Why do people think Fallout 3 was actually good?

[RangerBoo]

Because it was miles better than Oblivion and a lot of fun to play?

But Oblivion at least had some, although bare, roleplaying elements. Fallout 3 did not. When it comes to Fallout people expected to be able to roleplay whatever character they want. Instead, they were forced to play a 19 year old Christian Vault Dweller looking for their dad and it is obvious that the game tried to shoehorn you to playing a good character. In New Vegas your character could be anybody you wanted to be, with whatever backstory you came up for them. Granted, I will give Fallout 3 some credit with having some roleplaying options with the dialogue which amazed me over why Bethesda would cease doing one of the few things they got somewhat right in Skyrim and Fallout 4.

 

[CT Phipps]

But Oblivion at least had some, although bare, roleplaying elements. Fallout 3 did not. When it comes to Fallout people expected to be able to roleplay whatever character they want. Instead, they were forced to play a 19 year old Christian Vault Dweller looking for their dad and it is obvious that the game tried to shoehorn you to playing a good character. In New Vegas your character could be anybody you wanted to be, with whatever backstory you came up for them. Granted, I will give Fallout 3 some credit with having some roleplaying options with the dialogue which amazed me over why Bethesda would cease doing one of the few things they got somewhat right in Skyrim and Fallout 4.

Eh, there have always been limitations on what you can be. In New Vegas you can be anyone you want....as long as that person is a California Mail Man.

In previous editions, you were the Vault Dweller and the Chosen One.

 

[TorontoReign]

But Oblivion at least had some, although bare, roleplaying elements. Fallout 3 did not. When it comes to Fallout people expected to be able to roleplay whatever character they want. Instead, they were forced to play a 19 year old Christian Vault Dweller looking for their dad and it is obvious that the game tried to shoehorn you to playing a good character. In New Vegas your character could be anybody you wanted to be, with whatever backstory you came up for them. Granted, I will give Fallout 3 some credit with having some roleplaying options with the dialogue which amazed me over why Bethesda would cease doing one of the few things they got somewhat right in Skyrim and Fallout 4.

Fallout 3 has skill checks. Oblivion does not. Other than can I use this weapon or magic spell to kill shit. Fallout 3 offers more roleplaying than Oblivion simply because you can choose how your character behaves during quests. Fallout 3 is ok and better than Oblivion but that is not saying much.

 

[RangerBoo]

Eh, there have always been limitations on what you can be. In New Vegas you can be anyone you want....as long as that person is a California Mail Man.

In previous editions, you were the Vault Dweller and the Chosen One.

You didn't have to be from California. Dialogue with Veronica implied that your character could have been from anywhere but your work with the Mojave Express kept you close to NCR and the frontier. Also, just because you were a courier didn't mean you didn't do things in your spare time. Like being a bounty hunter or merc. Maybe you were also a traveling doctor. There was a lot you could do in New Vegas. Way more then in Fallout 3.

Fallout 3 has skill checks. Oblivion does not. Other than can I use this weapon or magic spell to kill shit. Fallout 3 offers more roleplaying than Oblivion simply because you can choose how your character behaves during quests. Fallout 3 is ok and better than Oblivion but that is not saying much.

That is what amazed me in Fallout 4 was why Bethesda got rid of skill checks. The skill checks were one of the few roleplaying options that Bethesda had got somewhat right. Instead of working to improve that they instead went; "Fuck it!" and got rid of them. What I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall to hear their excuse over that decision.

 

[Norzan]

You didn't have to be from California. Dialogue with Veronica implied that your character could have been from anywhere but your work with the Mojave Express kept you close to NCR and the frontier. Also, just because you were a courier didn't mean you didn't do things in your spare time. Like being a bounty hunter or merc. Maybe you were also a traveling doctor. There was a lot you could do in New Vegas. Way more then in Fallout 3.

New Vegas (and Fallout 1 and 2 for that matter) didn't showed my entire fucking story before the beginning of the game. The majority of it is left up to you, the player, to make up it and there are even stuff you can claim to be true or false about yourself on some dialogue choices in New Vegas (you can deny you sent the package that destroyed the Divide).

Fallout 3 pretty much locks you into a very specific character. Every character you make in Fallout 3 always have the same exact backstory, always the same age, always with a dead parent, always the same people you grew up with. You can't change that.

So even attempting to imply that Fallout 3 has even the same amount, or even on the same league, of freedom of 1, 2 and New Vegas when it comes to roleplaying is flat out false. Fallout 3 is almost as restrictive as the Witcher when it comes to roleplaying, but at least Witcher games didn't give me a character creation. It told me i would be playing as Geralt of Rivia and no one else.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

In some ways it showed a unique perspective of the Fallout post-war America, what would the east coast be like? Its technology? Mutants? Etc?

