Fallout 3 was my first FO game and it has a special place in my heart for that, but I do feel Bethesda learned all the wrong lessons from it going forward.
Players: "Let us keep playing after the end of the main quest, and give us a player home full of containers." Bethesda: "Do the exact opposite of that and call it a day."
if anyone is wondering, that is Tale of Two Wasteland, which is a mod that mixes Fallout 3 and Fallout NV in one game, allowing to play fallout 3 with NV mods and creating a kind of Story that connects both games giving the idea of that The Lone Wanderer is also The Courier
Fallout 3 is so hated because it ends up saying nothing and providing a story that puts your dad more in centre than you meanwhile New Vegas is loved because big iron
@@brandonlamb9067 Only it does have lots of moral ambiguity written into the game itself unless you are so brain dead you can only judge an actions morality by the crappy morality system in the game.
Fallout 3's story I believe was going to be a lot more complex with the ability to choose between the Brotherhood and the Enclave and between two subfactions a conservative and a progressive element in each. You can see it with both the Outcasts and the civil war in the Enclave between Eden and Autumn but for one reason or another it was cut and patched together into what we ended up with.
Is this a joke cus I've never heard about this? Pretty sure fallout 3 had normal development time and new Vegas had less development time and miraculously still became a great fallout game and better than fo3
@@pear_bear It's not a joke it's analysing loose plot points, normal development time has nothing to do with this and I'm not suggesting development Hell but simply that it was originally written one way, they couldn't complete it in a reasonable time or within budget and they scrapped it, keep in mind that game stories go through multiple revisions during development you haven't heard of this because it's my assumption made by following loose plot points
My biggest problem with Fallout 3 is that quests and npc's often feel isolated from each other. When New Vegas was being made, the interconnectivity of factions, npc interactions, and quests was core to the design philosophy.
Funny, that's the exact reason I prefer fo3. It feels more destitute and like civilization is barely hanging on. The NV world has desperation, sure, but everything is connected in a way that just feels overdone and doesn't have a sense of true apocalypse.
FO3 quests feels like a bunch of separate vignettes that are not connected with the each other beyond ostensibly taking place in the same world, and even that feels tenuous with how little connective tissue there is, they simply don't influence or even acknowledge each other outside of the fact that they exist in the same game world and can be completed by a single character. And little thought seems to have been given on the people and places involved in these quests outside of what happens directly during said quest that the people and places don't even feel connected to the world they inhabit, as if they just simply poofed into existence just before your character got there and will stop existing the moment you leave. Fun for freeform exploration, but torpedoes immersion and investment in its world. I think the discussion about the endings of both games are a great way to show that, for FO:NV there is a lot of division over what is the right choice, and a ton of debate about the merits and flaws of each factions methods and philosophy. For FO3 any talk about the ending usually boils down to agreeing that being forced to sacrifice oneself or being called a coward by the ending slides for sending in Lyons is incredibly stupid when you could just send in the immune to radiation super mutant or ghoul companion, and writer was clearly up their own ass. FO3 is still fun, but it's like fast food, there is no real substance there.
@@demonpride1975i loved 3, never really got the new vegas hype tbh. i have over thousands of hours in 3, NV, 4 and 76 combined and 3 is still my favorite
Im currently on my mid replay through and yeah it holds up just as well as I remembered amd it just has such a good feeling to playing it , think I'm gonna do nv next and finally have a crack at 4, I've started fo4 so many times but I always fall off after around 3 hours 😅
@demonpride1975 Agreed, it's not made post-post-apocalyptic like 1 or 2 or New Vegas to a lesser extent, though has this powerful immediacy... like it just happened, or we're just leaving our vaults
In my opinion Bethesdas rpg entries lack what Obsidian did which is give the player character choices around scenarios within the story that allow for a lot more freedom from a narrative perspective. Besthesdas strengths are world design, lore, art style and lastly combat. I play Skyrim a lot more than fallout 3 or 4 because it feels like that is the best example of the things Bethesda is great at.
See I don't get the perspective that you had more choice in NV than 4. Yes 4 cut a lot of dialouge depth but I feel like NV puts a lot of emphasis on completing someone else's goals even if you side with yes man because essentially you're just doing what Benny was. Wheras with 4 it feels more about personal choice and what YOU want out of the world. Still a bigger fan of NV but 4 really feels like the more in depth game
in fallout 4 you are either doing what the brotherhood of steel, the railroad, the institute wants unless you go with the minuet men, then you are the commander. Also saying you are just finishing what Benny wanted to do, Benny wanted to control new vegas itself all yes man does is give you suggestions on how to take over new vegas for your own vision whatever that may be Benny is long since not involved at all. This feels like a HUGE stretch. Heck you can even go against yes man's advice and it leads to hilarious dialog.
@@smith549371 But it is , it's everything fallout 3 wanted to be if you look at both games they have same similar stories somewhat same character in a way one is the future and the other is the past. You might say the same thing to about fallout New Vegas and the future game to be the next generation of fallout new vegas. Just think about
@@smith549371 the overall tone and the stories are very similar, the way many of the factions and enemies are portrayed are basically the same I mean for God's sake the gunners are literally the talon company with a diffrent name , you still don't belive me? bro the final brotherhood mission is the exact same as the final mission in fallout 3 this game is just fallout 3 without any of the charm.
F3 and FNV are the 2 games that I played the most on my 360. Both 3 and FNV are great games, and they have a weird effect on me where if I play one, I have to play the other afterwards. Still play them to this day.
"Without Fallout 3, there wouldn't be New Vegas, and there wouldn't be as many fans to this franchise" and "Em*l P*gliwhatever shouldn't be allowed within a 10 mile radius of the next Fallout game's plot and main quest" are two statements that can and should co-exist
4:06 did you even watch the video? He's 100% right on everything he said. Why are rad scorpions and the Brotherhood of Steel on the East Coast? There are no deserts for scorpions to live in and are you telling me the Brotherhood of Steel is a nationwide organization? He's not wrong regarding how Bethesda copy pasted the original lore. Bethesda's Fallout is like the bombs hit in 1950 and then time stopped. If you look out Fallout 1, they built little cities and towns, but then if you go to Fallout 3, 120 years later, everybody is living in piles of filth and they haven't bothered cleaning anything up to include the dead bodies. I don't know why you quoted his video. I don't think you actually watched it.
OP, the primary issue that many people have of Fallout 3 is the fact that it lacks innovations or changes relative to the geographical region its set in and abuses the otherwise “mascots” of the franchise (i.e. Super Mutants, Deathclaws, Brotherhood of Steel) while maintaining a kind of artistic stagnancy that doesn’t give leeway to creativity; that still persists in FO4 and 76. There’s nothing wrong with people arguing for consistency in lore; anachronistic changes bother people more than you think. You cannot dismiss them as purists when it’s been demonstrated that a failure for a writer to keep up with existing canon is grounds for lack of innovation or redundancy.
The problem is that Bethesda has adopted the philosophy of keeping things "safe." Both Todd and Emil have praised their "K.I.S.S." system: Keep it simple, stupid. It isn't just Fallout 3 that has bad to mediocre writing. Skyrim, Fallout 4, Fallout 76, Starfield, etc, are all examples of games that have empty writing. It's a deliberate strategy of the company to keep dumbing down their RPG games to appeal to the masses. It's just that Bethesda at one point set the bar for the mechanics of the consoles so they could hide this. Fallout 3, apparently, was revolutionary for 2008. Skyrim set the bar for what PS3 games ought to be able to do. Fallout 4 improved upon Fallout 3, but people were already starting to comment on the cracks of the Creation Engine. Not to mention the fact that New Vegas was far better than 3 despite having such a short development cycle. Elder Scrolls Online and Wolfenstein were very average games. There was a small buzz around both games that quickly went away. Then Fallout 76 came along and that was such a massive shitshow that a lot of people finally opened up to Bethesda's practices. In the span of one game the company had pissed away all of their goodwill to their community. Hence why people are now a lot harsher on the company than they once were.
it even permeates into the fallout tv show with the retcons, lore inconsistencies, not paying attention the the geography. the show is just like fo3. it was awesome seeing fallout in live action. however just like 3 it ends there and starts undoing a lot of stuff in the universe. like they seriously decided to nuke shady sands to give the show a more post apocalyptic vibe and now had to work around that dumb decision
Fallout 3 is a great game when it comes to survival and exploration. Its a good bethesda game. But i can totally understand if somebody says its not a fallout game. They chucked some super mutants in there, added the brotherhood of steel, topped it of with an uninteresting main story and added some side quest that had little to no choice or impact in the world. They could have stripped every fallout element of that game, called it "RADIATION" instead and just marketed it as a post-nuclear-survival game. 95 % of the game would be the same. Its Skyrim with guns but dressed up as Fallout. But its so far removed from anything that fallout 1 & 2 stood for (and made them great) that i dont really see it as a successor to the fallout franchise. It was really interesting seeing your more nuanced take on the matter, great video 💛
As a New Vegas fan I don’t hate fallout 3 I love it. But from a person who only plays the vanilla games. Every time I play fallout 3 I just realize all the things you can’t do in fallout 3 that you could do in New Vegas.
I'm sorry but vanilla new vegas gameplay is just straight trash. The Map is too small. It's not well optimised. And there is so much weapons to the point that none of them feels unique.
LMAO the gameplay is a billion times better than Bugthesda's trash. Map in 3 is mostly empty and boring to explore. It's not well optimized because of Bugthesda's trash engine. The lack of guns in 3 made the combat boring and terrible along with the awful weapon spread RNG!@@HEXO_HANK69
As someone who is new to RPG's and hasn't played New Vegas yet, I thought Fallout 3 was fantastic. And I think it's important to note that a good thing will seem worse by comparison when compared to a great thing even though the good thing is still good.
@@sinisterisrandom8537 i disagree with you. while mods make 3 a bit better, there is still lots to do after your first play through, hell i am betting most people never found a lot of the zones. because the subway could be very confusing. hell to a degree fallout 4 is like that. i played fallout 4 vr, and i found areas i never did before because of being on street view.
@@sinisterisrandom8537 i disagree as well. Picked up the game after many years after playing it as a kid. Really enjoy the atmosphere, mechanics, even the simple story that was given. Better than the slop given nowadays from AAA industries
Oh you sweet summer child. Your opinion is gonna change so much when you play actual good RPGs with actual good writing (and no, I'm not talking about the Fallout series). I don't even consider Fallout 3 to be an RPG, it's that bad.
Fallout 3 was also the first RPG i'd ever played and it became easily one of my favorite games of all time. This was back in 2011. I've played countless game since then, and there are certaintly better RPG's than Fallout 3 out there BUT there are very few games that captured my imagination as much as Fallout 3 did. The feeling of exploring the wasteland is truly one of a kind. The feeling of isolation, decay and hopelesness combined with this other wierdly comical side is a perfect blend imo.
it's weird to get reminded that fallout 3 doesnt have iron sights, I'm so used to fallout games after 3 all having iron sights i forget that game just doesnt have them.
@@mableoftheroundtable7034Me personally, I don’t even see the big deal about no iron sights. The zoom function works enough and the game logic basically magnetizes your bullets to an enemy within range, so you’re guaranteed to get a hit most of the time. It is jarring to come back to 3 after playing the later entries though.
I adored Fallout 3, perhaps even more than New Vegas in some aspects. I couldn't even begin to count the number of hours I spent delving into every abandoned building, reading every scrap piece of paper, and sneaking around the streets of DC. A remaster for modern consoles would be hugely appreciated.
@@ssjbroly8735My guy, Fallout 1 was created by a gay guy and Fallout 2 was the first game to have gay marriage in it, if anything Bethesda’s games are “straight” fallout
I'm glad people still debate over Fallout 3 and Vegas, it means that despite flaws they're still relevant and I wouldn't have it any other way. Any time I look up the F3 menu theme I get a dopamine overload and every memory from 2008 floods back all at once. I can see a huge swathe of the fallout community that do that same thing and that's why it's gonna stay in memory for years to come.
When I launched FNV for the first time, every memory I had from F3 become disgusting. FNV has refreshed my jov in Fallout that I didnt realize F3 had killed
Fallout 3 is pretty good in my personal opinion. My favorite thing about fallout 3 is every single location, even unmarked locations, tend to have useful things. Putting books in each location that each raise one of your skills 2 points with the perk? Its brilliant. It makes all exploration meaningful, makes all exploration go towards building your character. Not to mention the game is super atmospheric and the location of dc is super interesting. (While were on the subject the bobbleheads and radio towers were also great ideas. And schematics too? Unique weapons? Theres so much reason to get out there. Also magazines in fallout 4 are brilliant but i wish they gavr you more powerful/more interesting buffs)
i am one of the few people that loves the subway system, it gives the game that extra sense of atmosphere, and that the city truly is destroyed. if anything, i would have preferred the sewer system play a bigger roll.
Hell yea man! Exploring in 3 is loads of fun, you also just always wind up running into random encounters and enemies in such a way where it doesn't feel scripted and formulaic yet happens often enough where there is never a dull moment.
