This might not be the most blasphemous game anymore...

[Gizmojunk]

I'll wait until some decent mods are released for Fallout NV or Fallout 4.

Both five and ten years old, respectively... I consider New Vegas as the best FO3 mod there is.

 

[Homer2137]

the BOS (the BOS-NCR war)

I still can't wrap around my head why would NCR and BOS fight each other, the canonical ending for Fallout 1 was them reintroducing technology to the wasteland and staying out of power, but that moron Chris Avellone decided to make every good faction into evil for no reason, as bad as Fallout 3 is, atleast it stayed consistent with good BOS.

 

[Homer2137]

I tend to agree. It seems in time Fallout 3 will only be played with New Vegas through Tale of Two Wastelands anyway.

Even then it's still the same Fallout 3, which just becomes slightly better, but playthrough becomes worse, as you become overpowered in one location and then go to another location and it becomes very easy, not even gonna mention the jarring feeling when switching from bad to good writing.

 

[TorontoReign]

Well, Fallout 4 did have better writing but it felt even less like a RPG so I just play RDR2 now. I am just gonna play Rockstar games from now on.

 

[SquidWard]

I still can't wrap around my head why would NCR and BOS fight each other, the canonical ending for Fallout 1 was them reintroducing technology to the wasteland and staying out of power, but that moron Chris Avellone decided to make every good faction into evil for no reason, as bad as Fallout 3 is, atleast it stayed consistent with good BOS.

What's your obsession with Avellone about?

As for why BoS and NCR would fight each other though. It might help to consider that gaining power and control of resources leads to conflicts among parties not in explicit accordance with each other. If the Brotherhood of Steel destroys and/or hoards technology they deem to unfit for the new civilizations that will happen in the wastes, they should expect that if a new civilization would form and find conflict among other organizations (they will) that they will seek these forms of technology and knowledge and if that is hampered, there will likely be violence. Sure, the Brotherhood came out to give people some energy weapons but the NCR isn't going to war over energy weapons. They'd be going to war over factories, bunkers with warheads, power armor, etc. It doesn't seem likely that the Brotherhood would find a facility full of weapons better than something you can hold in your hands and be fine with the NCR taking and potentially using those.

If you write a fictional world/universe it's an important question to pose as to why your countries (or factions, whatever groups of power) are not at war with each other. War happens pretty much nonstop across the globe and especially before modern times, many countries found it easier to be in wartime than in peace. Borders, resources, ideologies, and more all lead to it and negotiating between two parties to find a better outcome was not easy as at least one party is pretty dialed in on being forced to settle with less than what they'd want had they taken the gamble and won. There are times of peace but they happen out of deliberation and with purpose, they aren't a de facto part of our world.

Also, I doubt these ideas were something primarily, and almost definitely not wholly, from Avellone. There were original Fallout team members involved in Fallout 2. Even Chris Avellone tried to stop Tim Cain from adding the ghosts in Fallout 2 and years later Tim agreed with that caution and regretted adding them. If I remember it correctly, I think the "retcon" of making Vaults part of a grand experiment came from Tim and/or Leonard and they were largely responsible for the overarching plot and their ideas remained mostly intact for the whole Fallout's protagonist's grandchild stopping the Enclave.

 

[laclongquan]

It is easy to see why NCR and BOS eventually come to blow.

Everything precious and useful scavengers can get, it most likely get classified as forbidden tech by BOS: plasma weapons, power armors, vertibirds... And damn but all of them are pricey. And behind every scavengers usually one, or many, companies that fund them to go into the ruins to dig out the loot. When BOS rob a piece of prewar hightech loot from a scavenger, that mean BOS rob the money from hands of capitalists, or even NCR government.

 

[Millim]

BoS are just kind of weirdos who want to horde technology and think that humanity is too stupid to have any.
NCR are too spread out to be of any real use to the Wasteland.
While I can't call the BoS good guys in F1, they are more on the good side than NCR are in F2. It makes sense they would be at war with one another as their ideologies work against each other.
BoS don't trust the NCR because humanity did so well with weapons the first time, and NCR believe that going back to the point of just before the war is a good idea.

Anyway, before I said PoS was better than 76, and I would like to take back my last statment.
At least PoS made me feel something besides boredom. I've been trying to work out what the worst kind of game is, and 76 is just downright boring. Even with the NPCs being put in and the game resembling a Fallout game, it's still very barebones.

I maintain that F3 and F4 are good games, not good Fallout games, and at their core, there is fun to be had with them. But 76 strips all that back, takes the good things away from those games and turns it into a slog.

PoS may have insulted my intelligence, but it never insulted me directly.
Either way, I tend to just ignore them both. Neither game is fun to play and in many regards, they are just as bad as each other.

