The writing in this is really bad. Is it only popular because it was the first 3D-Fallout?
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
The writing in this is really bad. Is it only popular because it was the first 3D-Fallout?
Yes, but don't forget that this game came out a long time ago. At that time it was... Well... Tolerable? I liked Fallout 3 compared to Fallout 1 and 2, where evil deeds were fiercely condemned. In Fallout 3 I could be a serial killer, a slave trader, an edgelord. In Fallout 1-2 this is more difficult due to the combat system and serious penalties. An elite death squad is hunting for the child killer. Why do people even care?
And Fallout 3 wasn't really popular. Many criticized it even before Vegas.
you're a fricking moron. fallout 3 was praised for its writing and was incredibly popular. autistic homosexual.
Todd, get over it. You won't get GoTY again.
>fallout 3 was praised for its writing
Zoomer revisionism.
>And Fallout 3 wasn't really popular. Many criticized it even before Vegas.
Look it’s OK to be upset about new Vegas not getting nearly as much attention but there’s no need to fricking lie especially when fallout three was the game that put fallout back on the map and fall Vegas sold like oily rags to people on fire because with a subtitle like new Vegas most people probably thought it was a fricking spin off
>Yes, but don't forget that this game came out a long time ago.
That would be a valid excuse for bad graphics or any other technical limitation of the time, but... for writing?
i think they mean the novelty of the 3d engine and open world and all that made up for it
I like it more than fallout 2 and new vegas. The gameplay is fun and the world is way better to explore than new vegas. i ignore the main quest and oasis
I like the exploration in Fallout 3. Yes, the subways are procedurally generated, lack of NPCs, quests and content. But back then, I liked to carry all the garbage from the area and put it on shelves in Tenpenny Tower. Now many of these elements do not stand up to criticism, but then it was novelty. And to be honest, not all games preserve these features. In many games, physics does not allow you to manipulate even small objects and everything seems to be nailed to the floor.
I think it still lives up. I still play fallout 3 to this day, new vegas gets way more praise now but its just not fun at all once you exhaust the narrative stuff. I only ran into an invisible wall once in fallout 3 and easily got around it. Fricking 80% of travel time in new vegas is spent circumnavigating utter bullshit anti-player terrain, and dont even get me started on the maze-like design of interiors that just makes it miserable because the pip boy map wasnt designed to handle that
I doubt. Till this day, I can't play Broken Hills normally. I could never get this DLC to run properly, no matter with or without mods. I had to use cheats to get control back and teleport to the Citadel, from where go to the hospital bed to THEN start the DLC
Although playing as a villain is more interesting than in previous games, there is still not enough content for evil playthrough. Partly because the Brotherhood of Steel and the City of Children is mandatory
oh i dont play DLC at all so i wouldnt know
Fricking dementia. I mean, Broken Steel.
Why so?
>Why so
Just preference. I dont like that approach to DLC of little meaningless side episodes that just give broken gear and not much else. And I dont play broken steel because I think the main quest sucks total ass and i avoid all that stuff like that plague.
>Yes, the subways are procedurally generated,
They aren't actually, they just feel like it because of the lack of unique assets in them
>Lack of NPCs, quests and content
Well back in 2008 it was a big game still. Console games back then were short, Fallout 3 wasn't seen as giant, but still big for its day.
Nowadays it does seem quite small. Which I don't mind, there's enough games and not enough time, it's alright if a game is the length it is
>pur your shit in shelves
>come back home later
>it's all exploded everywhere on the floor
Stop lying
I didn't say that this didn't happen. Fallout 3 was and remains a buggy. Fallout New Vegas are still buggy too. If a creature is within arm's length of the player, it is shown with its muzzle buried in the ground.
P.S. In the first years of playing Fallout 3, I couldn't furnish the house in Tenpenny Tower because the woman who sold decorative items went to Springfield for no reason.
>you're a fricking moron. fallout 3 was praised for its writing and was incredibly popular. autistic homosexual.
Lol, never. Maybe in America, but you're used to Hollywood plots with Liam Nilson
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_British_Academy_Games_Awards
>After its release, Fallout 3 won numerous awards from gaming journalists and websites. At the 2009 Game Developers Choice Awards, it won overall Game of the Year along with Best Writing.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Developers_Choice_Awards
fallout 3 won best narrative (noted as writing) and game of the year.
the game was celebrated when it was released.
>muh incestuous awards
The emperor has had no clothes for decades in this industry. Yet wienersuckers like you still unironically make arguments like this. You are the blackest moronic gorilla Black person ever in existence.
the argument i made is that the writing was celebrated, and then i provided evidence. i didn't say whether the celebration was merited or endorse any particular organization, moron. you using that gif is an insult to terry, because you're a fricking idiot.
NTA but wow you're pedantic. You're a total weasel of a person.
>dude just let people misrepresent what you say and shit on you
you're a homosexual and also a moron.
i'm not backpedaling or spinelessly copping out. the game was celebrated for its writing and it was immensely popular. that's historically true. just because some contrarians and haters cry about it doesn't change it, and me pointing it out then providing historical evidence doesn't make me whatever you want to pretend i am to support your ignorant hateful moronation.
Buddy if you need to explicitly say 3 times to 3 different people that you're not a weasel you might just be one. You are at the very least, a total smart aleck.
>i'm a homosexual
homosexual
>No u
LOL
>muh reddit
I've probably been on this site since before you graduated high-school. This is a given you are underageb8 due to your most evident severe lack of being able to properly argue your position.
there's no argument. there's historical evidence of something being true, which i provided, and you can't refute it, so you're cringing like a sperg.
>muh historical evidence(aka shills sucking off todd)
You aren't fooling anyone. You would have never started this specific line of conversation if what I implied wasn't part of your argument or intent. We were talking about the quality of the writing and you cited that as an endorsement. Don't pretend you didn't because we were never talking about historicity.
>my delusional schizo babble is reality
meds now redditor
>projecting this hard
>thinking calling someone reddit will make him fit in
>unironically using schizo/take meds as an insult(this is astroturfed meme slang by discord troony raiders)
Nothing I'm saying is schitzo babble unless you have an iq in the double digits. Anyone can follow this reply line and understand full well what I'm talking about. Even your pathetic methods of damage control are juvenile.
>i-i'm not reddit y-your reddit
That is basically your reply, except I never actually called you reddit. You immediately jumped the gun because you are a nervous bastard who sticks put like a sore thumb here. Calling me "reddit" with no actual merit to the accusation will never make up for the fact that all your posts thus far have been abhorrent.
>Don't pretend you didn't because we were never talking about historicity.
>Is it only popular because it was the first 3D-Fallout?
lmao moron
You should re read the thread before commenting stupid shit like this. The guy in question was not replying to the OP but someone else, this is when he brought it up.
Not to mention that accolades for games aren't indicative of anything, the people who give them out don't even play games(let alone the ones they exalt). Games only gain these awards after the fact, if their sales numbers are good or if the corporate overseeing the studio pays for their endorsement.
>you should read the thread
the very first post i replied to:
>Yes, but don't forget that this game came out a long time ago. At that time it was... Well... Tolerable?
>And Fallout 3 wasn't really popular.
fallout 3's writing was praised, and the game was immensely popular.
the second post i replied to:
>Lol, never. Maybe in America, but you're used to Hollywood plots with Liam Nilson
maybe in america, huh? well, let's see if anybody not in america celebrated the writing.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_British_Academy_Games_Awards
nominated best game & best writing
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Developers_Choice_Awards
awarded best writing. maybe you should read the thread, moron.
>Not to mention that accolades for games aren't indicative of anything, the people who give them out don't even play games(let alone the ones they exalt). Games only gain these awards after the fact, if their sales numbers are good or if the corporate overseeing the studio pays for their endorsement.
totally irrelevant to whether the game was celebrated or whether it was popular.
>more delusion
yawn
>totally irrelevant to whether the game was celebrated or whether it was popular
Lol
>Purports that these awards indicate that they are popular and celebrated
>I remind him that they are fundamentally meaningless fake trophies bought and paid for, half the time
>acshualy dis don mattah
i didn't purport that these awards indicate that they are popular. i provided factual historical evidence that the writing was celebrated outside of the united states. whether or not an awards ceremony is legitimate or whatever is irrelevant to whether or not the game was celebrated or popular. firstly, the game is inherently celebrated by virtue of receiving awards at awards ceremony. secondly, popularity is a measure of how well something is received by the masses. awards ceremonies aren't necessarily representations of popularity, and i didn't once claim they are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_in_video_games
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallout_3#Sales
>but the issue with you is that you think this has any bearing on its actual contents
i don't think that. you're just saying i think that.
