Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Fallout Discussion' started by Bethesdaretconman, Feb 17, 2019.
@Gizmojunk that’s honestly probably the best way I’ve ever seen it put.
You just never stop associating legit criticism with 'hate', don't you?
Figure this is as good a place as any to post my feelings about F3. Consider this your Official Aurelius Review.
So, to preface, 3 was my first Fallout. I was a freshman in high school, and deeply depressed. I liked RPGs and shooters tho, so when I heard about this game which was supposedly both I bought it. And I un-apologetically loved it. The shooting sucked and the roleplay was lite (that's what she said), but it introduced me to what would become my favorite series ever, excepting Warhammer. Oh, to be young and naïve again.
So, the game begins with you being delivered by Caesarean section and bursting from your mother's stomach into the light, which blinds you briefly (this will become a recurring theme in the Lone Wanderer's life, FYI; it happens 5 more times that I can remember). Your parents will comment on your gender, and you design a character through a "gene projection" (fuck knows how that works). For the sake of this review and my roleplay, I designed an attractive male based after me. It wasn't hard, because every male character in the presets looks like a handsome jock. Yet the Lone Wanderer is like an established nerd. It's like how Andrew Garfield played Peter Parker; you can't sell us on the idea that this alpha-sexbomb muthafucka gets pushed around by Butch and his fuckboi parade. But I digress. Character thus created, your mother proceeds to flirt with your tiny baby ass before God promptly kills her for it. You get wheeled out, and start bawling like... well, a little baby.
Flash forward to toddler age. You get fucking blinded by looking into the lights, to which Liam Neeson says in the background of the "flash forward": "Don't look into the lights, pal. It's just something you get used to down here." Gee, thanks, dad! Little fucking late on the draw. Either that, or the Lone Wanderer is mentally handicapped cause he keeps fucking doing it. It's like when your parents told you not to stare at the sun, and then you didn't. But Little Timmy Eats-His-Snot from down the lane didn't listen to his mother and stared directly into that shit for hours. Now Timmy is legally blind and brings a cat on a leash everywhere (people told him to get a dog but Timmy "walks to the beat of his own drum, bless his heart", or so his mother put it). Anyways, Liam Neeson congratulates you on your walking at a year old before locking you in a playpen, which your surprisingly dexterous one-year-old hands easily open as soon as he leaves. Alternatively, you could stay in the playpen and play with the world's most boring ball, which doesn't bounce or roll with any degree of efficacy. But if you're not stupid, you leave the playpen and realize you can jump. By pressing Y. JUMP. AT ONE FUCKING YEAR OLD. With the revelation that you were bit by a radioactive subpar programmer out of the way, you read a book (AT. ONE. YEAR. OLD.) called "I'M SPECIAL" (you sure fucking are, champ) which allows you to set your SPECIAL stats. Being me, I set Strength to 10 and Luck to 1 and Charisma to 9, left everything else at 5. Same way I get through real life. Anyways, your dad comes back, reads you a Bible quote that your little baby mind can't possibly process, and then suggests you play with your future friendzoning tease, Amata. On the way out, the LW looks into the lights again. Outstanding.
Next thing you know you're 10, recovering from Stanley turning the lights on too fast at your surprise birthday party. While you're still out of it and wondering why this shit always happens to you, everyone congratulates you and Overseer Almodavar (Amata's dad) makes a joke that goes right over your dazed, 10-year-old head. Next, you go around the party extorting presents from people and generally being a nuisance, before the Vault's Mr. Handy unit annihilates the cake with all the restraint of Gallagher mashing a puppy into paste. IN the aftermath of this, Butch attempts to extort a sweetroll out of you. You can choose to A) give it to him like a bitch B) spit on it like a bitch or C) antagonize him or refuse which leads to Butch making you his bitch. Prime example of Bethesda choice variety. Anyways, Butch begins pummeling you and after it's clear he doesn't wanna stop Vault security officer Gomez realizes he needs to actually do his fucking job and gets up slowly before intervening. Your choices are to A) rat Butch out like a bitch or B) keep quiet because Butch takes even less kindly to rats than hoes. You wanna stay Butch's hoe. After that fiasco Liam Neeson tells you that he and his partner Jonas have a surprise present for you. So, you head down to the reactor level a little worse for wear when you're stopped by Beatrice, fresh out've Hell and avoiding Dante, who calls you "Dearie" and gives you a disturbing poem before fucking off somewhere. Thoroughly traumatized by the day's events you finally make it to the reactor level where Jonas and your dad give you a BB gun (which I totally proceeded to fire into Jonas' eyes repeatedly). You shoot some targets, kill a radroach, and get blinded by the camera flash as you take a photo with your dad.
