Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[AphexTwin]

What is with the hate of Fallout 3 and New Vegas here? lets get some things straight...

Fallout 3 is a magnificent game. Bethesda's track record on making open world RPG's is extensive, and they are one of my all time favorite developers. I have probably spent a 1/3rd of my life playing Oblivion and Fallout 3 alone. When I heard Bethesda would be developing Fallout 3 for the first time, I was extremely happy, seeing one of my favorite game series being risen from the dead with Bethesda's expertise. The game was and still is great for many reasons. Go play it, if you don't know.

What I don't understand is how Fallout 1+2 players can openly despise the game so much while I, a fellow 1+2 player, love it. The game is not how it used to be, I can understand but do you think they would continue developing isometric games forever? I understand nostalgia, but lets look back a moment here. 

Fallout 1, the classic, had a handful of side quests and the main quest. The side quests were normally un-complex and easy to beat, and after that is finished, other than the main quest there really is nothing to do. The game also had a very limited number of locations. In Fallout 3, there are hundreds of quests and locations to explore, and a main quest. Fallout 3 can keep you entertained a much longer time, and that is just a fact. Fallout 1 was a great game don't get me wrong, But it had its advantages and disadvantages just like Fallout 3. People tend to look back at Fallout 1 with all their nostalgia and forget that it had its sucky parts too.

Although Fallout 2 had more quests and locations, it was definitely not as good (but still decent) as Fallout 1 for multiple reasons. You see how things are now? Older is not ALWAYS better when it comes to games.

I think what really happens is that the people who played Fallout 1 and 2 are annoyed that  Fallout became so popular. As the fps crowd came over from the call of dutys and battlefields the original Fallout players began to call their own game dumb. People who have played the originals can be so elitist it clouds their judgement of whether a game is really good or not. 

So yea, if you truly don't like Fallout 3, then don't play it. But give credit where credit is deserved, Bethesda made a great game. It is simply unfair to say that Fallout 3 sucks/is not cannon/etc. 

(btw New Vegas was alright too, not as good as Fallout 3 but still it was alright.)

alright, thats it. I'm done.

[Eternauta]

ib4 "Fallout 3 sux, NV is awesome".

[Colombo]

If it would be more Morrowind-ish, I would like it. Morrowind was awasome. But oblivion, totally diferent story. Fallout 3 was something like post-apo Oblivion. Horrible.
Old isn't always better, but in this case, it is.

[AphexTwin]

If it would be more Morrowind-ish, I would like it. Morrowind was awasome. But oblivion, totally diferent story. Fallout 3 was something like post-apo Oblivion. Horrible.
Old isn't always better, but in this case, it is.

why is it horrible? elaborate.

[Slaver Snipe]

Recycled old engine, Check
Lots of eye candy to make players like the game, Check
Large world tinted green, Check
Terrible fps with quests, Check
Bethseda spending 4 years to develop a game with a team many, many times the size of the originals, Check

All in all, of course it was a bigger game, but it had way to many shortcomings for a game that took 4 years developing without creating a new engine for it.

[falloutdude]

fallout 3 was good i  love bethesda
fallout new vegas sucks way too easy even on hardcore mode and very hard and the bugs are sooo annoying  i hated the storey i still play it once in awhile but too easy and bad storey.
 

[Eternauta]

Fallout 3 was terribly easy as well. Grab a hunting rifle, pew pew them popamoles!

[AphexTwin]

Recycled old engine, Check
Lots of eye candy to make players like the game, Check
Large world tinted green, Check
Terrible fps with quests, Check
Bethseda spending 4 years to develop a game with a team many, many times the size of the originals, Check

All in all, of course it was a bigger game, but it had way to many shortcomings for a game that took 4 years developing without creating a new engine for it.

1. I thought the engine could've been better, but why not use it? it wasn't terrible. and Oh again, the SAME can be said for Fallout 1 and 2. 
2. Uhm, how is this a bad thing?
3. I don't even understand this. The entire world really isn't green... its more of a brownish color I think your referring to Oasis?