>The awards are in no way indicative that actual content was good
they're indicative that the writing was celebrated, and, more specifically, that the writing was celebrated by people outside of the united states.
>and i didn't once claim they are.
You litterally said five seconds ago that you were replying to the other guys claim of FO3 not being popular and you did so by citing awards.
>You litterally said five seconds ago that you were replying to the other guys claim of FO3 not being popular and you did so by citing awards.
no i didn't, i said:
the second post i replied to:
>Lol, never. Maybe in America, but you're used to Hollywood plots with Liam Nilson
maybe in america, huh? well, let's see if anybody not in america celebrated the writing.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_British_Academy_Games_Awards
nominated best game & best writing
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Developers_Choice_Awards
awarded best writing. maybe you should read the thread, moron.
Fallout 3 was popular at the time, in the sense that it sold a lot of copies. So that guy is wrong, but the issue with you is that you think this has any bearing on its actual contents. The type of popularity he is talking about is fundamentally different from what you are talking about(sales numbers, marketing, media coverage disguised as awards). The awards are in no way indicative that actual content was good. Nor was the ammount of copies sold indicative of the actual popularity(quality wise) after they had played the game. Awards are always ex post facto stuff regardless.
>ignorant hateful moronation
>Award mongers are everyone
>Circa 200X game journos are everyone
You are the idiot backpedaling lol and no one is falling for your spineless cop out. Now you're saying this because you realized how dumb you sounded before.
Terry would be proud of me, say Black person ten times and I might reconsider.
Actually one of the slimiest posts I've read all day. You can't stand behind something you said 5 minutes ago without wriggling.
i did stand behind it, and i provided evidence. you can speak objectively about history and compartmentalize that from personal opinions, moron.
I'm with this anon, it's important to remember how insanely up Bethesda's ass the whole industry was back then. Something as obvious as the fact that the f3 mq is written terribly was not said anywhere remotely mainstream
People gleefully mocking Bethesda since fo4 for failing by continuing to be Bethesda is backlash for that era
If you wonder why that is: from an industry standpoint Bethesda was a weird east coast independent (as in, not a subsidiary of a public corporation) developer-publisher that just admirably kept making the kind of games they were good at making. Also the Hollywood actor role cheese always impressed game journalists back then because it made them feel less embarrassed about their job
>fallout 3 won best narrative (noted as writing) and game of the year.
I was talking about the audience's opinion, not the shills' opinion. Gosh, should I really spell that out?
ok? and? fallout 3 was celebrated for its writing, whether you want to pretend it wasn't or not, but just to play along with your stupidity, fallout 3 was also celebrated by 'the audience' (i guess game journalists and industry developers who played the game aren't part of the audience?).
fallout 3 had virtually 0 negative reviews until 2014, and a majority of the negatives for many years afterward were related to compatibility with modern operating systems, not the game experience.
idk if you're the kind of person to exercise enough good faith to accept reasonable anecdote, but there was a ton of hype for fallout 3 before and after its release. i had conversations with people about how cool the emergence from the vault was. people still make tunnel snakes jokes online. i recently saw tunnel israelites. i put at least 60 hours into the game (probably more) on 360. it's the only bethesda game i've ever finished. people talked about it positively all the time, and the people who disregarded it weren't hating on it. the hate came later, which is sad, because fallout 3 in good for what it is.
the game is getting a show on amazon prime, and people are going to watch at least the first episode to see whether they fumble it. you're insane if you think that's because of fallout, fallout 2, new vegas, fallout 4, or fallout 76.
the pic is all the positive reviews. you can check the entire steam history of reviews to see how well-received it was for years until technical issues started happening. you can read the reviews to see just how great people thought the game was at the time. you can also look for old forums, but i'm not feeling autistic enough to do that for you tonight.
You are starting from the false premise that "The game is not reviewedbombed, therefore universally loved." Even if I agree with you for the sake of argument, this does not mean that all people who love the game love the plot and writing... Or condisder it good. After all, the original dispute is about writing.
When I was a teenager, my acquaintance said that I played Fallout 1-2, and noted that the story was better there. On the forum, many also suggested playing Fallout 1 and 2, praising the old games and claiming that “There you can even drink with NPCs!” Many people talked about talking death claws, the ability to kill children, act in porn, and so on. Largely due to PR by oldgays of the series, I played the previous games.
I will also note that now, my friend is a fan of anime and manga, but notes that the story sucks and he reads/watches it for other purposes. Same goes to Fallout 3 - many on vrpg note that they play for the sake of exploration... But not for the sake of the plot. He sucks. Deal with it.
>The game is not reviewedbombed, therefore universally loved.
that's not my false premise, that's your strawman (which i think is unintentional, because you're just dumb). what i said is that the game was celebrated for its writing, and i provided historical evidence that it was. i also said that the game was popular. i then provided evidence showing extremely positive reviews from when it was released. i provided anecdotal evidence of wide experiences. you provide anecdotal evidence of narrow experiences. you also supply a false premise while wrongly calling others' false: that the positive reviews from the public (many tens of thousands of reviews over decades) are equivalent to a 'review bomb'.
>Fallout in the style of Fallout 4/76. Fallout 3 came out in 2008 and for the normie brain it’s like 100 years ago.
whether the show uses attributes of any of the fallout games is irrelevant to why fallout has the cultural relevance to have a show at all. fallout 3 made fallout popular. before fallout 3, console players didn't even know the series existed. the point is that the show isn't a result of the cultural impact fallout, fallout 2, fallout 4, and fallout 76 had on the world. it's a result of the cultural impact from fallout 3.
>I will also note that everything you mentioned has nothing to do with writing. You are starting from false premises.
i'm not starting out from any false premises. in the threads where i provide evidence for the writing being celebrated i provided direct evidence of the writing being celebrated. that's the opposite of a false premise.
>I don't understand what you are trying to prove.
i know. you keep demonstrating that in all of your replies to me. just because you don't understand it doesn't mean its wrong. what you think is wrong are the ideas you have about what i'm saying. of course those are wrong, they're your ideas lol.
>i provide evidence for the writing being celebrated
The reviews don't reflect this. I would understand if you gave an example of screenshots from a review where people directly write “OMG WRITING IS JUST BEYONG MY IMAGINATION!” But that did not happen. Although, even if I did this, it would be stupid. People praise Marvel writing, but it's still shit
>The reviews don't reflect this.
the reviews do reflect that. you can filter steam reviews by date and positive to prove it to yourself, if you're inclined to the truth. even modern positive reviews praise the game and talk about how to resolve technical issues to help people.
You are either a troll or insane. This guy doesn't talk about writing, he just praises the game. If you think the phrase “the best RPG” (whatever this guy puts into the word RPG) is an indicator of good writing, then indie-shit like Undertale is also great rpg with great writing, because normies love that shit too.
>Although, even if I did this, it would be stupid. People praise Marvel writing, but it's still shit
i don't care whether people praise marvel writing or fallout 3 writing. maybe some people think it's good, maybe some people think it's bad. whether it's good or bad has no bearing on whether or not people praise and celebrate its writing. people did when it came out. it was incredibly popular.
>people did when it came out. it was incredibly popular.
But I, a former Bethesda apologist, did not see this. Ri-ight. Why didn’t any of the millions of fans of this “mega-popular game” cover my back in Internet disputes? Fallout 3 never had a grassroot support at the level of Fallout 1 and 2
I will also note that fans of shooters noted shitty shooting in Fallout 3, like always.
>you also supply a false premise while wrongly calling others' false: that the positive reviews from the public (many tens of thousands of reviews over decades) are equivalent to a 'review bomb'.
i misread what you said. you said:
>You are starting from the false premise that "The game is not reviewedbombed, therefore universally loved."
anyway, that's not any premise of mine. my premise is that there are tens of thousands of positive reviews on steam, and that until 2014 the game was almost totally positively reviewed on steam, at which time people started complaining about technical issues on then-modern operating systems.
the relevance of that is that somebody said they were talking about the 'audience' of the game praising it. the point was to make a distinction between the evidence i provided of journalists and game developers celebrating it. so i provided evidence of the public universally praising and celebrating it for 6 years, until technical problems started popping up.
that's irrelevant to whether or not the game actually has good writing, or whatever else. the game was (and still is) praised and celebrated, including for its writing.