The combination of the flash and the traumatic day age you 6 years and you find yourself being blinded by an othalamascope. Turns out its your dad checking you for cancer or whatever. ANYWAYS, you leave to take a test in school when you see Amata being hit on/bullied by Butch and his gay-ng. You can intervene and get your ass beat, run in waving your fists and probably KO Amata with a critical, or tell them she's sensitive about her weight, which is a confusing thing to do considering she's your only friend and Butch obviously wants to fuck her (so why would he insult her...?). I ran in fists flying and promptly dropped Amata like a sack of bricks with a critical power attack. That dealt with, I went to class where I had the option of cheating and did.
3 years later you awake to Amata standing over you and telling you that your father left the vault. I attempted to flirt with her but the ditz called me a "smart mouth" and proceeded to start rambling on about her father or some shit. Then she gave me a gun. I skipped most of the dialogue, but I got the gist that she wanted me to kill her father so we could be together. Grabbing my shit from my desk, I set out in search of the Overseer. Beating a guard to death with a baseball bat, I was approached by Butch, who told me his mom was being attacked by roaches and he needed my help. I promptly clubbed him over the head. Moving on, I finally made my way through the vault before finding the security chief and the Overseer interrogating Amata. I approached, ready to make my play. Whitesnake was playing. Amata's hair was blowing in the Vault AC, and her cleavage was exposed. I pulled my pistol, and emptied an entire magazine into her father. I turned and approached the love of my life, who said: "You KILLED him! You killed my father!" and ran away crying. So I guess you can say things were getting pretty serious between us I entered the Overseer's office, and left the Vault.
Next you have to head to the nearby settlement of Megaton, where everybody has fucking brain damage because no one can remember your father. Except, that is, for an Irish bar owner named Colin Moriarty, who wants 300 caps for the info. You could in theory do sidequests and sell items and gather 300 caps, but I did the easy thing which was to club him over the head, take his terminal password, check his terminal for info on my father, then make a mad dash out've town while every resident did their utmost to give me lead poisoning. Luckily they don't follow you out. Anyways, I went through enough metro stations to make me resent public transportation for the rest of my days and came out near GNR plaza, where the BoS were fighting horribly written and designed supermutants. Eventually you fight through them (can you tell I'm getting tired of typing?), blow a big one up, and meet an obnoxious radio DJ who wants you to fix his radio station. I passed a speech check instead because I don't have time to risk my life so he can howl at a captive audience.
From there you find yourself on a rapidly-disintegrating boat, talking to Madison Li who was quick to point out the resemblance to your father which everybody and their brother noticed for some reason. She tells you where your father is, then asks you not to go, then you go. There are mutants. They suck. You find some holotapes on which your alcoholic father conveniently records that he was going to another vault. When there, you show up a couple hundred years late and take a seat in a VR pod. Upon entering I punched a little girl in the face and got a firsthand look at what it's like to be the collapsing asshole of a dying star. Turns out the girl is an old German man (dammit Hass) who wants you to creatively kill all the people in the sim. So you do. He lets you out, and your father too. After a brief reunion Liam Neeson reveals why he left the Vault: to supply clean water to the ungrateful wasteland. So you go back to Rivet City, blab at Li, clear out the mutants in the Jefferson Memorial basement, do menial repair tasks and watch your father whom you have no emotional connection to get killed by the Enclave.
You and the other scientists flee, and take refuge with the Brotherhood. They tell you that to get the water bullshit running, you need a GECK. Rather than going on a fun adventure to the West, you go to a shitty cavern filled with obnoxious kids which leads to a vault filled with annoying mutants. You go through the Vault, finding a mutant named Fawkes who's smart but still talks like he belongs on the short bus, and you spend most of the Vault trek killing enemies than waiting for him to move his lumbering ass up. He offers to traverse dangerous radiation to help you get the GECK, and does, getting stuck on a few walls on the way, but it's finally in your hands. Leaving the Vault, you're blinded by the Enclave, who take you to Raven Rock. While there you're tortured, talk with the president, and get broken out by Fawkes. You know, usual shit. Going back to the Citadel you find that the final battle with the Enclave is happening; so you suit up and head out with Bitchy McBitchface and her squad along with a massive, one-liner spouting robot. UGH. So you walk from the Citadel to the Memorial, occasionally reloading when the FUCKING ROBOT KEEPS FUCKING FREEZING but eventually you make it there, kill General Augustus Autumn, and win the day, hooray.
