Great Fallout 3 review from 2016

[ilitarist]

I dunno. I don't like these guys that played Fallout 3 for ONE THOUSAND HOURS then feel dirty as if they enjoyed fat momma porn and then feel the need to cleanse themselves.

Stopped watching F3 Sucks video guy when he went on about the % based chance to succeed and reloading potential.

There are people who talk about the matter while not being idiots or fanboys. Example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvwlt4FqmS0

 

[Sigourn]

I haven't played Vagrant Story but other examples are very curious. You mention Gothic which has decent combat system (which is undermined by the exploits and world design)

Undermined? Gothic has excellent world design. It also has features that even FO3 didn't have, like sleep cycles for wild animals. Not to mention it is a much better RPG, and using much less features.

nice compact interconnected design and OK NPC interactions.

It had more believable interactions than FO3 had. You know, progressing through a faction realistically as opposed to a random stranger telling you "hey, wanna blow up this town?".

It also had primitive story and action-RPG character progression.

A primitive story that was still better than FO3's, because it made sense, the progression through it was interesting and believable. And an action-RPG character progression which, again, actually worked like a roleplaying game's.

Morrowind had a better story than F3 but was worse in every other regard

No, it wasn't.

- It was a better RPG mechancis wise, with skills that actually mattered as opposed to "I have 1 point in Guns yet I can still murder everything".
- It had better art direction. Fallout 3's locations boil down to "cave", "ruined building", "ruined house", "abandoned Vault", "Megaton", and "Rivet City". Vvardenfell had a sprawling world, with vastly different locations, structures, biomes, and more.
- It had many more quests. Considering FO3's are nothing to write home about, Morrowind wins.
- It had a more complex main story.
- It had a faction system.
- If you stole a knife, NPCs wouldn't bludgeon you to death.

Everything you can give to FO3 is a product of its technology: sound, visuals, physics (though I'd rather have Morrowind's than FO3's wanky physics, at least I can neatly orgnize items in a shelf this way).

Fallout, as an RPG, has only one advantage over Morrowind: the ability to make some choices. Which again, has always been the strong point of Fallout over The Elder Scrolls, until Bethesda mixed up the two.

Not sure what grand scale are you talking about; if you mean sheer number of copypasted info-kiosk NPCs?

Precisely that's the grand scale I'm talking about: you try to give each NPC in Morrowind an unique personality and something interesting to say. I'm willing to bet FO3 has one quarter of the (non-hostile) NPCs Morrowind has, even less.

I can't see F3 shortcomings that aren't present in one of those two games

Except you are comparing a 2008 game to one released 6 years earlier, see the difference? You must judge games according to their context. I can't stress this point enough: FO3 means nothing, it's just another run of the mill "open world sandbox" title from Bethesda. It didn't do anything special.

New Vegas did. It showed Bethesda how to make an excellent RPG from features that had always been there from the start. Obsidian just tweaked how they worked. 1 perk every 2 levels instead of 1 at every level. Skill checks that REQUIRED you to have the necessary skill. Branching main quest. Factions you could join and do quests for. World building that made sense. More quests and with more complex inner workings.

What both of those games have that is better than F3 instead of being released at a time when you couldn't look at them clearly?

Everything I just mentioned.

And it's not nostalgia speaing: I should brand into my forehead that I have played Skyrim first, Fallout 3 second, New Vegas third, and Morrowind fourth (with Fallout 1 fifth). All of these in the span of the last two years.

I'm playing Morrowind in a few minutes, even.

 

[pippin]

I think I prefer the old potatofaced npcs from 3 that the cringey models from fo4. It was morelike you were playing with bootleg action figures and it made it kinda endearing in a way.

But there's nothing in the game.Really nothing. Contrary to popular belief, the funniest part for me was exploring sewers, the metro,and maybe some regions at the NW part of the map. But that was fun for 2 hours, if anything.

 

[ilitarist]

Except you are comparing a 2008 game to one released 6 years earlier, see the difference? You must judge games according to their context.

The context is 2016. F3 release is closer to Morrowind than to a current time. From the distance Morrowind looks ambitious, cute and flawed.

In other cases you use words like "believable" or "realistic" and vague descriptions like better RPG mechanics. Gothic world was more consistent, I grant you that, and in this regard Gothic was the most believable world till probably Fallout NV or Risen. Art direction is subjective, I prefer Fallout world.

