Why is Fallout 3 so loved ?

[Korin]

Let us all re-read what was posted at the start of this thread and help to make sure we keep it on track:

Also, there is no need, IMO to contradict everything. For instance, if someone says that people love Fo3 because of the great combat system, it doesn't mean that the combat system is great, but that the people who love Fo3 think that the combat system is great. There is no need to argue about it.

 

[naossano]

Indeed, this thread is more about understanding the love of Fo3, a love that is not shared by everyone, which lead to mentions of things we might not like or opinion we might not share. Not that we might not express the contradiction, but it is not needed as the point of the topic is to depict a very specific range of opinions.
For features & plots points liked even by those who hate the game, this one is more appropriate.

 

[TheChosen1]

Except the Enclave were nuked into dust and the Brotherhood of Steel:
a) Did not have enough resources to send whole armies into DC
b) Had Vertibird plans yet chose to send people on foot.

I highly doubt ALL of the Enclave in existence was on the oil rig, there were probably still a lot of soldiers on the mainland, just not enough to really put up a fight, thus they relocated, or that's my idea anyway.

All that remained of the Enclave was just small disorganized groups. Not an endless supply of troops. Also they say that they evacuated from the Oil Rig, yet when it is destroyed, there are no Vertibirds flying away.

As for the Brotherhood, I meant that the "forces" in DC can be classified as an army, considering that it is implied that the Citadel is much bigger than shown. I am surprised that the B.o.S decided to send a party to DC in the first place and lose valuable manpower with the NCR war and such.

 

[H3rw00d1]

All that remained of the Enclave was just small disorganized groups. Not an endless supply of troops. Also they say that they evacuated from the Oil Rig, yet when it is destroyed, there are no Vertibirds flying away.

Well, in that little cutscene that shows the oil rig exploding, the Valdez was already leaving camera view at a slow pace. The vertibirds would have left by then and thus we didn't see them.

Anyway, Korin's right, this thread is not for "contradicting arguments", lets just agree to disagree.

 

[Walpknut]

I always find weird how fallout 3 fans are always going on about the "Immuhrshunz" but none of the obvious logic gaps, plot holes and non sensical setting ever tick them off. It's almost as if that dumb term had no actual meanning and was on the ame boat as "visceral experience" as just some dumb marketing term meant to make people feel smarter by repeating it, "true cinematic experience" is also getting there,

 

[naossano]

To be fair, if the product/story is really awesome, you can manage to put aside the plot holes & inconsistencies, as the pros outnumber or are stronger than the cons. (not saying they do on that specific game) Sometime, i can enjoy more a story that have mind-blowing highlight and some glaring plot hole, than a story with is pretty consistent and logic, but with not much highlight or that is not original. The first have to polar side that need to be balanced, while the other has neither the pros or the cons.

On the other hand, putting aside or forgiving plot holes & inconsistencies is not the same as outright denying them.
On one hand, you try to balance things, while on the other, you are blinded by on side of the coin, purposly or not.

PS: IMO, you can complain about plot-hole & inconsistencies, but hardly praise the lack of them. They aren't supposed to be there in the first place.

 

[Walpknut]

I just say that when you claim something is just perfect and "immurshive" then that thing needs to endure more scrutiny, I love New Vegas but I am very aware of it's flaws and weak points (that's wh yI mod it ) and I enjoy some very messy game slike Deadly Premonition because of it's messiness in terms of game design, but most nerds nowadays attach to omuch of their identity to the games they like, yet don't even like the idea of a healthy discussion, they are usually more prone to making vague praising statements and recoil in insults than actually tell you what's so incredible about the object of their almost worship. They'll usually also resort to cite the numbers on reviews rather than the actual points.

 

[Harken]

Well, the internet lives and breathes fallacies.

 

[Korin]

A person isn't obligated to defend why they may find something immersive, no more so than a person is required to defend why they like chocolate and not vanilla or enjoy the smell of roses but hate fresh baked bread (who hates the smell of fresh baked bread though, really?).

