Fallout 3 vs New Vegas

poll

How is this even a question?Everything 3 did NV did better.

Is this even a discussion?

New Vegas

4>NV>3 if you ignore the fad over NV.

Obviously NV

But nothing will compare to my first time playing FO3

In Fallout 3 you'll be called a coward for not stepping into a death chamber.

Hell, I'd even go as far as to say New Vegas is better than 4. 4 had sprinting and better shooting mechanics but that's about it. All of the Bethesda published Fallouts have been buggy messes, so there's no point in talking about that.

Ultima Dragon posted...

Hell, I'd even go as far as to say New Vegas is better than 4. 4 had sprinting and better shooting mechanics but that's about it. All of the Bethesda published Fallouts have been buggy messes, so there's no point in talking about that.

Fallout 4's gameplay engine and shooting mechanics are the best in the series. The rest of the game is a smelly sweat sock on a summer day.

"NV has better writing and companions!"

Two words for you: Blind Betrayal.

NV, definitely. 4 is great, but it's lesser than NV due to its dialogue options and writing.

thompsontalker7 posted...

Obviously NV

But nothing will compare to my first time playing FO3

Pretty much this. I realize NV is better but the experience I had the first time playing 3 is tough to match.

Silver_Reaper posted...

How is this even a question?Everything 3 did NV did better.

NV map sucked balls. Exploring in 3 was so much more fun.

just play new vegas instead of making silly polls tc. it's good shit.

SlashmanSG posted...

NV map sucked balls. Exploring in 3 was so much more fun.

To be fair NV vanilla did have all of two dungeons.

Leanaunfurled posted...

NV, definitely. 4 is great, but it's lesser than NV due to its dialogue options and writing.

I don't mind those as much as the lack of unique loot and guns and the fact that it had a lot less types of weapons. It got kinda pointless looking for safes when all you would find is some ammo, a pipe pistol and a silver fork

4 was still fun as hell though, just not as fun as NV

thompsontalker7 posted...

But nothing will compare to my first time playing FO3

This is why most people will never admit or even recognize just how bad of a game FO3 truly is. I don't blame people who think like this; I loved the game just as much as anyone else, at least right up until I beat it. But it does make it the biggest example of rose-tinted nostalgia out of the last few gens.

SlashmanSG posted...

Silver_Reaper posted...

How is this even a question?Everything 3 did NV did better.

NV map sucked balls. Exploring in 3 was so much more fun.

This, NV was boring af, i liked 3 alot better

lmfao

Oh that's a good one TC, acting like this is debatable.

You have to sacrifice yourself even though this guy could literally do it and be not even phased

bretonftw posted...

4>NV>3 if you ignore the fad over NV.

NV>3>4

Ignoring the shiny new graphics 4 was a pretty average game.

I want to vote New Vegas for being the vastly superior game but then again in Fallout 3 you have a big fight to see who can turn on a water filter and that's so amusingly dumb that it's hard to resist

bretonftw posted...

4>NV>3 if you ignore the fad over NV.

fad? NV is close to 7 years old now homie, still the king.

Silver_Reaper posted...

How is this even a question?Everything 3 did NV did better.

Except launch week, but yes.

masterpug53 posted...

thompsontalker7 posted...

But nothing will compare to my first time playing FO3

This is why most people will never admit or even recognize just how bad of a game FO3 truly is. I don't blame people who think like this; I loved the game just as much as anyone else, at least right up until I beat it. But it does make it the biggest example of rose-tinted nostalgia out of the last few gens.

Lmao okay

All I see are people bitching over the ending and other subjective things like town layouts and dialogue.

I love NV as much as everyone else but I also recognize that it was a natural progression of everything FO3 laid out.

thompsontalker7 posted...

Lmao okay

All I see are people bitching over the ending and other subjective things like town layouts and dialogue.

I love NV as much as everyone else but I also recognize that it was a natural progression of everything FO3 laid out.

Let's attempt to mix things up here. Instead of me systematically breaking down Fallout 3 facet by facet and linking numerous articles that do the same in order to illustrate what a genuinely bad game it is, why don't you be the first person in the history of gamefaqs FO3 v NV arguments to buck the trend of 'oh whatever it's a good game you're just a hater' comebacks and do a facet-by-facet rundown of what actually makes Fallout 3 a good game.