The real thing you like more in Gothic and Morrowind compared to Fallout 3 are RPG system. That I can not understand. Gothic system worked just as well as F3 but was much more primitive with less choices and I can't see how can anyone deny it. Morrowind system was more complex but it didn't work at all, starting with irritating infamous "dice roll says you miss" system - and I certainly remember it was as irritating in the release day as it is today - and ending with complete imbalance of the system, false choices for player and obvious exploits. F3 is also not good in this regard, but it wasn't broken to this extent.

More quests and faction system - well, F3 has faction system based on your actions instead of stats. The infamous "become archmage without casting a spell" thing from later Bethesda games is not that better than Morrowind's "disregard master of arcane capable of destroying cities with a single spell or being completely invisible because our rules say he should also should cast at least some sumons".

 

[an Administrator]

I still don't know why in Fallout 3 Jet could be found in the old ruined buildings of DC.

 

[Lord Azlan]

I dunno. I don't like these guys that played Fallout 3 for ONE THOUSAND HOURS then feel dirty as if they enjoyed fat momma porn and then feel the need to cleanse themselves.

Stopped watching F3 Sucks video guy when he went on about the % based chance to succeed and reloading potential.

There are people who talk about the matter while not being idiots or fanboys. Example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvwlt4FqmS0

Neat video and I have seen it before. Thanks for posting it here. It would have been better if the guy went beyond What Do They Eat?

Would have been a better point if you had to eat. That I would understand.

Let's ask this question of the Codex top 10. What do they eat and does anyone actually eat?

1 Planescape: Torment (1999)
2 Fallout 1 (1997)
3 Fallout 2 (1998)
4 Baldur's Gate 2: Shadows of Amn (2000)
5 Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura (2001)
6 Vampire: The Mascarade - Bloodlines (2004)
7 The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind (2002)
8 Fallout: New Vegas
9 Gothic 2 (2002)
10 Wizardry 8 (2001)

Although the guy proves my point why Dungeon Master and Lords of Xulima are excellent games.

 

[Doktor Best]

Sykar

Well as terrible as it is as Rpg, i think the exploration was mildly entertaining back then and the shooting part was shallow but not offendingly bad and atleast it was gory (some would even say the same could be said about Fallout 1 combat). The biggest thing it had going for me back then was, as i said, the fact that it showed us a visually(!) detailed and in parts well realized postapocalypse world and let us explore it in first person perspective. Sometimes the game was also kind of atmospheric, kill and loot was fun for a while and some quests/dungeons were even mildly interesting (the vault with the hallucination inducing gas would be one example)

Keep in mind that i am not saying any of those "qualities" i mention are really done well. They were just good enough for me to keep going despite the fact the story was absolutely abhorent and the levelscaling/balance was shit. Whatever i liked about the game, it always came with that shallow taste, the feeling that it is only a glimpse of what could be, which kept me going because i expected that there will be more. But i have that with almost every Bethesda game.

I am not trying to whiteknight for Bethesda here or tell anyone to play the game, i just think Fallout 3 is as bad and as good as most other Bethesda games and i am trying to get the point across that the codex hates Fallout 3 the most because we are not objective on the subject.

 

[Sigourn]

The context is 2016. F3 release is closer to Morrowind than to a current time.

And FO3 is still closer to 2016 than Morrowind is.

Context is context. Morrowind was released in 2002. Fallout 3 in 2008. You must judge games based on the time they were released. Otherwise it is impossible to judge them properly.

Else I would say Morrowind has shit graphics compared to Skyrim.

In other cases you use words like "believable" or "realistic"

Because they are that way. If you have played those games, you would know.

I destroy a whole town and my father goes "I can't begin to tell you how disappointed I am". Really, dude? Really?

and vague descriptions like better RPG mechanics.

- Morrowind has factions.
- Morrowind has stat progression that fundamentally changes how your character works.
- Morrowind stat progression influences faction advancement, how you fight, what spells you can use, how good you are with them.

Fallout 3's stats are literally "more = better", but there's no need to have more of a certain stat since you will always hit, you can bypass any skill check just by reloading, and so on. Meaning that, potentially, you could ace every single skill check in the game as long as you were lucky enough.

Art direction is subjective, I prefer Fallout world.