If Bethesda released Fallout 76 back in 2010 or so, I would suspect it would have tanked the Company. But they've been resting on Skyrim money for a while now to keep them afloat. Even something like Starfield didn't do much in the way of damaging them as they can have Elder Scrolls VI to hold People by the balls.

PoS was released with no promise of a future game. F76 was released with the goal that there will be a game in the future.

 

[Norzan]

I maintain that F3 and F4 are good games, not good Fallout games

This is will be forever one of the dumbest things anyone can say about a piece of media. This specific thing is not a good thing in this specific franchise that the thing is bearing the name of, but somehow a good thing regardless. It's like saying a specific car sucks because it can't do car things, but it's good because you can sit in it. Absolute nonsense.

And they are good games if awful shooting, terrible world building and shallow rpg elements were considered good, but thankfully they aren't.

 

[Millim]

This is will be forever one of the dumbest things anyone can say about a piece of media. This specific thing is not a good thing in this specific franchise that the thing is bearing the name of, but somehow a good thing regardless. It's like saying a specific car sucks because it can't do car things, but it's good because you can sit in it. Absolute nonsense.

And they are good games if awful shooting, terrible world building and shallow rpg elements were considered good, but thankfully they aren't.

While I get that, your example doesn't make sense. If a Car can do its job properly, then it's a good car. If it's a Ford Mondeo that fails at being a Ford Mondeo, but is still a pleasant car to drive, then it's a bad ford mondeo, but a good car.

F3&4 are bad at being Fallout games, yet if you scribbled out the name and put "Bethesda's Wasteland Adventure", People would still like them and they would still be fun to play.

There's a lot of good elements to them, even if I don't think they are anywhere near great.
I've said it before, but the settlement system and crafting mechanics in F4 are actually pretty good, it's the only game I've played where I cared to do such things and it's even got me to enjoy Skyrim a lot more than I probably would have (note, I think Skyrim is worse than either F3 and F4).

I agree with Hbomberguy's video on F3, but I still think at its core, it's pretty fun game to play.
I don't go back to it nearly as much as New Vegas or F4, but I think each of those 3 games do something differently enough that it's easy to go back to.

Honestly, I get why People don't like them, and there's been periods where I've not liked them.
Maybe as I'm getting older, I just want to get rid of the cynic in me and just have a good time.
Or maybe I'm just not as depressed as I used to be.

 

[Norzan]

your example doesn't make sense

My example makes perfect sense when you consider Fallout 3 and 4 are broken, poorly made, nigh non-functional pieces of media. When your game is so poorly made and poorly optimized that you need mods to even function in several parts of your game, maybe that's a hint that the game isn't very good regardless of the title in its name.

I say this without even mentioning they are Fallout games, i mean them as games on their own. Far less broken, far less poorly made games have gotten shat on much more than both of these two games.

settlement system

An extremely shallow system that undermines one of the points of the series, and that's humanity rebuilding itself through a group effort and not a single hobo collecting junk. I mean, if a single person can build entire settlements on their own, what is the point of factions?

crafting mechanics in F4 are actually pretty good

Another extremely basic system that really does nothing to combat the poor level scaling in the game. All it does in the end is create obnoxious busywork by forcing the player to collect junk so that they can add dumb modifiers to weapons. What happened to getting a weapon and that's it?

Maybe as I'm getting older, I just want to get rid of the cynic in me and just have a good time.

You say this after you just shat on 76 in a post above, and also shat on Starfield in another thread.

Just admit that you like shit. I like shit, plenty of games i like are considered by the population at large at best mediocre, but i still like them. But i don't try to justify liking them with arguments "like it's a bad game in this franchise but it's a good game outside of it". Just enjoy your shit, you don't need to jump through hoops to try to convince yourself that is fine to like them.

The above might sound condescending but it's not my intention, genuinely enjoy your garbage, i know i do.

 

[laclongquan]

Fallout 3 is a good game, even as a Fallout game.

Fallout 3 is not a good RPG compared to FNV or other RPG made by Interplay/Obsidian. But that's another comparison already.

You gotta keep the context in mind~

 

[Gizmojunk]

Fallout 3 is a good game, even as a Fallout game.

I disagree. It contradicts the principle tenet of the series. There is no living with the consequence of one's actions. For the most part there are no consequences.