What makes the plot cohesive and engaging? Do the quests give you robust options for player choice? Do those choices result in meaningful outcomes? What aspects of the worldbuilding make everything fit together so well? What makes the characters deep and worth getting invested in? What makes the combat fun and well-designed? What specific events or locations make the exploration so good? What makes the 'murshen so unbelievably, undeniably 'mursive? I sincerely want you to take a hard, critical eye to all of these things and then tell me (presumably with a straight face) that they not only truly sparkle in their own rights, but come together to form a great game that to this day is still worthy of its praise.

bretonftw posted...

4>NV>3 if you ignore the fad over NV.

"If you ignore the fact that New Vegas is superior in almost every respect except graphics"

masterpug53 posted...

What makes the plot cohesive and engaging?

You're immediately thrown from a relatively comfortable life in the Vault to a strange, brave new world. You learn everything when your character does. All you have to go off of is your connections to your dad and the vault. People say they know you. You're not entirely sure if they're telling the truth. You take refuge in a nearby town, hopefully you can carve out a place of your own in it. Fallout 3's presentation of a post-apocalyptic DC is fantastic.

masterpug53 posted...

Do the quests give you robust options for player choice? Do those choices result in meaningful outcomes?

The Megaton bomb missions and final mission have consequences that are felt throughout the rest of the game, especially if you have Broken Steel. Even side quests like Tenpenny Towers have outcomes that knock you over no matter what you do. Hell, you can even talk some of the bosses into giving up if you're bold enough. Choice is very much present where it matters most.

masterpug53 posted...

What aspects of the worldbuilding make everything fit together so well?

The contrast between a civilized life in the vault and the chaos of the Capitol, mostly. Every city has its own set of rules, own law enforcement, own standards. You wander the destroyed roads and buildings and wonder where did everything go wrong at that time. You listen to the radio at the melancholy tunes that have been preserved after all this time. Fallout 3 does atmosphere better than any other game in the series.

masterpug53 posted...

What makes the combat fun and well-designed?

The balance between trying to save VATS points and standard fighting. Sure there was no ADS in 3, but the guns handled decently enough that it wasn't too necessary, and again, VATS was key. Do you save your good guns for later or use them now to get out of a pinch (hello BOTW)? Do you attempt to nail an enemy for a critical or just center mass in VATS? How about checking out the things scattered on the floor to determine whether or not you have enough supplies to push further into exploring a vault or building or need to retreat and try again later? There's enough there to keep you playing carefully, but doesn't punish you for being bold.

I can go on.

thompsontalker7 posted...

I can go on.

You should really spare yourself. Out of everything you typed, you completely neglected the 'critical thinking' request. Your post truly read like the back-cover description of the game, written by someone who barely played it or didn't play it at all.

The Megaton bomb missions and final mission have consequences that are felt throughout the rest of the game, especially if you have Broken Steel. Even side quests like Tenpenny Towers have outcomes that knock you over no matter what you do. Hell, you can even talk some of the bosses into giving up if you're bold enough. Choice is very much present where it matters most.

You neglected to elaborate upon the meaningful aspect of choice motivation. What possible motivation can I have for nuking this town of people I just met? Are they running some hidden slave trade, or harboring cannibals? Assuming the town is innocent, can I actually gain some substantial power and prestige by committing this heinous act, or open up a fully-developed evil alternative lifestyle for myself? Will people view me as the monster I am and shun me accordingly? No on all accounts. You meet some dude, he offers you a paltry sum of caps to nuke a town, and you do it just for the sake of being an evil dick. You get a light show, an alternate house...and that's it. Give a few bottles of water to a bum and you're instantly a saint again. The absolute worst moral consequence of this action is a scene that rightfully gets ripped to shreds every time it comes up: your father telling you that he's 'very disappointed in you.'