I prefer the post-apocalyptic atmosphere myself, but Fallout barely did anything with the atmosphere. It used what has been used countless of times before: ruined buildings, ruined landscape. It didn't elaborate on that. It's like Oblivion.

The real thing you like more in Gothic and Morrowind compared to Fallout 3 are RPG system. That I can not understand. Gothic system worked just as well as F3 but was much more primitive with less choices and I can't see how can anyone deny it.

Again, you are compared a game released 7 years before Fallout 3. Do you have any idea what context is? Fallout 3 didn't do shit for its time.

Morrowind system was more complex but it didn't work at all, starting with irritating infamous "dice roll says you miss" system

In your opinion. In my opinion, it is not irritating, and the moment I installed one of those "never miss" mods, the combat stopped being fun.

More quests and faction system - well, F3 has faction system based on your actions instead of stats.

You mean "be an asshole = BoS still loves me"?

The infamous "become archmage without casting a spell" thing from later Bethesda games is not that better than Morrowind's "disregard master of arcane capable of destroying cities with a single spell or being completely invisible because our rules say he should also should cast at least some sumons".

You are right, it's not that better. It's much worse.

Let's ask this question of the Codex top 10. What do they eat and does anyone actually eat?

1 Planescape: Torment (1999)
2 Fallout 1 (1997)
3 Fallout 2 (1998)
4 Baldur's Gate 2: Shadows of Amn (2000)
5 Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura (2001)
6 Vampire: The Mascarade - Bloodlines (2004)
7 The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind (2002)
8 Fallout: New Vegas
9 Gothic 2 (2002)
10 Wizardry 8 (2001)

Except VTM and Wizardry 8, both of which I haven't played, you have farms in every single one of those games except PS:T (you never really get out of the city to see where does their food come from).

 

[Jacob]

the only good thing from gothic is that feeling of character progression.

everything else is decent at best. and the world just feels boring and bland, though admittedly it is more of a low fantasy than the usual fantasy stuff, that's why some people like it (the setting) I guess.

 

[Sigourn]

I'll leave this aside because some people probably have problems understanding it:

To say that a 2002 year old game did the same thing as the 2008 game means that the 2008 didn't improve at all SIX YEARS LATER. I can't blame a 2002 game for not doing something that a 2008 game didn't do, but I can blame the 2008 game for not doing that something, since 6 fucking years have passed.

Moreover, it's the same company. You are expected to get better at what you do.

 

[Doktor Best]

Gothic 1+2 completely shits on Fallout 3 in every single regard. By a mile. It shits on it so hard and so enormously that this could be the reason everything in Fallout 3 is brown.

We can argue wether Fallout 3 had some redeeming qualities, i'm all in for that. But dont compare it to golden classics, that would be heresy.

 

[ilitarist]

Neat video and I have seen it before. Thanks for posting it here. It would have been better if the guy went beyond What Do They Eat?

It was the most obvious question and it was example after a long explanation of the point. It's certainly much better than "Top 25 reasons why this game sucks, reason 23: shotgun to the head doesn't kill people".

As for the list - well, it's subjective of course. I feel Fallout 2 shouldn't be there. Nor the Fallout 3, of course, but if you evaluate games as they are - Fallout 2 did a few things Fallout 1 didn't do, plus it brought all the silliness (and I would argue Fallout 3 even backed down on many dumb story ideas). It was certainly very popular but obviously if we're measuring by popularity then it all should be filled with Bethesda and Bioware games. Fallout 3 isn't close to top ten, but it should be somewhere there.

Again, you are compared a game released 7 years before Fallout 3. Do you have any idea what context is?

Again, the context is now it's 2016 and Fallout 3 and Morrowind exist. Morrowind graphics being good for 2002 doesn't mean they're acceptable - besides, characters looked ugly even for that time. Stone hammer isn't better than latest machine-tool just because it was a bigger technological leap for the time. You can't draw a line in the sand and say that some game was good at its time and all later games have not progressed enough to be considered good just because they came out later.

Also Morrowind progression changes nothing about how your character works, it only raises damage and spell effectiveness. Fallout 3 actually allows you to get new gameplay mechanics by developing your character. As for "be an asshole = BoS still loves me" - it's a gross simplification and does not differ at all from Morrowind. Except Fallout 3 actually recognizes your actions like deciding to destroy BoS, Morrowind world ignores actions like that.