• In the vault, the player can expend all of their BBs by firing them at their dad's face, and he but chides them; they can ask him for more BBs, and do it all again—indefinitely.
• At the Brotherhood, the player can shoot the gate paladin in the face—then ask to join the Brotherhood.
• In Megaton, the player can attack the parishioner's deity (the bomb)—in front of the congregation, and it's ignored.
• They can attack the towns people and with activation of a Stealth-Boy the entire town [instantly!] forgets them mid chase.
• The PC can commit crimes, and then donate contaminated water to vagrants to immediately absolve those crimes.
• Self resurrecting NPCs.
• The world resets every three days.
• Most egregious: The player can compensate their aim to bypass the unskilled PC's ineptness with firearms. The player is also a hindrance to the PC if they are personally inept at the game systems; making the PC fail for reasons that are not part of the game. (A problem shared by The Witcher 2's melee combat, btw.)

 

[Norzan]

Fallout 3 is a good game, even as a Fallout game.

I also like to be wrong sometimes.

@Gizmojunk
If only those were the reasons why it's a bad game. The writing being shit, the combat being worse than FPS from the mid-90s, the RPG elements meaning next to nothing in a RPG, and the world building having no care or thought being put into it are far more egregious to me.

 

[Gizmojunk]

A well designed quest will not save bad mechanics, but well designed mechanics will make a pitiful story palatable. It's the same with comics and graphic novels; bad art will ruin the best story while great art will make a pathetic tale tolerable for sake of viewing the art.

There are games I will play despite the absurd campaign—for the gameplay, but I cannot think of a game that I'd slog through bad mechanics just to experience the story.

IMO FO3 is meritorious for what it actually offers, while being utterly insulting for what it purports to offer —and does not (IE. Fallout). All said, it's not my kind of game. The series ended with Fallout 2.

Something is very off when a studio makes a game with all of the outward trappings of a series, and the die-hards hate it.

 

[laclongquan]

I disagree. It contradicts the principle tenet of the series. There is no living with the consequence of one's actions. For the most part there are no consequences.

• In the vault, the player can expend all of their BBs by firing them at their dad's face, and he but chides them; they can ask him for more BBs, and do it all again—indefinitely.
• At the Brotherhood, the player can shoot the gate paladin in the face—then ask to join the Brotherhood.
• In Megaton, the player can attack the parishioner's deity (the bomb)—in front of the congregation, and it's ignored.
• They can attack the towns people and with activation of a Stealth-Boy the entire town [instantly!] forgets them mid chase.
• The PC can commit crimes, and then donate contaminated water to vagrants to immediately absolve those crimes.
• Self resurrecting NPCs.
• The world resets every three days.
• Most egregious: The player can compensate their aim to bypass the unskilled PC's ineptness with firearms. The player is also a hindrance to the PC if they are personally inept at the game systems; making the PC fail for reasons that are not part of the game. (A problem shared by The Witcher 2's melee combat, btw.)

Learn to play PC version like a chad, not keep playing console like a peasant.

 

[Gizmojunk]

Learn to play PC version like a chad, not keep playing console like a peasant.

I've never owned a console.

 

[Norzan]

Also what Gizmo said had fuck all to do with it being on pc or console. The crap he pointed out happens in both.

 

[laclongquan]

Aint those bugs get fixed in bugfix mods? And only console version still retain all those bugs.

I also point out that being naughty child shooting BB on father's face is very naughty. It's not necessary a bug~

And the game fail to adhere to your PERSONAL idea of how to design a game, also, not necessary a bug.

Case in point: you can try play Obscurum Pandemic mod where strength requirement, skill requirement, matter much more to a weapon that player skill. In which case the guns sway like a motherfucker.

Or you can talk to other complainers about how the guns doesnt shoot exactly where they aim their recticle... it's like they never heard of "spread" concept.

Self resurrecting NPC? Are you certain that is those NPC, exactly? Like, if you rob them down to their unmentionable, when they resurrect they will be near nekkid, or do they wear their complete equipment list? Aka THEY being other NPC and not the luckless suckers get robbed by you?

 

[Norzan]

Aint those bugs get fixed in bugfix mods? And only console version still retain all those bugs.

Still using "you can use mods in the pc version" to justify the quality of a shitty game in 2024.

And again, none of what Gizmo pointed out were bugs. They were examples on why Fallout 3 is shit as a RPG and a Fallout game.

 

[laclongquan]

Boy, are you trying to judge a game based on release day version? Even consoles? On NMA?

Let me remind you that Interplay games, then Troika games, then Obsidian games are a puddle of bugs on release day.

Fallout 1 has a ton of bugs in v1.0 that even these days there's mod fixing them.
Same is Fallout 2
same is Vampire Masquerade Bloodlines. This is about best game in these selection because the bugs are supposedly, absolutely, cleaned up, and new bugs are just modders fucking with the code again.
Same is Fallout New Vegas. FNV can be said to be free of bugs excluding those get introduced with new version of nvse and or lod and or higher textures.

If you can look on all those with myopic eyes, is it too much to ask for same treatment on other games?