>fallout 3 made fallout popular
You don't know the meaning of the word "popular". Billie Eilish is popular because her songs are known to normies of different generations. The Beatles are famous, but not popular, because their songs are remembered only by the old generation. Same goes to Fallout.
After Fallout 3, people started talking about the series again, but Fallout 3 is not popular, so there are far fewer mods for it than for Fallout New Vegas. Fallout 4 has become popular among normies, but also infamous for terrible writing, lack of choice, etc. If Bethesda had good writing, people wouldn't still be arguing about what the Institute's motivation is, because it's too vague.
But you just dismiss everything that doesn’t fit into your narrow vision of the world and start inventing a narrative that Fallout 3 has always been a favorite game and that it is still popular. However, as an independent game outside of Tales of Two Wasteland, it is of little interest to anyone.
>that's irrelevant to whether or not the game actually has good writing, or whatever else. the game was (and still is) praised and celebrated, including for its writing.
People love porn. So that mean they love writing in porn?
>You don't know the meaning of the word "popular".
whether or not fallout 3 is now popular has nothing to do with whether or not it was popular then. fallout 3 was popular. everybody who played video games knew about it. people who didn't play video games knew about it. also, people of multiple generations know and knew about fallout 3.
>People love porn. So that mean they love writing in porn?
i haven't said that people love the writing in fallout 3 because they love fallout 3. i've said that people celebrated the writing in fallout 3, and then provided factual historical evidence of the writing in fallout 3 being celebrated.
>You are either a troll or insane. This guy doesn't talk about writing, he just praises the game.
i didn't say he talks about writing, and i didn't post the image to make a point about writing. i just posted the very first review that pops up on steam when you filter it to dates before 2014. but you're just plain wrong about the review. the guy praises the story and characters.
>i just posted the very first review that pops up on steam when you filter it to dates before 2014. but you're just plain wrong about the review. the guy praises the story and characters.
He doesn't mention the writing or the characters. You or straight up lying or just delusional
>fallout 3 was popular. everybody who played video games knew about it.
Shooter fans even back then didn't like this game because of the shooting, which was (and still is) crap. I will also note that Stalker was a notable competitor for Fallout 3, at least in post-Soviet countries.
>He doesn't mention the writing or the characters.
he literally praises the immersive story and interesting characters:
>create an enormous open world with an immersive story and interesting characters
>WHEN? And most importantly - for what?
i don't understand this question.
>Did you know that writing is? "Find your dad" is Fallout 3 writing and even then people commented on how lame it is.
this isn't about what i think writing is. this is about people praising and celebrating the game for its writing. your opinions are irrelevant to that. i don't care if you think fallout 3 writing is good or bad. even if we agreed about it, you're still a dumbass.
>interesting characters:
Interesting mean well written?
>i don't understand this question.
Where are examples of good writing in fallout 3? People don't bring them because there is none
>this is about people praising and celebrating the game for its writing
People have never praised Fallout 3 for writing. YOUR opinion is irrelevant, so you are alone on an anonymous forum pushing that delusional narrative about "good writing" in game, that notoriously known for shitty writing
>Interesting mean well written?
if you want to pilpul about whether a positive review about an immersive story with interesting characters means the characters were interesting because he thought they were well written or because they were whacky and zany, that's your choice. it doesn't change the reality that the game was praised and celebrated for being well-written.
>Where are examples of good writing in fallout 3? People don't bring them because there is none
they're all over the place. you can put the work in to prove it. it's easy, just search for 'fallout 3 steam' on google, then filter the reviews by positive and read them, or ctrl+f in your browser and search for story, writing, characters, etc.
>People have never praised Fallout 3 for writing.
yes, they have. i've provided proof multiple times.
>YOUR opinion is irrelevant, so you are alone on an anonymous forum pushing that delusional narrative about "good writing" in game, that notoriously known for shitty writing
i haven't shared an opinion about the quality of fallout 3's writing in this thread. it is irrelevant.
>yes, they have. i've provided proof multiple times.
No, you showed statistics from steam and a random review. That's says NOTHING about WRITING
> it doesn't change the reality that the game was praised and celebrated for being well-written.
People shit on game for Megaton, Little Lamplight, the inability to play for the Enclave, the absurd death of the father and his presence back then, people do the same thing now. Nothing change. It’s just that apologists like you appeared or don’t remember how bad Fallout 3 was or like to pretend. People like you make "Fallout 3 wasn't as bad as you think" videos that are three hours long.
>i haven't shared an opinion about the quality of fallout 3's writing in this thread. it is irrelevant.
"The high score for a game means a high quality of writing” is YOUR OPINION
>No, you showed statistics from steam and a random review. That's says NOTHING about WRITING
i haven't said fallout 3 writing is good. i've said that people praised and celebrated it. they did, and still do.
>People shit on game for Megaton, Little Lamplight, the inability to play for the Enclave, the absurd death of the father and his presence back then, people do the same thing now. Nothing change. It’s just that apologists like you appeared or don’t remember how bad Fallout 3 was or like to pretend. People like you make "Fallout 3 wasn't as bad as you think" videos that are three hours long.
okay, people shit on fallout 3. that doesn't change the reality that it was praised and celebrated for its writing.
>"The high score for a game means a high quality of writing” is YOUR OPINION
no it's not. that's what you're saying my opinion is. i haven't said fallout 3 writing is good or bad. i've just said it was praised and celebrated for its writing. it was. i provided factual historical evidence of that.
>i've just said it was praised and celebrated for its writing
This is a simulacrum. This is not reality, but a picture of reality. You see a picture with statistics from Steam and think that it reflects reality. But this is just a review from people who bought the game on Steam. We will not hear the opinions of those who did not buy the game, because only those who bought it can leave a review.
I played Fallout 3 since I was a teen and saw a reality that is different from your simulacrum. No one has ever talked about good writing in Fallout 3... And even more so, no one has PRAISE IT. It's shit, this is crap at the level of a b-tier action movie, which even in those years went out of fashion. People love open world and exploration... But they don't love the STORIES of these games. Therefore, many people played Assasins Creed, but not many finished the game. Me included.
What is indicative for you is not indicative for sane people
>We will not hear the opinions of those who did not buy the game, because only those who bought it can leave a review.
the opinions of those who did not buy the game are irrelevant to whether or not the game was praised and celebrated, lol. it was. i've provided factual historical evidence of that. i haven't said there aren't people who didn't like the game or don't like the game or anything else like that.
>I played Fallout 3 since I was a teen and saw a reality that is different from your simulacrum.
that's not 'my simulacrum', that's factual history. idc about your opinion about fallout 3, and it's irrelevant to whether or not people praised and celebrated the game (they did).
>Who cares? Rewards are often given undeservedly
okay, rewards are often given undeservedly. so what? whether it's deserved or not, fallout 3 was praised and celebrated for its writing.
>An interesting character is not necessarily well written.
like i said, you can pilpul about whether or not the guy saying it's the greatest game ever did or didn't mean 'interesting characters' implies that they're well-written. it doesn't change the reality that the game was praised and celebrated for its writing.
>Who cares? Reviews for many shitty games are positive, because negative people often tune off instantly and don't stay with the product they don't like.
whether or not many shitty games have good reviews is irrelevant to historical fact that fallout 3 was praised and celebrated for its writing.
>And I don’t know why yours is anally fixed to 2014.
because the original post i replied to said:
>Yes, but don't forget that this game came out a long time ago. At that time it was... Well... Tolerable?
and:
>And Fallout 3 wasn't really popular.
and i pointed out that the reviews for fallout 3 on steam were overwhelmingly positive until new operating systems came out and people started having technical issues with the game.
>Where are examples of good writing in fallout 3? People don't bring them because there is none
misread this. it's not my obligation to show examples of good writing in fallout 3. i don't care if the writing is good or not in fallout 3. all i said is that it was praised and celebrated for its writing, and i provided factual historical proof of that.