 

[ilitarist]

Gothic 1+2 completely shits on Fallout 3 in every single regard. By a mile. It shits on it so hard and so enormously that this could be the reason everything in Fallout 3 is brown.

We can argue wether Fallout 3 had some redeeming qualities, i'm all in for that. But dont compare it to golden classics, that would be heresy.

Gothic 2 with NotR - it does, except maybe in regards of the lore. It was OK but it was very functional, you saw that world was created just for this game and there's no bigger context. And visuals, of course, Gothic 2 world had much more generic art direction even if we're not talking about technical capabilities. Aaaand character progression was a big step from Gothic 1 but still lacked variety due to balance.

 

[Sigourn]

Again, the context is now it's 2016 and Fallout 3 and Morrowind exist.

Jesus Christ, dude.

Morrowind graphics being good for 2002 doesn't mean they're acceptable

No one said that. All I said is that you can't compare different games from different times as if they were released on the same year. You have to strip down what is timeless and leave everything else behind.

- FO3's physics? Out.
- FO3's graphics? Out.
- FO3's amazing decision to have terrible world building? IN.

You can't draw a line in the sand and say that some game was good at its time and all later games have not progressed enough to be considered good just because they came out later.

Yes I can. That's why the term "revolutionary" exists. The Ford Model T shits on everything else because it was a milestone. Likewise, Morrowind shits on FO3 because Morrowind did so much more in 2002 than FO3 did in 2008, or Skyrim in 2011.

Many cars have been milestones for their time, like many videogames have been milestones as well. Morrowind was a milestone, Fallout was a milestone. Fallout 3 and Skyrim aren't milestones.

As for "be an asshole = BoS still loves me" - it's a gross simplification and does not differ at all from Morrowind. Except Fallout 3 actually recognizes your actions like deciding to destroy BoS, Morrowind world ignores actions like that.

It's not a gross simplification, it's the truth. Fallout 3 doesn't have a faction system at all. It doesn't. You are railroaded through the Brotherhoof of Steel, moreover, you don't really belong to them and they act as a medium for you to advance through the main quest.

Morrowind has real factions, factions you can progress in, factions that give you tasks to do.

One way or another, if you still haven't comprehended the meaning of context, this discussion is pointless. You can't judge a 2002 game with 2016 standards, because the 2008 game is most likely to win. The point is that the 2008 barely improved in some areas, and didn't improve at all on others.

 

[Outlander]

the world just feels boring and bland

Gothic's world is ANYTHING but 'boring and bland'. Shit, you actually played the game? Bethesda's generic games are the ones where you can left click your way to end with your eyes closed. all the while trudging through a stinking swamp of generic quests, generic world building, generic combat and awful writing.

Gothic's world is handcrafted and meant to be more realistic, dark, and especially dangerous. Exploration is very rewarding because the first half of the game you are literally rape fodder for every enemy you encounter, but the beauty of it is that if you stick to paths and watch where you're going you should be relatively safe, or you can go exploring at your own risk.

Bethesda games have none of this.

 

[ilitarist]

All I said is that you can't compare different games from different times as if they were released on the same year. You have to strip down what is timeless and leave everything else behind.

Those two phrases directly contradict each other. Should I compare Morrowind to imaginary version of Fallout 3 that would look like it was released on FO3? Will my eyes also be convinced I'm seeing the same level of picture quality?

As for Fallout 3 factions - they do exist and they're more complex and subtle than Morrowind's. They react to different things and they allow you access to different things. Morrowind system was, frankly, not that impressive: all factions worked in the same way, they neve interacted, they all had the same progression just different places to join and list of quests. In Fallout 3 you have dozens of factions who roam the world and can fight each other. Some of those you can befriend, some you can antagonize. You can help some ranger group and later meet them raiding wastelands, you could do various things to home vault and their relations to you changed, you could got hitmen sent after you, you could destroy those groups or get unique benefits from them. You can argue Morrowind factions were more consistent and believable, but they were primitive, linear and stale.

 

[Jacob]

the world just feels boring and bland

Gothic's world is ANYTHING but 'boring and bland'. Shit, you actually played the game? Bethesda's generic games are the ones where you can left click your way to end with your eyes closed. all the while trudging through a stinking swamp of generic quests, generic world building, generic combat and awful writing.