@@demonpride1975 Loved the subways, really did make the city feel destroyed. Honestly wish they did more with them in 4, you get little bits here and there but nothing like in 3.
isn't this true about every bethesda game????? why people despise 3 isn't coz of that it's just like skyrim, it's shallow. fun game that u can play for years but still a shallow rpg with poor writing. problem is fallout was known for its stellar writing and rpg mechanics which bethesda dumbed down. new vegas tried to bring the best of both worlds, bethesda gameplay loop with obsidian's stellar writing and rpg design which bethesda then ignored and took the worst lessons from 3 and brought it to 4 and 76. also they did the worst mistake of all, butchering the lore and canon
For me it boils down to the fact that I enjoy Fallout 1, 2 New Vegas and 76 while I do not really enjoy 3 and 4. I find a lot of the gamplay, story and lore elements of those games to be baffling, disappointing and unfun. I think people dislike the east coast Fallout games vs west coast for very valid reasons in that the games have very different goals of game design while also failing at even some of their goals.
I was one of those anti fallout 3 guys 10 years ago. I'm glad I grew out of it. If you enjoy the gameplay of New Vegas then I don't see how you can genuinely hate 3. Yes, it's inferior in many ways and has a lot of issues but I still always have fun playing through it. Fallout 3 is almost underrated at this point.
yep i never understood the reason to hating a game, because you love the next game in a series. that's like saying well you love god of war 3, you have no choice but to hate 2.
Fallout 3 left a bad taste when it was first released. New Vegas was buggy, but it was fundamentally a good game with a great story. In the original Fallout 3, the ending was so unbearably terrible, if you tried to send Fawkes the supermutant into the radioactive room in place of you, he would refuse for no reason at all other than "it is your destiny," and if you wanted to kill him for basically dooming you into killing yourself when he's perfectly capable to enter the room safely, he ends up being an essential NPC who can't be killed. When they finally patched this and gave you the option to send Fawkes in, the game's ending sequence now states that the Lone Wanderer "is not a real hero." Why the hell should the Lone Wanderer go into the radiation room and die when he has a companion who can do it safely???? Fallout 3 has great gameplay and good sidequests but the writing is so unbelievably awful that it ruins the rest of the game for me.
People just love to hate on Fallout 3 because Fallout 4 was disappointing as shit I remember seeing top comments on TH-cam like Capital Wastelands > Mojave Desert a couple months before Fallout 4 released and now New Vegas is the fan favorite of the series
@@raidernation2390 Pretty sure that should be expected. Plenty F3 enjoyers at the time crapped on FNV for being different or too boring, so I imagine a good number of Bethesda fans were excited and hopeful. It wouldn't be until the game came out, years pass by, and the flaws of the game would become appereant and likewise be discovered in Skyrim, Fallout 3, and Oblivion. IMO NV ended up having aged better in some regards, I can imagine equally that the folks that find F3 and F4 underwhelming would look to NV as the one where we wished more games tried to emulate. Personally I think Bethesda is more than capable of achieving NV's deep world, they just haven't been that interested in working off the best parts of that game. I can assure you many NV lovers have known and played F3. The original game is so riddled with problems I can't try to replay it, which is why I hope to install for a TTW playthrough.
The thing is, oversimplifying games does not necessarily appeal to a larger audience. There are plenty of examples of games, and specifically RPGs, that are very appreciated by large audiences because of their amazing RP elements, good writing and freedom of choice (just look at anything Larian made in the past decade, or, a better example, disco elysium, which swept the game awards despite being an "old school" CRPG). On top of that, merely understanding the themes and narratives that made the first two games great seemed to be too difficult for Bethesda to do, and much of the depth within elements (such as super mutants, who were reduced from nuanced, intelligent creatures left without a voice in the world, to generic enemies that cannot be reasoned with) was completely ignored in the process of making a game where you fight or help fallout-themed factions and collect fallout-themed items. Also Tim Cain was mostly a programmer and did not contribute much to the writing of the old games. The least Bethesda could do is pretend like they cared about the IP like they kept insisting they did in interviews.
Erm, no I think you're just being toxic NV fan, you have to say meaningless platitudes like "I love all the fallout games except I never played 1 or 2 :)))" or you'll get downvoted by Todd's strongest redditors.
While fallout 3 undoubtedly has a lot of problems I think a lot of the hate it gets isn't even related to fallout 3 itself but to bethesda and people who prefer it over new vegas because it's illegal to have an opinion other than fallout new vegas is the pinnacle of human creation and therefore all other forms of entertainment are inferior to it.
This is only a new phenomenon though. And people aren’t like that actually. Or at least not enough of them for you to make this statement with any kind of justification. Nobody is going to look down on you for enjoying fall out three more than new Vegas. But we are going to question why though. A lot of people used to actually think fallout three was better and then there was a huge change in 2013 I think around that time we’re more people started to realize new Vegas is better. This is because of people getting older if you are a kid fallout three is more fun if you are an adult. Fallout new Vegas is more fun. story of new Vegas is more complicated the story in fallout three is more simple and emotionally attached. Like the whole point of the game is to find your dad. in new Vegas the whole point is to resolve conflict. Conflict that you didn’t start but you will finish. In fallout three the whole conflict is basically a B plot. Where are the enclave remnants from the original game gets stomped again. The brotherhood of steel and the enclave are the only significant forces of culture tying the new games to the old games. Everything else every other faction isn’t really a thing. I also feel like a lot of fallout three fans now have a persecution complex along with fallout four fans. Just because people don’t want to acknowledge that these action RPG‘s are not as good as real rpgs.
@@smokedbeefandcheese4144 OK first of all you gotta learn how to convey the message in a shorter paragraph my guy , and second not enough people to justify that outlook? I can't say 1 good thing about fallout 3 without 90% of the comments saying that NV did it better and I'm a bigot for liking 3 more than NV I agree with you that no one with an actual brain is gonna look down on someone for enjoying a game but you gotta understand there's a surprising lack of people with an iq above the room temperature out there.
you perfectly presented everything wrong with your kind you won't allow opinion that says fallout 3 bad but "it's illegal to have an opinion other than vegas good" "it's not hate related to fallout 3 but to bethesda" and who made it while caliming they wanted to encapsulate essence of originals?
As someone who would more align with the opposing side on this argument, I have to say I really think this is a great video because it really clearly describes your view in a way much different from creators who have done videos on the same issue. I must commend you for not resulting to petty nagging with little constructive critique like other creators have, too. I think other creators should take note; this is how you make a video on an argument.
And thank you for actually listening to what I have to say instead of leaving a mean comment. Yeah I have made a couple videos in the style you describe where I was just being mean half of the time, but since this is a topic I want to actually take seriously, I just decided to keep things concise with only a couple of jabs towards the other side. Also videos like that are just immature (despite how fun they are)
@@logamuffin3876 ive sunk in more hours into NV personally, but hey, if you like 3 then you obviously know it better than i do which would make you enjoy it more :) have a stellar dayyyy!
If that's the case, let's hope Logo here won't do a video on Fallout 4. There is SO many problems in that game, naming any positives is almost impossible
@@simple-commentator-not-rea7345I've sunk a lot of hours into fallout games with fallout 4 being my first and most played game and I would honestly say the only positives would weapon/armour modification and usage, the looting system and whilst this might be controversial, I did enjoy the settlement building though I always modded the crap out of it to allow more building options/choices though for me the whole settlement building I think really destroyed the opportunity for more than just Diamond City and Good Neighbour and so ultimately if you gave a choice between players building their own cities compared to detailed developed ones I would always pick the developer built ones.
Absolutely love Fallout 3. It has the true dark, gritty nuclear wasteland atmosphere that NV lacked. NV had more a post apocalyptic cowboy feeling to me.
I didn’t get the “apocalyptic cowboy” vibe from New Vegas. Outside of the game taking place in a desert with old country music being prevalent, there’s not much of a wild west vibe to speak of.
@@Hewasnumber1the robot literally calls you partner. There are gangsters throwing dynamite at you. Lever action rifle and revolvers. Casinos. Casinos everywhere. Fallout new vegas is very wild west like. Xd Its not a bad thing, but it is.
@@towarzyszmarcin474 That’s not a cowboy aesthetic. Dynamite is a common explosive, and would probably be the most abundant and accessible explosive to a civilian populace. And casinos aren’t really a wild west thing, it’s more part of the Vegas experience than anything. A single robot calling you partner also isn’t enough to sell a wild west setting. Lever-action rifles and revolvers also are fairly common armaments, and though can help sell the vibe, isn’t enough to do so on their own. Fallout 4 has the lever-action rifle be introduced in Far Harbor, and the titular island is as far away from a wild west setting as possible, yet the rifle feels right at home. The problem with calling New Vegas a “wild west” game is that Vegas is not lawless, quite the opposite. The game focuses around the power struggle between three main factions, with the option of being a wild-card and uprooting them all. There’s only a couple of independent towns that don’t belong to tribals (and though tribal societies can play into a wild west, I don’t think the Khans really do the part), and most of them have little to do, and don’t feel like wild west shanty towns when they do (the sole exception being Goodsprings). So though New Vegas can sometimes feel like a wild west game, those moments are fleeting and scarce. It’s Fallout with a dash of wild west sprinkled in for funsies, and doesn’t actually commit to that feeling/setting.
I argue there is a small western theme here and there, but that is because it takes place in the west where the literal wild west was so the culture makes sense to be around to a level and gives a feeling, cowboy and wild west themes are still popular in the real west still so it is possible for it to be around in a post nuclear wasteland and survive. Also Victor is supposed to be a cowboy but that is because he is a reference to the waving sign in Vegas.
i like all the fallout games except 76. fallout 3 was my first one and i played through it 36 times with all the dlc (yes i counted) i even played the entire game and all its dlc in one sitting for an entire day when i was a kid, so i might be biased when i get upset at other fans who say fallout 3 is objectively bad.
I've started replaying fallout 3 because I always had a hate for it but now I'm kinda neutral on it, it's side quests aren't half bad and are interesting in many cases though my two biggest problems are world itself and the storytelling, the world just feels very small and bland, with New Vegas it felt like I travelled far distances, met new people, explored and saw interesting things and I think that's why the main quest of fallout New Vegas was always meh to me because the main quest was merely a direction to walk in with everything that makes New Vegas amazing great along the route whilst fallout 3 feels like I have to go searching for interesting things to do and honestly I hate fallout 3s dialogue/story telling because I always found myself with limited choices that I didn't like and a lot of the choices simply didn't matter because the game wants you to do what it expects you to do which is okay because a lot of games function like that, I just wish it wasn't plastered on the wall like TellTale games does saying that your choices matter and should make you feel like they matter, idk, I still prefer New Vegas and the originals as true fallout games but I wouldn't go as far myself to say fallout 3 isn't a fallout game because it is, it's just its own thing really
it is not a personal attack when someone points out the flaws in sth you love. you should not get upset rather try to see their view since in the end the game will improve if the developers get criticism. fo3 is not a bad game. it has shitty writing and world building with dumb down rpg mechanics but still a good game. problem arises when bethesda learnt nothing from the criticism since fo3 was a financial success and a game changer at the time and made the same mistakes while making skyrim and their sunsequent games. obsidian showed the fans that the bethesda gameplay loop can be enrinched with quality writing, world building and rpg mechanics but what did bethesda do? skyrim dumbed it down even further to the point oblivion fans finally understood what morrowind fans were complaining about and fallout 4 took it even further. however those games sold really really well and bethesda thought they could do no wrong and now look at starfield. with fallout it sucks because this approach by bethesda ended up ruining the established lore which started with fallout 3 and now even shows in the TV show
I think the idea of fallouts 1 2 and new Vegas being “true fallout games” isn’t exactly wrong, these three games feel very sequential to each other, while in contrast 3, 4, and 76 feel like spin off games rather than successors. Maybe part of this is due to location. But I think the biggest part of this is simply the way they handle factions. The brotherhood shouldn’t have been strong in 4 considering the continuing downfall of the brotherhood in the place they were founded. (These criticisms also apply to the show, cause the NCR probably couldn’t have been killed by one dude, heck even if all of Shelly sands were military they would’ve still have 2/3rds of their military left) The handling of the NCR becoming this massive power in new Vegas we see at the ending of 2, and the continued development of society, vs 4s and 3s still massive piles of rubble, and overall lack of progress.
Fallout 3 feels like a fallout themed DC theme park. The brotherhood of steel is somehow in DC while in California they've been reduced to a group hiding in fear of the enclave theyve become so small, to then them fighting a war with the NCR. Whered they get the resources to get all the way to DC? New strain of FEV, Enclave is supposed to be dead and gone, dlc for a less frustrating ending. They even tried to make a dollar store Master with President Eden. Its fallout 1 but watereddown and in DC. The only thing new about Fallout 3 was its location and side quests which are very fun. Its not a bad game at all, but they could have done something new. 4 and 76 have the same problem. Let the brotherhood of steel die already!
Bethesda's Fallout games are very wrong mainly in worldbuilding, as they forgot the word POST in a post-apocaliptic game. That in junction with the horrible writing makes those games a bare demo to showing their engine, which later people modding made a game from those demos
@@Damian-cilr2 how does that even make sense when fallout 3 take place after 1 and 2 and 4 takes place after NV. why are they most recent games showing a world that is more backwards than the previous older games which take place before them? how does that make sense?????
I’ve been a fallout fan since 3 was released when I was 14. I never fully finished New Vegas and I’m in the middle of a playthrough now because I’m getting deeper into the lore. It is…painful. Difficult gameplay, tedious side quests, and confusing factions. I’m shocked by all the hype about it online and the deep divisions in the fandom in general that I’m just now learning about.