>. it's not my obligation to show examples of good writing in fallout 3.
Your obligation is to show people who show examples. Without this, you're just an empty talker
> and celebrated for its writing, and i provided factual historical proof of that.
This is not historical proof, this is a review from Steam. They are not indicative.
>Your obligation is to show people who show examples.
i did. i showed multiple nominations it received for writing, and i even showed a review praising the game's story and characters. you can read the steam reviews for yourself. just because i don't document every one doesn't mean they don't exist.
>This is not historical proof, this is a review from Steam. They are not indicative.
yes it is, and yes they are. the steam reviews for fallout 3 were overwhelmingly positive until 2014, when technical issues of then-new operating systems came up. even those negative reviews frequently describe the game being good, but technical issues being a problem.
>i did. i showed multiple nominations it received for writing
Who cares? Rewards are often given undeservedly
>and i even showed a review praising the game's story and characters.
An interesting character is not necessarily well written. People like Alistair Tenpenny because "he do wacky shit", but no one praises the creative and story-driven decision to bring a man from England to DC. Because it's fricking stupid.
>yes it is, and yes they are. the steam reviews for fallout 3 were overwhelmingly positive until 2014
Who cares? Reviews for many shitty games are positive, because negative people often tune off instantly and don't stay with the product they don't like.
And I don’t know why yours is anally fixed to 2014. Vegas came out much earlier and even before the release of this game, people were waiting for this game with warmth in their hearts and shitting on Bethesda shitty writing. Some of the fanatics even pray to Vegas simply because it is not made by Bethesda, and they are only the publisher.
>Vegas came out much earlier and even before the release of this game, people were waiting for this game with warmth in their hearts and shitting on Bethesda shitty writing.
okay, people were awaiting new vegas with warmth and shitting bethesda's shitty writing. that doesn't change the reality that fallout 3 was praised and celebrated for its writing.
You have no counter-arguments other than shill awards and reviews, which can only be left by those who bought the game on Steam. You are simply presenting your point of view as truth because “I have a statistic!”, and it doesn’t matter that these stats are not indicative in terms of writing.
>and i pointed out that the reviews for fallout 3 on steam were overwhelmingly positive
And? Many bad games with bad storytelling have positive reviews and genuine fans. That doesn't make them good. Hazbin Hotel has bad writing, which is ridiculed even by the audience. Still popular. Prequels of Star Wars hated, but popular.
But Fallout 3 is old game, that have no relevancy today. The fact that I'm the only one arguing with you confirms this. If this game were relevant, this controversy would attract more attention. But no one cares. Because Fallout 3 is not a popular game with shitty writing. Therefore, people both in the West and in the East in different years celebrated the city on the bomb, the city of children and other idiotic moments. Because we don't agree on many things, but we agree on some. For example, Fallout 3 is bad.
>You are simply presenting your point of view as truth because “I have a statistic!”, and it doesn’t matter that these stats are not indicative in terms of writing.
my pov is that fallout 3 was praised and celebrated for its writing. i provided evidence that fallout 3 was praised and celebrated for its writing. is there some other way i am supposed to prove that fallout 3 was praised and celebrated for its writing?
>And? Many bad games with bad storytelling have positive reviews and genuine fans.
bad games with bad storytelling having positive reviews and genuine fans has nothing to do with the historical fact that fallout 3 was praised and celebrated for its writing. fallout 3 could have good or bad writing. i don't know or care. what i do know is that fallout 3 was praised and celebrated for its writing, and that's what i provided factual historical evidence of.
>But Fallout 3 is old game, that have no relevancy today.
whether or not fallout 3 is an old game and has no relevancy today is irrelevant to the historical fact that fallout 3 was praised and celebrated for its writing. i provided multiple forms of evidence of that. if you think fallout 3 is shitty and has shitty writing, that's fine. you can think whatever you want, and i don't care.
>i provided evidence that fallout 3 was praised and celebrated for its writing
No, you're just reusing the same argument. "Look at industry awards!" - this is not an indicator. Bethesda is part of the industry and no one from among “their own” wants to quarrel with it.
"Look at the positive reviews!" - you talk about different reviews as if they are saying the same thing. This is not true.
"Anything turn shit after 2014!" - no, it's not. The complaints about fallout 3 have not changed over the years. The only difference is that with the popularization of modding, more people learned that the train in Fallout 3 - Broken Steel is actually a hat.
You talk about different reviews as if they are saying the same thing. This is not true. It can't be metric for writing just because "they are postive!" But Kotor 1 and 2 came out long before Fallout 3 and have much better writing and rpg-elemets. For this reason alone, you are factually and historically wrong. People also remember examples of Fallout 1-2 writing.
>No, you're just reusing the same argument. "Look at industry awards!" - this is not an indicator.
yes, it is. it's praise and celebration of fallout 3's writing.
>"Look at the positive reviews!" - you talk about different reviews as if they are saying the same thing. This is not true.
no, i don't. i showed multiple reviews that praise and celebrate fallout 3's writing.
>"Anything turn shit after 2014!" - no, it's not. The complaints about fallout 3 have not changed over the years. The only difference is that with the popularization of modding, more people learned that the train in Fallout 3 - Broken Steel is actually a hat.
i didn't say anything turns to shit after 2014. i said that fallout 3 got overwhelmingly positive reviews until 2014, when people started to leave negative reviews because of technical issues related to new operating systems.
>You talk about different reviews as if they are saying the same thing. This is not true. It can't be metric for writing just because "they are postive!"
no, i don't. i said fallout 3 was praised and celebrated for its writing, and then provided factual historical evidence demonstrating that it's true. there may be people who disagree, or agree, or don't care, and that doesn't change the historical fact that people praised and celebrated fallout 3 for its writing.
>It can't be metric for writing just because "they are postive!"
there are thousands of reviews that praise and celebrate the writing. i provided multiple examples.
>But Kotor 1 and 2 came out long before Fallout 3 and have much better writing and rpg-elemets. For this reason alone, you are factually and historically wrong.
just because your opinion that some game has better writing than fallout 3 doesn't change the reality that fallout 3 was praised and celebrated for its writing.
>People also remember examples of Fallout 1-2 writing.
another game's quality of writing is irrelevant to the fact that fallout 3 was praised and celebrated for its writing.
>yes, it is. it's praise and celebration of fallout 3's writing.
This is the opinion of an industry whose goal is not quality, but to sell more games. Shill opinion doesn't count
>no, i don't. i showed multiple reviews that praise and celebrate fallout 3's writing.
Good character and even story are not necessarily an indicator of good WRITING. Just because people like Moira Brown, for example, doesn't mean she's a well written character.
>i didn't say anything turns to shit after 2014.
It was a figure of speech. Don't be picky about words.
>until 2014, when people started to leave negative reviews because of technical issues related to new operating systems.
Fallout 3 has always been a buggy game. Broken Steel is unplayable on my old, crappy PC and on my new, powerful PC.
>no, i don't. i said fallout 3 was praised and celebrated for its writing, and then provided factual historical evidence demonstrating that it's true.
Undertale and FNAF have a lot of positive reviews and fans of the game as well as normies think that this one has good writing. But people outside the fandom see that this is crap.
You counting only the opinion of fans, fanatical ones at that. But it's not just Fallout 3 that has fanatical fans. This is not an indicator.
>there are thousands of reviews that praise and celebrate the writing. i provided multiple examples.
They don't talk about writing, you just assume that.
>just because your opinion that some game has better writing
This is the opinion of people who talk about the STORY of these games till this day. The story of Fallout 3 has always been considered crap.
>another game's quality of writing is irrelevant to the fact that fallout 3 was praised and celebrated for its writing.
This is relevant because people have always said that F2 > F3 in terms of WRITING. Why you so blindly deny it?
>This is the opinion of an industry whose goal is not quality, but to sell more games. Shill opinion doesn't count
so journalist, game developer, and players praising and celebrating the writing don't count as the writing being praised and celebrated?
>Good character and even story are not necessarily an indicator of good WRITING.
yes, they are.
>It was a figure of speech. Don't be picky about words.
i'm not being picky. you misrepresented what i've said, and i corrected you.
>Undertale and FNAF have a lot of positive reviews and fans of the game as well as normies think that this one has good writing.
whether you agree with them or not doesn't change that people praise and celebrate their writing.