The only way this quest could have turned out to be nonsensical is if it was offered as a late-game option, after your character had had sufficient time to start carving out his or her moral path (and this is of course erroneously assuming that the game's morality system isn't already a complete wash, as was previously illustrated). Assuming you decide to nuke Megaton very early in the game - as the game pushes you to do - there is no moral decision leading up to that point that would make nuking a town a logical choice for you character; just all of the sudden, you decide to be a mass-murdering dick the moment some dude waves a modest bag of money in your face.

As for the main quest consequences, a slightly-altered slideshow and a few ghouls lying on cots does not count as 'meaningful consequences,' no matter how far you try to stretch it. The Tenpenny Tower quest could have been one of the game's decent ones, if they hadn't shit all over the hard-won 'peaceful' option and made it so trollolol the ghouls kill everyone anyway.

And you really, really shouldn't have cited talking the bosses down as a positive for this game. Even people who like the game recognize how incredibly poorly-written Eden's talk-down is. Not to mention the fact that it requires no skill check in order to accomplish. Your only motivation for passing the science check or finding his destruct code is to spare yourself the embarrassment of sitting through the normal talk-down. Autumn's is slightly more tolerable, but still nothing to brag about - it's a 1st-degree sunburn compared to Eden's 3rd-degree burn. Your character doesn't exactly make a compelling point dialogue-wise for him to throw down his arms, and the randomized Speech checks in the game do the impact of the moment no favors - by randomizing moments like this, it takes the power out of your character's ability and puts it in the hands of the RNG gods. Your character isn't actually good at making a convincing point, no matter how high his or her skill is - sometimes he or she just gets lucky.

New Vegas is better, but 3 is a good game.

Silver_Reaper posted...

How is this even a question?Everything 3 did NV did better.

thompsontalker7 posted...

You're immediately thrown from a relatively comfortable life in the Vault to a strange, brave new world. You learn everything when your character does. All you have to go off of is your connections to your dad and the vault. People say they know you. You're not entirely sure if they're telling the truth. You take refuge in a nearby town, hopefully you can carve out a place of your own in it. Fallout 3's presentation of a post-apocalyptic DC is fantastic.

Sure, Fallout 3 makes a good first impression, I won't deny that. It's actually my original point - people can't look past their first impressions of the game far enough to see just how fundamentally flawed everything is beneath the surface. So let's look past the opening act's seemingly trivial missteps, such as being forced to kill vault guards that you've known your whole life just because the game puts their names in red instead of green...wasn't the ability to 'talk down' the villains one of your earlier selling points? Or is it only the head honchos who deserve the privilege of living or dying based on your random-potency words? And let's not touch on how your dear old Dad's motivations ultimately make him a selfish, thoughtless asshole, despite what the game wants you to believe about him, as well as the saintly presence that OMG Liam fucking Neeson! brings to the role.

Anyway, you step out into the turd-brown wasteland for the first time, and are immediately hit with that go-anywhere, do-anything feel. This is the one gaming feature that Bethesda is inarguably good at. They can dumb down and strip out their games until their ocean-wide worldspaces aren't even deep as a puddle, and people like me will continue to gobble them up for this exact reason. Because next to no one can match a Bethesda open-world experience. Unfortunately, that atmosphere not only clouds the mind to all the flaws existing beneath, but will give FO3 defendants one single potent bullet with which to defend the game from now until the end of time. Atmosphere! Atmosphere! The amazing unbelievable atmosphere! Yes, that's great, it truly is. But a game cannot live on atmosphere alone, much like a human can't live on oxygen alone.

So despite this amazing open-world sensation and the complete freedom to go anywhere you want, odds are you're making a beeline for Megaton. You're instantly forced to ask asinine questions like 'I'm looking for my father, middle-aged guy. You seen him?' Even worse is that the sheriff instantly knows who you're talking about and points you in the right direction *facepalm* You talk to the bar owner, whose family has inexplicably managed to maintain their Irish accent despite being cut off from the island for over 200 years. He sets you up for the big, stupid revelation that neither you nor your father were actually born in the vault, which pretty well destroys your identity of being a true vault dweller. You yourself claim that, given the presentation of the game, you're 'not entirely sure they're telling you the truth.' How does that hold any water when everything everyone tells you - no matter how far-fetched and / or inspired by comically-vague information given by the player - is true?

thompsontalker7 posted...

