Why do people think Fallout 3 was actually good?

The use of Washington DC just feels like wasted potential.

They could've done so much with the location, but instead they went "WAOW LOOK AT DA BOMBED CAPITAL BUILDING!! WAOW LOOK AT DA ROBOTS!! HUMAN BEINGS STILL LIVE IN SHIT HUTS 200 YEARS LATER WAOW!"

Basically it just feels like they imagined what it would be like 50 years after it was bombed and didn't at all think further ahead.

 

I actually strongly agree with this. The capital wasteland is a location that should of (and did) happen. But with all the potential behind the setting, I don't think it's something bethesda should have dived head first into during an age where technology restrictions limited what you could do with the game at the time. And while they were trying to figure out how to even make a fallout game.

But I'm not sure that a FO game now set in the same place would be better, and Fo3 turned out ok. So I guess I can't complain too much.

 

Washington D.C. is the last place a population would resort to using bottle caps for currency.

 

If a man was dying of thirst in a desert or very. very hungry he would gladly swap his Rolex (heirloom) for a bottle of water (purified) or a Cram fritter. Would the same man living in what was left of Washington reasonably well fed with a stash of water (purified) swap the same gold watch for 5000 bottlecaps ? Erm erm I don't think so.

 

I'm sure one of the fallout devs said " RPGs you just go into peoples houses and potter about robbing any food coin or health/meds " I had thought that.{exactly the same thing}'But if you try to play it like an angel who never thieves you are fucked. On occasions you may need to pickpocket a key to advance.So this makes playing a role fake as....

 

So fucking true, just one trip to the hellhole that it is Reddit and you can see people all over discussing about some ridiculouly dumb idea and trying to justify an fucking sci fi setting... It is even worse whe you begin to see how many people there have a complete lack of common sense.

 

I don't like when rpgs force you into an path either, especially in sequences that forces you to kill people just for the sake of it. But I do like when the evil option gives you more benefits than the good one. I'm not that big of a fan of games being too easy to be a good person, sometimes it goes completely against the message of the game. Bioshock might be one of the worst examples, you get almost the same amount of adam for saving the little sisters instead of harvesting them. And thinking about it now very few games managed to do this system right. The only one that comes into my mind now is Frostpunk, but even in that one it was somewhat easy for me to keep thing in the "morally right "side of things.

 

I get your point to a degree but if you take a route to gain more benefits then in some ways you are not playing the game; the game is playing you. Tyranny is ok as bad is good.
Again if people don't really deserve to die, I don't kill them but if forced it's the games fault, not yours. Also I got to a stage in Skyrim where you either align with the faction that had you in the hay cart at the beginning. Or the other Northern faction that were devout racists. 2 bad choices do not = a good one; so that is the most extreme case of being forced into something. I think I looked online to see if you could stay independent ( that's bad as I avoid spoilers/cheats etc). Sure the answer was NO as there was a war ready to start. I don't want to sound vague but it was years ago I played then abandoned Skyrim