Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Great Fallout 3 review from 2016

norolim

Arcane
Joined
Nov 21, 2012
Messages
1,012
Location
Pawland
Some years ago I bought Fallout 3 from a bargain bin. I went home and put it on some shelf. I wonder if it's still there...
 

Sykar

Arcane
Joined
Dec 2, 2014
Messages
11,297
Location
Turn right after Alpha Centauri
Read and get educated just how atrociously terrible and utterly retardly nonsensical the story in FO 3 is:

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

You can circlejerk all you want, but the selectively blind nitpicking for plotholess and errors doesn't prove anything about Fallout 3 not being a good game - and it certainly not worse than F2 in this regard, so the real problem with the game may be everything apart from story/dialogs got better. Even if we agree that the story is bad (which is not, in some regards it surpasses FNV and in many - F2) it's not enough to condemn Fallout 3 as not a very good game. Its atmosphere, world connectivity, variety, sheer size, visuals and sound - all of this is top-notch. It's not a masterpiece Fallout New Vegas is, but it's still up there among the best games ever made.

I seriously hate handwaving like this and it is clear you have not read the article or you would not make such erroneous statements about a text which goes far deeper than mere plotholes.

Fallout 2 is so much superior to FO 3 it is laughable and that is despite it's overabundance of cultural references which Bethderp thought was a good idea to blow it even more out of proportion even though FO 2 garnered a lot of criticism for it going overboard with them.

Comparisons:
Combat: The shooting in FO 3 is terrible and the VATS system is inferior due to less targetable areas and also trivializes the shooter part making it even more of a joke. I'd rather have a simple well made turn based combat than a shitty shooter/VATS cheat hybrid.

Story: Story starts weak but gets quite good during mid early to late midgame especially once you dig deeper into the political affairs between the major cities in FO 2. It falls off in San Francisco quite a bit which is my least favorite part of the game but the Enclave is decent again.
FO 3? I linked the article which goes into detail just how utterly absurd, nonsensical and outright idiotic the story is. Not going to repeat it here.

Presentation: I like the 2d sprite style of FO 2 a lot more than the clunky jagged terribly blurry textures of FO 3. Wash though since this is personal preference.
At least the initial area in FO 2 is not as bad and insuffarable. since Temple of Trials can be done in 5 minutes and less. FO 3's shit stain of an intro sequence is so terrible that not just one but several mods have the option to cut it out/skip it.

Factions: Worthless in FO 3 not even worth mentioning. Worse is what they did to super mutants in FO 3.

Character system: Superfically they are similar. Digging deeper you realize you can max almost all skills easily and jack up attributes much more than FO 2 could even with Gifted which leads to your character being a master of all trades and therefore choices only matter a little at the beginning but become meaningless at the end which also limits replayability quite a bit. Then comes the dialogue and checks and you realize that only speech is important for that. Worse the game tells you when there is a speech otpion instead of making it blend it seemingly so you can always opt to save scum 2-3 times which is usually enough to get the best stuff easily without putting much thought into character building and role playing. Furthermore other attributes, perks or skills do not check out in dialogue unlike in FO 2 in which sometimes at least intelligence and certain perks played a role.

Exploration: On paper FO 3 has more locations. In practice a lot of FO 3s location are easily interchangable (hello metros) and also so close together that there is hardly a feel of exploration and time. FO 2's approach with the overland map on which several days go by visibly while traveling gives one a much bigger sense of exploration and especially scope of exploration feels several orders of magnitude bigger than FO 3s.

Cultural References: FO 2 had too many and many critizise it rightfully for it. FO 3 brought this to laughbly retarded and overbloated heights though. No question is FO 3 utter shite here. Worse none was even funny.
 
Last edited:

typical user

Arbiter
Joined
Nov 30, 2015
Messages
957
Fallout 3 is a shit game. If any of you think otherwise then go do us all a favor and win Darwin award for this year.

It has shit story, shit gameplay mechanics, shit graphics (compare to Crysis or Far Cry 2), shit music, shit characters, shit world, shits on lore, treats adults like kindergarden and is just plain boring.

I am playing Gothic 2 right now and that game has no fucking loadings between locations. A game from 2000. And it's 2016 and those asshats from Bethesda still clinge to their pathetic engine and get away with it.
 

Sykar

Arcane
Joined
Dec 2, 2014
Messages
11,297
Location
Turn right after Alpha Centauri
Fallout 3 is a shit game. If any of you think otherwise then go do us all a favor and win Darwin award for this year.

