Why is Fallout 3 so loved ?

That and the Workshop was lazier in many respects. There were reports of people getting away with uploading someone else's content without permission. There's the stupid subscription system (what is wrong with just downloading the file). The whole Nexus vs Workshop thing was perfectly illustrated by one event. Nexus used to have a thing where they would make an interview with a modder who uploaded a File Of The Month. Workshop made an interview with just some guy, who uploaded a 10000th file. Just a random guy. Here: http://steamcommunity.com/groups/SkyrimCKPublic/discussions/0/882959708484802625/
 
"What was the most challenging part about making your mod?
Probably placing the chest, as I said earlier I had trouble deciding where to put the chest, I'm still not entirerly happy with it"
That part summarizes that whole interview.
 
5545Trey said:
No Man said:
Using mods in FO3 can actually make the game decent.
Click to expand...

The fact that a game needs to be modded for it to be decent is just sad.
Click to expand...
Well, hey, if developers can get away with forcing players to install their games on consoles, they can get away with forcing players to spend hours searching for and configuring mods to make a game remotely enjoyable, so they don't care.
 
Well, at least Bethesda makes it easy for people to mod the shit out of their games, unlike say EA and the like.
 
Walpknut said:
Well, at least Bethesda makes it easy for people to mod the shit out of their games, unlike say EA and the like.
Click to expand...

There are things that mods can fix - balance, difficulty, moar guns and armour, etc. But no ammount of mods can fix shitty writing, idiotic setting or bad quest design. Yet another reason why NV is superior game.
 
Well, technically you can do that, seeing as how quests, dialogue and new voice overs can be modded in, but it would be a very time consuming endeavor and in the end, you can just play a game with a better story and quests (New Vegas). Or fuse them if you still want the map with the A Tale of Two Wastelands mod.
 
Wasn't moral ambiguity one of the TOP TEN FADING TRENDS or something like that in one of those game sites?

Games today try to make immersion as one of it's primary objectives and because of that many things are cut for the sake of it. For example, the ''What do they eat?'' question in FO3 could be easily be answered with farms and hunting grounds but I think they didn't make the final edition because of the necessity of creating a desolation immersion to the game. The same for the abandoned wooden houses, all for immersion, since Beth makes money on top of it. The way I see it, immersion should be a result of several aspects of the game, there can be a little tweak here and there but the game's lore and the consciety of the world should be higher than the immersion, something that Beth didn't do it with FO3.
 
"Immershunz" is a meaningless term, just a flashy word meant to praise a game higly without actually saying anything.
 
Walpknut said:
"Immershunz" is a meaningless term, just a flashy word meant to praise a game higly without actually saying anything.
Click to expand...

No.. unfortunately what it's usually meant to mean is that the game depicts a stream of consciousness for the player to believe; to lose themselves in ~as if they were really there personally; and it's why they bitch about intrusive HuDs and 4th wall infractions by the game or the PC. Things that would not really be there floating in the air in front of their eyes. The only HuD they want is a helmet masking part of the view (from inside their helmet); but they are just the types to demand that the helmets be made invisible while allowing them to keep the benefit of wearing them.

These are the folks who are assaulted by any form of abstract travel. They freak out when the PC seemingly disappears and ~teleports~ to some other place that they do not remember walking to, or being driven to. It's as though it's unfathomable to them that time has passed if they didn't see it happen personally.

It's the racing game that puts you in the driver's seat instead of above the cars where you can actually see what's going on. In FO3 and TES it is that the players want most to replace the developed character with themselves; to act out their personal whim & fancy instead of how the character would behave... the player who wants to hop up and down on the rooftops without reprisals, despite that no sane person would do this or expect to be on good terms afterward with the shop owners below.

Imagine if Aragorn or William Wallace did this in the movies; just hopped into town and climbed the houses; picked up random items and trashed tables and looted any crate in sight... and yet they call it "Immershun" when they do it.
 
Last edited:
Gizmojunk said:
These are the folks who are assaulted by any form of abstract travel. They freak out when the PC seemingly disappears and ~teleports~ to some other place that they do not remember walking to, or being driven to. It's as though it's unfathomable to them that time has passed if they didn't see it happen personally.
Click to expand...

