No. The easy answer is that it is a shitty game, only saved by mods. Even if you don't call it Fallout and replace all the other names, it would still be a crappy game.
Why is Fallout 3 so hated?
- Thread starter MrMagic
- Start date
R.Graves
Confirmed Retard
Nope. New Vegas is different to the classics and its arguably the best entry in the entire series.
the TL;DGAS answer is that its a shit game. and if you can't see that or any part of that i'd be willing to go as far as to say that you just straight up have bad taste.
the long version is the story makes literal zero sense. at all times.
the worldbuilding is laughably retarded.
the character have no personality.
the few that do are incredibly one note and cartoony
recycles too much from the classics.
doesn't add anything new or meaningful to the canon.
all quests are linear or occasionally binary
no endings for towns
hell the game technically doesn't have an ending at all
harold's quest somehow doesn't affect the ending of the game
also rooting harold to the ground was profoundly stupid. the whole point of that character was that he was supposed to show up in every game. even POS on the PS2 understood that.
this list could go on an on.
naossano
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
The execution was poor, but i found the fate of richard Grey old companion quite fitting.
Harold?
I'd say my answer is something along the lines of look at why people who are Fallout 3 and 4 fans are so mad about Fallout 76 and think about that. Everything about Fallout 3 was either different entirely or bad/mediocre (at least in my opinion). The entirety of how you play the game is different. It's first person shooting now. Karma was a huge focus. The main plot was terrible. The quests and how they fit with the world were more like a theme park.
Honestly, I don't care for it as a Fallout title. And I find it mediocre as if it were its own thing. And that's a lot more than I can say about Fallout 4. Fallout 3 might be bad for trying to bring back too much crap from the other games (BoS and supermutants, etc.) but at least it wanted to be a Fallout game (albeit in the style of a Bethesda title at the same time). It was your 9 year-old brother trying to hang out with you and your college friends kinda thing. He gets some of the ideas and whatnot but not fully. Fallout 4 is him all grown up but never seeing you since trying to hang out with you and your college buddies when he was 9. He remembers the Brotherhood of Steel and Supermutants but doesn't know why they were important still and so on.
I don't know, weird analogy but that's how I kinda see it.
tgawt
ye ass
its got a lot of faults and its would probably be the 'black sheep' of the franchise but i know fallout 2 isn't liked by a few. some quests are ok (like harold) but overall the writing is very mediocre and Bethesda wasn't and pretty much still isn't the right company to tackle fallout games, though in comparison Fallout 4 is fantastic.
Ayelander
Big Man
Because it isn't a Fallout game, it sits as low as fanfiction. Bethesda thinks Fallout is defined by mutants, vaults and a 60's coat of paint, instead of the world and the themes it allows you to explore as a consequence of that world. Fallout 3 is the little brother that tries to copy everything his big bro does because he's so cool and dad likes him better.
R.Graves
Confirmed Retard
lol no.
fallout 3 for all its assness at least kept SPECIAL somewhat intact. and its not as though fallout 4 is any better written. in fact it contradicts lore far more often than 3 ever did.
fallout 3 ruined fallout creatively, fallout 4 also does that but also ruins the series mechanically going forward so...
got to a cave, shoot some monsters, do one of three things. never see beloved character in any future games because even if you didn't kill him he's still rooted to the ground. yeah, no, that was one of the worst quest in the game.
tgawt
ye ass
your right, fallout 4 did fuck up perks and SPECIAL, but the writing is, even with the lore contradictions, leagues above fallout 3's, which is a game where every decision was either 'be daddys best boy good guy and save everybody' or 'twisted fucking psychopath who murders everything super bad.'
i haven't played fallout 3 for a long time but i remember him being surprisingly well written; and what he asks of you makes sense and is actually a decent moral choice; end a mans suffering but also possibly remove one of the only sources of greenery in the capital wasteland or keep him stuck in pain for the greater good of the wasteland, its probably one of the most well written quests in the game.
R.Graves
Confirmed Retard
except lol no because if you keep him alive he's all "well i still have yew and i think ill be okay you made the right choice"
lol no. the quality of the writing is about the same with a touch bit more lazyness. fallout 4 just plays around with more ideas than fallout 3. which means we get even more bad writing.
Supermarauder
The Dark Prelate
And that's not even accounting for the unanswered and puzzling question of how and why Harold moved from Southern California to D.C. Like did he manage to steal a vertibird with a large tank of fuel? How would he know that there would be any form of society still around on the east coast. To me, Harold being there just doesn't make sense based on the setting. He's just way too far from where he came from.
Last edited:
tgawt
ye ass
whatever i dont want to do this pointless back and forth so ill just agree to disagree
T
TorontoReign
Guest
Fallout 3 is a slut dragon and should be shamed as such.