Gothic's world is handcrafted and meant to be more realistic, dark, and especially dangerous. Exploration is very rewarding because the first half of the game you are literally rape fodder for every enemy you encounter, but the beauty of it is that if you stick to paths and watch where you're going you should be relatively safe, or you can go exploring at your own risk.

Bethesda games have none of this.

got bored by chapter 2.

realistic, yes, dangerous... that's what i meant when i say 'the feeling of character progression', every single enemy is deadly at the early game.

the enemies are pretty cool too, dinosaur-like creature is kinda rare except in final fantasy where there is t-rex in the school garden

but the setting as a whole is just... that, boring, doesn't make me interested in whatever the hell happened within the world

but, hey, i can even understand its position as codex' favorite action-rpg. that character progression in such dangerous world is something i've yet to find in any other game. being an action game it is pretty easy to pick up too.

 

[Sigourn]

Those two phrases directly contradict each other.

No, they don't.

Fallout 3 did things that have been done before. And it did things that were impossible for Morrowind to do at the time, like its graphics, its physics, and other things.

What I ask is that you compare design decisions, approaches. I ask you to compare the FO3 that was to the FO3 that could have been, released on 2008. New Vegas was released 2 years later, with the same engine, most of the same assets, and it's incredibly different, much more better.

As for Fallout 3 factions

Joinable factions. Fallout 3 has only one.

The other factions, if any, are basically inexistent.

In Fallout 3 you have dozens of factions who roam the world and can fight each other. Some of those you can befriend, some you can antagonize. You can help some ranger group and later meet them raiding wastelands, you could do various things to home vault and their relations to you changed, you could got hitmen sent after you, you could destroy those groups or get unique benefits from them. You can argue Morrowind factions were more consistent and believable, but they were primitive, linear and stale.

We definitely haven't played the same game.

- You can only join one faction in Fallout 3: the Brotherhood of Steel. You can't even choose: you are forced to join them.
- The only other joinable faction I can think of, and my mind may be blurry, is that generic faction that hunts down bad people, or that generic faction that hunts down good people. And that's basically it.

There are no other factions in the game. Otherwise, every single town and NPC in every single game ever created constitutes a faction.

 

[Sykar]

I dunno. I don't like these guys that played Fallout 3 for ONE THOUSAND HOURS then feel dirty as if they enjoyed fat momma porn and then feel the need to cleanse themselves.

Stopped watching F3 Sucks video guy when he went on about the % based chance to succeed and reloading potential.

There are people who talk about the matter while not being idiots or fanboys. Example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvwlt4FqmS0

Neat video and I have seen it before. Thanks for posting it here. It would have been better if the guy went beyond What Do They Eat?

Would have been a better point if you had to eat. That I would understand.

Let's ask this question of the Codex top 10. What do they eat and does anyone actually eat?

1 Planescape: Torment (1999)
2 Fallout 1 (1997)
3 Fallout 2 (1998)
4 Baldur's Gate 2: Shadows of Amn (2000)
5 Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura (2001)
6 Vampire: The Mascarade - Bloodlines (2004)
7 The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind (2002)
8 Fallout: New Vegas
9 Gothic 2 (2002)
10 Wizardry 8 (2001)

Although the guy proves my point why Dungeon Master and Lords of Xulima are excellent games.

The question is not applicable to non-post apocalyptic games since we can assume with good certainty that food and water are of no issue and therefore it is a trivial matter. In contrast for people living in a post apocalyptic world their entire life centers around were to get the next piece of meat and the next sip of water before you succumb to hunger and thirst. Displaying this to a rudamentary but believable degree is essential. What's worse Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 did this splendidly on the sidelines while Fallout 3 fails uttery and pathetically due to Bethderps laziness. New Vegas manages to capture this to a decent degree again while FO 4 seems to fail again despite "The Sims" mode being around. Ultimately Bethtard is an utterly lazy and incompetent company who throws out half assed piles of turd in the vain hope that modders will fix it. I seriously hope they will flame out sooner than later and someone punch that fucking asswipe Todd Howard square in his smug lying face.

Nevermind that Planescape and Vampire:BL are almost exclusively inner city RPGs.
And that you mention Gothic 2 when a massive area is dedicated to a single grand farmer and some additonal smaller farms dot around on the main island makes me wonder if you have ever played it in the first place. When it comes to believable world building Gothic 2 is one of if not the best example for it.