It breathed new life into a dead franchise...Just unfortunately as we all know, it was putrid breath, into a VERY dead franchise.

Niches can be some of the greatest things in the world, amazingly unique people and IP's without external influence, and while RPG's like Fallout weren't niche when they first came out, they sure as hell were by the time of Fallout 3.

Sooooo of course, like a lot of things, niche is found/bought by 'normies', and becomes a normie franchise, uniqueness? What is that! Get rid of it! Its scary! Dumb it down, give it a green filter, and call it Fallout 3!

 

[CT Phipps]

In some ways it showed a unique perspective of the Fallout post-war America, what would the east coast be like? Its technology? Mutants? Etc?

Fallout 3 was essentially an attempt to reintroduce all of the stuff of the first two games to a new audience that had never played 1 and 2. We could call these people "Console Users" for lack of a better term, nonsensical as a designation as this may be. Which is why the game plot roughly approximates the first two games.

You must build the Water Reactor thingy, save the Wasteland from the Super Mutants, and then save them from the Enclave.

Burke vs. The Sheriff is basically a discount version of Gizmo vs. Magyver from the first game.

If they were going to introduce entirely new concepts then they might as well have not bought the franchise in the first place but just made RADIOACTIVE.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

Fallout 3 was essentially an attempt to reintroduce all of the stuff of the first two games to a new audience that had never played 1 and 2. We could call these people "Console Users" for lack of a better term, nonsensical as a designation as this may be. Which is why the game plot roughly approximates the first two games.

You must build the Water Reactor thingy, save the Wasteland from the Super Mutants, and then save them from the Enclave.

Burke vs. The Sheriff is basically a discount version of Gizmo vs. Magyver from the first game.

If they were going to introduce entirely new concepts then they might as well have not bought the franchise in the first place but just made RADIOACTIVE.

You pretty much nailed it, it was for the new generation of console kiddies who wanted shoot shoot action with radiation and mutants and hookers.

Gotta love how both Fallout 3 AND 4 have the same retarded "Do X for family member", when the first two games were about helping your community...By force.

 

[CT Phipps]

You pretty much nailed it, it was for the new generation of console kiddies who wanted shoot shoot action with radiation and mutants and hookers.

Gotta love how both Fallout 3 AND 4 have the same retarded "Do X for family member", when the first two games were about helping your community...By force.

Eh, saving your tribe versus your dad or child is the same fundamental primal motivation.

It's just Fallout 4 complicates the crap out of it in weird and bizarre ways.

You also needed the option to gun James down.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

Eh, saving your tribe versus your dad or child is the same fundamental primal motivation.

It's just Fallout 4 complicates the crap out of it in weird and bizarre ways.

You also needed the option to gun James down.

There's some differences with it though, firstly you have to prove yourself worthy of saving the tribe.

In FO3 they just asspull a "Overseer is a literal psycho" plot point.

Saving your tribe, who consists of dozens of people and logically your character must like at least one of them, is a lot more compelling than saving Liam Neeson who forced you to take the GOAT.

As you said, there should've been an option to just go "Fuck my dad, he's a prick" and side with someone else.

 

[RangerBoo]

Eh, saving your tribe versus your dad or child is the same fundamental primal motivation.

It's just Fallout 4 complicates the crap out of it in weird and bizarre ways.

You also needed the option to gun James down.

I think what people hated the most about Fallout 4 was how restrictive Fallout 4 was with your characters backstory and personality. In Fallout 4 you were forced to play a loving military man (We all know that the male character is the one Bethesda wanted you to play.) who is straight and has a wife and son. They also shoe horned the player to having to care about the son and look for him. This is not a good RPG mechanic. If you have to force the player to care you aren't doing a good job. Take for instance Mass Effect 3 and how Bioware tried so hard to make you care about that stupid Star Kid and it got so grating to the point that you wanted to shoot the little fucker in the face.

 

[CT Phipps]

I think what people hated the most about Fallout 4 was how restrictive Fallout 4 was with your characters backstory and personality. In Fallout 4 you were forced to play a loving military man (We all know that the male character is the one Bethesda wanted you to play.) who is straight and has a wife and son. They also shoe horned the player to having to care about the son and look for him. This is not a good RPG mechanic. If you have to force the player to care you aren't doing a good job. Take for instance Mass Effect 3 and how Bioware tried so hard to make you care about that stupid Star Kid and it got so grating to the point that you wanted to shoot the little fucker in the face.