I always find weird how fallout 3 fans are always going on about the "Immuhrshunz" but none of the obvious logic gaps, plot holes and non sensical setting ever tick them off.

If you were "immersed" in something you likely wouldn't really notice or care about any of those things. I've had a great time drinking coronas in a kiddie pool and a boring time sipping fancier drinks at a resort pool, it's all a matter of experience and perspective. I've also camped out in perfect conditions and had an only OK time but I've also camped and had such a good time I didn't notice the dozens of mosquitoes sucking out all of my blood.

...most nerds nowadays attach to omuch of their identity to the games they like, yet don't even like the idea of a healthy discussion, they are usually more prone to making vague praising statements and recoil in insults than actually tell you what's so incredible about the object of their almost worship

On the flip side, some people absolutely have to convince other people that the things they like are bad and that they shouldn't enjoy something or that they have no reason to enjoy it or that their reasons are stupid, which really is an even unhealthier psychology in my eyes. Naturally the only things that can be enjoyed are the things these superior individuals can appreciate and break down intellectually. Such discussions closely remind me of religious debates. People would be much happier not trying to deconstruct another person's happiness or enjoyment, or force their happiness or enjoyment on other people. That's a lesson that extends far beyond Fallout.

 

[Walpknut]

I have never told FO3 fans to not like what they like, the problem ios when they try to make it seem like this smart complex and perfect game but when someone then takes it upon their remark and points out the ways the game is not smart or good they tend to take it as "DON'T LIKE THIS!", people can like all sorts of pulpy shlocky stuff, but they should always be aware of the flaws it has if the yare actually gonna try and feel smart for liking them. I am pretty aware of a lot of things I like aren't exactly philosophical discourses and "the best x ever" and I still enjoy them. (Gungrave is one of my favorite games, and that game is pretty dumb, altho that's what makes it fun to play for me).

 

[No Man]

I was once told (in red, bold, underlined font, no less) that Fallout Bible more or less says "we don't want to write ourselves into a corner, Fallout lore isn't set in stone" therefore whatever Bethesda makes up is perfectly acceptable in terms of Fallout world, no matter how ridiculous it is.

 

[Gizmojunk]

I was once told (in red, bold, underlined font, no less) that Fallout Bible more or less says "we don't want to write ourselves into a corner, Fallout lore isn't set in stone" therefore whatever Bethesda makes up is perfectly acceptable in terms of Fallout world, no matter how ridiculous it is.

I remember that, but it's BoguS to accept whatever crap they [Bethesda] dish out at whim... That's like accepting Smurfs in Middle Earth from Christopher Tolkien simply because he might say so; or like accepting the same thing [Smurfs] in Dune from Brian Herbert for the same idiotic reason. Yes they are legally allowed to rewrite Fallout to the level of a 2nd grade elementary school creative writing assignment; legally they are allowed to change the gameplay to Whack-a-Mole, but that never makes it 'right', or acceptable ~it remains insultingly disappointing on too many levels, and worse still when compared to what came before them. It's grafitti; actually it's worse... it's buying the wall and scribbling on someone else's art because you can ~instead of painting over the wall.

There is an artist [an unfortunately famous one], who makes his way by defacing other people's work and reselling it as his own, under the guise of collage. Adding construction paper guitars to somebody's (fairly good) oil painting, or similar nonsense with other prior art. At least he got sued and lost. No.. this is more abusive, more like this: http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Arts/article322709.ece

 

[Harken]

I was once told (in red, bold, underlined font, no less) that Fallout Bible more or less says "we don't want to write ourselves into a corner, Fallout lore isn't set in stone" therefore whatever Bethesda makes up is perfectly acceptable in terms of Fallout world, no matter how ridiculous it is.

That may be true, but the Fallout Bible was written by Chris Avellone, not Todd Howard or Emil Pagliarulo.