>You counting only the opinion of fans, fanatical ones at that. But it's not just Fallout 3 that has fanatical fans. This is not an indicator.
read carefully: i said that fallout 3 was praised for its writing, and then i provided evidence of journalists, game developers, and players praising fallout 3 for its writing. i didn't say fallout 3 writing is good. i didn't say fallout 3 writing is bad. whether or not people are right or wrong about the writing is irrelevant to the factual history of people praising fallout 3 for its writing.
>They don't talk about writing, you just assume that.
you can pilpul about what people mean when they say 'amazing story' or 'great characters'. maybe you're right, maybe the thousands of reviews that describe the immersive and great story of fallout 3 aren't talking about the writing, they're talking about something else that goes into creating stories. what on earth are they talking about when they praise the dialog choices and character development?
>This is the opinion of people who talk about the STORY of these games till this day. The story of Fallout 3 has always been considered crap.
fallout 3's story has been criticized, and people think it's shit, that's true. people have also praised and celebrated its writing, too.
>so journalist, game developer, and players praising and celebrating the writing don't count as the writing being praised and celebrated?
Yes, because it's their job! Are you naive or just troll?
>i didn't say anything about fallout 2's writing being better than fallout 3's,
But imply that and many other things indirectly
>Yes, because it's their job! Are you naive or just troll?
just because something is somebody's job doesn't mean they can't praise and celebrate something for its writing.
>But imply that and many other things indirectly
i didn't imply anything. i've done that opposite of imply. i've been very clear and repetitive about what i'm saying, and i've corrected the many times you and others have said i'm saying something that i'm not. you're arguing with your imagination. i haven't said what you think i said. you're insane.
>just because something is somebody's job doesn't mean they can't praise and celebrate something for its writing.
I talked about grassroots, not mainstream mediamachine or fanboys
>I talked about grassroots, not mainstream mediamachine or fanboys
and i provided demonstrations of players' reviews on steam praising fallout 3's writing.
>and i provided demonstrations of players' reviews on steam praising fallout 3's writing.
Judging by the expressions in some reviews, they were written by fanatical fanboys. Can their opinion be considered objective if they praise anything if they love it?
But even if we take the opinion of positively minded and neutral people, none of them wrote “The main story is well written.” The only story within Fallout 3 that received at least some prays was The Pitt. And that is largely because of the gray morality.
>Can their opinion be considered objective if they praise anything if they love it?
i didn't say anything about objective opinions or anything else. i said the game was praised and celebrated. it was. i provided evidence of that multiple times. whether or not somebody is biased is irrelevant to the game receiving praise and celebration. it did.
>But even if we take the opinion of positively minded and neutral people, none of them wrote “The main story is well written.” The only story within Fallout 3 that received at least some prays was The Pitt. And that is largely because of the gray morality.
okay, you have an opinion about the quality of the writing. your opinion doesn't change the reality that the game was praised and celebrated for its writing. it was. the pitt wasn't the only thing that was praised and celebrated.
Slow clap* Damn are you two determined. And you've both gone this long without resorting childish name calling. Didn't know that was still possible on this site.
>This is relevant because people have always said that F2 > F3 in terms of WRITING. Why you so blindly deny it?
i didn't say anything about fallout 2's writing being better than fallout 3's, or anything like that. it's totally irrelevant to the factual history of people praising and celebrating fallout 3's writing.
>Your logic is schizophrenic.
no, it's not. i haven't shared an opinion about the quality of fallout 3's writing. what i said is that its writing was praised and celebrated. it was. i also provided evidence of journalists, game developers, and players praising and celebrating its writing.
>Fallout 3 had great writing, but no one defended it online, everyone laughed at him and are still laughing.
i didn't say fallout 3 had great writing, and whether people defended it or whatever and did or didn't get laughed at is irrelevant.
>No one imitated the plot of Fallout 3, no one remembers James and his quest fot pure water... Outside of memes about finding dad.
BUT Fallout New Vegas is soooo insignificant, that even Bethesda add 4 ending in Fallout 4, just to compete with Vegas.
idk what any of this has to do with anything i said. i think you're just dumb and stupid. a really dangerous combination.
BTW - you're basically using arguments of prequel fans, that "Before 201x no one criticized prequels! Everything changed after it became a trend!"
>BTW - you're basically using arguments of prequel fans, that "Before 201x no one criticized prequels! Everything changed after it became a trend!"
no, i'm not.
>no, i'm not.
But you are! And you just deny that. You're basically gaslighting me by claiming that everyone loved and praised Fallout 3 and demanding that I prove the lack of prais for writing.
Fallout 3 writing sucked. Objectively sucked. Therefore, Bethesda walked back from the decision of kill the MC in the Purifier and gave the opportunity to play after the finale in the DLC. And even in the years when games with variety were rare, people noted how RAILROADED and ONE-SIDED story is. People criticized the inability to join Enclave back then and are doing so now.
If Fallout 3 had a superb writing, then this game would have imitators. But this did not happen, because Todd Howard imitated Stalker!
>But you are! And you just deny that. You're basically gaslighting me by claiming that everyone loved and praised Fallout 3 and demanding that I prove the lack of prais for writing.
no, i'm not. i haven't said that everyone loved and praised fallout 3, and i haven't demanded proof from you for anything. this is all happening in your head. you're arguing against your own imagination. i'm not gaslighting you, you're gaslighting yourself. it's called delusion.
>Fallout 3 writing sucked. Objectively sucked. Therefore, Bethesda walked back from the decision of kill the MC in the Purifier and gave the opportunity to play after the finale in the DLC. And even in the years when games with variety were rare, people noted how RAILROADED and ONE-SIDED story is. People criticized the inability to join Enclave back then and are doing so now.
okay. you say fallout 3's writing sucked. that doesn't change the fact that fallout 3 was praised and celebrated for its writing.
>If Fallout 3 had a superb writing, then this game would have imitators. But this did not happen, because Todd Howard imitated Stalker!
i didn't say fallout 3 has superb writing. i said fallout 3 was praised and celebrated for its writing, and i provided evidence that proved that.
>i didn't say fallout 3 has superb writing. i said fallout 3 was praised and celebrated for its writing, and i provided evidence that proved that.
Your logic is schizophrenic.
Fallout 3 had great writing, but no one defended it online, everyone laughed at him and are still laughing. No one imitated the plot of Fallout 3, no one remembers James and his quest fot pure water... Outside of memes about finding dad.
BUT Fallout New Vegas is soooo insignificant, that even Bethesda add 4 ending in Fallout 4, just to compete with Vegas.
>i've said that people celebrated the writing in fallout 3,
WHEN? And most importantly - for what?
> and then provided factual historical evidence of the writing in fallout 3 being celebrate
Did you know that writing is? "Find your dad" is Fallout 3 writing and even then people commented on how lame it is. The very idea of adding a sense of urgency in game about EXPLORING, is a bad. Let alone CITY OF CHILDREN and TOWN ON ATOMIC BOMB. Or CITY IN RUSTY SHIP.
>the game is getting a show on amazon prime, and people are going to watch at least the first episode to see whether they fumble it
Show takes place in California and is a mixed bag of general stereotypes about Fallout in the style of Fallout 4/76. Fallout 3 came out in 2008 and for the normie brain it’s like 100 years ago. You are either a troll who is trying to fuel thread, or a genially moronic.
>takes place in California
And it's supposedly canon with the games. This could be a half truth, as in "it's canon with the Bethesda developed games" because it's vague if they mean all the games, the mainline titles or some other combination. It could be that selected parts of Fallout 1, 2 and New Vegas will be ignored as needed.
We all know Bethesda doesn't like being beholden to something written 20 years ago.
>And it's supposedly canon with the games. This could be a half truth, as in "it's canon with the Bethesda developed games" because it's vague if they mean all the games, the mainline titles or some other combination. It could be that selected parts of Fallout 1, 2 and New Vegas will be ignored as needed.
We all know Bethesda doesn't like being beholden to something written 20 years ago.