The contrast between a civilized life in the vault and the chaos of the Capitol, mostly. Every city has its own set of rules, own law enforcement, own standards. You wander the destroyed roads and buildings and wonder where did everything go wrong at that time. You listen to the radio at the melancholy tunes that have been preserved after all this time. Fallout 3 does atmosphere better than any other game in the series.

Well, let's look past the fact that the 'civilized' life of the Vault gets thrown completely out the window the instant the Overseer feels threatened, or that two hours spent in the vault versus the hundred-odd hours you'll spend in the wasteland really shouldn't make that lasting of an impression.

'Every city has its own set of rules, own law enforcement, own standards.' This kills me with how false it is. It doesn't matter which settlement you go to - you attack someone or get caught stealing, you get shot at. There is no sense of varied standards or law enforcement beyond what a character will occasionally tell you, which the actual gameplay mechanics quickly contradict. This is a systemic fault of Fallout 3's that permeates every facet of the game, and one that I briefly touched on in earlier examples: the game tells you that something is some way, yet it can't back it up with gameplay and / or cohesive narrative, and you are expected to take it on faith anyway. Beth: 'Oh, well...DC was hit harder during the Great War, so that's why everything's so much more irradiated and looks like the war happened yesterday.' Inquisitive Gamer: 'Okay then, why are the downtown buildings still remarkably well-preserved when the White House was clearly ground zero for a major attack?' Beth: 'Umm...' There are a dozen other contradictory examples just like this that I'll spare you the time of reading, assuming anyone's still bothering to read this anyway ^^ Pure Great and Powerful Wizard of Oz material fuels Fallout 3 on every level, and yet for some reason most gamers never get the itch to peek behind the curtain. This lack of continuity in the worldbuilding is something that even Bethesda recognized as a fault, and aimed to correct in Fallout 4. The simple act of putting Boston's ground zero well outside city limits was an excellent step forward in terms of worldbuilding logic - the Glowing Sea gets to look like a much more plausible ground zero, downtown Boston still has a reason for standing upright, and inquisitive gamers like myself can give Beth a deserved pat on the back for recognizing a flaw and doing their best to correct it in future entries.

...aaaaand then you're right back on atmosphere. Sweet, magical, amazing atmosphere. Are you starting to see how maddening it might be for others when a Fallout 3 defender overuses atmosphere as a selling point? Atmosphere .

thompsontalker7 posted...

The balance between trying to save VATS points and standard fighting. Sure there was no ADS in 3, but the guns handled decently enough that it wasn't too necessary, and again, VATS was key. Do you save your good guns for later or use them now to get out of a pinch (hello BOTW)? Do you attempt to nail an enemy for a critical or just center mass in VATS? How about checking out the things scattered on the floor to determine whether or not you have enough supplies to push further into exploring a vault or building or need to retreat and try again later? There's enough there to keep you playing carefully, but doesn't punish you for being bold.

Of all the questions I asked you, the one concerning combat was the most rhetorical; Fallout 3's combat, especially it's gunplay, is almost indefensible. This fundamental failure is rooted in two distinct issues - gun accuracy, and VATs invincibility. Fallout 3 relies on a bizarre mix of FPS skills and skill-based die rolls for its combat, and fails on both fronts. Morrowind gets copious amounts of grief for doing something eerily similar, and it's always baffled me why Fallout 3 doesn't get the same ('sorry, couldn't see the issue here, I got atmosphere in my eyes'). When you are aiming your gun, your FPS skills take a backseat to your gun stats in terms of both damage AND accuracy (among its many notable improvements, NV wisely removed the accuracy portion from the skill / stat equation). You can literally watch a bullet fire from your gun at an impossibly skewed angle, because having a low gun skill can apparently bend the laws of physics. Even with a 100 skill and an enemy perfectly trained in your crosshairs, you can fire a sniper rifle, watch the bullet go into the enemy's body, and have it not register as a hit because the game didn't want you to. This exact scenario has happened so many times that - should I ever decide to play FO3 again - I wouldn't pick up a sniper rifle if you paid me.