If you refer to the complains about Fo3-FoNV current fast-travel system, here my own answer, with additionnal answers from the community.

http://forums.bethsoft.com/topic/1501764-fast-travel-in-continuous-gameworld/#entry23646948

You need to make the difference between an actual in-lore teleporter, and what the game mechanics actually do, which is teleporting to anywhere from anywhere with no penalty, no cost, no danger, no time, nothing, nada, you were over there, you are here, you are teleported, even if not lore-wise. You just shot that guy with heavy armor that you can't carry, don't worry. Just empty your inventory, pick that armor, teleport to the gun runners, sell the armor, teleport back to where you were, get back your inventory. They brag about the open-world, but the distance means nothing, nada, zero. It takes the very same amount of nothingness to go from Primm to Godspring than to go from Primm to the Boomers.

But we aren't here to bash the game. There is another thread for that.
 
Last edited:
H3rw00d1 said:
Once again, YouTube comments aren't proof, anyone can say anything there and most of the time it's nonsense. And of course people on Bethesda's forum are going to praise them on things. There're Bethesda-Sympathetic the same way NMA is Black Isle-Sympathetic, GTA Forums is Rockstar-Sympathetic and Half-Life forums are Valve-Sympathetic.
Click to expand...
No... Black Ilse made many of the best RPGs ~ever~ made, but if they had stopped doing that, and began to make crap, I do not think they would have kept their supporters; their supporters supported them because they didn't make crap. Bethesda's supporters support them because they purposely make servile activity apps hell bent on player empowerment, and escapist simulation; utterly fantastic open world escapism with a high amount of talented attention to detail. This always take precedence over any accountability or potential disappointment; in essence, the game will not say "no" to the player, it will only risk saying "not yet". I don't think it matters if the game is crap, they will support them all the same for the interactive simulation of it. If Bethesda stopped making beautiful, servile, open worlds... that is what could damage their reputation with their fanbase.

Also notice some of those F3 fans who were praising Bethesda before? Yeah, some of them hate F3 now or atleast not enjoy it as much. At one point they were mindless Bethesda drones, now they enjoy Fallout 1 & 2. So are they driveling idiots who have no mind for their own? I mean they saw F1 & 2 and enjoyed it by their own intuition, surely someone who is a driveling idiot would have to be told to like them instead of saying, "Hey, these are pretty cool games, I like them more". The point is, it's ignorant to put all people into one catagory because of some idiots.
Click to expand...
This is true. There have even been staunch supporters of Bethesda's FO3, that later played the earlier series, and posted public apologies about their previous opinion and comments.
 
Last edited:
Gizmojunk said:
This is true. There have even been staunch supporters of Bethesda's FO3, that later played the earlier series, and posted public apologies about their previous opinion and comments.
Click to expand...

There is absolutly no need to apologize for loving Fo3.
Sometime, there are Fo3 that stepping some dangerous lines (same for Fo3 haters), and they deserve to be called for it, with no shame. But loving Fo3 ? Or defending the things it does well ? I don't see any issue with it.
In the end, we are discussing, we won't win/lose anything.
 
naossano said:
You need to make the difference between an actual in-lore teleporter, and what the game mechanics actually do, which is teleporting to anywhere from anywhere with no penalty, no cost, no danger, no time, nothing, nada, you were over there, you are here, you are teleported, even if not lore-wise. You just shot that guy with heavy armor that you can't carry, don't worry. Just empty your inventory, pick that armor, teleport to the gun runners, sell the armor, teleport back to where you were, get back your inventory. They brag about the open-world, but the distance means nothing, nada, zero. It takes the very same amount of nothingness to go from Primm to Godspring than to go from Primm to the Boomers.

But we aren't here to bash the game. There is another thread for that.
Click to expand...

Actually in hardcore mode your needs increase during fast travel as if you were moving like normal, you also can't fast travel when overencumbered, in the middle of combat or when you have a crippled leg.
 
Last edited:
It's a real shame none of these features were in the standard mode for either game. At least Hardcore made it into NV.
 
Honestly?

Because it's a good game. Not a perfect game- no game is- but a solid game. Good exploration, good art design, unique enemies, vast world. Why else?
 
Wumbology said:
Honestly?

Because it's a good game. Not a perfect game- no game is- but a solid game. Good exploration, good art design, unique enemies, vast world. Why else?
Click to expand...
Now, most of these points are true from a certain perspective, even if "good" and "solid" are giving it a bit too much credit, but the art design... kind of sucks. The game's sense of anatomy is horrifying. The Enclave look like Storm Troopers and so does the BoS. The exploration is okay, but the wastes are pretty samey, towns are poorly placed and the metros are really poorly designed (and samey). Those unique enemies weren't made by Bethesda though, and the Super Mutants are effectively orcs with guns and the raiders... well I won't go into that. Otherwise yeah, this is good.

Of course, those things are what the more sane fans of FO3 compliment which is more or less what this thread is about, so bonus points for being 100% on topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top