I know. But they don't beholden even their own shit, so I can't discuss their "canon" seriously. They created the Brotherhood of Lyons as an idealized version of the Brotherhood from Tactics, but having met even SLICE amount of criticism, killed off Lyons and his daughter, brought back a descendant of Roger Maxson and made Brotherhoord is more "old school" (Although this is a simulacrum, a non-existent image, because the Brotherhood is in Fallout 1 basically just fought with super mutants, nothing more, and in the second part there was hardly a faction)
Therefore, I would not talk about Bethesda as a bold company, they are simply stupid and they will never get rid of nostalgia completely, because they rely on it and are not able to create anything themselves (Starfield is the ultimate confirmation of this)
Bethesda sucks in writing, it's just cold fact. Therefore, no one will copy their style. They don't even have their own style, they just copy clichés from Hollywood films, only put in on the old, shitty engine, not intended for intense action games.
I will also note that everything you mentioned has nothing to do with writing. You are starting from false premises. We can have a moronic show, that popular among the masses, we can have an unpopular show with good writing. This usually happens because normiecattle are dumb. I don't understand what you are trying to prove. What is "fallout 3 is actually good and you are all delusional"? Dude, I was a Fallout 3 apologist before it was mainstream. So I know what I'm talking about. I was alone in most of the arguments. Moreover, on normie-tier forums. People laughed at the city of children back then and they laugh now. Nothing changes
I will also note that Hollywood/mainstream is so lacking in ideas and originality that they make shows based on any crap. Popularity doesn't matter. "Jacob's Ladder" was one off that few people remember, but even that got a remake.
If it was ragebait, then be glad you got (YOU).
here's fallout 3 goty. same trend as fallout 3. almost totally positive reviews until technical issues started happening on then-modern operating systems.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Developers_Choice_Awards
>fallout 3 won best narrative (noted as writing) and game of the year.
To this day i just can't understand fricking HOW. It was up against Far Cry 2, Braid, GTA IV and MGS IV. Maybe jury just assumed that it is a winner because it has branching story, and nobody had time to actually finish GTA IV?
Because it has tons of entertaining and memorable moments. It's still pretty easy to remember quests from that game, after all these years.
I think the quality of games writing was at a real nadir in the mid to late 2000s.
Its genuinely impossible for rational people that were young or not paying close attention to understand the kind of brain fog critics and the industry were in for Bethesda in the mid-late 00s and early 2010s. The reason for the intense hate beth gets now is backlash stored up from that era.
Maybe you're too young to realize that if you wanted a first person open world RPG back then, your options were a couple Bethesda games. Or Two Worlds or whatever. Back then open world was very impressive.
Not so much today, when even haters have played Beth games for billion hours
Go read contemporary reviews of those games. You will see bizarre undeserved praise that feels like it was piped in from another universe
>the gameplay is fun
The gameplay is either vats hybrid garbage(in which case you might as well be turn based like OG1/2, which does it better). Or withholding from vats, in which it becomes the absolute worst shooter imaginable with the engagement range being water gun levels despite the relative large open world and gunplay horrendous. They didn't even design their areas around the combat system nor take advantage of the bigger spaces. You are a clown.
Why did you start two low content threads about the same game at the same time?
I posted the first thread while being really high, it was just a thought that went through my head. Then I looked away for a minute and forgot that I posted it instead of daydreaming about it. Then I posted another thought I just had.
No skill involved in that, just grind.
Standards of vrpgins in 2024:
>it doesn’t have to be handmade
>it doesn’t need interesting NPCs
>it doesn’t need good quests
>it doesn’t need good content
Battered wife syndrome.
>just grind
what
and the reason i like fallout 3 is all the handmade content
What? Can you read? I didn't say that Fallout 3 is an RPG, I said that ten years ago this game didn't seem so bad. I also noted that I was never able to play Broken Steel, because the technical component sucks. Of course, you couldn’t know that this was written by one person, but still - now you (probably) know
>set difficulty to very hard
>manually set all SPECIAL to 1
>manually set all stats to 1
Its a based way to play
this game's appeal was a mix of "oblivion with guns"-novelty before that was an industry trend, a bunch of pulpy set-pieces like blowing up megaton and the general aesthetic. if you play it today you might enjoy the exploration and motw type quests. don't play it for the "rpg elements", "fps mechanics" or main story. stalker was better
>industry trend
please. please. please tell me where. because i cant find anything else to play. fallout 3 is the only game thats fun to play. just pure exploration and shooting shit. the only thing like it are ancient fromsoft dungeon crawlers
they're all more linear but try far cry, assassins creed or stalker
far cry is similar yearh. stalker was fun too.
but really i dont even really play for the open world stuff. its more just exploring abandoned hostile ruins/dungeons alone. like a dungeon crawler, but real time, and with a gun. but still slow and atmospheric.
the gun just feels better. i think first person melee combat really sucks
this is straying out of rpg territory (fallout 3 barely counts in the first place) but if you're willing to dip into multiplayer i got that feeling playing dayz back when that was active. raiding towns solo can be terrifying and fights are intense when hours/days of progress are on the line. pubg and tarkov give similar feelings with lower stakes.
Well if an action RPG counts as an RPG for this board, the Fallout 3 absolutely is one.
Quests, skills, perks, dialogue reliant on perks or stats, karma system, the VATS mechanic is a full on RPG combat system put into the game, yeah it's an RPG.
Unless you discount action RPGs, in which case, eh.
it does, but barely. fallout 3 is lacking in c&c aside from a couple of big setpieces and the binary karma meter. it also has few meaningful build decisions, most of it is fluff. at max level you're a demigod who can do anything. before that combat relies more on action than rpg.
>The writing in this is really bad
Can people explain what they mean by this?
People just parrot it around, but never give me an argument for what makes the writing bad.
What do we mean by writing, the dialogue or the story/world building?
>Is it only popular because it was the first 3D-Fallout?
It was a really impressive game for 2008 when it came out.
There weren't a lot of mainstream RPGs back then, nor open worlds.
It blew people's minds.
And the game is just charming, it has good quests, memorable locations and characters, and a thick; immersive atmosphere. Sure it's flawed, but it's fun and was a very solid way to turn the isometric CRPG of Fallout into a mainstream 3D fps/open-world action-rpg.
All 3. Even as a fan of fallout3. Every single thing that involves text on a screen in this game is dogshit and the people at Bethesda know this and don't care
>simpsonsimage.jpg
But the atmosphere and game play and situations all the bad writing get you in is fun and interesting even today
>People just parrot it around, but never give me an argument for what makes the writing bad.
The Bethesda clearly wanted to describe the game in the early days of the apocalypse, but at the same time use later post-apocalyptic factions such as the Brotherhood of Steel, the Enclave, etc.
The dialogues are very lame, the logic of the gains is laughable. It is not clear what people eat and what allows them to survive. Although I do not agree with the approach of the authors of the previous parts, where the world quickly recovered from the disaster and NCR received good shit, just because they are the favorites of the developers. But why can’t there be a middle ground between complete destruction and a recovering humanity?
For example, what will Arkansas eat if it lives in a city where there is not a single person? Or what will the ghouls eat that decide to live in the sewers of Old Onley, where the deathclaws live? I know ghouls can be tougher than humans, but they still need food and water.
I blew up Megaton, killed slave traders in Paradise Falls and merchants in Rivet City. Then I discovered with horror that I had nothing more to do and no one to communicate with, and I began to act out without killing anyone, because my punishment would be loneliness. And this was back then, before Vegas and all of that. Even then, Fallout 3 still lacked dialogue and content.
I mean, the writers didn't really imagine themselves in the situations they put the characters in. Even if we assume that pre-war food lasts a long time because it is full of chemicals, it is difficult to imagine a city that lives on supplies from the Super-Duper Mart (I am exaggerating)
Don't get me wrong - showing after apocalypse the population of 1 million people in a fricking desert, power plants maintaining force fields to protect adobe cowbarns - are idiocy in style of old Fallout and developers, that people ignore or like to pretend never happened.
The Hub would be the capital of the new humanity, people would not have abandoned bottlecaps as currency and would not have bowed their knee to Tandy, whose settlement cannot protect itself even from a handful of bandits. But because Black Isle wanted NCR to happen - Tandy created a mega-empire based on the sheer enthusiasm of offscreen. It's just laughable. And this is very noticeable if you play Fallout 2 immediately after Fallout 1. But people are less strict with these games because of nostalgia and because few people remember Fallout 1 - more grim and primitive than 2.