If the gameplay is difficult there's easy mode, no shame in that. You're right, the factions are confusing, and that's what makes them so intriguing for me. The hype comes from the depth of the people you can interact with and the ways you can interact with them, there's so much freedom in how you go about things. My favourite faction is The Followers of the Apocalypse, although they aren't powerful enough to rule the Mojave. I'm not sure what you mean by tedious side quests, as I really enjoy most of them, and I just skip the ones I don't want to do. Like with the Boomers you can skip their whole portion of the story just by giving some guy enough scrap metal lol. I can't think of a quest that I really hate personally.
@@michaelcarroll5801 I am playing on easy mode lol. The only “side faction” I’ve liked so far are the Boomers. Everyone else I find pretty annoying, so their quests are tedious to me (the followers, the King, the white glove people, etc). Just not my cup of tea
I think the reason FO3 has gotten so much more flak over time is because of the trendline. It's not the comparison the FNV that makes it look worse - it's the comparison to FO4, and then 76. The writing got steadily worse, the role-playing elements slimmed down and stripped out, until it became just another shooter with stats rather than a true RPG. FO3 is the beginning of a trend where they systematically dumbed down the writing and steadily removed more and more role-playing from what's sold as an RPG. FNV was an overall improvement on FO3 - and if FO4 carried forward a lot of the things that made FNV so beloved, FO3 would be seen as the start of something incredible. But because they went in the opposite direction - and because FNV is there to stand in stark contrast - FO3 looks like the beginning of a downward trend rather than an upward one.
This is SUPER unrelated, but what mods did you use for the FO3 and FNV gameplay? Very nice quality of life, gunplay, and animation upgrades I see. Anyhoo, great video (I personally dislike FO3, and love FNV).
I use this guide: wastelandsurvivalguide.com/docs/intro, along with a handful of texture mods and combat mods (b42 weapon inertia, smooth ironsights, ragdolls etc)
Fallout 3 feels like a good piece of cinema as far as games go, the side quests alone are proof of that, while New Vegas feels like a choose your own ending kind of TV show that could go on and on depending how you play, especially since the DLC's feel canon to the main plot as hints and easter eggs are peppered throughout the main game. Both games have their charm and I think when we look past the arguments all of us can conclude that having both games around is a good thing and they should be cherished, always.
Fallout new vegas was my first fo game,and i loved it to the point of me rotting on a couch for 8 hours a day,so naturally when i tried fallout 3 for the first time i thought the main quest was boring and didnt really pick it up after that,a similar situation with fo4 but im thinking of going back to them,but wouldnt know where to start really (especially with fo4 i have no clue how the level up system works)
I've dumped multiple years playing Fallout 3 and New Vegas In my opinion yes they're both good Fallout 3 has its own flavor and mechanics but don't get me wrong there's plenty of cool things to run into like for instance whole mothership zeta dlc and the pitt dlc and point lookout dlc are very interesting content, without the dlcs there's just plenty of cool weapons and interactions and some secret ones and plus plenty of variety for different character builds plus the story of the game is still great Fallout New Vegas is just all around good took with what they learned from Fallout 3 and made it better even having to hand it off to another gaming studio to finish it the only gripe I have Is the lack of underground exploration like amount the vaults to seek out and quite frankly the map is way smaller compared to Fallout 3 and less buildings to enter and explore and the amount of out bounds areas you can easily run into is crazy in fallout new vegas Fallout 3 you rarely run into the out of bounds areas compared to Fallout New Vegas on top of that they had to cut out so much stuff from fallout new vegas and the size of areas and buildings because the consoles couldn't handle it Anyway overall Fallout 3 gets a 8.5 out of 10 and fallout new vegas gets a 9 out of 10
Well when the writer for fallout 3 and 4 says that he didn't care to make a great story because "the players don't want that" I think it's then more than fair to say that Bethesda doesn't understand fallout.
this is a pretty damn *bad* video you just decided to put out you decide to strawman someone who says that bethesda thinks that fallout should be a 1950's comedic post-apocalypse series (which isn't what the point of fallout was in the first place) and instead just say "he criticizes the modern games because they didn't do it like the classics" which is not what he meant at all. you say that fallout 3 has "fun" gameplay, has "better" sidequests compared to new vegas, and unironically seem to believe that 3's story somehow isn't bad even though all three of these statements are completely incorrect. new vegas does have *similar* gameplay to 3, but it actually made it less annoying compared to 3 which just has your gun constantly swaying if your big guns/small guns/explosives/energy weapons skill ain't 100, but i guess you wouldn't know that since you seem to strictly play fairly modded *Tale Of Two Wastelands* instead of the actual fallout 3. 3 only really has a couple good sidequests, a few okay ones, and several bad ones. agatha's song is an alright quest, but it definitely ain't better than any of new vegas' sidequests. as for the story of 3, i don't even need to say how bad it is because it should be obvious if you pay attention and listen to what the characters are actually saying and doing in the game. fun fact: tim cain actually stated that he DIDN'T like fallout 3 back when it was initially released after he beat the game. he said that he disliked how the choices he made that he expected to have a greater impact were just brushed aside since 3 doesn't have any ending slides telling you the result of said choices making them feel pointless. the only reason he says he likes it now is because he can't publically say anything negative about it since that will mean that he'll no longer get invited to fallout events by bethesda. also, tim cain has shown to have declined as a writer in recent years if the outer worlds is anything to go off of as well as his "praise" of the fallout show. you claim to not be a bethesda shill, and yet this video seems to have made strictly to defend fallout 3 from justified criticism. you say that no one would have known about fallout if not for bethesda and yet fallout probably wouldn't be anywhere near as mixed today if it was lesser known. you say you aren't calling people "elitists" or "purists" yet throughout the video you straight up refer to new vegas fans AS elitists and purists simply because they don't like a game that's masquerading as a fallout title. its fine to like any of bethesda's fallout games but trying to defend them when they don't deserve it is very disingenuous and makes you seem like you're just trying to justify liking a bad game when you don't need to do that at all. overall: this video is very disingenuous and has a hint of strawmanning. do not defend the slop that bethesda puts out otherwise people will label you as a shill.
really great comment, but I honestly don't even think the stuff regarding Tim Cain is even relevant. It's purely appeal to authority and doesn't change anything. If Fallout 3 was the exact same game, except directed by Tim Cain, it'd still he terrible.
I gave up on F3 due to bugs.. I’m just realising that I also didn’t know about mods that no doubt fix those bugs so I should probably give it another try:) Still.. I think FNV had more than good writing: It had some design principles that could have been easily adopted and integrated into following Bethesda rpgs, F4 and Starfield.. for example having essentially no unkillable npcs, and that avoided pressing a certain character on you, that lets you play as a paladin, murder hobo, diplomat, backstabber, drugged out cannibal throughout the game without being forced to break character to finish. The apparent refusal to learn anything from FNV feels like a really toxic not invented here syndrome to me.
I think the comparisons are fair because the main defence I hear of 3 is that bethesda faced an impossible job to convert the franchise to 3D, make a good action game, make a good RPG, and draw new fans to the franchise whilst pleasing the old ones. And the most obvious, inarguable rebutall to that is just "but New Vegas exists"
At 11 years old, in 2011 played Fallout 3 for the first time. I'm not a native english speaker and i did not understand a little thing, then i played it when i got a little older, around 15 and i loved it, it was my favorite game until now. I started playing new vegas one or two years later, i had completed not many main story quests and i was one the dead money dlc when my disk got scratched and i could't keep playing. It did not make a huge impresson in me, i think it may had been too complex. I Played fallout 4, fun game, spend a lot of hours but i still liked the 3 much more. I came back to new vegas now in 2023 and oh my god, it is a masterpiece. I played the main quests only and there are so many options. Thankfully i'm much more fluent in english and i understand all the dialoge. It's not thay Fallout 3 is a horrible game, it's an amazing one, living under the shadow of New Vegas and a stubborn fanbase.
Totally agree with your stance here about the Fallout fandom and the various videos bashing FO3. Rarely did I hear any constructive or objective points being raised, just a lot of subjective hate. Definitely comes off as elitist and gatekeep-y. I honestly am one of those Fallout fans who learned about the series via FO3, and I recall enjoying many aspects of FO3 around the time it came out. Then I ended up playing the first Fallout, and a bit of Fallout 2, and eventually NV when it came out. I'll acknowledge that I did start riding the hate train for FO3 when I got a taste of the original developer's style of storytelling in NV, but I also acknowledged many of the good aspects of FO3 when I later looked back at it objectively. Now, I don't hate FO3, I just accept it as it is and what good it offers instead. While I really love NV, did several play-throughs, and even come back to it occasionally these days, I can also say that the game isn't perfect or the greatest of all time like so many NV fans will rabidly insist. If it truly was, then one would be able to play it vanilla and outright enjoy the overall experience. Most NV fans have dozens of mods installed, many are QoL and bugfix/script extenders. Yet FO3 is bad for having the same limitations...
Ive been on bethesda games since olbivion and i can say i spend HOURS on fallout 3 when it came out watching guides in my younger yrs. I love both games 3 and nv to death. And skyrim is very close behind. I know how poorly the company is now adays 76 and 4 are not good at all. And starfield i think is overhated. But there is way too much elitism in bethesdas community
Indeed, really not a fan of the blind hate. Looking at 3, nv and 4 I think nv is the best overall but I think 3 has a lot of good to it and 4 is a mixed bag with a lot of good ideas but not all are done well. Honestly I spend a lot of time playing all three of them as they all have their own things to offer.
@@brutalbob842 Agreed! I think that all of the Fallout games have their pros and cons. NV is still my favorite overall for the setting and story. Fallout 3 for the exploration and world building that Bethesda of old was known for. FO4 is the weakest of the 3D Fallout games, IMO, but it does have solid gameplay mechanics. It's a terrible Fallout game, but a fun post-apocalypse sandbox. So, NV > FO3 > FO4.
@@ryszakowy I didn’t say *all* videos are filled with subjective hate. Many of the ones out there raise lots of good points, but a number of them also turn into hour long rants over insignificant minutiae just because they have a hate b0ner for Bethesda.
Because it is trueee muffin Bethesda needs to have the new Vegas devs working on it I’d love to see the classics modernized but that’s never going to happen with Tod Howard so I think get the og devs working on the game using Tod Howard’s engines n u got bread n butter ima go walk in the snow now n rip sum out my supermutant piece
Good video, I like the genuine honesty & integrity with the subject of elitism and gatekeeping. Fallout 3 got me into the franchise in 2012 and also New Vegas. I watched videos of old Fallout and Fallout 2 appreciating the 90s CRPG gameplay/cutscenes. I can argue that this whole elitism & gatekeeping applies to every video game “community”. Like Halo with the original trilogy being exalted while anything past 2010 is “garbage”, it’s arbitrary, dumb, and makes no sense because the reason why these IPs are so big is because of the marketing and it encourages people to discover them. Going back to the beginning games and investing into the time. I can understand why people are like this today: it’s because the gaming industry is in a rough spot and the resentment attitude is that new is bad and old is good. People are so depressingly sad that they’ll genuinely hate anything that is new or wasn’t apart of their identity growing up. Like grow some common sense and let people enjoy what they want. We all need to survive together and get along but alas it’s the Internet so trolls and punks rule the wasteland lol
TTW is the only way I can properly play Fallout 3 because I like the open world of FNV and F3. Bringing the F3 Weapons into just sound cool. But playing Fallout 3 by itself is just boring imo.
Really, I thought that New Vegas is much less dense, I mean you start in town, do the quest, leave down the long ass road till, primm, do the quests or just dome deputy beagle, then continue down the long ass road, maybe stop at the mojave outpost and do the quests, which are going down the road, its a lot of walking
@matnotmatt8479 That's only really if you feel like taking the paved road forward, you can basically go everywhere at the very beginning if you know what you're doing
@matnotmatt8479 not even that dude. On my first playthrough, despite being warned not to, I hiked straight through Quarry Junction and headed straight for Vegas. All I knew was that Deathclaws were too tough and strong for me to kill in a reasonable time this early (which I learned through trying to kill a Deathclaw with a 9mm) and I logically deduced that I could probably climb up onto the Mountains and get past them. I knew deathclaws were a problem, I knew where Vegas was because of it being constantly visible, and I knew I had to get past the Deathclaws. It's not "Gatekeeping" or "Elitist" as you moronically claim, it's basic deduction skills. The only thing stopping you from getting past the Cazadores, Deathclaws, and Radscorpions at level 2 is how long YOU want to spend and all the Different ways YOU want to try and solve them. Sure, people who have played for longer will obviously have better and more efficient solutions, but you can still bypass all of the high level enemies in new vegas at level 2 without a stealthboy, hell the Cazadore skip is stupid easy. All you have to do is run past the point where they chase you. newsflash, it isn't "Gatekeeping" or "Elitist" to have difficult enemies that are easily bypassed with preserverence as you idiotically claim. Seriously, do you even know what those words mean, or are you just using them as buzzwords?
@@MatNotMatt theres a ton to do in pretty much every area of new vegas. fallout 3 is mostly copy and paste shithole buildings with the occasional town to interact with (most of which dont effect the rest of the game world or even relate)
Something that I don’t see people mention is the layout of the world in FO3… and what I mean specifically are all of the barriers, dead-ends, rivers/broken bridges that separate areas and make it a pain to navigate. The entire downtown D.C. area is a labyrinth of rubble and debris that just confuses you. And don’t get me started on the subway tunnels. Meanwhile, New Vegas is not only pretty straight-forward (it’s a big, empty desert), but I actually really like how some of the threats of Cazadors and Deathclaws encourage you to take the long way around to the Vegas Strip, without outright stopping you if you’re skilled enough to get past them early on. I still remember on my first playthrough, I stumbled into the Scorpion Gulch (forgot the exact name) and came across Novac and the free house early on, so I could hoard all my junk without having to go through Nipton first.
If Fall-out 3 was set 50-100 years after the bomb set and before Fall-out 1 and 2 it would of narrativly made alot more sense as a whole because Humans advance society faster than Bestheda thinks, 80 years since electricity was discovered people made prototype planes. Also tweaking the setting slightly with more radiation storms and more use of masks for practical use would've hammered it home and made it a placeholder in Fall-out Rather a divide amongst fans. I played New Vegas before 3 but liked 3 in the sense Bethesda really knew how to use the engine they had for Gunplay and set Peices but it did fall short at the end Narrativly, not enough for me to hate it though. It was basic and if it was set before the political divide of 1,2 and NV it would've been suited better, plus its in the East Coast so easily could've told its own story with its own unique factions, instead of breaking the Brotherhood of Steels back in carrying the plot.
Even though I like Fallout 3, I have to hard disagree from this Video, Fallout 3 is a bad game. Emil, the main writer is a complete hack. I also think in some ways you misrepresented TDI video. Fallout 3, 4, and 76 have a hugely different feel to 1, 2, and New Vegas. There was also a lot of sketchy acts and corporate bullying that Bethesda went through to attain the Fallout IP. When people say "Bethesda never understood fallout" they are right, because if you look at bethesda fallout and its writing as a part of the Fallout world, it completely breaks the lore. The Brotherhood is (somehow) in DC and have abandoned all their ideals to help people? Makes no sense with their original ideals. The brotherhood we see in 3 should be the outcasts and the outcasts should be the main chapter, not the other way around. Super Mutants shouldnt be in new fallout, point blank, FEV was a super secret bioweapon that the US had to keep under wraps against the Chinese government, and now its everywhere? It makes no sense. The Enclave was wiped out in FO2, they also specifically chose the west coast of the US because they knew Washington would be hit the hardest by China nukes, and yet theyre in 3? See what I mean? In relation to the lore of Fallout, Fallout 3s story and characters are nonsensical, and almost everything in 3 is surface level and makes no sense after you go under the surface. I DO like Fallout 3, I bought it and play it on my PC on TTW all the time and I have a really good time doing so, but the game just makes no sense and is on an objective standpoint bad.
Fallout 3 is loved by many, just disliked by a loud minority I hate New Vegas purists I also hate how they ignore what makes 3 good even if it’s different from NV 3 does have some good story and rpg moments too
fallout 3 is hated by man, just liked by very quiet and stupid minority that locks in small echo chanbers like this video to repeat like parrots "vegas bad" i hate bethestards i also hate how they ignore everything that is wrong with fallout 3 especially that new vegas did it better 3 doesn't have any good story that wouldn't be a wasted potential and it's rpg "moments" suck at the core
I think the reason West Coast Fallout games are praised because Falout is *NOT* a Post-Apocalyptic game but a *POST* Post Apocalyptic one. Meaning that after the world is destroed by the nuclear fire, people rebuilded parts of the soceity in their image already, and spreading. This is a lot more visible in Fallout 2 and New Vegas with all those locations thriving despite all. And when you compare it with East Coast games, everything is desolate, empty, still in the Post Apocalyptic phase, people clinging to live. There are no nation builders, no person to gather power and control beside the Bethesda's favorite children Enclave and BoS. Rest of the 'factions' in East Coast are either a poor settlement, or a "we can also make a thriving town" show. This is not a slander to the FO3, but to their world design people missing this part of the game. I also enjoyed 3 and one of my favourite games, but New Vegas just raises the bar so high.
This video was interesting to say the least. I came into it actually expecting to agree with you despite my own misgivings about Fallout 3 because I too find the constant vitriol this game receives on youtube to be annoying. That being said I'm not gonna sugar coat it, despite you trying to make it clear you're not a Bethesda fanboy the video really did feel like it just devolved into corporate boot licking and throwing out nonsense buzzwords akin to "gamer elitism" that make for a garbage argument. I think the main issue for me personally though is just my mentality when it comes to video games. I see video games as art and critique them as such and arguments like "Well it appeals to more people so therefore it's good" hold no weight with me. I see that kind of shit as souless and spineless. I don't care about what the "smartest decision business wise" is, I care about what makes an interesting game so to me personally arguments *for* simplification for the sake of profit and wide reach are appalling corpo drivel. Now that all being said and looking up at what I've wrote I can understand how that can come off as elitist and pretentious but to pretend that's not how I feel would be a betrayal of my own values. That being said, I actually appreciate Fallout 3 for what it is, as this experimental attempt at converting Fallout to an action RPG, of a new studio trying their best to branch out from the Fantasy style games they're use to and into a whole new genre. It's got some soul to it even if there were decisions made that I personally disagree with. Which is more than I can say for Fallout fucking 4, souless money cow that it is but...eh that's irrelevant to the current video. In short I liked your video even if I found myself rolling my eyes at it's closing arguments and I apologize for the goddamn wall of pretentious ramblings this weeb has left in your comment section. Gonna Subscribe to see what else you put out.
The metro tunnels are fucking ridiculous, I am not playing this game for ‘get lost in the subway for 10 hours simulator’. Bethesda cannot make a fallout game. Obsidian should be given the property out of good fortune.
if it was the same obsidian that made new vegas then sure, but its clear that obsidian has definitely lost much of the talented people that worked on new vegas which is very unfortunate.
I’m in the minority camp for thinking Fallout 3 was a better game than New Vegas. Like it or not Fallout 3 was a smash when it first came out, there were few games like it at the time. Being my first Fallout game it is still my favorite just for it’s atmosphere, exploration, and variety of different side quests, awesome back stories on locations, something to find no matter where you’re at in the wasteland etc. Not to say Fallout 3 is perfect, it’s far from it, but for me everything just felt way more alive, the wasteland was a cruel and inhospitable place. Coming out of the vault you KNEW you were on your own, you waltz through a destroyed town, see an eyebot, and from that moment on it’s up to you if you want to go to Megaton or go in any other direction you want. NV puts you on a direct path and if you deviate from it at all then you’re getting r*ped by deathclaws or cazadors. If you want to roleplay and be anybody you want to be then NV hits the nail on the head. I will say however the main storyline is vastly overrated. You get to side with different factions sure, but the uniqueness in each faction only varies slightly. Go meet the tribes, get on their side, have them fight with you at Hoover dam. Fallout 3’s main story was mediocre, but let’s not act like New Vegas had a TLOU1 or GTA 4 tier storyline. After killing Benny I really had no motivation to keep going, I didn’t care about who wants Hoover Dam and the game seemingly tries to make you side with NCR or House, Caesar’s Legion was painted as the comically evil “bad” guys and their entire storyline was extremely underdeveloped. Literally everyone in the Mojave wasteland hates the Legion so why even bother siding with them anyway, there is no reason other than to be the edgy and evil courier. Why does killing Caesar, the most feared and hated man in the wasteland, do almost nothing in the grand scheme of things? Oh, some NCR troops will remark they wish they saw him die, big deal. You can literally wipe out The Fort, Cottonwood Cove, Nipton, and all other Legion bases, absolutely wipe them out, obliterate them, and somehow the Legion is still in the picture and still feared by everyone in the wasteland. A ton of the side quests are integrated into the main quest for NV which isn’t the case with FO3. For example, Oasis had absolutely nothing at all to do with the main story and it was an amazing and memorable quest all on its own. In NV, most if not all of the side quests had something to do with the stupid battle for Hoover Dam whether it be trying to get good with a certain faction and being their errand boy, or just eliminating that faction because someone else told you they would be in the way. (cough BoS and Mr. House) As for side quests, New Vegas lacks as well. Bleed Me Dry made me want to shoot myself. Do NOT get me started on Scribe Ibsen’s terminal virus quest. Return to Sender was maddening. If it wasn’t a fetch quest then it was passing speech checks or going from point A to B, back to A, then back to B, and so on. Come Fly With Me was a chore with no good reward other than watching the rockets fly off. The Brotherhood of Steel quests were redundant and the Boomers even worse. Some locations were very interesting but had no decent quests towards them, Jacobstown for example. You got the Rex quest, then the Nightkin with schizophrenia which is completed quickly after a fetch quest to a nearby cave. You got a whole lodge of friendly super mutants and they couldn’t find anything more interesting to do with them. There are amazing quests like I Put A Spell On You, but they are so few and far between compared to some of Fallout 3’s side quests like Our Little Secret, Oasis, The Replicated Man, Reilly’s Rangers, The Superhuman Gambit, the Megaton bomb quest etc. Not to say some weren’t bad as well though, it also has some dud side quests like the vampires and the Grayditch ants, and even Wasteland Survival Guide felt like a glorified fetch quest. I’m not saying New Vegas is a bad game, but it just doesn’t feel as polished as Fallout 3 was, which is completely understandable given the development time. Obsidian still made an amazing game with what they had, and Bethesda resurrected the series in the best possible way they could have. I’m ready for the bombardment of hate coming for me.
New Vegas is my favorite game of all time, but I still love this comment. I hate the current state of the Fallout community, where people are afraid to acknowledge and talk about the numerous flaws of fo1, fo2 and NV and are supposed to treat them as perfect godsends, while consistently shitting on Bethesda's fallouts for every possible miniscule detail. I respect your bravery and I hope that more people in the community will eventually accept the fact that all major fallout games have their fair share of both flaws and impressive achievements and someone is not in the wrong for preferring one game over the other.
I enjoyed both Fallout 3 and NV but I enjoyed Fallout 3 a lot more and it captivated me for a lot longer. People tend to bring up having more choices in Fallout NV but I disagree, Fallout NV doesn’t even give you the choice to keep playing after beating it…Therefore none of the choices you make actually matter. At the end of Fallout 3 you can see the aqua pura everywhere which makes you feel like you made a difference. At the end of Fallout 4 you can see the Institute, BOS, And/or Railroad get Destroyed. Then you’ll see new checkpoints (for whatever faction you picked) scattered across the Commonwealth. It feels like you made a difference. At the end of Fallout NV I just felt like “Well that was it I guess” lol
Agreed, I have been deep into quite a few fandoms, and honestly, my way of dealing with that now is just to dismiss it as the typical fanbase infighting, wich is maybe a bit condescending ^^" Elitism and at times, very agressive behavior towards the less appreciated games in the series, and those that likes them should not be. It has actual negatives impacts in the enjoyment of the games and the community around it for all parties involved. Fallout 3 to me is easilly a, at least decent game with fun to be had even if not the best, and beside that, you should be able to say it's your favorite without being insulted on the internet, wich is not really a guarantee. Even tho I'd agree that a statement that "it's not Fallout" or "They don't understand Fallout", that's a statement that I feel is straight up irrevelent, I do think that does not invalidate the rest a whole discourse, I say that since I think there actually fair arguments and thinking points in Twenty Sided video beside them being bringed this way, and I think it's fair not to dismiss them. One more thing, serious subject, for people that don't know, Twenty Sided, real name Shamus Young passed away in June of 2022, I think he was a cool content creator, I liked his content, but it still feels weird to see him mentioned in another video, I guess it's not been long enough for me, that's all, just tough that would be important to show our respect when mentioning his later work ^^
I wouldn't say Bethesda doesn't understand fallout, but the fallout they are interested in making is not the one I am interested in investing any time or thought into.
I thought Fallout 3 was great. It was slightly shallow, but it is a great experience. I still play and enjoy Fallout 3 today. Fallout 4, by contrast, was repetitive and boring and 1 playthrough was all I could bear. It was so contrived and uninspired that I have forgotten it except the points that I found particularly egregious, like "another settlement needs our help" and the main twist with father being your son.
Fallout 3 open world was mind blowing to me and 1st FO I every played. Loved that game. New vegas just took it to next level. Generally loved both games.
Your tripping balls, Bethesda writers can’t even keep their shit consistent in their own games, let alone maintaining anything that came before. Does the phrase “if it’s not broke, don’t fix it” mean anything to you? It wouldn’t be so bad when Bethesda puts there own spin on things, if they didn’t always fuck it up one way or the other. They’ve had some wins, and it’s not all bad. The point is the massive majority of players like New Vegas better, and instead of recognizing what they’re audience wants, they fuck off. They’re clearly jaded that obsidian did it better, so to stick it to them they want to do they’re own thing, but in doing so they fuck shit up for the audience. Fallout 4 did a lot of things well, but it could’ve been so much better if Bethesda did shit that made sense instead of being insecure about obsidians masterpiece.
I played Fallout 3 before NV. I love Fallout 3 but after I played NV I viewed 3 so differently. Take for example Point Lookout DLC, you get constantly shouted at, the two sides you're supposed to help never explained to you why they fought and why you should help them instead of the other one. Even in the final boss room, they just straight up told you the bs "This is a nemesis story you wouldn't understand." I BOUGHT IT WITH MY POCKET MONEY. Not to mention how it still bugs me to this day how I can't fucking tell Dad that it is because of him leaving the vault that I got shot on sight, that I have to leave. The story was so bad you barely ever got a say in how things go like tf??? The wasteland was cool and all but what's the point of playing if there isn't interesting stories ties to it? If you view Fallout 3 as an FPS shooter with some RPG elements the way I treat Skyrim and its exploration then you'll like it.
For those who say that fallout 1 and 2 are the 'true' fallout games. I say if they were so amazing, how come the developers had to file for bankruptcy and sell the rights in the first place?
@@MLPDethDealr32 Interplay had already had to sell the license for Fallout for three games and then eventually the entire series to Bethesda before they were sued by bethesda for project V13
You realize that happened well after 1 and 2 were released right? 1 and 2 were pretty successful games at the time, it was a series of bad decisions that killed interplay, it wasn't these particular games fault that they fell. And besides, sales and the company's fate don't really have any say in the actual quality of the games.
@@danzer9307 you are right, I believe the issue was due to a Fallout MMO that they had wanted to release but was in violation of a copyright. For success,I mean more about sales than reception because being good games isn't enough to create a franchise
i played fallout 1 and 2 during summer this year both great games but you know what fallout 1 and 3 have a very similar atmosphere to me i think 3 does good at being a fallout game when compared to the classics
Bethesdrones will continue to defend this game to death. Absolutely obliterated by obsidian in 18 months vs 7 years bethesdumb took to make fallout 3. Lol
I love both Fallout 3 and Fallout NV . I Have to disagree with you here i dont worship bethesda, however i put fallout 3 slightly ahead of fallout NV because i prefered the enviroment the npcs and the dlcs. Playing that game for the first time was a crazy experience. Much better map imo too and more darker side quests and unmarked quests .
Just because something is a "valid decision" in light of Big Business doesn't mean it makes for a good decision on the line of products for what they are to fans - GAMES. To companies they are money makers, great - we can see what that's done for games as a whole. Are crappy successful games "Valid" commercially? Sure. But it's just like immemorable movies a dime a dozen to be "successful" in making money yet NOBODY remembers them. They're two different sets of criteria. Us fans don't rate games on their commercial viability we rate them on how we ENJOY them. People need to stop blending these two as a way to stomp on people who actually do have valid complaints.
It’s a child debate because they’re both great in different ways. New Vegas’ crafting system was highly improved upon but was also completely different than Fallout 3s where you could construct weapons like the Junk Jet and Railway Rifle etc. which you didn’t get in Vegas. Reputation replaced karma and karma in Vegas wasn’t worth a lot (literally only Cass reacts to karma). Fallout 3 combat and gameplay is ultimately more challenging than New Vegas’ but no one gives Fallout 3 credit for that. They’re both amazing games, twins.
@@absolutezerochill2700 I agree, but as someone who plays on very hard + hardcore every time I still find the enemies in FNV to be too easy. Kinda miss the tanks.
Fallout three is my favorite game by far. I love new Vegas and it’s second for me but fallout three will always have a special place in my heart and I live them.
In my eyes fallout 4 and 76 dont belong because they are looter shooters instead of a roleplaying game... there is zero roleplaying in fallout 4... and 76 supposedly has the same mechanics (can't say for certain because I have never and will never play it because it released in such a unforgivable state) Fallout 3 is a good game but it's best enjoyed in New Vegas through the tale of two wastelands mod... I wish we had more liberties for role-playing in the vault sequence but that just means you have to think a bit harder about how to fit something in... My current character got infected with a mutated strain of fev while on the way to vault 101... This mutated strain left him looking the same but gave him the traits of a super mutant without changing his appearance at all... To add this to the game I'm using THE new Vegas race mod and adding the race perk that is normally added only when you choose the race with console commands... Before fixing the perk's associated height change with the console
Fallout 3 was the first Fallout game I played and is my favourite, yes it has flaws but I still love it, I love its atmosphere, the characters and gameplay. I have played New Vegas, but didn’t really like it even though I tried playing it multiple times. New Vegas has many issues that the hardcore fans will not acknowledge or will write off. It’s a good game but like Fallout 3 it has its flaws
I like fallout 3, it was lesser than new Vegas and the original two but it still was a CRPG at heart. Their were still world impacting choices to make even if they had less depth. Fallout 4 was really where the series started to loose it focus in my opinion. The game actively tried to give you impression there was choice but it was an purposeful mirage on the part of the developers. The gunplay was more fun and there was still fun exploration but the games core design philosophy seemed to shift hard away from CRPG roots of fallout. Then fallout 76 made it clear that Bethesda's approach to game design was getting for the lack of a better word 'lazy'. I don't mean lazy in that they don't work hard to make their games rather that the leadership can't or doesn't want to actually aspire to making truly interesting games or ambious games. They just wish to keep making more and more 'Bethesda style' games, open world exploration with looting and combat. They seem to hyper focused more and more on making their games more and more distilled versions of that formula, with each game stripping away or half-assing aspects of the game that are not core to a 'Bethesda style' game. Starfield is the penultimate example in that they added so many new mechanics around exploring and a bigger open galaxy to explore. The dialogue got worse from fallout 4, companions got more shallow, choice and consequence was minimal, the leveling system was definitely inferior to previous titles. They have taken this hyper focus on certain aspects of their games so far that even players who like 'Bethesda style' games bored of starfiled much quicker than any previous titles because Bethesda's overfocus on crafting, exploration, and open worlds. Those things are fun but only when the things your exploring and crafting are interesting; story, choice and consequence, and intricate character progression all provide a means of rewarding players as they explore. Nothing but loot gets dull after a while, an exciting hidden quest in dungeon is a better more memorable reward than another bunch of resources. By over stripping down their focus they have made their games more and more unengaging.
I always chalked it up to the fact that new vegas 1. had the ability to correct issues that 3 had. it also gave you a fairly straight forward path with what felt like unlimited choices. Fallout 3 just kinda chucked you out into the wasteland, and thats all it felt like. a unpopulated wasteland with not much to explore and a strict story line. Fallout new vegas since it implimented the mountains so well. it forced you to most locations and it just overall felt bigger. the boomer pocket, jamestown, the khans. they felt like magical places to find and explore.
“With not much to explore” I checked out at that point. Fallout 3’s map has more meaningful exploration with denser dungeons to explore, with far more hidden locations as well
I'm one of the ones who had no knowledge of the Fallout series until our neighbor's son let me barrow Fallout 3 back in 2015. And I've been hooked ever since, granted I only play 3 and NV, I really enjoy both but prefer NV.
It's so empty, there's like 5 different enemies spread across the capitol, you have no ADS system, barely any customization, why is big guns and small guns separate, you can only go up to level 30 (that's with dlc), and FNV's story is just good.
I like the game play and it's good. Althought I would have difficulty understanding your points. And I think the argument fell off towards the end. The reason why alot of people don't like Fallout 3, is that it was extremely expiremental. From story, environments, dlcs, and gun play. And because New Vegas is just better in every single way, it's hard not to compare the two; since it's literally using the same tech. Plus with most of the quest lines of Falliut 3 being very shallow; it's hard to really get into a role playing immersion. With the case being even if you sided woth the enclave you have to fight them. And being evil just to be evil. Plus I would say your case of elitism towards the end, is a bit silly and extreme of itself. I wouldn't say that story and depth wise like you said ( That fallout 1,2 and new vegas are better for those quailies), is a case of elitism. It's a group of fans that want the stories of the new games to follow the same great direction that the older games had. Hope my insight helps and have a good day.
West Coast in 2277: Society Rebuilding, Nations/faction rising, people finally receiving a chance to live a rather decent Life East Coast 2277: Everything stayed the same for about 200 years, BOS and Enclave conflict, not even mentioning an existence of a larger or dominant nation/faction aside from the Brotherhood or Enclave that came from the west coast Looking at Fallout 4, at least they had something going on by having the Minute Men being a larger faction or at least what have could be a larger faction but then a large crab ruined everything for them
I like to think the reason why the east coast isn't fast as the west in rebuilding is because the east was hit hard by the bombs, expecially d.c, since it's the capital of the good old USA.
@@artiv117well there’s also the super mutant infestation, I mean think about how many you encounter in F3. There’s more of them than settlers. Basically made almost all of DC uninhabitable except the ghouls in underworld which aren’t bothered by super mutants and rivet city which is very well equipped.
Idk man, I think reducing the minute men’s failure to a “large crab” is kinda simplifying it a little. You think a 20-30 foot tall crab queen is an easy obstacle? It literally left a whole in the wall of the fort. Not to mention that the minute men lasted for a while afterward but slowly degraded from lack of leadership, betrayal for power, and corruption. Not saying F4 doesn’t have problems but cmon
@@unclesam326 But no one decided to put an end to this for about 200 years. Like a meeting in Rivet City where representatives from multiple settlements would start fighting agaist the supermutant threat? There isn't anything related to that topic in the games.
Now shamus is spot on to whats they got wrong about the fallout series.. also he passed in 2019 so he isnt going to reply just fyi . No sarcas ment with the last bit genuine fyi
Tbh I think you should've dwelved deeper into the channels fixated on making day long videos on FO3 its one of those situations where people are literally beating a dead horse on something that could easily be condensed into a 20 min video but because OPINIONS it has to be engraved in stone that this thing people like is wrong and we have to prove people why it wrong to like something lol Channels like that fascinate me because with that level of dedication they could make videos in that same format on more better or even serious topics.
Personally for me, the parts between the Colonel Autumn sightings, so purifier and capture, just never made me feel as great. I got to Little Lamplight, and then after bringing Sticky to Big Town, did a bunch of stuff with Big Town's Quests, and saved the kids. But, I didn't feel like trying to see what all is out there. I did that, and managed to force myself into Vault 87, and then I got back on track, and same with Broken Steel. Though I never completed certain stuff, just letting it be. In NV, I did an NCR run, and notably, side quests seemed to be taking me away from the main story, and needed to force me to stay away from the main quest. I eventually came back to the main questline, but that was notably after I had cleared my quest log outside of stuff that wasn't already failed, but since never hit the trigger, wasn't cleared. Add onto the fact your side quests actually impacted the finale, like BoS, Khans, and Enclave helping the NCR, you felt more impact from doing them. Tldr: I felt more like stuff I was doing in NV mattered, and was written coherently, while 3 seemed like I could take it or leave it. Prefer NV over 3, but still at least enjoyed 3.
the proliferation of two hour+ long ‘retrospectives’ that describe everything in a game without giving more commentary than ‘this is good’ or ‘this is bad’ has been terrible. hbomberguy’s video is a mess in some ways, but I do think it was entertaining and had legitimate and well argued points of criticism within it. like you said, 3 had different priorities and design goals. judging 3 vs. NV solely on what NV does good is dumb lol. I’d got sucked into the 3 hate but I replayed 3 and really enjoyed it (even if there were times where my immersion was broken momentarily). its world is pretty great even if I dislike some of the lore and story elements it introduced.
In the begining i disliked Fallout 3 since it was too hard. But now that i have played all other Fallouts, its not so hard anymore and im actually really enjoying it. Fallout 3 is amazing
I love new vegas cause it was my first fallout game but for some reason fallout 3 was such a different feeling for me it felt different seeing how big the city was in the game, it was also my sisters first and only fallout game all the way back when it was just barely released
I think what fallout always was supposed to be is interplay/obsidian way of fallout. I really liked, Bethesda fallout 3 the current fallout feels like the same body as the original, but a different soul. replacing the original creator from his creation only makes it in interpretation but that’s only my opinion.
Fallout 3 was my first FO game and it has a special place in my heart for that, but I do feel Bethesda learned all the wrong lessons from it going forward.
Players: "Let us keep playing after the end of the main quest, and give us a player home full of containers."
Bethesda: "Do the exact opposite of that and call it a day."
@@mattorama How? Fallout 4 has exactly that.
@@adhx7506 talking bout fo3, guy.
They nailed it with fallout 76
1 and 2 set the tone.
Fallout 3 was faithful.
Fallout is NOT game mechanics, it's a vibe.
if anyone is wondering, that is Tale of Two Wasteland, which is a mod that mixes Fallout 3 and Fallout NV in one game, allowing to play fallout 3 with NV mods and creating a kind of Story that connects both games giving the idea of that The Lone Wanderer is also The Courier
@sneedfeedandseed2410 💀
I almost had a stroke reading that lmao
I'm glad that's not the case because Jesus Christmas Christ that is some fanfic crap
@@unoriginalperson72 yeah, but hey you can play fallout 3 with decent mods 🗿👍
@@GMonkey24-kz3hb kinda makes me wish people would just make the decent mods for fallout 3
Fallout 3 is so hated because it ends up saying nothing and providing a story that puts your dad more in centre than you meanwhile New Vegas is loved because big iron
So you're saying that if fallout 3 had big iron it would be just as good a new vegas
Jingle jingle also exist
Wym by “saying nothing”?
It’s hated because it doesn’t have moral ambiguity/dialogue options that New Vegas does. Other than that, they’re the same game
@@brandonlamb9067 Only it does have lots of moral ambiguity written into the game itself unless you are so brain dead you can only judge an actions morality by the crappy morality system in the game.
Fallout 3's story I believe was going to be a lot more complex with the ability to choose between the Brotherhood and the Enclave and between two subfactions a conservative and a progressive element in each. You can see it with both the Outcasts and the civil war in the Enclave between Eden and Autumn but for one reason or another it was cut and patched together into what we ended up with.
It really does need a remake with a bit of rewriting.
Why you lying?
Is this a joke cus I've never heard about this? Pretty sure fallout 3 had normal development time and new Vegas had less development time and miraculously still became a great fallout game and better than fo3
@@pear_bear It's not a joke it's analysing loose plot points, normal development time has nothing to do with this and I'm not suggesting development Hell but simply that it was originally written one way, they couldn't complete it in a reasonable time or within budget and they scrapped it, keep in mind that game stories go through multiple revisions during development you haven't heard of this because it's my assumption made by following loose plot points
yeah i think bethesda played it safe, and i imagine it had a lot to do with the fact that fallout was already established.
My biggest problem with Fallout 3 is that quests and npc's often feel isolated from each other. When New Vegas was being made, the interconnectivity of factions, npc interactions, and quests was core to the design philosophy.
Also pretty darn boring how the story just comes down to helping the bos (good guys) vs enclave (bad guys)
Funny, that's the exact reason I prefer fo3. It feels more destitute and like civilization is barely hanging on. The NV world has desperation, sure, but everything is connected in a way that just feels overdone and doesn't have a sense of true apocalypse.
FO3 quests feels like a bunch of separate vignettes that are not connected with the each other beyond ostensibly taking place in the same world, and even that feels tenuous with how little connective tissue there is, they simply don't influence or even acknowledge each other outside of the fact that they exist in the same game world and can be completed by a single character.
And little thought seems to have been given on the people and places involved in these quests outside of what happens directly during said quest that the people and places don't even feel connected to the world they inhabit, as if they just simply poofed into existence just before your character got there and will stop existing the moment you leave.
Fun for freeform exploration, but torpedoes immersion and investment in its world.
I think the discussion about the endings of both games are a great way to show that, for FO:NV there is a lot of division over what is the right choice, and a ton of debate about the merits and flaws of each factions methods and philosophy.
For FO3 any talk about the ending usually boils down to agreeing that being forced to sacrifice oneself or being called a coward by the ending slides for sending in Lyons is incredibly stupid when you could just send in the immune to radiation super mutant or ghoul companion, and writer was clearly up their own ass.
FO3 is still fun, but it's like fast food, there is no real substance there.
@@Izithel tldr. But no.
@@WalksandSuchbecause it’s a post-apocalypse game. the bombs dropped 200, not 20 years ago
Just finished a 100% completion re-play of Fallout 3. Loved it almost as much as when I was a kid. Much of that game holds up.
i love how 3 is very gritty, like the wasteland is just holding on by a thread. people are just getting by but barely.
@@demonpride1975i loved 3, never really got the new vegas hype tbh. i have over thousands of hours in 3, NV, 4 and 76 combined and 3 is still my favorite
Im currently on my mid replay through and yeah it holds up just as well as I remembered amd it just has such a good feeling to playing it , think I'm gonna do nv next and finally have a crack at 4, I've started fo4 so many times but I always fall off after around 3 hours 😅
@demonpride1975 Agreed, it's not made post-post-apocalyptic like 1 or 2 or New Vegas to a lesser extent, though has this powerful immediacy... like it just happened, or we're just leaving our vaults
love fo3
In my opinion Bethesdas rpg entries lack what Obsidian did which is give the player character choices around scenarios within the story that allow for a lot more freedom from a narrative perspective. Besthesdas strengths are world design, lore, art style and lastly combat. I play Skyrim a lot more than fallout 3 or 4 because it feels like that is the best example of the things Bethesda is great at.
See I don't get the perspective that you had more choice in NV than 4. Yes 4 cut a lot of dialouge depth but I feel like NV puts a lot of emphasis on completing someone else's goals even if you side with yes man because essentially you're just doing what Benny was. Wheras with 4 it feels more about personal choice and what YOU want out of the world. Still a bigger fan of NV but 4 really feels like the more in depth game
in fallout 4 you are either doing what the brotherhood of steel, the railroad, the institute wants unless you go with the minuet men, then you are the commander. Also saying you are just finishing what Benny wanted to do, Benny wanted to control new vegas itself all yes man does is give you suggestions on how to take over new vegas for your own vision whatever that may be Benny is long since not involved at all. This feels like a HUGE stretch. Heck you can even go against yes man's advice and it leads to hilarious dialog.
@@nicholasmcmaster230 Perhaps the most horrendous take i have ever seen
@@nicholasmcmaster230
Yes Man has some hilarious dialogue if you go against his suggestions.
@@nicholasmcmaster230lmao thanks for the lol
Fallout 3 and fallout 4 are like father and Son
As someone who's put many hours into fallout 4 I feel like it has basically all of 3s problems with almost none of the charm like it's atmosphere.
Fallout 3 was an incredible game…4 is nothing like it
@@smith549371 But it is , it's everything fallout 3 wanted to be if you look at both games they have same similar stories somewhat same character in a way one is the future and the other is the past. You might say the same thing to about fallout New Vegas and the future game to be the next generation of fallout new vegas. Just think about
@@smith549371 the overall tone and the stories are very similar, the way many of the factions and enemies are portrayed are basically the same I mean for God's sake the gunners are literally the talon company with a diffrent name , you still don't belive me? bro the final brotherhood mission is the exact same as the final mission in fallout 3 this game is just fallout 3 without any of the charm.
@@mr-fatji1491Imagine being a worse version of a game that already has SO little going for it
F3 and FNV are the 2 games that I played the most on my 360. Both 3 and FNV are great games, and they have a weird effect on me where if I play one, I have to play the other afterwards. Still play them to this day.
Every couple of years when I decide to replay one, I inevitably play the other afterwards. I really love both.
Same.
"Without Fallout 3, there wouldn't be New Vegas, and there wouldn't be as many fans to this franchise" and "Em*l P*gliwhatever shouldn't be allowed within a 10 mile radius of the next Fallout game's plot and main quest" are two statements that can and should co-exist
Emil killed Fallout 4
He made Nate into a war criminal, best writer ftw
that still doesn't make bethesda fallout good
He just changed F4 into a true rake masterpiece
Such a shame that the guy who was part of Thief II team has dropped his balls so hard.
4:06 did you even watch the video? He's 100% right on everything he said. Why are rad scorpions and the Brotherhood of Steel on the East Coast? There are no deserts for scorpions to live in and are you telling me the Brotherhood of Steel is a nationwide organization? He's not wrong regarding how Bethesda copy pasted the original lore. Bethesda's Fallout is like the bombs hit in 1950 and then time stopped. If you look out Fallout 1, they built little cities and towns, but then if you go to Fallout 3, 120 years later, everybody is living in piles of filth and they haven't bothered cleaning anything up to include the dead bodies. I don't know why you quoted his video. I don't think you actually watched it.
You know there’s lots of scorpions in different climates right? Some live in England, a cold wet climate.
There are scorpions nearly everywhere in the US bro
The guy mostly points out the lack of thought and effort coming from Bethesda when it comes to making an immersive world
OP, the primary issue that many people have of Fallout 3 is the fact that it lacks innovations or changes relative to the geographical region its set in and abuses the otherwise “mascots” of the franchise (i.e. Super Mutants, Deathclaws, Brotherhood of Steel) while maintaining a kind of artistic stagnancy that doesn’t give leeway to creativity; that still persists in FO4 and 76. There’s nothing wrong with people arguing for consistency in lore; anachronistic changes bother people more than you think. You cannot dismiss them as purists when it’s been demonstrated that a failure for a writer to keep up with existing canon is grounds for lack of innovation or redundancy.
The problem is that Bethesda has adopted the philosophy of keeping things "safe." Both Todd and Emil have praised their "K.I.S.S." system: Keep it simple, stupid. It isn't just Fallout 3 that has bad to mediocre writing. Skyrim, Fallout 4, Fallout 76, Starfield, etc, are all examples of games that have empty writing. It's a deliberate strategy of the company to keep dumbing down their RPG games to appeal to the masses.
It's just that Bethesda at one point set the bar for the mechanics of the consoles so they could hide this. Fallout 3, apparently, was revolutionary for 2008. Skyrim set the bar for what PS3 games ought to be able to do. Fallout 4 improved upon Fallout 3, but people were already starting to comment on the cracks of the Creation Engine. Not to mention the fact that New Vegas was far better than 3 despite having such a short development cycle. Elder Scrolls Online and Wolfenstein were very average games. There was a small buzz around both games that quickly went away. Then Fallout 76 came along and that was such a massive shitshow that a lot of people finally opened up to Bethesda's practices. In the span of one game the company had pissed away all of their goodwill to their community. Hence why people are now a lot harsher on the company than they once were.
it even permeates into the fallout tv show with the retcons, lore inconsistencies, not paying attention the the geography. the show is just like fo3. it was awesome seeing fallout in live action. however just like 3 it ends there and starts undoing a lot of stuff in the universe. like they seriously decided to nuke shady sands to give the show a more post apocalyptic vibe and now had to work around that dumb decision
Fallout 3 is really fun to replay every couple of years. But New Vegas never gets old.
Fallout 3 is a great game when it comes to survival and exploration. Its a good bethesda game. But i can totally understand if somebody says its not a fallout game.
They chucked some super mutants in there, added the brotherhood of steel, topped it of with an uninteresting main story and added some side quest that had little to no choice or impact in the world.
They could have stripped every fallout element of that game, called it "RADIATION" instead and just marketed it as a post-nuclear-survival game. 95 % of the game would be the same. Its Skyrim with guns but dressed up as Fallout. But its so far removed from anything that fallout 1 & 2 stood for (and made them great) that i dont really see it as a successor to the fallout franchise.
It was really interesting seeing your more nuanced take on the matter, great video 💛
I Love you
@@campinho9582 vielen Dank 💛
Honestly i preferred Fallout 3 over New Vegas.
As a New Vegas fan I don’t hate fallout 3 I love it. But from a person who only plays the vanilla games. Every time I play fallout 3 I just realize all the things you can’t do in fallout 3 that you could do in New Vegas.
I'm sorry but vanilla new vegas gameplay is just straight trash. The Map is too small. It's not well optimised. And there is so much weapons to the point that none of them feels unique.
LMAO the gameplay is a billion times better than Bugthesda's trash. Map in 3 is mostly empty and boring to explore. It's not well optimized because of Bugthesda's trash engine. The lack of guns in 3 made the combat boring and terrible along with the awful weapon spread RNG!@@HEXO_HANK69
@@HEXO_HANK69you must've played a scuffed nv then because none of those is true.
Also big map does not equal good game.
Except NV has invisible walls and FO3 does not
@@tartatovsky
all of them are true
3 is just better, accept that fact.
As someone who is new to RPG's and hasn't played New Vegas yet, I thought Fallout 3 was fantastic. And I think it's important to note that a good thing will seem worse by comparison when compared to a great thing even though the good thing is still good.
From an exploration standpoint yes wouldn't necessarily say from replayability as much unless modded.
@@sinisterisrandom8537 i disagree with you. while mods make 3 a bit better, there is still lots to do after your first play through, hell i am betting most people never found a lot of the zones. because the subway could be very confusing. hell to a degree fallout 4 is like that. i played fallout 4 vr, and i found areas i never did before because of being on street view.
@@sinisterisrandom8537 i disagree as well. Picked up the game after many years after playing it as a kid. Really enjoy the atmosphere, mechanics, even the simple story that was given. Better than the slop given nowadays from AAA industries
Oh you sweet summer child.
Your opinion is gonna change so much when you play actual good RPGs with actual good writing (and no, I'm not talking about the Fallout series).
I don't even consider Fallout 3 to be an RPG, it's that bad.
Fallout 3 was also the first RPG i'd ever played and it became easily one of my favorite games of all time. This was back in 2011. I've played countless game since then, and there are certaintly better RPG's than Fallout 3 out there BUT there are very few games that captured my imagination as much as Fallout 3 did. The feeling of exploring the wasteland is truly one of a kind. The feeling of isolation, decay and hopelesness combined with this other wierdly comical side is a perfect blend imo.
False❌ : New Vegas is better because [3 hour rant about the quests]
True✅: New Vegas is better because it has ironsights and Raul Tejada
Also two words: BIG IRON
And also fun quests
also story makes sense
it's weird to get reminded that fallout 3 doesnt have iron sights, I'm so used to fallout games after 3 all having iron sights i forget that game just doesnt have them.
@@mableoftheroundtable7034Me personally, I don’t even see the big deal about no iron sights. The zoom function works enough and the game logic basically magnetizes your bullets to an enemy within range, so you’re guaranteed to get a hit most of the time. It is jarring to come back to 3 after playing the later entries though.
I adored Fallout 3, perhaps even more than New Vegas in some aspects. I couldn't even begin to count the number of hours I spent delving into every abandoned building, reading every scrap piece of paper, and sneaking around the streets of DC. A remaster for modern consoles would be hugely appreciated.
We all know the true Fallout is Brotherhood of Steel. Interplay co-signed on it so the classic fans cannot say otherwise😂
Is this the cope you tell yourself when you raid another worthless dungeon in your gay bethesda games?