I played Fallout 4 through to the end but I knew it would never work for me the moment they killed the wife because they took the most compelling story element from it within the first few minutes. Frank Castle is about the only character I really can tolerate having the most cliche revenge motivation of all time. I will also say I think the Wife Sole Survive actually had a much better voice acting job too.

Honestly, I really wish they had gone full Blade Runner.

You get to the Institute and find out there is no Shaun. There never was. You are a Synth who was programmed to see just how far we could tests the limits of reality.

Part of what eventually turned me off big Open World games as a whole has been the fact the stories seem more and more perfunctory.

It says something that Danse actually seems to be the only character with any sort of arc.

 

[CT Phipps]

There's some differences with it though, firstly you have to prove yourself worthy of saving the tribe.

In FO3 they just asspull a "Overseer is a literal psycho" plot point.

Saving your tribe, who consists of dozens of people and logically your character must like at least one of them, is a lot more compelling than saving Liam Neeson who forced you to take the GOAT.

As you said, there should've been an option to just go "Fuck my dad, he's a prick" and side with someone else.

To be fair, I think the Overseer's actions make perfect sense if you read his terminals but only if you know the lore. The Enclave shows up and is planning on breaking into the Vault to kill everyone and steal their PipBoys and tablets or whatever.

Then James FOR SOME REASON leaves the Vault.

The obvious thing is to interrogate his child and assistant.

Mind you, it requires the Overseer to know what the Enclave is and that it would still exist 200 years later.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

To be fair, I think the Overseer's actions make perfect sense if you read his terminals but only if you know the lore. The Enclave shows up and is planning on breaking into the Vault to kill everyone and steal their PipBoys and tablets or whatever.

Then James FOR SOME REASON leaves the Vault.

The obvious thing is to interrogate his child and assistant.

Mind you, it requires the Overseer to know what the Enclave is and that it would still exist 200 years later.

Wait, the Enclave is going to break into the vault?...How come they sure as hell haven't by the time you get access back into the vault?

 

[CT Phipps]

Wait, the Enclave is going to break into the vault?...How come they sure as hell haven't by the time you get access back into the vault?

The Overseer in a rare moment of sanity, refused to let them in.

If you force them to leave the Vault, the Enclave eventually massacres all the survivors in a random encounter.

Edit:

Here's the letter regarding it:

https://fallout.fandom.com/wiki/Contact_Report:_"Enclave"

The Enclave executing Amata and the Vault survivors happens as a possible result here:

https://fallout.fandom.com/wiki/Trouble_on_the_Homefront#Side_with_the_overseer

 

[Risewild]

To be fair, I think the Overseer's actions make perfect sense if you read his terminals but only if you know the lore. The Enclave shows up and is planning on breaking into the Vault to kill everyone and steal their PipBoys and tablets or whatever.

Then James FOR SOME REASON leaves the Vault.

The obvious thing is to interrogate his child and assistant.

Mind you, it requires the Overseer to know what the Enclave is and that it would still exist 200 years later.

The Enclave message only appears after James leaves the Vault and the Enclave assaults Project Purity and becomes active over the wasteland, not before.
It's programed in the game to only appear after the same stage in the game as the quest "Trouble on the Homefront".

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

The Enclave message only appears after James leaves the Vault and the Enclave assaults Project Purity and becomes active over the wasteland, not before.
It's programed in the game to only appear after the same stage in the game as the quest "Trouble on the Homefront".

THAT makes sense, I sure as hell don't recall Enclave stuff showing up so early.

The Enclave would have the codes to open 101 anyways.

 

[CT Phipps]

THAT makes sense, I sure as hell don't recall Enclave stuff showing up so early.

The Enclave would have the codes to open 101 anyways.

The letter says they're irritated someone has changed the codes as if someone doing that in 200 years is weird.

And I stand corrected re: The Enclave.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

The letter says they're irritated someone has changed the codes as if someone doing that in 200 years is weird.

And I stand corrected re: The Enclave.

The fact that they don't have an override code of some sort (cos, ya know...They're the government and evul and stuff) is weirder.

Or the fact that they didn't just blast the door down, a bunch of mutants managed to accomplish that in FO1.

 

[Sn1p3r187]

This is an interesting thread. It'd be interesting to make a thread for those of us who really disliked Fallout 3 to say the few things that Bethesda might've did right or was enjoyable. To play Devil's advocate here, the two things I did enjoy about Fallout 3 was the setting/atmosphere and the Vaults. Vault 106 still gives me nightmares on replays, same with Vault 92. Though Bethesda would really have some explaining to do as to why there are vault dwelling inhabitants of 106. Other than that Fallout 3 fails as an RPG