Overall, my main gripes with F3 are in 3 (heh) areas.
1) The Brotherhood has been portrayed poorly. They've been taken from techno monks into chivalrous superheroes of the wastes. It IS a waste.
2) The mutants, obviously. Dumb, and yellow.
3) The game basically tells you what your goal is. There's really no room for roleplaying when the game is basically like "FIND DADDY". Beyond that, James had the potential to be a good character, but Beth expects you to develop an emotional connection with him just because he's your father; which, sadly, doesn't work.
All in all, 3 is good for some dumb fun. But therein lies the problem; Fallout should not be dumb fun. And while I enjoy 3, I can definitely see why people hate it, and see it as pissing on the other games.
It doesn’t really matter in the end ”who” made the game. If it was someone other than Bethesda, they’d be getting the shit thrown at them (or praise if the games were any good, as Bethesda would).
But it just so happens, that it is indeed Bethesda who is the author of 3 sorry excuses of a Fallout game, with an ever lowering quality curve and the bar set so low, it’s below zero. It’s only logical to hold them accountable for the results.
You didn't, it's all good.
When you hate something it prevents you from giving an unbiased assessment of the situation and can distort facts, which tarnishes an otherwise well constructed argument. Saying that Fallout 3 retcons the mentality of the western Brotherhood of Steel is an example of this. Of course, everyone is biased one way or another. I'm biased by my enjoyment of the game since it was the first open world RPG I played.
If I'm understanding this correctly, the overall offense and failure of the game as a direct sequel is so bad that it cancels out anything positive that might be said about them, resulting in a 0/10?
And if a game is titled Fallout 3, it should have been an appropriate sequel to Fallout 2, but it wasn't. Like how Fallout Tactics was not marketed as Fallout 3, or how Fallout 76 was not called Fallout 5.
So you're saying they made Fallout: Elder Scrolls and mislabeled it as Fallout 3 which is a bastardization of what the series should be. It's interesting that New Vegas was not titled as a numbered entry in the series, despite being more deserving of it. That sends the message that "New Vegas isn't what we want Fallout to be. Fallout 4 is."
Regarding the review @AureliusofPhoenix posted, it was pretty funny. Laughed out loud several times. I don't really like the main quest of Fallout 3, its very on-rails. Even if you're trying to roleplay as a total psychopath, it makes no difference to anything. The most that can happen is your father casually says something like "I'm very disappointed in some of the choices you've made. I'll give you a stern talking to later, now let's stay focused". And that only happens if you nuke an entire town. Broken Steel tries to rectify this by allowing the player to turn the Citadel into a smoking crater, but throwing in a magic "kill everyone" button you can just press with no provokation because "hurrr evil PC" is the lowest level and cheapest, easiest way to script an evil roleplay option.
But the rest of the game was more fun for me. Take Andale for instance...a town of cannibals. There are several ways to discover this and deal with the situation. You can even kill everyone except the kids. Sure, it's nothing terribly thought provoking or complex, but unlike the main quest, at least there's an option. And nobody ever sends the player to Andale, they just happen to discover it on their own.
I need to replay Fallout 1 but from what I remember, that game's main quest isn't that long or complex either, but a game is the sum of its parts, and whether or not those parts are good will make or break a game for people...
Sure, but let me turn your statement around. When you associate criticisms with hate, it prevents you from accepting the simplest facts, which completely blinds you from an otherwise well-made inputs. Have you actually consider carefully reading people's criticism of the games being criticized, instead of throwing word 'hate' around like it's candy?
Also, I don't see Norzan making the arguments that "Fallout 3 retcons the mentality of the western Brotherhood of Steel", because that's like saying Bethesda literally retconned the BoS of West Coast that appeared in Fallout 1, and I don't see Norzan saying any of that. His arguments is more like can be summarized as, "The Brotherhood of Steel that appears in Fallout 3 came from the West Coast, so they should've been a tech-hoarder and zealots like they were in the Lost Hills who couldn't care less for an average wastelander, but Fallout 3 changed them completely just to have literal knights in shining armor."
Lastly, I'm sure you can grow out of your bias towards Fallout 3, but only if you're willing to try far better open-world games out there. My first open-world RPG I ever played was Skyrim, and after many doses of Gothic 1, 2, Dark Souls 1 (the first half of this game is far more open than any of the Bethesda's games could ever be), and now Kingdom Come: Deliverance, I didn't look back at all.
