them to not collapse, and lacking the ability to move forward on its own. You are arguing that an entire setting filled with people, factions and many other things disappearing because of a single person did nothing is somehow a good thing.

Can you imagine if the Roman Empire disappeared when Julius Cesar died? Or really any other authority figure? That would be ridiculous.

 

[CT Phipps]

Except the crises it faces are the ones in the modern era. They're not the crises of the Great War.

You're literally arguing against your own case.

As for the whole point of the setting is that it is not the Roman Empire. You are not playing Caesar (or Jesus). You're playing the guy who rescues a community from its problems because it is about how things are busted, not getting better, and will end in disaster unless someone steps up--which is you. The entire mood of the Capital Wasteland is that it is dying and failing and that is what makes Fallout 3 unique.

There are real stakes.

 

[Norzan]

Except the crises it faces are the ones in the modern era.

My point is how the fuck is there a crisis only now. The Capital Wasteland has been a shitshow for 200 years, the plot is literally about getting them a source of water (how the hell did this setting survived without a source of water for this long), and yet people were somehow able to build communities here and survive. How?

Not to mention, your character is a fucking 19 year old with no combat experience. How are you the one that is gonna change things? There are people in the Brothehood of Steel far more qualified than you to do whatever it is you do in this game.

 

[Traeger91]

Basically, when playing an RPG, I want my decisions to matter. HOWEVER, not at the cost of word building, meaning I don't want to be the ONE GUY that has to fix this very specific thing that could have been fixed by some other random passerby. Especially if it's something that's been sitting around for 200+ years.

 

[CT Phipps]

My point is how the fuck is there a crisis only now. The Capital Wasteland has been a shitshow for 200 years, the plot is literally about getting them a source of water (how the hell did this setting survived without a source of water for this long), and yet people were somehow able to build communities here and survive. How?

I mean the whole point is fixing the river basin of Washington DC. People have enough water to survive but they'll have an arable fertile land with an abudance of water. People can survive in Saudi Arabia but they could survive better in a temperate forest. But I point out that isn't well-explained.

As for why it's a problem now, I imagine it's because its been a slow wearing down. The Super Mutants, the Raiders, the Vaults failing, and the fact Paradise Falls is now being sponsored by the Pitt (which is directly Elder Lyons fault).

Not to mention, your character is a fucking 19 year old with no combat experience. How are you the one that is gonna change things? There are people in the Brothehood of Steel far more qualified than you to do whatever it is you do in this game.

I mean aren't you sick of badass combat munchkin protagonists? You learn to be a badass.

 

[R.Graves]

They're the same game as far as I'm concerned. Both are very light on rpg mechanics and both are written at about the same level of quality. I guess fallout 4 might be a little worse because new vegas pretty much showed them how to do their own formula after they forgot how to and they ignored it.

 

[Yossarrion]

1. To be fair you have to have foreknowledge of this, beeline for a very specific location (Navarro) then complete an entire DLC. In Fallout 4 this is part of the main quest and is actually just handed to you on a silver platter after killing like a dozen very easy raiders.

2. Fallout 4 is littered with stories to locations and I'd argue it has way more interesting locations as well. Fallout 3 repeats itself way too often.

I think you just need to listen to the broadcast from the outcast to get the quest.

 

[Baron of Arizona]

I hate both, but I would choose Fallout 4 over 3. Story and all rpg systems are so horrible in both games to the point where it doesn't matter which one was worse. At least Fallout 4 can give me some decent gunplay, pity most guns are trash.

 

[Mr Fish]

...pity most guns are trash.

There's mods to fix that too.