So maybe this isn't a flaw in and of itself - maybe you're a hardcore old-school RPGer who believes actual player skill is a travesty and should not pollute your role-playing experience. Okay, I'll give you that. On its own, while maddeningly frustrating, the stat-over-skill approach isn't enough to kill gunplay. Invincibility in VATS piled on, however, is. You are completely immune to damage while in VATs. I have, in the past, VATs'd a Nuka Grenade right at my feet to clear out a swarm of raiders that were right on top of me - walked away without a scratch. Hell, I think I was even still on fire when VATs ended. No damage. This is cheap enough on its own merit. But when paired the incredibly wonky approach to gunplay outside of VATs, it forces over-reliance on VATs. Seriously, why even bother to shoot outside of VATs when I can just bum-rush the guy, take some up-close shots without taking damage, run back behind cover, and repeat in a few seconds? By the time Grim Reaper's Sprint becomes available, that's all she wrote - combat becomes a slo-mo slideshow as opposed to an actual interactive struggle.

'Well, I just won't take Grim Reaper's Sprint,' you might say. That's fine, won't argue that. I'm a firm believer in player choice and willpower - if there's an easily-avoidable weapon or ability that breaks the game's challenge, I'll just leave it be. 'And maybe I just won't use VATs in this game!' Lol, good luck. I tried that once or twice, and for reasons already elaborated upon, it was so fucking frustrating that I couldn't keep with it for long.

I didn't elaborate much on melee or unarmed, since the accuracy issues that plague guns don't apply, and thus said combat mods aren't as inherently flawed. But given the example I just gave about invincible VATs, melee and unarmed combat (the best weapons of which can be easily obtained early if you know where to look) is even easier to break than guns.

Lmao

this is about a full essay's length of hate

masterpug53 posted...

You should really spare yourself. Out of everything you typed, you completely neglected the 'critical thinking' request. Your post truly read like the back-cover description of the game, written by someone who barely played it or didn't play it at all.

I wasn't under the impression that you cared as much as you did. In case you weren't aware, arguing the negative is infinitely easier because all you have to do is point at something at go "this is bad!"

masterpug53 posted...

You neglected to elaborate upon the meaningful aspect of choice motivation

Oh, you're one of those "look at all the morals that New Vegas forces me to have when I play" people.

Here's a question. What motivation do I have for any other route in New Vegas besides the NCR one? Oh, Mr. House is a dick. Sure, but he keeps things orderly. Oh, the Legion have better organization. Sure, but they're plundering, crucifying assholes. Oh, just activate Yes Man and suddenly you can rule Vegas all on your own? Sure, but there was very little indication that I cared that much up to that point. Why do I even feel like I need to suddenly become a part of a New New Vegas? I thought I was just looking for the guy who shot me! Matter of fact, why wasn't the original courier stuff in the original game to begin with?

Point is, both games have moral decisions that make really no sense when you think about them, so faulting FO3 for them alone is cherry picking. Your argument is that your actions don't have long-term decisions when you do them, and I'm arguing the contrary. Sure, a few more ghouls and a different house may seem paltry compared to the other stuff in the game, but that was an entire town that you can no longer use thanks to your actions.

And you discredit the speech checks, but they're an introductory system to what NV improves on, and from your later posts, it seems you prefer direct violence to alternate methods, hence the criticism for the combat.

thompsontalker7 posted...

Lmao

this is about a full essay's length of hate

masterpug53 posted...

You should really spare yourself. Out of everything you typed, you completely neglected the 'critical thinking' request. Your post truly read like the back-cover description of the game, written by someone who barely played it or didn't play it at all.

I wasn't under the impression that you cared as much as you did. In case you weren't aware, arguing the negative is infinitely easier because all you have to do is point at something at go "this is bad!"

masterpug53 posted...

You neglected to elaborate upon the meaningful aspect of choice motivation

Oh, you're one of those "look at all the morals that New Vegas forces me to have when I play" people.

Here's a question. What motivation do I have for any other route in New Vegas besides the NCR one? Oh, Mr. House is a dick. Sure, but he keeps things orderly. Oh, the Legion have better organization. Sure, but they're plundering, crucifying assholes. Oh, just activate Yes Man and suddenly you can rule Vegas all on your own? Sure, but there was very little indication that I cared that much up to that point. Why do I even feel like I need to suddenly become a part of a New New Vegas? I thought I was just looking for the guy who shot me! Matter of fact, why wasn't the original courier stuff in the original game to begin with?

