Why Fallout 3 is not as bad as most people on this forum think

  • Thread starter Thread starter Arin Matthews
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
"Fallout" 3 as a Fallout game is, quite plainly, crap. Passing that crap through a sieve and coming up with a few undigested peanuts does not change that. They'll still end up smelling like feces.

It's fine to like playing the game. But to say that Bethesda's take on the setting is "in line" with FO1 and 2 or in any way better than NV's, is pure nonsense.
 
White Knight said:
But don't you see? Any change Bethesda makes is "growth", regardless of whether it actually is, and we're all too bitter and blind to see it! We need to stop being so absurd, worrying about petty little grievances like consistency. :roll:
Click to expand...

Growth? That's a way to put it.
Would you also say Afghanistan has grown lately?
Osama bin Laden grew a whole new self as he was flung out of the helicopter.

I've said this to so many people now, you can't just go around redefining things to a word you like. If war is happening, you can't call it "peace" to make yourself feel better. That's not what words are for.

Bethesda didn't "grow" Fallout. It re used a lot of ideas (geck, enclave, mutants, computer antagonist, vats, vault rebellion) only because they would earn them cash, and the rest they added out of their asses (vampires, androids (god help me... ))

Nothing grew. It changed. The debate is wether or not it was good or bad change. Most old Fallout players think it was bad change, because it veers far off the original games.

Is it ugly? Is it poorly animated? Does it have bad digital effects? Nope, no and no. Is it fun to shoot a lot, and solve most problems by shooting them a lot? Yeah, now and then it is.
 
woo1108 said:
zegh8578 said:
Nope, no and no. Is it fun to shoot a lot, ?
Click to expand...
Actually, no :lol:
I rather play STALKER series for that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's sortof what I mean. Personally I'm sitting on a fairly old computer, with a small, humble HD, so... FO3 is my only first person shooter at the moment :oops:
 
Is it ugly? Is it poorly animated? Does it have bad digital effects? Nope, no and no. Is it fun to shoot a lot, and solve most problems by shooting them a lot? Yeah, now and then it is.
Click to expand...
Rather yes, yes, yes.
Everything on gamebryo looks horrible.
 
woo1108 said:
I heard WoW also uses Gamebryo engine.
Divinity2 also uses that.
Click to expand...
Not WoW, but Warhammer: Online.
Gamebryo isn't bad per se, just Bethesda's particular implementation is.
 
Doesn't Bethesda use an outdated version of gamebryo? At least, untill they modified it into the creation engine.
 
That's why I always refer to what everyone else calls "Gamebryo" as "Oblivion Engine" instead, since that's exactly what it was. Straight to the point, not need to call it by some simplistic label that doesn't address what they did with it, or what version they used. It's like saying a game uses Source. Yeah? Which version of Source? There's a major difference in what you use and its application. FO3 just ran on what they ran Oblivion from, and the improvements were few and far between. I had to see it for myself to really understand what was "worse" about Oblivion, and while I will admit it was laughable, in context of what else we could see from better applications of the same- or just similar -engine (I mean, really, Catherine? That surprised me!) the differences between Oblivion and FO3 are totally negligible. It's the same damn thing. Hence my taste in nomenclature. =)

On topic: Don't feed the trolls. I'm all for "we don't ban people for differences in opinion", but this goes beyond that. Blatant disregard for any basic respect towards other users and seemingly intentional acts to disrupt and upset others ought to be addressed, I would think. Even if it's as little as a stern warning.
 
It's not the porblem of engine or their technology.
beth use the engine very well.
only porblem is that they won't make "proper game"
with enough technology and tools.
 
That's a contradicting statement, right there. You can't use something well if its use results in a catastrophic failure. If given a couple rocks I were to make a watermill, that would be using them very well, because the end result is good. But if Bethesda makes a shitty game in the technical sense (and FO3 was shitty in the technical areas, not just writing and everything else) then that's them making POOR use of the engine. The only upside is that it's not a very versatile or decent engine. Apparently you can get decent games out of it, but it's not like Source or Unreal.
 
Judging by the amount of threads and post in the F03 selection I think most of the forum user base has a love hate relationship with the game. To rather hard to believe that some of you can be so critical of something without spending hours playing the game. So either FO3 is not as bad as someone people make it out to be or NMA is filled with masochist.
 
Vice Gray said:
Judging by the amount of threads and post in the F03 selection I think most of the forum user base has a love hate relationship with the game. To rather hard to believe that some of you can be so critical of something without spending hours playing the game. So either FO3 is not as bad as someone people make it out to be or NMA is filled with masochist.
Click to expand...
Classic argument.
If someone wouldn't played this game, you would say something like:
"You didn't played it, how you can judge it"? :roll:
 
Vice Gray said:
Judging by the amount of threads and post in the F03 selection I think most of the forum user base has a love hate relationship with the game. To rather hard to believe that some of you can be so critical of something without spending hours playing the game. So either FO3 is not as bad as someone people make it out to be or NMA is filled with masochist.
Click to expand...

I used to like it. Played it for a hundred hours or so. I was younger back then. Slowly I started to realize what it actually was I was experiencing.

It's fascinating actually how deep the issues go, and how deeply layered it is. Every area has issues, every quest in that area has issues, and every npc in that quest has horrible dialogue. That's just the start.
 
Same as Arkatus, I actually used to be a Fallout 3 apologist, but well you just grow out of it.
 
Anyone who liked the writing in Fallout 3, desperately needs to pick up a fiction book.

The shittiest, most abysmal fiction book they find will still be twice as good as Fallout 3 writing.
 
I used to "enjoy" FO3, but I was never an apologist for the game. My review (which I've re-posted here and linked to a few times) of the game was written just a few weeks after the game came out, and by then I'd already clocked in over 300 hours of playing it. The things is, Vice Gray, playing something doesn't mean you like it. Many here were either introduced to the series through FO3, so it's only natural that they spent a lot of time with FO3, even if they moved on and ended up disliking it overall (if not left with utter antipathy towards it). The vast majority, I'm certain, were "jonesing" for a new Fallout for so long that they were unable to objectively assess FO3 when they first played it. Many more still simply required seeing a better game with the same assets in the same setting (FONV) to realize just how bad FO3 was.

Does being able to trick people for such a duration make it a good game? Does being enjoyed make it a good game? No, and no. As Akratus illustrated, the situation with FO3's faults is multi-layered and complex. It's not just as simple as "it has bad writing", there are many issues within the game that cripple it, even though it has some appealing aspects. However, ultimately, its appealing aspects are in appallingly short supply...
 
After playing fo3, I start to think oblivion or Morrowind would be better while oblivion is sucks compare to Morrowind.
but I heard NV is different from fo3 so I tried to play NV and then I start to play other Fallout like Fo1 and 2.
so for me, fo3 means nothing.
but fo3 fan boys' buzzing sound make me irritated. so I hate fo3 because of fo3 fanboy+when I saw cancelled Fo3 "Van buran" I started to hate fo3. after replaying fo3, I rechecked that fo3 is sucks as it's fanboys and worse than I thought.
so I never liked fo3 though I used to like TES.

and for me fo3 is worse than other people criticize.
 
The best thing is, that Bethesda can later use all this hate to promote Fallout 4. They will go their usual "Fo3 had flaws over flaws, but Fallout 4 is going to be the best game in the series!" and everyone will buy it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top