It has shit story, shit gameplay mechanics, shit graphics (compare to Crysis or Far Cry 2), shit music, shit characters, shit world, shits on lore, treats adults like kindergarden and is just plain boring.

I am playing Gothic 2 right now and that game has no fucking loadings between locations. A game from 2000. And it's 2016 and those asshats from Bethesda still clinge to their pathetic engine and get away with it.

This is something which drives me nuts since there is no excuse for it. They could just jump on hey let's say Unreal engine which is affordable even by smaller companies and the graphics are actually good but no still the same old same shitty stiff animations, terrible lip sync, awful textures (in part) idiotic animation relics from Skyrim, etc.
 

Neki

Scholar
Joined
Jul 30, 2016
Messages
145
ilitarist, you're drunk, go home and stop embarrassing yourself.

EDIT:I'm embarrassed
 
Last edited:

ilitarist

Learned
Illiterate Village Idiot
Joined
Oct 17, 2016
Messages
857
So much maximalism in there. You see too flawed things and justify the fact you liked one by pretending to have some objective evalutation. No middle-ground, it's either shit or masterpiece, right? Can you see the logic in the fact that FNV, modded Fallout 3, is considered masterpiece even though most of its systems are copypasted from FO3, some additions are useless and in some regards its worse? There was still some magic that turned a turd into a cake? What is it, dialogue and story?

Especially notable with comparing FO2 and FO3 in regards of story. FO3 is *less* broken in that regard. When in your defense of FO2 you deny obvious things like FO3 having more consistent tone and better exploration. Dumb articles nitpicking character motivations and plotholes prove nothing as, again, FO2 had more of those. Do you remember it had magical shaman sending you vision as a part of main quest?
 

Sykar

Arcane
Joined
Dec 2, 2014
Messages
11,297
Location
Turn right after Alpha Centauri
So much maximalism in there. You see too flawed things and justify the fact you liked one by pretending to have some objective evalutation. No middle-ground, it's either shit or masterpiece, right? Can you see the logic in the fact that FNV, modded Fallout 3, is considered masterpiece even though most of its systems are copypasted from FO3, some additions are useless and in some regards its worse? There was still some magic that turned a turd into a cake? What is it, dialogue and story?

Especially notable with comparing FO2 and FO3 in regards of story. FO3 is *less* broken in that regard. When in your defense of FO2 you deny obvious things like FO3 having more consistent tone and better exploration. Dumb articles nitpicking character motivations and plotholes prove nothing as, again, FO2 had more of those. Do you remember it had magical shaman sending you vision as a part of main quest?

There is plenty of "middle ground" when it comes to games but you are just too blind to accept that it is by any measure especially objectively, shit.

More consistent tone? What do you mean by that, that they turned FO into a fucking circus of cultural references? Better exploration how? Plenty of the places you visit are similar and everything is in a 30 minute walk reach at best.
 

bloodlover

Arcane
Joined
Sep 5, 2010
Messages
2,039
So much maximalism in there. You see too flawed things and justify the fact you liked one by pretending to have some objective evalutation. No middle-ground, it's either shit or masterpiece, right? Can you see the logic in the fact that FNV, modded Fallout 3, is considered masterpiece even though most of its systems are copypasted from FO3, some additions are useless and in some regards its worse? There was still some magic that turned a turd into a cake? What is it, dialogue and story?

Especially notable with comparing FO2 and FO3 in regards of story. FO3 is *less* broken in that regard. When in your defense of FO2 you deny obvious things like FO3 having more consistent tone and better exploration. Dumb articles nitpicking character motivations and plotholes prove nothing as, again, FO2 had more of those. Do you remember it had magical shaman sending you vision as a part of main quest?

You lost the argument and all credibility when you called NV a modded F3. If you can't see the differences between those then there's no point to argue.
 

ilitarist

Learned
Illiterate Village Idiot
Joined
Oct 17, 2016
Messages
857
FNV largely has the same gameplay as Fallout 3, down to dialog system (except for switching from chance to flat checks). It has a different quest structure in the second part of the game but this structure itself doesn't make it good - FO4 has the same structure and it's more or less horribly implemented. Writing and characters and somewhat different setting (by the way, FO3 "war happened last week" assets work even worse in a relatively developed setting so it loses some points there) are all the real advances. There are also updates for progression system with new perks, but there's also the fact Obsidian doesn't know what to do with 3D worlds so level design as well as some quest design really suffered.