4.  The fps is not terrible; but its not great either. The game is also not a full blown fps either. What your saying here is like complaining the Fallout 1 had a crappy hand to hand combat system. You sound like someone who came to Fallout 3 as an Fps player, expecting it to be like an FPS. I would think that a fallout player would look for more storyline driven details instead of all Pure combat/graphics details as your suggesting....

[kiki123]

Fallout 3 was terribly easy as well. Grab a hunting rifle, pew pew them popamoles!

And so was NV.... NV i found shitteier too manyt open quests not a good story, not good gameplay.....f3 was beeter

[AphexTwin]

Fallout 3 was terribly easy as well. Grab a hunting rifle, pew pew them popamoles!

*Very hard difficulty

I thought Fallout 1 and 2 were easy too.

[Slaver Snipe]

I never stated that #2 was a bad thing did i, also the fact that you think fallout 1 & 2's engine could be better just shows how little you know of how making games has changed, with a team of more than 50 working on fallout 3 a new engine should have taken very little time to do, you can think that the oblivion engine isn't that bad but considering when the game came out, it was terrible.
I sound like someone who came to fallout 3 expecting it to be an fps? THATS WHAT IT WAS. There was rpg in it but it was mostly fps. When a game is mostly fps you expect it to have "great" fps. The main storyline was ok, but i found most of the side quests and vaults to be terrible.
(If bioware had done fallout 3 we probably wouldn't be having this discussion, THAT is a company that knows how to make rpgs.)

[Colombo]

Slaver: No, bioware WAS that company, that created good RPG. It is not anymore. Viz DA1 and 2. Now it create FPS with RPG elements.

[AphexTwin]

I never stated that #2 was a bad thing did i, also the fact that you think fallout 1 & 2's engine could be better just shows how little you know of how making games has changed, with a team of more than 50 working on fallout 3 a new engine should have taken very little time to do, you can think that the oblivion engine isn't that bad but considering when the game came out, it was terrible.
I sound like someone who came to fallout 3 expecting it to be an fps? THATS WHAT IT WAS. There was rpg in it but it was mostly fps. When a game is mostly fps you expect it to have "great" fps. The main storyline was ok, but i found most of the side quests and vaults to be terrible.
(If bioware had done fallout 3 we probably wouldn't be having this discussion, THAT is a company that knows how to make rpgs.)

I'm not complaining about Fallout 2's engine, I'm just saying that it WAS old and it WAS recycled. Just like Fallout 3. Do I still love both games? yes.

and what are you talking about, it was terrible when it came out? It won game of the year, and  best RPG of the year from multiple publications.  They don't know what their talking about too, right?

There are multiple skills in Fallout 3 other than Small Guns and Energy Weapons. The game has other aspects too, even if it lags behind in the combat sector. And Side quests and vaults are terrible? Your sounding silly...  

Maybe your expecting too much? just because they could've made a new engine, doesn't mean they have too. and to the majority of people, including me and many of the aforementioned publications were perfectly happy with what we got.  

[Michaelh139]

and what are you talking about, it was terrible when it came out? It won game of the year, and  best RPG of the year from multiple publications.  They don't know what their talking about too, right?

I figure I'll just spill the beans here, cus i don't care much about the rest, as it's been discussed several times in the past already.

Almost all longrunning large publications are so obviously and dreadfully bribed and corrupt for giving it an amazing godlike rating for every game made by large richass companies it makes me cry in my sleep.  It's all about hyping up a gamer community for the biggest bang for your buck, even if it means lying your ass off so much it ends up sticking to your face.

[AphexTwin]

I figure I'll just spill the beans here, cus i don't care much about the rest, as it's been discussed several times in the past already.

Almost all longrunning large publications are so obviously and dreadfully bribed and corrupt for giving it an amazing godlike rating for every game made by large richass companies it makes me cry in my sleep.  It's all about hyping up a gamer community for the biggest bang for your buck, even if it means lying your ass off so much it ends up sticking to your face.

Oh come on already.  

People always have conflicting opinions about games. I think, (even if they are corrupt) in a way the publications do represent what the majority of people think.

Do the majority of people hate Fallout 3 with a passion? of course not. Do the majority of people love it as much as the publications spell it out to be? probably not, but people still like it.