Point is, both games have moral decisions that make really no sense when you think about them, so faulting FO3 for them alone is cherry picking. Your argument is that your actions don't have long-term decisions when you do them, and I'm arguing the contrary. Sure, a few more ghouls and a different house may seem paltry compared to the other stuff in the game, but that was an entire town that you can no longer use thanks to your actions.

And you discredit the speech checks, but they're an introductory system to what NV improves on, and from your later posts, it seems you prefer direct violence to alternate methods, hence the criticism for the combat.

And cue the deflection, right on schedule - the go-to play of any Fallout 3 defender. You can't give a critical defense of the game on it's own merit, so you have to attempt to knock everything else down to it's level...in order to prove that it's a good game? Do you not see the counter-logic there?

And course the whole dismissal my critical dissection of Fallout 3 as 'an essay's length of hate.' You're right back down to the average Fallout 3 defender's level: 'it's a good game and you're just hating it.' Can you actually back up your sudden critical appraisal of NV's factions, or was that just a bad attempt at 'oh hey look I can do that too?' Because I can, for instance, write an essay and cite many examples on how bland and not-too-dissimilar FO3's Brotherhood of Steel and Enclave are...which of course you would again scoff at at write off as 'he just be hatin.' Maybe you can start to grasp why I don't have the highest level of respect for Fallout 3 defenders.

And you're acting like Fallout 3 invented the concept of speech checks, and NV improved upon them, when it's far more accurate to say that NV steered them back to the series' roots. And what do you even mean when you say 'I prefer violence to alternative methods?' Seriously, that's about as bald-faced an attempt at derailment as I've seen in awhile. I don't 'prefer' violence in a violent video game any more than it is too often what the game forces upon you, hence the example I already provided of being forced to kill named guards in the opening act. My observation of the inner workings of the game's combat does not make me gung-ho for it...which should have been pretty obvious at this point.

Unfortunately, that atmosphere not only clouds the mind to all the flaws existing beneath, but will give FO3 defendants one single potent bullet with which to defend the game from now until the end of time. Atmosphere! Atmosphere! The amazing unbelievable atmosphere! Yes, that's great, it truly is. But a game cannot live on atmosphere alone, much like a human can't live on oxygen alone.

For some reason I felt like you were waiting to tear into me with this one.

Let me make one thing clear. Atmosphere is more important in Bethesda games than elsewhere because it compensates for the aging graphics engine and the fact that everyone looks like a potato. Mods can touch up an existing atmosphere, enhance it, but ultimately it's up to the developer to set the mood.

Fallout 3 gets so much praise for their presentation because for all intents and purposes, this was a new game and a new series to many people. As a result, they had to introduce everything in a way that was digestible, yet did not get in the way of the open-endedness. You criticize the beginning of the game for being hand holding, yet did not think for a moment that the reason why New Vegas was relatively more free in the beginning is because most of the players were returning FO3 players who were familiar with the game mechanics by that point.

In any case, it seems you've completely turned off your suspension of disbelief completely just to be critical, when in reality the things you're criticizing doesn't really seem to be out of the bounds of believable. Why wouldn't the sheriff remember your dad? It was only a day or two at most ago. Of course the bartender would recognize both him and you. When I mention the distrust of what people say to you, it was more with the side quests, like the conflict between the ghouls and residents of Tenpenny Tower, or deciding to aid Mr. Burke with Megaton. But with the main quest, it was much more transparent because it was partially used as a method to get you to travel further into the Capitol. It's a risky game design, and it shows. Regardless, it was an ultimately effective way to progress the main quest.

masterpug53 posted...

And cue the deflection, right on schedule - the go-to play of any Fallout 3 defender. You can't give a critical defense of the game on it's own merit, so you have to attempt to knock everything else down to it's level...in order to prove that it's a good game? Do you not see the counter-logic there?