I see most of you like a good story (this explains why you consider Morrowind to be good), but the game is much more than story. FONV is a step ahead of FO3 in terms of story/setting and that's pretty much it, evetything else is marginally better or worse..
 

Sykar

Arcane
Joined
Dec 2, 2014
Messages
11,297
Location
Turn right after Alpha Centauri
that they turned FO into a fucking circus of cultural references?
you mean fallout 2?

No, try again.

FNV largely has the same gameplay as Fallout 3, down to dialog system (except for switching from chance to flat checks). It has a different quest structure in the second part of the game but this structure itself doesn't make it good - FO4 has the same structure and it's more or less horribly implemented. Writing and characters and somewhat different setting (by the way, FO3 "war happened last week" assets work even worse in a relatively developed setting so it loses some points there) are all the real advances. There are also updates for progression system with new perks, but there's also the fact Obsidian doesn't know what to do with 3D worlds so level design as well as some quest design really suffered.

I see most of you like a good story (this explains why you consider Morrowind to be good), but the game is much more than story. FONV is a step ahead of FO3 in terms of story/setting and that's pretty much it, evetything else is marginally better or worse..

Except that not only does that mean that you cannot save scum for speech checks. What's worse you omit the fact that unlike Failturd 3 FO:NV has a lot of different skill check options, like for example barter or repair, throughout the game increasing the replayability.
 

ilitarist

Learned
Illiterate Village Idiot
Joined
Oct 17, 2016
Messages
857
It uses the same assets, the same systems. And, like mods, it often misuses those systems - remember how you had to drag the corpse to bury some ranger? Is it more different from FO3 than, say, Enderal is different from Skyrim?

About skill checks - FO3 had perk checks, not that different. It also had skill checks for various other things so it's a miniscule improvement. So what, shit game is transformed into a great game by adding a good story and more types of skillcheck and worse level design, is that your argument?
 

Akratus

Self-loathing fascist drunken misogynist asshole
Patron
Joined
May 7, 2013
Messages
0
Location
The Netherlands
Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire Make the Codex Great Again! Grab the Codex by the pussy Insert Title Here Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
Fallout 3 has:
-Like a quarter of the quests new vegas has
-No real faction systems or content you can be locked out of
-No real consequences, except for blowing up megaton which is retarded and some minor inconsequential things
-More lore fuckups than i can count, like the convenient fact that vault tec inexplicably got top secretly researched fev that existed only in mariposa and inexplicably only put it in a vault and the fact that the brotherhood walked all the way to dc, the enclave had a base in dc and walked all the way there, and yadayadaetceterablablabla
-Vampires
-Muh dad
-Shit art design, which is too bad because Adamowicz made some nice concepts
-Percentage based skill checks
-Moira
-Illogical world building
-Shit endings
-MUH BIBLE
-Shit dlc
-Fucking terrible humor
-THAREEEEEEEEEEE DAWWWWWG

New Vegas' necessary additions and improvements:
-Replacement of percentage based checks with hard ones that are actually useful and consequential
-Good voice acting
-3 dimensional characters
-Amazing dlc
-Four actual fleshed out main quest paths
-A fuckton of quests
-Choice and consequence that's worth a damn
-More realistic and logical worldbuilding
-Good writing
-Respect for the lore
-Respectful references and throwbacks to the classics
-Good and varied music and not just LOL FIFTIES AMIRITE
-Playstyles that don't just involve choosing what weapon you kill people with
-Well written followers with their own quests
-Better balance
-Some attention given to melee and unarmed playstyles

And I'm forgetting a ton of shit so if you want more here's a video of over an hour:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLJ1gyIzg78
 
Last edited:

Doktor Best

Arcane
Joined
Feb 2, 2015
Messages
2,849
First and foremost, Fallout New Vegas had an actual branching storyline, which makes it actually possible to solve the mainstory in a nonlinear fashion. Also sidequests were approachable in various forms, which Fallout 3 never really managed to do. It was mostly go there, talk, shooty shooty, steal. Just take a look at this beautiful flowchart: http://imgur.com/mAENC. This is how quests should be structured. Fallout 3 never achieved this, it was like the retarded cousin of a famous scientist/author.

The dungeons/vaults were vastly superior, the villages and cities were actual cities with fun characters to get to know, it had actual factions which you could interact with (and no tunnel snakes is not a fucking faction), it had better dialogue, it had MUCH more and also more relevant sidecontent, better gamebalance, reduced levelscaling, it had much more and better written companions, there is much more reactivity to your actions (in Fallout 3 you blow up a city with a fucking nuke and like 2 people mention it, other than that there is no form of reactivity that i remember), the karma system is not as insultingly stupid as in Fallout 3.