Also take into account that Avellone and the others at Black Isle Studios knew what they were doing with Fallout. Bethesda decided to bastardize it into a Hollywood action flick. A Bad Hollywood action flick. For that reason, they mangled the lore, characters and factions to suit their purposes. They wanted cool aesthetics and dramatic set pieces and so they pushed everything that mattered more out of the way.

Anything Chris Avellone said in it was for Black Isle Studios; not them.

 

[No Man]

I dunno, but the fragment that was quoted (the first 3 disclaimers at the beginning of Fallout Bible 0) seemed to say "Fallout Bible is not finished, the blanks are to be filled by future Fallouts and fanfic", not "everything in the Fallout universe can be denied and changed, regardless of what was said in the games".

 

[Kalasanty11]

Also take into account that Avellone and the others at Black Isle Studios knew what they were doing with Fallout

Or were they? As much as I like Avellone's work in Planescape: Torment and New Vegas, I think that his input in Fallout 2 actually harmed the series. You wouldn't believe how many arguments with F3 fans I had over nonsensical setting of Fallout 3... And almost always their response was: "but Fallout series ALWAYS were wacky! Talking plant, ghost, gangster town!"
As much as I love Fallout 2, I don't love it for consistent tone.

 

[naossano]

I see your point, but having ghost, talking plants or even aliens doesn't mean inconsistency. Wacky, maybe, but not inconsistent.
Inconsistent is when things are contradicting each other, like ghoul suddenly running and be numerous, on places everyone has to step in for instance.
If you put those facts together, the reality is contradicting itself, and make you stop believe in it.
People can accept Superman having super-powers, but not people being unable to recognize Clark Kent, while the only thing different are the glasses.

 

[No Man]

FO1 and FO2 were both pretty consistent when it came to tone. FO1 was more serious and FO2 lulzy as hell. FO3 is all around the place and it's fans are using it. You can easily find one argument in which FO3 fan claims "FO3 is supposed to be wacky, like FO2" and another in which FO3 fan states "FO3 is more serious, going back to FO1". Amusingly enough, FO3 is just as weird as FO2 (maybe with less fourth wall breaking). It just happens to remain deadly serious while throwing bullshit in your face. However, seeing how Bethesda tries to make a joke (for example - Dukov; Whatever happened to people behind Crassius Curio?) it's probably for the best.

 

[Gizmojunk]

Fallout has for the longest time, suffered badly from the 'copy of a copy' syndrome. With each subsequent title, the resulting game was way off the mark of the previous title, such that eventually you can't even tell what it used to be... FO3 looks* and plays like a title derived of FOBOS; it could pass for a FOBOS 2.

*(Same as Witcher 2 looks and plays like it was derived of Witcher.)



**Incidentally... Witcher 2 [also] ruined or omitted many of the aspects that I liked in the series.

 

[Kalasanty11]

I see your point, but having ghost, talking plants or even aliens doesn't mean inconsistency.

For me, it was inconsistent. If there is one ghost, why aren't there others? I mean, it's world in which 99% of population died and those left are still murdering each other. New Reno felt inconsistent within the game world. Vault Dweller ridiculed all that nonsense in his review, saying that game had been written by 13 yo following the "rule of cool". Even Avellone himself admitted that they "went overboard". For me New Reno symbolizes well entire Fallout 2 - maybe doesn't make much sense, but is still amazing due to the great quest design.
Though I agree, that crap isn't all over the place like in Fallout 3. And humour in Fallout 2, juvenile as it is, still is leagues above pathetic attempts from F3.

 

[Gizmojunk]

I think it was a bunch of new guys, on a team ~working on separate maps in relative isolation, then cobbling it all together last minute (as it were); hoping the pieces all fit together. The first thing you can see is that on some maps the merchants have extra inventory on separate tables in their shops, while it didn't seem to occur to the designers of other maps, where the tables are merely used as props. And then there was inappropriate strangeness like the Brain, or the scorpion (chess player); fine encounters out in the arid wastes, days or weeks from any witnesses, but a terrible thing to put in the middle of Gecko or Broken Hills, and they didn't seem to know why.