I don't see Gizmo saying anything about the game being a shocking 0/10, don't put words into people's mouth.
How about this: whatever positives you thought Fallout 3 had, there are already older games that did them better, and more. Don't say people who criticized mediocre-to-bad products for having standards 'hates' them.
Or you could say that Fallout 3, as Gizmo clearly pointed out, which you kind of just shrugged off as if they're not really important, didn't truly prove to be faithful to the original's core tenets and design philosophy, so whatever positives it might have doesn't really matter.
Exactly, which is why calling it 'Fallout 3' in the first place is outright retarded. Especially because the real Fallout 3 came out 2 years later, and for some reason it's called Fallout: New Vegas.
Glad you can understand, which is why Fallout 4 isn't even a Fallout game anymore.
I can't echo this enough. I swear to god every time I criticize anything about Fallout 3 or The Witcher 3 (and a few other games), people assume I hated them outright. I don't know what it is, but when I criticize movies or music, others who also get involved with those mediums more seem to understand that I just criticized it. With games, anyone invested in the medium immediately assumes I hate it or I simply didn't understand something (cough cough Bioshock Infinite) and that's why I had something to say about it not being worthy of a 9+/10.
It's precisely this. They came from a place where the old teachings of BoS are still used as gospel, so it's nonsensical to have them suddenly change in Fallout 3. If the BoS in Fallout 3 was born in the East Coast, then whatever, but it wasn't. It was started by people that came from the West.
Plus the "they saw how harsh wasteland is, so they decide to help people" make no sense, because the West Coast BoS knows how harsh the wasteland and that doesn't stop them from sending new recruits to the Glow. And this nonsense didn't mattered because they kneejerked and made BoS in Fallout 4 like they were in Fallout 1, 2 and New Vegas, except in Fallout 4 they made them almost ireedemable.
This nonsense of "you just hate the game and it's clouding your judgment" is a bunch of fucking bullshit. I never let my hate for anything cloud my judgment, i always do my research and always look for arguments that back up my claims. Quit using this nonsense to try to claim i'm biased. Piss off, seriously.
And last, whatever qualities Fallout 3 has, it doesn't matter. The things it does that are not attached to the franchise, mainly the combat and exploration, are done far better in other games. So, as a Fallout game, it's terrible. As a standalone game, it's mediocre. Why would i play this game or give it any praise, when the things this game does are done better in other games? If i want exploration and shooting, I'll play any of the STALKER games.
Ok look, all this talk of bias and hate and dismissing criticism was because I completely misunderstood this post:
For some reason I originally read this as "the West Coast BoS is retconned in FO3 and has the same mentality as the East Coast BoS because they were taught by them and that's the new philosophy over on the West Coast now", which is actually not what he said. I don't know why I misread it so badly, but you can disregard everything I said because I was apparently confused. Don't let it bother anyone.
As for a shocking 0/10 and me putting words in people's mouths, I interpreted "there's nothing positive about the game at all because anything that would've been positive is negated" in a literal mathematical sense to mean that 0% of the game is good, thus the fraction 0/10. I thought that's how video game rating systems work. I personally would rate a game a 0 if I had nothing good to say about it, there's nothing wrong with being a harsh critic.
Because video game rating systems like X/10 as penned by 'game journalism' are no longer valid. It's why on Steam, it's either Recommended or Not Recommended, and even then based on what game is being reviewed, the reviewers might pointed out the game might be worth it under certain condition (like if you REALLY love the genre of the game, or if the bugs and issues it has is fixed, or if the game is on discount, etc etc).
In case of Gizmo, if you've been reading between the lines of his thoughts about Fallout 3, I'll never assume he'll personally give that game an outright 0/10, because I remembered he said that there are parts that he liked in it. And yeah, another thing about X/10 rating is that too many times personal feelings gets in the way of giving the numbers, hence why I personally think such system is just not valid when reviewing/criticizing a video game, a genre still too young to have a global-scale industry-valid standard.
There is a difference between hate, and despise. Despise imples hate, but also canotes contempt. A person can hate a thing, while still respecting it; a doctor can recommend another doctor as the best, even though they hate them; but not if they despise them.
I (and possibly others here) do not despise Bethesda. I see what they create, and understand why it's lacking—possibly even some of the reasoning behind them making that way on purpose—and hating that.
Bethesda stings us for the lost opportunity of it all; they could have created a masterpiece [they had the originals to go by], but chose to create mass-market crap; both game & content... To make Mac & Cheese instead of Lasagna; offering a Fudgesicle instead of a Baked Alaska.