Should i go on?
 

ilitarist

Learned
Illiterate Village Idiot
Joined
Oct 17, 2016
Messages
857
Akratus, you've actually posted a good video that makes a consistent point. But your rant is so weak it would only convince neutral person in your fanboyism.

Doktor Best, you actually look like an adult. The interesting part is dungeons/vaults being superior. Don't get this at all. As I see it, there were practically no interesting dungeons and design was uninspiring (unless you go into DLC). The only interesting sort of dungeon I'd say where Western Vegas Ruins as they were inhabited by interesting enemies and it's the only place in the game that uses Z axis for gameplay reasons. Many dungeons are 1 room cave or something Meanwhile Fallout 3 dungeons are big and varied, environmental storytelling is much more evident there compared to New Vegas where the place is either explicitly part of the quest or just a cave. The most disappointing thing about FNV was they came up with a single good vault idea (democracy one) while even FO3 had couple of good ones (Visions, Gary, Artists).

As for non-linear fashion - it's not a good thing on its own. Fallout 4 did that, would you call it a great game? And all those structured quests routinely highlighted negative effects of this complexity: numerour quests do not work properly and can't anticipate what player character would do. But yeah, in general FNV quests are better. Balance is completely broken unless you mean enemies are not as beefy as they become in the end of FO3, in other regards it's less balanced and more abusable. Karma system is broken in FNV too.

See, FNV is a better game, but now you're praising the things that were actually broken in FNV and not in FO3. Same goes for reactivity: if you perceive it as something else than getting a line of dialog confirming that game noticed your action, FO3 had just as much reactivity, if not more, only it wasn't put in a context of realistic setting. FO3 allowed you to lose biggest quest hub with numerous merchants and unique loot and you don't call it reactivity? FNV does similar thing with tutorial town but the landscape itself does not change and you aren't supposed to visit this town anymore anyway. FO3 has actual living world so you can see factions interact - and yeah, even Tunnel Snakes are infinitely dumb but they are better faction than any Morrowind infokiosk questgivers are, cause they're actually involved in the world and may end up in any different situations.

EDIT: The point it you exagerrate the difference. Gameplay in FNV is no better. Story is. So FNV is as good as Fallout 3 + good book, if you're able to ignore cheesy stuff. But if you've played FO2 then you probably can ignore cheesy stuff, because FO2 was worse about it.
 
Last edited:

Akratus

Self-loathing fascist drunken misogynist asshole
Patron
Joined
May 7, 2013
Messages
0
Location
The Netherlands
Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire Make the Codex Great Again! Grab the Codex by the pussy Insert Title Here Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
You're quite thick. Did you know that? Someone should have told you.

New Vegas doesn't JUST do writing better than fallout 3; quest design, dialogue, characters, followers, dialogue choices, stats, skills and reactivity are ALL implemented better than Fallout 3. You can't seem to see the enormous divide in quality between the two that's consequential to the differences in Bethesda's and Obsidian's design philosophies.

They are very similar yes, but in only one of the two do you feel treated as though you are a baby following candy on a string along that you can never have, and it's not New Vegas.
 

Neki

Scholar
Joined
Jul 30, 2016
Messages
145
FO3 had just as much reactivity, if not more
No

So FNV is as good as Fallout 3
No
So what, shit game is transformed into a great game by adding a good story and more types of skillcheck
Yes, if i wanna play a RPG i don't want to find my dad and easily kill super mutants at LV1, Percentage skill checks are retaded, the non percentage ones are the worst.

(Intelligence)Did you see my dad, he is an old man.
Did you see my dad?
Did you see my father?
Did you see an old man?

worse level design


I know, right? Fucking devs trying to copy real life.:roll:
 

Baardhaas

Cipher
Patron
Joined
Dec 1, 2014
Messages
576
Make the Codex Great Again! Grab the Codex by the pussy Insert Title Here
I can never get enough of a good trashing of this pile of turd

The one valid point this guy makes is that in Fallout 3 you are not the main character. Though I'm positive this critisism has been made before in some review or codex post a few years after Fallout 3 came out. Sure, maybe he came up with this idea all by himself, I highly doubt it, but lets give him the benefit of doubt. Now, this isn't even a bad thing by itself, there are many games where the protagonist explores the lives and deeds of others, Planescape: Torment comes to mind. What makes Fallout 3 really shitty isn't the fact that you're not allowed to roleplay your own character or can roleplay your own unique story, but that you have to follow in the footsteps of someone who makes blatant stupid mistakes and are powerless to intervene. you're in this nightmare, watching your dad do ludicrous stuff and you're screaming from the top of your lungs: Stop, Don't, No, Wait, and nobody hears you. It really is a test of willpower, but in a very, very wrong way. Sure you can go toe to toe with the baddest enemies the game has to offer at level one, and that is retarded. But the real difficulty of this game lies in watching this cringe-inducing mess of a story unfold.