The argument is that Fallout 3 < New Vegas, was it not? To further prove a point, comparisons have to be made, just like how I can't say the Nintendo Switch isn't the best first choice for a console when the PS4 and XBone exist. Additionally my contention isn't that Fallout 3 < New Vegas, but rather that the criticisms of FO3 are irrelevant to its position of being a great game.

......but if all you wanna do is shitpost about how wrong I am because subjective viewpoints are subjective, I can stop wasting my time and go back to playing 4, let me know.

For some reason I felt like you were waiting to tear into me with this one.

This gives a strong indication that you have heard plenty of criticisms of FO3 beyond the meager amount you alluded to in your opening post of the argument, and chose to willfully gloss over those as well.

Let me make one thing clear. Atmosphere is more important in Bethesda games than elsewhere because it compensates for the aging graphics engine and the fact that everyone looks like a potato. Mods can touch up an existing atmosphere, enhance it, but ultimately it's up to the developer to set the mood.

And let me make one thing clearer: atmosphere alone, no matter how in-depth and amazing, is not enough to fully sate a discerning gamer and thus make a game 'good' on its own. I feel like I covered that already...

Fallout 3 gets so much praise for their presentation because for all intents and purposes, this was a new game and a new series to many people. As a result, they had to introduce everything in a way that was digestible, yet did not get in the way of the open-endedness. You criticize the beginning of the game for being hand holding, yet did not think for a moment that the reason why New Vegas was relatively more free in the beginning is because most of the players were returning FO3 players who were familiar with the game mechanics by that point.

This is first critical point you've made, and that merits respect. However, it does further help prove my 'first impression' point - that the initial vibes of the game's opening presentation and atmosphere gloss over its myriad of systemic flaws. And 'hand-holding' is an oversimplification of my criticism of the opening act, which is the game forcing you to kill named guards whom you've presumably known your whole life. It's not an issue of handholding so much as an issue of removing morality from the situation and just making them 'bad guys.' This is another systemic flaw of the main quest: the black hats and white hats are very clearly defined in a game that series that should be about the gray areas of human nature, and your only deviance from doing the white hats' bidding is being an occasional dick with very little motivation.

In any case, it seems you've completely turned off your suspension of disbelief completely just to be critical, when in reality the things you're criticizing doesn't really seem to be out of the bounds of believable. Why wouldn't the sheriff remember your dad? It was only a day or two at most ago. Of course the bartender would recognize both him and you. When I mention the distrust of what people say to you, it was more with the side quests, like the conflict between the ghouls and residents of Tenpenny Tower, or deciding to aid Mr. Burke with Megaton. But with the main quest, it was much more transparent because it ...[cut to make space]

Of course, I'm just a hater wanting to hate for hate's sake. I loved this game to death when I first played it (and ironically hated NV in the first playthrough due to the bugs). I could tell even at first that there were some flaws to the world, but even more so than the atmosphere, I was fueled onward by this notion that - in terms both metaphorical and literal - something amazing was waiting right over the horizon. The main quest, chief among the elements fueling this feeling, felt like it was going to pay off bigtime. Admittedly, Liberty Prime was fun, even if it was nothing more than a follow-the-leader with very little input (seriously - you can permanently bug LP and force a reload if you kill anything in front of him that he's scripted to kill, which is pretty much everything). I'll spare you the details of the original ending, since they've been talked to death. But without overstatement, this is the biggest instance of plot collapse I've ever experienced in a game.

If you're not familiar, plot collapse (or maybe it's story collapse) means that a single moment in a story is so bad that it compels you to look more harshly at the rest of the story. Needless to say, all those seemingly cool and well-written moments that had fueled me towards the ending did not hold up under any level of scrutiny. Since you have me pegged as a hater-for-sake-of-it, I should mention that this didn't happen overnight - it took a good extra playthrough or two for all of this to really sink in. There was a time when I at least defended certain facets of FO3 with the best of 'em. But ultimately even those started to wane, as I realized how hollow my defenses really were. Funny you should say 'suspension of disbelief,' because to suspend your disbelief requires trust - trust that the storyteller will spin a yarn that will not force you to turn a blind eye to everything. The story doesn't have to be phenomenal, it just has to have consistent flow - similar to going into a meditative trance, you can't be needled by a bunch of unwelcome distractions. Suspension of disbelief becomes a redundant concept at that point, because you do not need to willfully suspend your disbelief if the story you're following is actually well-written with a good flow. Fallout 3 routinely fails to do this - plot-wise, it is a Ponzi schemer that becomes more and more obvious as time goes on, but continues to beg for your faith in what it's selling you.