To put it simple - Fallout 3 has less content, so the stupidity is more obvious. There is a lot of stupidity in Fallout 2, but it also creates an illusory depth and complexity of the world, although this is not true.
A simple example is that the racists from Broken Hills are just cartoonish villains who need to be put down. Most will never take their side in order to take a cool super mutant to their side. BUT "IT'S DA REFERENCE TO CHARLIE MANSON!"
Fallout 3 has slavers in Paradise Falls. They are cartoonish villains, most will kill them because there is no particular reason to leave them alive. They do not have a solid backstory, two elite slavers are a reference to Scandinavian mythology. It feels random, because being a racist and a descendant of Manson in California makes more sense than two guys named after Norse mythological figures among a gang of raiders who prefers to burn books.
Paradise falls is actually very compelling because you have to choose how much you give a frick about saving the kids in what is genuinely the absolute worst part of the main quest
Oh, I even managed to forget that this quest is mandatory. Of course, Bethesda could not leave all these kids in slavery.
And they insult you the entire time you're working to save them and never acknowledge how helpless and useless they were on their own
I agree. I think the only good Fallout game was Fallout and after hearing from Cain, Boyarsky, and everyone else. Im like 90% sure all the good parts of Fallout are things they would argue against ever having. I was so fricking sick of the NCR by the end of 2, and NV was even fricking worse. NV even had to scale back some of the NCR power and tech because it was absolutely ridiculous what they developed into. I know some people like that postpostapoc stuff but to me its so fricking boring. I did not give one shit about who had new vegas and i 100% didnt want to do the moronic yes man ending. People shit on 3 for the BoS stuff but the east coast BoS and the schism with the outcasts makes more sense to me than how the BoS works in Fallout 2 and nobody says jackshit about that.
works on my machine. exploring tunnels and DC is a lot of fun to me. but its not fun for RPG reasons so if thats what you want then im sorry. to me i treat it like a shittier version of system shock lol
The machine in question this time is your defective brain and not the PC. We both played the same game smart ass. System Shock is a dungeon crawler with allot of attention and quality put into the level design(and how combat plays out in them). Fallout 3 is not and the sub areas within the open world can barely be called levels.
I never said it was as good as system shock so im not sure what your point is
>we both played the same game smart ass
Uh alright? Never said we didnt. Oh are you being really literal with the "works on my machine" thing?
Yes, I am mad. People should stop being apologetic for these games and just admit the core gameplay(combat) is bad. At the very least it does have an open world from the start and a decent amount of areas(despite them being bad levels). So it does have some exploration going for it.
I like the atmosphere and the gameplay. Its a lot of fun to explore ruins. I can count the amount of games that evoke this feeling of slow paced isolation and exploration on one hand. The environmental story telling and interesting environments keep me going. You want to see bad design? Look at new vegas. Zero verticality, zero interesting enemy placement, invisible walls everywhere. New vegas is a game where I press Q and point in a direction mindlessly.
I'm not saying Fallout 3 is doing a great job. But it accidentally stumbled into a genre that I truly adore and nearly no games exist in that genre aside from System Shock, Prey 2017, Bioshock, etc.
Maybe thats not enough for you but it is for me. Because Im that desperate.
Being fair to NV, there is actually some verticality in lonesome road(especially some of the fights). But you are right for the most part. The problem is that the aspects of 3 you are talking about are the overwhelming minority of the total experience.
Try playing Stalker Anomaly mod(also Gamma modpack if you like lootingshooti g/Tarkov stuff). There is that NV mod that changes the world significantly to be more abandoned and the cloud from dead money engulfed everything; I forgot what it was called.
Im not really talking stalker or NV. But 3 has tons of memorable moments. Like crossing that broken radio tower to get to the other side of the statesmen hotel in DC. Or falling into the pittrap in old olney. or the countless raider encampments that make fun shooting galleries because of all the ambush setup. i think bethesda deserves credit where credit is due. setting that shit up is not trivial and its something they use to be explicitly good at. i also laughed at some of the pulowski shelters or the janitor who died in the museum of technology fake vault tons and tons of little things like that that made my latest playthrough fun and memorable and i think its something that gets taken for granted. megaton is moronic lorewise but its a more interesting layout and is more convenient to navigate than most of the new vegas shit.
Pretty much the same for me. It was really disappointing how little environmental storytelling there was in NV. Fallout 3 wins over it on that alone. There hasn't been much of anything that quite captured 3's exploration, and it's probably a lost art to the bethesda of today.
>enviromental storytelling
>2 skeletons and a deck of cards and a gun nearby
>oh i get it, i heckin know what happened here. wow this environmental storytelling IS SOO GOOOD
midwit trash
>how little environmental storytelling there was in NV
Yes because they were focused on storytelling through character dialogues, quests and factions.
Which stops being interesting pretty fast to be honest on repeat playthroughs. NV works in spite of its core game play while 3 hinges on it.
NV would be a better game if it was just classic fallout isometric, 3 would be a better game with no main quest.
>inb4 they are the same
Bethesda's has created the best open worlds, and it gets taken for granted. People don't pay attention to it, which can also mean it does it's job well.
It's easier to appreciate if you've tried creating a worldspace yourself. You can see modders trying it. Obsidian couldn't quite do it on the first try.
I've played these games with that in mind, and I think everyone can see the jump in quality between Oblivion and FO3. Bethesda managed to make a wasteland beautiful to explore. FO4 brought more focus to the details by making every item potentially valuable via crafting.
I could enjoy Bethesda games just for their worlds alone.
>Bethesda's has created the best open worlds, and it gets taken for granted. People don't pay attention to it, which can also mean it does it's job well
They did, over nearly 2 decades ago. To make that claim today is ludicrous.
>they did, but to claim they did is ludicrous
>racists from Broken Hills are just cartoonish villains
I never got that vibe at all, maybe you are just a super mutant apologist. I always sided with them and killed the dumb mutie token companion.
>I never got that vibe at all, maybe you are just a super mutant apologist. I always sided with them and killed the dumb mutie token companion.
It seems to me that you are saying this for the sake of being edgy, because the authors of Fallout 2 managed to make the villains as unlikeable as possible, and their quests are so difficult and not profitable that few people dare to complete them. And I'm telling you not as a super mutant fan, but as a Charlie Manson fan.
I always hated mutants more, the entire scenario was obviously ham fisted liberal trope writing. If you honestly identify or make value judgements of the cardboard cutouts that are the average fo2 npc(all five lines in total lol) then there is something wrong with you. I chose the correct route always and never felt inconvenienced by it. Also I helped myself to their armory, so the reward was good in my book.
>I always hated mutants more, the entire scenario was obviously ham fisted liberal trope writing. If you honestly identify or make value judgements of the cardboard cutouts that are the average fo2 npc(all five lines in total lol) then there is something wrong with you. I chose the correct route always and never felt inconvenienced by it. Also I helped myself to their armory, so the reward was good in my book.
You are trying to make me look like a liberal, although I am more likely to be much more to the right than the stupid American who thinks that he is “right” because he does not like blacks, who are the result of the policies of the same “right” as you. But it doesn't cause any contradictions in your small, smooth brain.
Before Fallout 3, evil route was made as a penalty. Wrong way and wrong choice, for which the player must suffer. Therefore it is more complicated than it needs to be. Almost all evil quests have crappy rewards.. If you can call it rewards.
I decided to replay this quest and it's even worse than I remember. The prisoners insult the player so that he has no desire to help them, they are also shown as guidable idiots. In addition, the super mutant will attack the player if he comes to the prison at night. In other words, if the player does not know about this option, he is unlikely to find the conspirators at all.
Freeing prisoners is also not easy. You need to kill four super mutants, and at least one of them is armed with a machine gun, which kills an unprepared player instantly. A super mutant with a machine gun needs to be blown up by pickpocketing. Of course, I could steal the key and wait for him to hide in another room, but I didn't know that until I read it on the wiki. And I don't know if this is true. In any case, the cheapest way to complete this quest is little known, so the player will probably spend money on one bomb or on ammo and stimpaks in the battle with super mutants.
This quest already seems difficult... But then it turns out that it's dumb, because in the next quest, the MC is tasked with blowing up an air purifier to kill all the super mutants. Why couldn’t it have been done first and then released the prisoners?