Before that, I played Skyrim and then FO3 two years ago on my first "gaming" computer (1GB VRAM, lel).
Oh no you fucking didn't, you didn't just scoff at 1gb vram. My first gaming computer had 64 kb of RAM, hence it was called a commodore 64. My first pc, had one 1mb of vram and I'd just love to shove all of its 13,3 inches of Trident VLB glory up your ass without lube (or dos4gw for that matter). You fucking entitled piece of .... ow fuck who am I kidding. Good on you kid, you lucked out and started enjoying RPG's in a time where pc's are still backwards compatible with every crappy system that came before and in the meantime can enjoy any new AAA++ game that's released. Best of two worlds.
 
Last edited:

Sigourn

uooh afficionado
Joined
Feb 6, 2016
Messages
5,624
Before that, I played Skyrim and then FO3 two years ago on my first "gaming" computer (1GB VRAM, lel).
Oh no you fucking didn't, you didn't just scoff at 1gb vram. My first gaming computer had 64 kb of RAM, hence it was called a commodore 64. My first pc, had one 1mb of vram and I'd just love to shove all of it's 13,3 inches of Trident VLB glory up your ass without lube (or dos4gw for that matter). You fucking entitled piece of .... ow fuck who am I kidding. Good on you kid, you lucked out and started enjoying RPG's in a time where pc's are still backwards compatible with every crappy system that came before and in the meantime can enjoy any new AAA++ game that's released. Best of two worlds.

What I really meant to say is that, by today's standards, 1GB VRAM is not a gaming computer at all. But it was the first computer which allow me to actually play games in a long, long time.
 

Baardhaas

Cipher
Patron
Joined
Dec 1, 2014
Messages
576
Make the Codex Great Again! Grab the Codex by the pussy Insert Title Here
What I really meant to say is that, by today's standards, 1GB VRAM is not a gaming computer at all. But it was the first computer which allow me to actually play games in a long, long time.
I know, I discarded my 1gb card one year ago, it was also when i bought my first mainboard without a FDD or IDE connector and my first PC-case without a 5,25" bay. It just made me notice how time's flying and just felt like going on an old guys rant. But I mean it, if you started out in the 1gb vram era, which really isn't that long ago, you're in a position to enjoy all the golden oldies while also enjoying all the new games that come out. A great time to start RPG-gaming. It's getting more and more difficult to get old dos or amiga games to work, so enjoy it while you still can.
 

Black Angel

Arcane
Joined
Jun 23, 2016
Messages
2,910
Location
Wonderland
QiNMK4F.jpg

Not even close, baby!

For a fairer comparison, take a look at Wasteland Survival Guide from Fallout 3, then compare it to, say, Beyond the Beef from New Vegas.

mAENC.jpg


(I can't find a quest chart like this for Wasteland Survival Guide, but the wiki page for it will suffice).

As you can see, Wasteland Survival Guide had a pretty straightforward kind of branching part, and fairly minor reactivity (like how random Wastelanders handle the wasteland depends on which path you took in the quest) which stand out compared to the rest of the game. However, there's no question that Beyond the Beef, and obviously other quests in New Vegas, did it much, MUCH better that the effect lasted and can be seen from the ending slides. It's just baffling how could anyone liked Fallout 3 more as a game, let alone an RPG.
 

HoboForEternity

sunset tequila
Patron
Joined
Mar 27, 2016
Messages
9,175
Location
Disco Elysium
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
jeebus, why isnt fallout 3 apologist outright banned here.

i mean i go to this place to escape gamefaqs retardness because oh great scott bethesda retards and consolefags are very numerous there.

i thought i could go to a place where fallout 3 vs new vegas discussion would be met with synonimous "fallout 3 is shit" decision.

yet there are still retards even here. the reason i endure this place's bigotry and outright racism is you guys have relatively great taste.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom