Exceedingly poor dialogue aside, is this game actually as inferior to the classic games as the people here proclaim? Seemingly contrary to the popular circlejerk, most of the game’s quests have a decent amount of alternative outcomes (at least two branching conclusions) and provide a notable amount of player agency.
The only true flaws I can see is that it’s far too easy to max out most of your stats and that the game allows you to obtain much too many perks (one per level), thus allowing you to become grossly overpowered by the end-game.
Perhaps the issue here is not that this game is given too little acclaim, but rather that the classic games are given far too much. Fuck Mothership Zeta, though.
There are no redeeming features in F3 unless it was your first big rpg and you're nostalgic about it.
Cooper Turner
Aside from the dialogue, which we all agree is dogshit, in what ways is it inferior to the classic games?
Logan Hall
Fallout 3 was a pretty standard entry in the series. Anons like have been taught that you're not allowed to say anything good about it because New Vegas exists. The location was pretty cool, quests were entertaining and overall it's a pretty fun game. Don't go into it expecting New Vegas levels of depth. (Although, the original games didn't have that either).
Nathan Roberts
F3 feels like a bad fanfic which is inferior in pretty much anything. It uses the same setting but result is just mediocre. No internal logic, no style, nothing.
It has much stronger mainstream appeal though. Console players never heard of F1-F2 and 3d rpgs are much more popular than isometric shit.
Isaac Gonzalez
I agree. Almost every one of Fallout 1's quests were directly linear, which the only variation being the ability to perhaps utilize a different skill or item to achieve the inevitable end-goal.
I originally believed that the "no ironsights" thing in 3 was absolutely retarded, until I realized that it was purposeful in order to increase dependency on skills as opposed to player input.
Anthony Sanders
Can you tell me how it's inferior without just saying "it's inferior".
Aiden Watson
Two different conclusions to a quest is not "a decent amount of alternative outcomes". Those are the only flaws you can see? Not the atrocious weapon implementation and balance, the poorly designed game world, the terrible perk system, or the entire main quest "structure"? If you don't see the issues with any of that I don't think you're particularly qualified on this game, or on any game for that matter.
>until I realized that it was purposeful in order to increase dependency on skills as opposed to player input. No, the issue is that you're just retarded.
Landon Price
Two different conlusions is superior to Fallout 1's quests, where you were normally only entitled to a singular conclusion.
>atrocious weapon implementation and balance Do you mean that some weapons were superior to others? Because that's exactly how Fallout 1 and 2 were..
>entire main quest "structure" Pretty much a carbon copy of Fallout 1.
Not sure why you think the ironsights thing is retarded.
Brandon White
>two different conclusions is (barely) superior to Fallout 1's quests, a game developed and released ten years earlier Wow, can't see why this would be an issue for some people.
>Do you mean that some weapons were superior to others? No, I mean that the implementation is absolute garbage across the board, from the designs and ammunition usage to the balance. For example, it's easy to get an absurdly high critical chance with the sniper rifle due to how critical multipliers work, but there's no real point because of how severe the weapon durability is. By far the most efficient method for anyone who wants to use guns is to use one which fire multiple projectiles per shot, because of how critical damage bonuses are applied.
>Pretty much a carbon copy of Fallout 1. No it isn't, you're just a retard who has no idea what he's talking about.
>Not sure why the you think the ironsights thing is retarded. Because, again, you have no idea what you're talking about. How does the lack of ironsights increase the player's dependency on their skills? You still have a crosshair, scoped weapons still work the same. Skill level input to weapon accuracy is the same.
Michael Lee
1) Why does the time between the two titles matter? If Fallout 3's quests are more open-ended then they are more open-ended.
2) Are you implying that having a highly-deteriorating condition is not a good counterbalance to insanely high damage potential? What did you mean by this?
3) Calling me a retard isn't going to make you any less incorrect.
4) Not having ironsights makes you significantly less accurate from the get-go. As opposed to being able to counteract this with the player's own aiming and input, the game demands that you invest in the appropriate skills in order to tighten the weapon's spread. You're correct, there are weapons with inherit crosshairs, but as stated in the first point this is negated by the weapon's condition. Both the sniper rifle and .44 magnum are extremely fragile and have excessively rare ammunition.
Christian Ramirez
>Why does the time between the two titles matter? Context.
>Are you implying that having a highly-deteriorating condition is not a good counterbalance to insanely high damage potential? No, that's - tangentially related at best - to what I posted. Read it again and you might understand better.
>Calling me a retard isn't going to make you any less incorrect. Saying that I'm incorrect without elaborating isn't going to convince anyone, retard.
>Not having ironsights makes you significantly less accurate from the get-go. This is completely untrue. In fact, the HUD crosshairs make you more accurate. >the game demands that you invest in the appropriate skills in order to tighten the weapon's spread. Again, this would be true regardless of whether you had ironsights or not, so using it as an argument for why they weren't implemented is pointless.
Isaiah Lee
1) Context is necessary to deduce that Fallout 3 has more open-ended quests than its predecessors?
2) Not sure what else you want me to extrapolate from that post.
3) Not here to sling shit, just debate.
4) HUD crosshairs help, but not as much as aiming down sights would have. Not sure why this is so difficult for you to comprehend. Being able to physically peer down the weapon's barrel helps you to land your shots even with a lower weapon skill.
Blake Reyes
>Being able to physically peer down the weapon's barrel helps you to land your shots even with a lower weapon skill. Why?
Isaac Thomas
Have you played Fallout: New Vegas?
Samuel Baker
I've played both games, yes.
Lincoln Peterson
Then you would know that being able to ADS helps in landing shots.
Juan Hughes
I would say it has some pretty fun things like blowing up the nuke and that VR evil Loli who is old dude irl but the story was pretty bland and made little sense regarding lore. Enclave are back again? How? Why is 2/3 of the plot about finding daddy which is kind of lame? Looks like people tried to put every meme from old fallouts without even researching it's story.
Adam Hernandez
>it does because it does That's not an explanation, user. Why does being able to use ironsights help you to land shots more than HUD crosshairs?
Nathan Kelly
Because using ADS in New Vegas increases your accuracy. Fallout 3 does not allow this, instead only allowing you to hipfire with reduced accuracy. Not sure where you're getting lost.
Evan Hall
I think you've misunderstood what I'm asking. You are aware that Fallout 3 does not have an iron sights function at all, yes? That there is only one 'accuracy' rating?
Carter Nguyen
Doesn't that only help my point? Since there's absolutely no player input at all (no iron sights), then their accuracy is determined purely by their weapon skill.
Jaxson Gutierrez
People give this game a lot of undeserved shit. Sure there are things that 1 and 2 do better but there’s a lot that 3 did better too. It’s actually far more faithful to the originals that you realize if you actually play the damn thing and don’t base your opinion off of screencaps
Nathan Rodriguez
The very act of aiming, even without ironsights, it itself a player input.
Jordan Ramirez
VATS is broken, but the shooting sucks so you have to depend on it. Grim Reaper's sprint is ridiculously broken. The game is far too easy because Bethesda designed it so you can travel anywhere you want from the beginning, so most enemies have shit equipment and the Enclave aren't much of a threat in the main quest. Repair is shit because you need a duplicate of the same gun to repair your weapon, so if you have a unique it can be very difficult to repair. Energy Weapons are not very useful in the beginning of the game because of this. The main quest is ridiculously linear, billions of essential NPCs all over the place.
There were more problems than this but these are a few I can remember off the top of my head.
Aiden Jenkins
Well, of course. The game's an FPS. You have to point the gun at your opponent to shoot them. My point is that not allowing ADS promotes the necessity to invest in your weapon skills as the player can not augment their weapon's accuracy by their own input, which keeps the game more in spirit with a CRPG than it would otherwise.
Leo Johnson
>"well well well if it isn't the little villain from the vault. Looks like we're gonna have to kill you nyehehehe" Who the fuck thought this was a good line.
Daniel Cox
I find the turn-based isometric setup much more appealing than the 3D Fallouts. I played 1&2 for the first time after being introduced to the series with 3, because while I wasn't keen on the latter's gameplay I did enjoy the world enough to play its predecessors, and they clicked straight away for me in both regards.
I also think it's kind of myopic to act like the quests being more open ended is the be all end all in terms of choices, since 1&2 have roleplaying opportunities that 3 lacks (granted the reverse is also true). Low INT affecting all of your dialogue & certain characters refusing to speak to you as a result of it, being able to become a boxer, a pornstar, a mob enforcer, becoming a slaver has more significant consequences than in 3, you can kill kids, etc. Plus a lot of choices in 1&2 are considered different quests altogether rather than branching paths within the same quest, so it feels a bit misleading to say that all their quests are linear.
Unrelated to choice, there's other aspects like no essential NPCs, more meaningful differences between armour than in 3, SPECIAL mattering more than in 3, I think most would agree they have better writing & characters than 3, significantly better voice acting than 3, I much prefer their OSTs to 3's, etc. I also prefer not being told which dialogue options are affected by skills.
I'm glad that 3 exists because it introduced me to games within the same series that I like much better. But I've never had any desire to touch it again after playing it when it came out, whereas I still reinstall 1&2 every so often.
Jaxson Cox
Yes.
Still a fun game tho.
Blake Sullivan
But doing that by entirely preventing the player from aiming down sights is crude, it's unnecessarily restrictive. You can say it's to make the game "more in spirit with a CRPG" but, functionally, the ranged weapon mechanics are those of a first or third-person shooter.
There's nothing to say that using ironsights should have had a positive affect on player accuracy beyond that being a choice Obsidian chose to make. It could've been a purely visual effect; you're already allowed to "zoom in" in one of the stupidest design decisions of the game. How much of a difference would iron sights have made?
Eli Harris
>Perhaps the issue here is not that this game is given too little acclaim, but rather that the classic games are given far too much. zoom zoom
Fallout 3 took the "Nifty 50's" aspect of the game (which was a barely noticeable design element in Fallout 1 and 2), moved it to the front, and then started beating the players over the head with it, because Bethesda's writers and designers like Emil Paugliaro are legit retards and can't come up with any actual themes. Now it is impossible to rectify this, and Fallout will never be about anything but retarded dirt farmers living in shacks next to city blocks with running water and electricity, listening to the same dozen 50's songs about Nuclear Weapons, which is the most tasteless thing ever.
Brandon Brown
You mean if they had included ironsights but using them didn't augment accuracy at all? I suppose that would have been fine, but I believe omitting such a function was instrumental for maintaining the spirit of classic RPGs. More so a notion that expressed the idea that they (Bethesda) didn't want to turn this beloved game into a nondescript FPS title.
Asher Wright
>Then you would know that being able to ADS helps in landing shots. Retard, you do realize FPS didn't have iron sights for decades, right? Have you never played Quake, Unreal, Deus Ex, Half-Life, F.E.A.R.?
Iron sights doesn't make your shots more accurate. It's the opposite: in FPS with iron sights, the developers add an artificial accuracy penalty to hipfire to encourage you to use iron sights.
>More so a notion that expressed the idea that they (Bethesda) didn't want to turn this beloved game into a nondescript FPS title. Fallout 3 came out just before the widespread popularization of iron sights in console FPS. That's why it didn't have iron sights, not because of any other reason.
What are you talking about Quake and Unreal when we're speaking about Fallout?
That's an interesting theory, but I'm still inclined to believe my initial statement.
Charles Robinson
I disagree. I think Obsidian's implementation was fine, an iron-sight system without accuracy penalties for hipfire would have been fine, and regardless the weird hybrid system Fallout 3 has where you can't use iron sights but you can still zoom in for some reason is badly designed.
I certainly don't think it's instrumental for maintaining the spirit of classic RPGs, with how much weapon accuracy is already influenced by the relevant skill.
Ayden Moore
This is another good point when it comes to why it's shortsighted to think of choice purely in terms of branching paths within quests. To open a locked wooden door in 1&2, you can >blow it up >force it open with certain melee weapons like the crowbar (if your STR is high enough) >pick its lock >find a key for it whereas in 3 you're just left with the latter two. Gameplay choices matter as well, and seemingly rudimentary stuff like this has always been a reason why I preferred 1&2.
Cameron Howard
>What are you talking about Quake and Unreal when we're speaking about Fallout?
Prior to the mid-2000's (when Fallout 3 began development) 99.99% of FPS didn't have iron sights. That includes RPG FPS like Deus Ex that are you conveniently ignoring.
After the mid-2000's, when Fallout NV began development, 99.99% of FPS have iron sights.
You're retarded if you think NV having iron sights had nothing to do with the changing FPS landscape.