What I said was very clearly a dumb joke about the WORST game in the series. There’s no need to have a Chris Chan tier tism attack on me🧩🤣
@@shreksnow1918 You're gay
@@ssjbroly8735My guy, Fallout 1 was created by a gay guy and Fallout 2 was the first game to have gay marriage in it, if anything Bethesda’s games are “straight” fallout
@@legitplayin6977 -Homosexual
I'm glad people still debate over Fallout 3 and Vegas, it means that despite flaws they're still relevant and I wouldn't have it any other way. Any time I look up the F3 menu theme I get a dopamine overload and every memory from 2008 floods back all at once. I can see a huge swathe of the fallout community that do that same thing and that's why it's gonna stay in memory for years to come.
When I launched FNV for the first time, every memory I had from F3 become disgusting. FNV has refreshed my jov in Fallout that I didnt realize F3 had killed
Fallout 3 is pretty good in my personal opinion. My favorite thing about fallout 3 is every single location, even unmarked locations, tend to have useful things. Putting books in each location that each raise one of your skills 2 points with the perk? Its brilliant. It makes all exploration meaningful, makes all exploration go towards building your character. Not to mention the game is super atmospheric and the location of dc is super interesting. (While were on the subject the bobbleheads and radio towers were also great ideas. And schematics too? Unique weapons? Theres so much reason to get out there. Also magazines in fallout 4 are brilliant but i wish they gavr you more powerful/more interesting buffs)
i am one of the few people that loves the subway system, it gives the game that extra sense of atmosphere, and that the city truly is destroyed. if anything, i would have preferred the sewer system play a bigger roll.
@@demonpride1975I live in the areas where F03 takes place and it's really cool seeing areas I have walked in or around in a destroyed 50s state.
Hell yea man! Exploring in 3 is loads of fun, you also just always wind up running into random encounters and enemies in such a way where it doesn't feel scripted and formulaic yet happens often enough where there is never a dull moment.
@@demonpride1975 Loved the subways, really did make the city feel destroyed. Honestly wish they did more with them in 4, you get little bits here and there but nothing like in 3.
isn't this true about every bethesda game????? why people despise 3 isn't coz of that it's just like skyrim, it's shallow. fun game that u can play for years but still a shallow rpg with poor writing. problem is fallout was known for its stellar writing and rpg mechanics which bethesda dumbed down. new vegas tried to bring the best of both worlds, bethesda gameplay loop with obsidian's stellar writing and rpg design which bethesda then ignored and took the worst lessons from 3 and brought it to 4 and 76. also they did the worst mistake of all, butchering the lore and canon
For me it boils down to the fact that I enjoy Fallout 1, 2 New Vegas and 76 while I do not really enjoy 3 and 4. I find a lot of the gamplay, story and lore elements of those games to be baffling, disappointing and unfun. I think people dislike the east coast Fallout games vs west coast for very valid reasons in that the games have very different goals of game design while also failing at even some of their goals.
I was one of those anti fallout 3 guys 10 years ago. I'm glad I grew out of it. If you enjoy the gameplay of New Vegas then I don't see how you can genuinely hate 3. Yes, it's inferior in many ways and has a lot of issues but I still always have fun playing through it. Fallout 3 is almost underrated at this point.
yep i never understood the reason to hating a game, because you love the next game in a series. that's like saying well you love god of war 3, you have no choice but to hate 2.
Its not the gameplay. Its the writing and simplifying of systems
Fallout 3 left a bad taste when it was first released. New Vegas was buggy, but it was fundamentally a good game with a great story. In the original Fallout 3, the ending was so unbearably terrible, if you tried to send Fawkes the supermutant into the radioactive room in place of you, he would refuse for no reason at all other than "it is your destiny," and if you wanted to kill him for basically dooming you into killing yourself when he's perfectly capable to enter the room safely, he ends up being an essential NPC who can't be killed. When they finally patched this and gave you the option to send Fawkes in, the game's ending sequence now states that the Lone Wanderer "is not a real hero." Why the hell should the Lone Wanderer go into the radiation room and die when he has a companion who can do it safely???? Fallout 3 has great gameplay and good sidequests but the writing is so unbelievably awful that it ruins the rest of the game for me.
People just love to hate on Fallout 3 because Fallout 4 was disappointing as shit I remember seeing top comments on TH-cam like Capital Wastelands > Mojave Desert a couple months before Fallout 4 released and now New Vegas is the fan favorite of the series
@@raidernation2390 Pretty sure that should be expected. Plenty F3 enjoyers at the time crapped on FNV for being different or too boring, so I imagine a good number of Bethesda fans were excited and hopeful. It wouldn't be until the game came out, years pass by, and the flaws of the game would become appereant and likewise be discovered in Skyrim, Fallout 3, and Oblivion. IMO NV ended up having aged better in some regards, I can imagine equally that the folks that find F3 and F4 underwhelming would look to NV as the one where we wished more games tried to emulate. Personally I think Bethesda is more than capable of achieving NV's deep world, they just haven't been that interested in working off the best parts of that game.
I can assure you many NV lovers have known and played F3. The original game is so riddled with problems I can't try to replay it, which is why I hope to install for a TTW playthrough.
The thing is, oversimplifying games does not necessarily appeal to a larger audience. There are plenty of examples of games, and specifically RPGs, that are very appreciated by large audiences because of their amazing RP elements, good writing and freedom of choice (just look at anything Larian made in the past decade, or, a better example, disco elysium, which swept the game awards despite being an "old school" CRPG).
On top of that, merely understanding the themes and narratives that made the first two games great seemed to be too difficult for Bethesda to do, and much of the depth within elements (such as super mutants, who were reduced from nuanced, intelligent creatures left without a voice in the world, to generic enemies that cannot be reasoned with) was completely ignored in the process of making a game where you fight or help fallout-themed factions and collect fallout-themed items.
Also Tim Cain was mostly a programmer and did not contribute much to the writing of the old games.
The least Bethesda could do is pretend like they cared about the IP like they kept insisting they did in interviews.
Erm, no I think you're just being toxic NV fan, you have to say meaningless platitudes like "I love all the fallout games except I never played 1 or 2 :)))" or you'll get downvoted by Todd's strongest redditors.
While fallout 3 undoubtedly has a lot of problems I think a lot of the hate it gets isn't even related to fallout 3 itself but to bethesda and people who prefer it over new vegas because it's illegal to have an opinion other than fallout new vegas is the pinnacle of human creation and therefore all other forms of entertainment are inferior to it.
This is only a new phenomenon though. And people aren’t like that actually. Or at least not enough of them for you to make this statement with any kind of justification. Nobody is going to look down on you for enjoying fall out three more than new Vegas. But we are going to question why though. A lot of people used to actually think fallout three was better and then there was a huge change in 2013 I think around that time we’re more people started to realize new Vegas is better. This is because of people getting older if you are a kid fallout three is more fun if you are an adult. Fallout new Vegas is more fun. story of new Vegas is more complicated the story in fallout three is more simple and emotionally attached. Like the whole point of the game is to find your dad. in new Vegas the whole point is to resolve conflict. Conflict that you didn’t start but you will finish. In fallout three the whole conflict is basically a B plot. Where are the enclave remnants from the original game gets stomped again. The brotherhood of steel and the enclave are the only significant forces of culture tying the new games to the old games. Everything else every other faction isn’t really a thing. I also feel like a lot of fallout three fans now have a persecution complex along with fallout four fans. Just because people don’t want to acknowledge that these action RPG‘s are not as good as real rpgs.
@@smokedbeefandcheese4144 OK first of all you gotta learn how to convey the message in a shorter paragraph my guy , and second not enough people to justify that outlook? I can't say 1 good thing about fallout 3 without 90% of the comments saying that NV did it better and I'm a bigot for liking 3 more than NV I agree with you that no one with an actual brain is gonna look down on someone for enjoying a game but you gotta understand there's a surprising lack of people with an iq above the room temperature out there.
This is the same shit I've been seeing from the Monster Hunter fandom too. lol
you gotta up that attention span my guy@@mr-fatji1491
you perfectly presented everything wrong with your kind
you won't allow opinion that says fallout 3 bad
but "it's illegal to have an opinion other than vegas good"
"it's not hate related to fallout 3 but to bethesda" and who made it while caliming they wanted to encapsulate essence of originals?
0:33 - nice rounding here. You could say "more, than four hours" and still insert that clip with Joe.
As someone who would more align with the opposing side on this argument, I have to say I really think this is a great video because it really clearly describes your view in a way much different from creators who have done videos on the same issue. I must commend you for not resulting to petty nagging with little constructive critique like other creators have, too.
I think other creators should take note; this is how you make a video on an argument.
And thank you for actually listening to what I have to say instead of leaving a mean comment. Yeah I have made a couple videos in the style you describe where I was just being mean half of the time, but since this is a topic I want to actually take seriously, I just decided to keep things concise with only a couple of jabs towards the other side. Also videos like that are just immature (despite how fun they are)
@@logamuffin3876 ive sunk in more hours into NV personally, but hey, if you like 3 then you obviously know it better than i do which would make you enjoy it more :)
have a stellar dayyyy!
If that's the case, let's hope Logo here won't do a video on Fallout 4. There is SO many problems in that game, naming any positives is almost impossible
@@simple-commentator-not-rea7345I've sunk a lot of hours into fallout games with fallout 4 being my first and most played game and I would honestly say the only positives would weapon/armour modification and usage, the looting system and whilst this might be controversial, I did enjoy the settlement building though I always modded the crap out of it to allow more building options/choices though for me the whole settlement building I think really destroyed the opportunity for more than just Diamond City and Good Neighbour and so ultimately if you gave a choice between players building their own cities compared to detailed developed ones I would always pick the developer built ones.
Meow
Absolutely love Fallout 3. It has the true dark, gritty nuclear wasteland atmosphere that NV lacked. NV had more a post apocalyptic cowboy feeling to me.
I didn’t get the “apocalyptic cowboy” vibe from New Vegas. Outside of the game taking place in a desert with old country music being prevalent, there’s not much of a wild west vibe to speak of.
@@Hewasnumber1the robot literally calls you partner. There are gangsters throwing dynamite at you. Lever action rifle and revolvers. Casinos. Casinos everywhere.
Fallout new vegas is very wild west like. Xd Its not a bad thing, but it is.
@@towarzyszmarcin474 That’s not a cowboy aesthetic. Dynamite is a common explosive, and would probably be the most abundant and accessible explosive to a civilian populace. And casinos aren’t really a wild west thing, it’s more part of the Vegas experience than anything. A single robot calling you partner also isn’t enough to sell a wild west setting. Lever-action rifles and revolvers also are fairly common armaments, and though can help sell the vibe, isn’t enough to do so on their own. Fallout 4 has the lever-action rifle be introduced in Far Harbor, and the titular island is as far away from a wild west setting as possible, yet the rifle feels right at home.
The problem with calling New Vegas a “wild west” game is that Vegas is not lawless, quite the opposite. The game focuses around the power struggle between three main factions, with the option of being a wild-card and uprooting them all. There’s only a couple of independent towns that don’t belong to tribals (and though tribal societies can play into a wild west, I don’t think the Khans really do the part), and most of them have little to do, and don’t feel like wild west shanty towns when they do (the sole exception being Goodsprings).
So though New Vegas can sometimes feel like a wild west game, those moments are fleeting and scarce. It’s Fallout with a dash of wild west sprinkled in for funsies, and doesn’t actually commit to that feeling/setting.
@austinking2959 nope
I argue there is a small western theme here and there, but that is because it takes place in the west where the literal wild west was so the culture makes sense to be around to a level and gives a feeling, cowboy and wild west themes are still popular in the real west still so it is possible for it to be around in a post nuclear wasteland and survive.
Also Victor is supposed to be a cowboy but that is because he is a reference to the waving sign in Vegas.
Your FO3 setup looks clean as hell man. Can you link your modlist?
i like all the fallout games except 76. fallout 3 was my first one and i played through it 36 times with all the dlc (yes i counted) i even played the entire game and all its dlc in one sitting for an entire day when i was a kid, so i might be biased when i get upset at other fans who say fallout 3 is objectively bad.
I've started replaying fallout 3 because I always had a hate for it but now I'm kinda neutral on it, it's side quests aren't half bad and are interesting in many cases though my two biggest problems are world itself and the storytelling, the world just feels very small and bland, with New Vegas it felt like I travelled far distances, met new people, explored and saw interesting things and I think that's why the main quest of fallout New Vegas was always meh to me because the main quest was merely a direction to walk in with everything that makes New Vegas amazing great along the route whilst fallout 3 feels like I have to go searching for interesting things to do and honestly I hate fallout 3s dialogue/story telling because I always found myself with limited choices that I didn't like and a lot of the choices simply didn't matter because the game wants you to do what it expects you to do which is okay because a lot of games function like that, I just wish it wasn't plastered on the wall like TellTale games does saying that your choices matter and should make you feel like they matter, idk, I still prefer New Vegas and the originals as true fallout games but I wouldn't go as far myself to say fallout 3 isn't a fallout game because it is, it's just its own thing really
fallout 3 is baddd
@@dinand28no one asked
it is not a personal attack when someone points out the flaws in sth you love. you should not get upset rather try to see their view since in the end the game will improve if the developers get criticism. fo3 is not a bad game. it has shitty writing and world building with dumb down rpg mechanics but still a good game. problem arises when bethesda learnt nothing from the criticism since fo3 was a financial success and a game changer at the time and made the same mistakes while making skyrim and their sunsequent games. obsidian showed the fans that the bethesda gameplay loop can be enrinched with quality writing, world building and rpg mechanics but what did bethesda do? skyrim dumbed it down even further to the point oblivion fans finally understood what morrowind fans were complaining about and fallout 4 took it even further. however those games sold really really well and bethesda thought they could do no wrong and now look at starfield. with fallout it sucks because this approach by bethesda ended up ruining the established lore which started with fallout 3 and now even shows in the TV show
I think the idea of fallouts 1 2 and new Vegas being “true fallout games” isn’t exactly wrong, these three games feel very sequential to each other, while in contrast 3, 4, and 76 feel like spin off games rather than successors. Maybe part of this is due to location. But I think the biggest part of this is simply the way they handle factions. The brotherhood shouldn’t have been strong in 4 considering the continuing downfall of the brotherhood in the place they were founded. (These criticisms also apply to the show, cause the NCR probably couldn’t have been killed by one dude, heck even if all of Shelly sands were military they would’ve still have 2/3rds of their military left) The handling of the NCR becoming this massive power in new Vegas we see at the ending of 2, and the continued development of society, vs 4s and 3s still massive piles of rubble, and overall lack of progress.