The argument is that Fallout 3 < New Vegas, was it not?

Nope. The argument you choose to get engaged in was whether or not Fallout 3 is a good game in its own right, when you responded 'lmao okay...' to my assertion that too many people don't realize how bad of a game Fallout 3 is.

To further prove a point, comparisons have to be made [cut to make space, apologies]

Comparisons should not come at the expense of discussing the meat of the subject at hand, hence why it's deflection. You did at first attempt to define what makes FO3 a good game in your eyes (shallow appraisal though it was), which did for a time set you head and shoulders above the average FO3 fan. But that last line in the above quote goes along way toward throwing any goodwill out the window. Exactly how many points would I need to bring up about poor writing, bad gameplay, logical inconsistencies (yes, even within the science fiction that the universe presents), and worldbuilding that never extends beyond the thought of 'zany wasteland antics' for you to actually stop and say 'okay, maybe it's not as good a game as I thought.' Or is every possible criticism levied at the game nothing more than 'fake views' in your eyes?

......but if all you wanna do is shitpost about how wrong I am because subjective viewpoints are subjective, I can stop wasting my time and go back to playing 4, let me know.

'Shitposting,' nice work. And another page from the Fallout defender's handbook: 'they're my opinions and you can't change them because subjective is subjective.' Of course it is, but you could do a much better point-by-point job of defending your position.

Maybe instead of playing Fallout 4, you should - and I'm not being sarcastic here - go back and pop in Fallout 3. See how well it holds up today. See if you can really get invested in the Brotherhood of Steel's goals and motivations to the point where you will willfully and without regret walk into the Purifier and sacrifice yourself. See if you can bring yourself to truly appreciate the depth and technical skill of the game's combat. See if you can walk into Little Lamplight and not turn right back around and leave due to the sheer mind-boggling absurdity of its very existence (actually, scratch that last one, it's too cruel).

2>1>NV>3>Tactics>4

4 is a modern AAA settlement building game with a Fallout skin. It has better shooting mechanics than 3 or 4, but so do other games. It doesn't have the quintessential Fallout charm that the other games have.

3 is alright but it's one of those best through nostalgia glasses games. Bethesda just isn't too great at making Fallout games, and it seems that they probably won't be so great at continuing their TES games either. I expect TES VI to be just like Fallout 4 but with a TES skin.

i dont get the hate boner for 3. New Vegas is better, but 3 was such a memorable experience

Seaman_Prime posted...

i dont get the hate boner for 3. New Vegas is better, but 3 was such a memorable experience

I love 3, it has its problems but it gave me a lot of great memories.

People just get all up in arms about NV because a lot of morons will say NV is better then bash 3.

Both are great games but NV edges it out

Delta_F14 posted...

Thanks for posting this so I didn't have to track it down. This really is one of the best videos on the matter, and I was really impressed by how well he articulated many of my specific feelings about the game the first time I saw it (including positives, such as how Vault 87 was a surprisingly good segment of the otherwise abysmal main quest).

If an hour-long video isn't your thing, here's my favorite article I ever read on Fallout 3's deconstruction (fair warning, it's a long read as well):

http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=27085

The guy also does a spot-on critique of Skyrim's Thieve's Guild questline if you're interested in reading. And for the hell of it, here's the excerpt from the FO3 article that's always stuck with me, on the subject of the Water Purifier and how little relevance it has to the actual plot and worldbuilding:

'Imagine a version of Skyrim where somebody keeps telling you that the world is being destroyed by dragons, but you never actually see a single dragon anywhere in your travels. Instead there’s just a lone singed peasant outside of town who tells you he needs a health potion because he was attacked by a dragon, and he always needs a health potion no matter how many you give him, and he’s the only guy in the world that seems to have a problem with dragons. That’s Fallout 3.'