 

[Gepeu]

Jesus Christ, reading fallout 3 apologists' bullcrap like that above is as depressing as listening to someone saying that holocaust was a good thing. Only jews fanboys criticise holocaust, tryhard idiots.

 

[ilitarist]

- You can only join one faction in Fallout 3: the Brotherhood of Steel. You can't even choose: you are forced to join them.
- The only other joinable faction I can think of, and my mind may be blurry, is that generic faction that hunts down bad people, or that generic faction that hunts down good people. And that's basically it.

There are no other factions in the game. Otherwise, every single town and NPC in every single game ever created constitutes a faction.

Apart from what you've mentioned: Slavers, Temple of the Union (anti-slavers), Tunnel Snakes, Riley's Rangers, Brotherhood Outcasts, Vampire teens. True, they lack progression quests and ranking, but each one of those is more unique than Morrowind factions which are basically access to quests and vendors, so basically series of quest with skill gates. Fallout 3 is not much better than Morrowind in this regard, but it's factions do something interesting apart from being quest chains. It's much easier to make case Morrowind had no factions.

Fallout 3 did things that have been done before. And it did things that were impossible for Morrowind to do at the time, like its graphics, its physics, and other things.

What I ask is that you compare design decisions, approaches. I ask you to compare the FO3 that was to the FO3 that could have been, released on 2008. New Vegas was released 2 years later, with the same engine, most of the same assets, and it's incredibly different, much more better.

New Vegas is one of the best RPG games ever made. Fallout 3 is worse in many regards. So what?

Asking what could have been is a recepy for a disappointment. I can do the same with Morrowind. Why didn't it have real open world? Space Rangers, a game where hundrends character acted independendly, each one having relations with the others and organizing for joint operations, was released the same year. Why is Morrowind faction system is a stale quest chain with skill gates while in Daggerfall you had a dynamic system of titles? Why is crime system so simple when in Daggerfall you could defend yourself in court? Why the roleplaying system was so dumbed down, where are the language skills and traits? I'm not even talking about a game not having proper dialogues or balance, which we had years before that. So I ask why you consider Morrowind guilt-free of not realising its potential?

 

[Sigourn]

Apart from what you've mentioned: Slavers, Temple of the Union (anti-slavers), Tunnel Snakes, Riley's Rangers, Brotherhood Outcasts, Vampire teens. True, they lack progression quests and ranking, but each one of those is more unique than Morrowind factions which are basically access to quests and vendors, so basically series of quest with skill gates. Fallout 3 is not much better than Morrowind in this regard, but it's factions do something interesting apart from being quest chains. It's much easier to make case Morrowind had no factions.

As I expected, to you a faction is nothing but a quest. Which is funny, since that's what Bethesda has accustomed people to.

It would be like me calling each Ashlander Camp a faction, when they really aren't.

New Vegas is one of the best RPG games ever made. Fallout 3 is worse in many regards. So what?

So that's how you compare a game properly. You don't need to use your imagination: New Vegas is the perfect example of what FO3 could have been under the hands of competent developers. What's worse is that New Vegas was developed in one and a half years by a team that had never touched Gamebryo before.

Asking what could have been is a recepy for a disappointment. I can do the same with Morrowind. Why didn't it have real open world?

What do you mean it is not a real open world?

Space Rangers, a game where hundrends character acted independendly, each one having relations with the others and organizing for joint operations, was released the same year.

I would need to play that game to know exactly how good it is.

Why is Morrowind faction system is a stale quest chain with skill gates while in Daggerfall you had a dynamic system of titles? Why is crime system so simple when in Daggerfall you could defend yourself in court? Why the roleplaying system was so dumbed down, where are the language skills and traits? I'm not even talking about a game not having proper dialogues or balance, which we had years before that. So I ask why you consider Morrowind guilt-free of not realising its potential?

I never said it was guilt free. It's guilty of dumbing down just like Fallout 3 is, just like Oblivion is, just like Skyrim is, and just like Fallout 4 is.

This is Bethesda we are talking about.

 

[an Administrator]

factions

Tunnel Snakes

Are you for real?

 

[Gepeu]

he's retarded

 

[bloodlover]

God damn newfags praising F3 on the Codex.