IE. They could have had the game offer the core Fallout experience [atmosphere, writing, combat, and effecting difficult choices]. They got the visuals nearly perfect—for the wrong era; it looks like the world setting thirty years after the war... not three hundred years after the war; and the rest was a TES retrofitting for the sake of their TES audience.
Oblivion was my first open world game (AFAIK). I was surprised to find out that I prefer Bethesda's games for the most part, in the reverse order of their release. FO3 more than Skyrim, Oblivion more than FO3, Morrowind more than Oblivion; possibly Daggerfall more than Morrowind. I seemed to like Redguard, though off hand, I don't know its position in the release order.
But the reason for all is that Bethesda seems to be following a pattern of reductive gameplay.
—and you can add FO:76 to that chart.
Yes... but only in the case of a Bethesdian royal "We", or the case where "We" means the bulk of their mass consumer audience... many [most?] of which had probably never heard of Fallout; Bethesda had DEVELOPERS on the game that had never heard of Fallout, and a few of those that knew of it, hadn't played it. This was admitted on the Bethsoft forum, years back.
I wouldn't have before... but within context, I am not counting the art design, and landscaping.
I did very much enjoy FO3—while wandering the wasteland world map alone, and unpestered by NPC encounters. For so long as I was able to forget that it was an official Fallout sequel, I had fun just wandering around in it, admiring the view.
That was the intended gist. [*of positives for the series fan.]
There should never have been Super Mutatnts in other places. 3, 4 and 76 should have created a new species of ogre mutants rather than ape Super Mutants and retcon stuff to fit them in.
Ratings systems using numeric values are inherently flawed. People often think that they can quantify a game's quality with numbers but in reality, all it does is place a mandatory number next to a game as its score. Most games these days are expected to get 6s or 7s so if you felt a game was bad but give it a 5 or lower, the outside reader would assume the game is terrible and will turn against you the minute they play the game & realize it is better than that. Alternatively, some readers will perceive a low (or relatively low) score for a hyped game as an attack against them.
Hence, the stamp of recommended and not recommended fits much better. Though I personally prefer having a written explanation or verbal elaboration from the reviewer on why they recommended or did not recommend the game so that I can gauge why they came to such an opinion. Stuff that Totalbiscuit did and what Yahtzee does.
I wouldn't even ask for a ogre/orc enemy, because then we would be here bitching about how Bethesda is still making SM in all but name. It'll be far less than what is now, but it wouldn't help matters in the end, because those Ogres/Orcs will still have the bland 'motivation' SMs have now which is just to crush, kill, maim, burn, and maybe snatch humans for food or mutation. They don't add anything of a higher nature to the story as is.
Hell we saw this with the SwampFolk of Point Lookout, in a way. Bethesda probably would just had chucked 'inbred mutant humans' everywhere, slapped a few jokes on them and called it a day.
Can you remember the interviews with Todd, where he was cautiously avoiding it to compare Fallout 3 with Oblivion, making sure gamers would not see it as just a copy of the Elder Scrolls formula thrown onto Fallout, when people started to ask if Fallout 3 was Oblivion with guns? Just to later use that phrase to describe the game, when he realized how people actually just expected that from Bethesda to deliver? I remember him and I think Hines posting here on the forum for some time. They have actually got a pretty neutral welcome by our administrators and the community as a whole. But I think their intention was just to see, how much marketing value there was in using the old Fallout community.
WaitwaitWAIT. Todd was here?! WTF
Not just Todd, I think to vaguely remember Hines and Emil Pagliarulo used to post during the early development of F3 as well. They havn't been regular posters or something. Just here to tell us how important the opinions of 'old' fans are to them or something. I really see it as a marketing thing. Most of the community was friendly towards them, except for a few, who actually played Oblivion. Who knew back then that they would be right ... A lot of people have been actually somewhat optimstic about Fallou 3 beeing in development.
Agree with a lot of what you're saying here but I'd also like to mention that the power of a critic also lies in their repertoire that the viewer has come to know. If someone who hates horror games plays the new Resident Evil and gave it a 3/10 what does that actually say? What about a casual game reviewer that prefers games that don't test him (like Minecraft or Sims, more relaxed games) and says games like FPSs and Dark Souls are bad?
That kinda shit matters and is lost in the idea that we can rate things on a 5 or 10 point scale if you ask me. People think that anyone giving Witcher 3 anything less than a 8/10 is objectively wrong... That's just stupid.
I knew it. I have these divinatory guts, and when they start dancing inside, they are almost never wrong.