My character is level 12 and he doesn’t have dynamite in his inventory or weapons that can kill super mutants. Although he has progressed in the game and the story, this quest is difficult for a character who is not a killing machine. I could wait for the stupid critter to go into another room, but I don't know if I have the patience. I don’t know if I’m ready to try to remember what kind of “stash of weapon” is given in the second quest. I'm pretty sure it's crap and not worth the effort. I will also note that no one on the wiki noted what kind of weapons are in the stash, which confirms the unpopularity of this quest.
Another example is Big Town and Little Lamplight. The idea is that one city is a “orphanage in the wasteland”, and the other serves as a home for orphans who have already matured, who in most cases die due to the dangerous location of the city.
The problem is that nowhere in the game does it explicitly say that Lamplight is an orphanage. Due to the fact that child visitors remained in the caves after the bombs fell, one cannot help but create the impression that these are the same children. Perhaps because the authors initially wanted a world of the recent apocalypse.
Although a city of children in the wasteland is theoretically possible, it is very stupid. The cold in the caves would lead to illness, and poor lighting would lead to poor vision. The explanation that children feed on mutated animals sounds unconvincing. The caves also do not feel safe, because they are separated from the outside world by a low fence, guarded by one child with an assault rifle. Even if we assume that there are actually child guards in the game's lore and that this is a reference to Mad Max 3, this is still very ridiculous. The absurdity is also multiplied by the fact that this is a MANDATORY LOCATION for progress in the main story.
Fallout 1 and 2 have wacky quests, but it's not obligatory. To put it simple - Bethesda has no sense of tone.
>Can people explain what they mean by this?
Don't make me look for those pics with "[Intelligence] So you fight a good fight with words?" with Three Dog and "[Speech] Kill urself dude" with Eden.
Mostly it is about either
a) player lines not being convincing for the skillchecks they represent (examples above);
b) characters lacking convincing motivation (Tenpenny, Enclave if you join Eden, companions in the project purity chamber before retcon telling you to step in the chamber for yourself because muh destiny);
c) the game world not being convincing itself, especially in relation to main quest. Super Duper mart not being raided in 200 years, and people straight up needing a guide to figure out it makes sense to raid it? Purified water being just dumped into the Potomac, than being hauled all across the map including settlements up the river from purifier? Srsly?
Also, people didn't like the theme park approach to settlements (i think they were exaggerating) and some minor but annoying lore inconsistencies like the origins of jet.
Nice to see a well explained view on /vrpg/
It wasn't 3d fallout. It was fallout themed 3d.
it feels more fallouty than 2 or NV and it does that in spite of gameplay changes and writing quality
I can't say that the first parts of Fallout are truly fallout. It's more like "NCR - Rise to Power". Yes, Bethesda went too far with fap over Brotherhood of Steel. But the old developers mean the same level of fap over NCR and Rangers. These are two extremes, which is why I think the series was never in good hands for real
Not it doesn't homosexual, stop making shit up. It doesn't feel like any of that. You probably never picked up fallout 1 or 2 in your life. They are completely different in gameplay, writing and with a completely different dev team. They are decades apart too. I sincerely hope this is trolling, because you would have a severe case of bad taste if you can't tell the difference between FO1/2 compared to 3.
>Is it only popular because it was the first 3D-Fallout?
Yes.
Next Thread.
I'd also throw in that Oblivion was extremely popular.
And Skyrim. Betheslop.
While I acknowledge Bethesda has gone massively downhill, and Oblivion is where that decline started, it still had some merit. The quests, and dungeons still had something to them.
Don't frick around with a snake like that award guy. If you see a snake just walk away.
All Bethesda games have bad writing. and yes this is fallout for normies.
Fallout is Fallout for normies
The only people who could remember these shitty games and discuss them at length are those who play them repeatedly.
FO3 is amazing just for the world alone. People don't seem to appreciate getting to experience a whole virtual world in first person, but for me that was always the biggest draw. Especially back when it was released, but even today there's not many games that offer the same kind of experience.
Holy shit this bait thread caused a lot of seethe. I’ll post it once every 3 months from now on.
How far will these two stubborn autists go, arguing about the most irrelevant minor point possible? Fascinating.
as far as it takes
Recently replayed and while I agree the writing and world building is subpar I can generally put that aside if the game is fun enough. I found the game to be fatiguing after about 20 hours or so.
I get they wanted post-apocalyptic vs post-post-apocalyptic, but the world is very 1-dimensonal. Feel like the majority of locations have no context/story besides maybe some terminals and are just shooting gallery dungeons with X theme of enemy. Gets tiresome after awhile. It doesn't help that there's really not much gear that makes dungeon crawling exciting since you can cap out with power armor and the best weapons fairly early. Fallout 4 has that at least.
Compare that to New Vegas where the majority of locations have some sort of world building/purpose/quest tied to it.
Lol frick new vegas i don't care about worl building if the gameplay sucks
It sucks compared to NV.
>fallout bible
>accurate source of any information
Chris Avellone: "For those of you who haven't seen these before, the Fallout Bible is just a collection of all the background material and hi-jinks from Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 compiled into one document so the fans can take a look at it. The term 'Bible' is misleading, since it's not supposed to start some religion or be the word of some holy power – it's just a term I stole from Chris Taylor (Fallout 1, Fallout Tactics), who apparently stole it from some guy named Dan Wood who called me at work once. Dan Wood's Bible and this Bible aren't the same thing. This is just for fun. It is also not a marketing ploy to drum up Fallout sales, since this is for fans who already snagged the game and wouldn't mind knowing a bit more about what went on behind the scenes or what material never actually made it in. Please feel free to take this paragraph and formulate whatever conspiracy theories you want."
>Is it only popular because it was the first 3D-Fallout?
No, but IIRC even at the time the only praise for F3's writing i saw was in IGN's notoriously shilly review. And that review was for GOTY edition with DLCs, Broken Steel, Point Lookout and especially The Pitt IMO were notoriously better written than the main game.
The main story with Broken Steel is good though. The GOTY edition has been the base retail version you could buy at no extra cost for well over a decade now. Idk why people don't count the DLC's for 3 when they do for NV. The DLC for 3 was honestly better too. How much of OWB do you really remember off the top of your head compared to the Pitt or Point Lookout?
>>The main story with Broken Steel is good though
>Enclave has insta-nuke button that can target the Citadel but they don’t use it
>If you nuke the Citadel everyone magically instantly figures out it was you
Why would you nuke the citadel? Why would the enclave? They're fighting over control of each others technology first and foremost. Kind of hard to do that when it's all been blown up.
Why didn't the legion just flank around New Vegas? Why fight a battle at a major chokepoint like a dam?
Mean to reply to
I feel bad for the people whose formative early gaming experiences were from this 2007-2012 era. With really mediocre stuff like FO3, Bioshock, Mass Effect being the 'peak', so many just quit gaming and moved on with their lives afterwards. Maybe I'm a little jealous too, come to think of it.
>so many just quit gaming and moved on with their lives afterwards.
Extremely based. I kneel
X360 games and the kind of kids that played them were an execrable blight on the earth and the human race
If Amata left the vault with you, it would have been true GOAL.
>FO3
>popular
It isn't. It's only kept alive in a shitposting context by hardcore contrarians.
If it wasn't for TOTW nobody would bother with it.
Modtrannies can't comprehend that someone would like to experience an old game again without tinkering with it.
A modlist is finished, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
If you talk about lists for mods, you're already lost.
>If you talk about lists for mods, you're already lost.
By that I meant "the handful of mods that I have chosen to individually download and manually install", not "I have unquestioningly downloaded an entire pack of 6,000,000 mods slopped together by some moron on the internet" which I had hoped was implied by the minimalist nature of the post.
Okay, that sounds reasonable. I've seen too much of the modding autism. Talk of hundreds of mods. Insisting a game needs mods to even be playable, as if new armor and textures fundamentally changed the game into something that's more acceptable to enjoy within certain circles.
No dude, you're still playing and enjoying a Bethesda game. Downloading and installing mods just gives the illusion they've turned it into their own little game.
Yes. Less is more.
ALL (yes all) Bethesda games have bad writing.
It’s popular because zenimax gives checks and hookers to game journos who psyop drooling masses into thinking their trash is good simple as