3:26 This killcam goes hard.
Fallout 3 feels like a fallout themed DC theme park. The brotherhood of steel is somehow in DC while in California they've been reduced to a group hiding in fear of the enclave theyve become so small, to then them fighting a war with the NCR. Whered they get the resources to get all the way to DC? New strain of FEV, Enclave is supposed to be dead and gone, dlc for a less frustrating ending. They even tried to make a dollar store Master with President Eden. Its fallout 1 but watereddown and in DC. The only thing new about Fallout 3 was its location and side quests which are very fun. Its not a bad game at all, but they could have done something new. 4 and 76 have the same problem. Let the brotherhood of steel die already!
The enclave is somewhat justifiable given how yk,they're the prewar government,there is gonna be atleast some of them in the former capital of the usa
Bethesda's Fallout games are very wrong mainly in worldbuilding, as they forgot the word POST in a post-apocaliptic game. That in junction with the horrible writing makes those games a bare demo to showing their engine, which later people modding made a game from those demos
Post-post apocalyptic is kinda stupid of a term,post apocalyptic fits fallout 1,2 and nv apocalyptic fits fallout 3,4 and 76
@@Damian-cilr2 If you are happy thinking that, then do so
@@Damian-cilr2 how does that even make sense when fallout 3 take place after 1 and 2 and 4 takes place after NV. why are they most recent games showing a world that is more backwards than the previous older games which take place before them? how does that make sense?????
I’ve been a fallout fan since 3 was released when I was 14. I never fully finished New Vegas and I’m in the middle of a playthrough now because I’m getting deeper into the lore. It is…painful. Difficult gameplay, tedious side quests, and confusing factions. I’m shocked by all the hype about it online and the deep divisions in the fandom in general that I’m just now learning about.
If the gameplay is difficult there's easy mode, no shame in that. You're right, the factions are confusing, and that's what makes them so intriguing for me. The hype comes from the depth of the people you can interact with and the ways you can interact with them, there's so much freedom in how you go about things. My favourite faction is The Followers of the Apocalypse, although they aren't powerful enough to rule the Mojave.
I'm not sure what you mean by tedious side quests, as I really enjoy most of them, and I just skip the ones I don't want to do. Like with the Boomers you can skip their whole portion of the story just by giving some guy enough scrap metal lol. I can't think of a quest that I really hate personally.
@@michaelcarroll5801 I am playing on easy mode lol. The only “side faction” I’ve liked so far are the Boomers. Everyone else I find pretty annoying, so their quests are tedious to me (the followers, the King, the white glove people, etc). Just not my cup of tea
@@danamania150 in that case, kill 'em all? Ha
Ladies and gentlemen I present to you: The Bethesda audience.
@@danamania150 you don't have to interact with factions you don't like
If Fallout 3 hated? I love it and I’ve only ever heard praise for it. NV is definitely a better RPG but Fallout 3 is still good.
I think the reason FO3 has gotten so much more flak over time is because of the trendline. It's not the comparison the FNV that makes it look worse - it's the comparison to FO4, and then 76. The writing got steadily worse, the role-playing elements slimmed down and stripped out, until it became just another shooter with stats rather than a true RPG. FO3 is the beginning of a trend where they systematically dumbed down the writing and steadily removed more and more role-playing from what's sold as an RPG. FNV was an overall improvement on FO3 - and if FO4 carried forward a lot of the things that made FNV so beloved, FO3 would be seen as the start of something incredible. But because they went in the opposite direction - and because FNV is there to stand in stark contrast - FO3 looks like the beginning of a downward trend rather than an upward one.
8:05 What about those without one? Maybe you didn't think that one through...
skill issue
This is SUPER unrelated, but what mods did you use for the FO3 and FNV gameplay? Very nice quality of life, gunplay, and animation upgrades I see. Anyhoo, great video (I personally dislike FO3, and love FNV).
I use this guide: wastelandsurvivalguide.com/docs/intro, along with a handful of texture mods and combat mods (b42 weapon inertia, smooth ironsights, ragdolls etc)
Fallout 3 isn’t bad because NV is so good, it’s bad because the story relies too heavily and one dimensional twists and concepts
Imma be honest, vegas was my first experience with fallout. And I chose to play it first because of silly smiley and his army of death-bots.
Fallout 3 feels like a good piece of cinema as far as games go, the side quests alone are proof of that, while New Vegas feels like a choose your own ending kind of TV show that could go on and on depending how you play, especially since the DLC's feel canon to the main plot as hints and easter eggs are peppered throughout the main game.
Both games have their charm and I think when we look past the arguments all of us can conclude that having both games around is a good thing and they should be cherished, always.
Fallout new vegas was my first fo game,and i loved it to the point of me rotting on a couch for 8 hours a day,so naturally when i tried fallout 3 for the first time i thought the main quest was boring and didnt really pick it up after that,a similar situation with fo4 but im thinking of going back to them,but wouldnt know where to start really (especially with fo4 i have no clue how the level up system works)
I prefer playing fallout 3 in TTW. Yeah, it has bad writing, but the gameplay is better and I can enjoy the atmosphere and world more.
Your pfp.
😂😂😂 wtf
I've dumped multiple years playing Fallout 3 and New Vegas
In my opinion yes they're both good Fallout 3 has its own flavor and mechanics but don't get me wrong there's plenty of cool things to run into like for instance whole mothership zeta dlc and the pitt dlc and point lookout dlc are very interesting content, without the dlcs there's just plenty of cool weapons and interactions and some secret ones and plus plenty of variety for different character builds plus the story of the game is still great
Fallout New Vegas is just all around good took with what they learned from Fallout 3 and made it better even having to hand it off to another gaming studio to finish it the only gripe I have Is the lack of underground exploration like amount the vaults to seek out and quite frankly the map is way smaller compared to Fallout 3 and less buildings to enter and explore and the amount of out bounds areas you can easily run into is crazy in fallout new vegas
Fallout 3 you rarely run into the out of bounds areas compared to Fallout New Vegas on top of that they had to cut out so much stuff from fallout new vegas and the size of areas and buildings because the consoles couldn't handle it
Anyway overall Fallout 3 gets a 8.5 out of 10 and fallout new vegas gets a 9 out of 10
Well when the writer for fallout 3 and 4 says that he didn't care to make a great story because "the players don't want that" I think it's then more than fair to say that Bethesda doesn't understand fallout.
this is a pretty damn *bad* video you just decided to put out
you decide to strawman someone who says that bethesda thinks that fallout should be a 1950's comedic post-apocalypse series (which isn't what the point of fallout was in the first place) and instead just say "he criticizes the modern games because they didn't do it like the classics" which is not what he meant at all.
you say that fallout 3 has "fun" gameplay, has "better" sidequests compared to new vegas, and unironically seem to believe that 3's story somehow isn't bad even though all three of these statements are completely incorrect. new vegas does have *similar* gameplay to 3, but it actually made it less annoying compared to 3 which just has your gun constantly swaying if your big guns/small guns/explosives/energy weapons skill ain't 100, but i guess you wouldn't know that since you seem to strictly play fairly modded *Tale Of Two Wastelands* instead of the actual fallout 3. 3 only really has a couple good sidequests, a few okay ones, and several bad ones. agatha's song is an alright quest, but it definitely ain't better than any of new vegas' sidequests. as for the story of 3, i don't even need to say how bad it is because it should be obvious if you pay attention and listen to what the characters are actually saying and doing in the game.
fun fact: tim cain actually stated that he DIDN'T like fallout 3 back when it was initially released after he beat the game. he said that he disliked how the choices he made that he expected to have a greater impact were just brushed aside since 3 doesn't have any ending slides telling you the result of said choices making them feel pointless. the only reason he says he likes it now is because he can't publically say anything negative about it since that will mean that he'll no longer get invited to fallout events by bethesda. also, tim cain has shown to have declined as a writer in recent years if the outer worlds is anything to go off of as well as his "praise" of the fallout show.
you claim to not be a bethesda shill, and yet this video seems to have made strictly to defend fallout 3 from justified criticism. you say that no one would have known about fallout if not for bethesda and yet fallout probably wouldn't be anywhere near as mixed today if it was lesser known. you say you aren't calling people "elitists" or "purists" yet throughout the video you straight up refer to new vegas fans AS elitists and purists simply because they don't like a game that's masquerading as a fallout title. its fine to like any of bethesda's fallout games but trying to defend them when they don't deserve it is very disingenuous and makes you seem like you're just trying to justify liking a bad game when you don't need to do that at all.
overall: this video is very disingenuous and has a hint of strawmanning. do not defend the slop that bethesda puts out otherwise people will label you as a shill.
really great comment, but I honestly don't even think the stuff regarding Tim Cain is even relevant. It's purely appeal to authority and doesn't change anything. If Fallout 3 was the exact same game, except directed by Tim Cain, it'd still he terrible.
@@bringoni unfortunately true
I gave up on F3 due to bugs.. I’m just realising that I also didn’t know about mods that no doubt fix those bugs so I should probably give it another try:)
Still.. I think FNV had more than good writing: It had some design principles that could have been easily adopted and integrated into following Bethesda rpgs, F4 and Starfield.. for example having essentially no unkillable npcs, and that avoided pressing a certain character on you, that lets you play as a paladin, murder hobo, diplomat, backstabber, drugged out cannibal throughout the game without being forced to break character to finish.
The apparent refusal to learn anything from FNV feels like a really toxic not invented here syndrome to me.
I think the comparisons are fair because the main defence I hear of 3 is that bethesda faced an impossible job to convert the franchise to 3D, make a good action game, make a good RPG, and draw new fans to the franchise whilst pleasing the old ones. And the most obvious, inarguable rebutall to that is just "but New Vegas exists"
At 11 years old, in 2011 played Fallout 3 for the first time. I'm not a native english speaker and i did not understand a little thing, then i played it when i got a little older, around 15 and i loved it, it was my favorite game until now. I started playing new vegas one or two years later, i had completed not many main story quests and i was one the dead money dlc when my disk got scratched and i could't keep playing. It did not make a huge impresson in me, i think it may had been too complex. I Played fallout 4, fun game, spend a lot of hours but i still liked the 3 much more. I came back to new vegas now in 2023 and oh my god, it is a masterpiece. I played the main quests only and there are so many options. Thankfully i'm much more fluent in english and i understand all the dialoge. It's not thay Fallout 3 is a horrible game, it's an amazing one, living under the shadow of New Vegas and a stubborn fanbase.
Totally agree with your stance here about the Fallout fandom and the various videos bashing FO3. Rarely did I hear any constructive or objective points being raised, just a lot of subjective hate. Definitely comes off as elitist and gatekeep-y.
I honestly am one of those Fallout fans who learned about the series via FO3, and I recall enjoying many aspects of FO3 around the time it came out. Then I ended up playing the first Fallout, and a bit of Fallout 2, and eventually NV when it came out. I'll acknowledge that I did start riding the hate train for FO3 when I got a taste of the original developer's style of storytelling in NV, but I also acknowledged many of the good aspects of FO3 when I later looked back at it objectively. Now, I don't hate FO3, I just accept it as it is and what good it offers instead.
While I really love NV, did several play-throughs, and even come back to it occasionally these days, I can also say that the game isn't perfect or the greatest of all time like so many NV fans will rabidly insist. If it truly was, then one would be able to play it vanilla and outright enjoy the overall experience. Most NV fans have dozens of mods installed, many are QoL and bugfix/script extenders. Yet FO3 is bad for having the same limitations...
Ive been on bethesda games since olbivion and i can say i spend HOURS on fallout 3 when it came out watching guides in my younger yrs. I love both games 3 and nv to death. And skyrim is very close behind. I know how poorly the company is now adays 76 and 4 are not good at all. And starfield i think is overhated. But there is way too much elitism in bethesdas community
Indeed, really not a fan of the blind hate. Looking at 3, nv and 4 I think nv is the best overall but I think 3 has a lot of good to it and 4 is a mixed bag with a lot of good ideas but not all are done well. Honestly I spend a lot of time playing all three of them as they all have their own things to offer.
@@brutalbob842 Agreed! I think that all of the Fallout games have their pros and cons. NV is still my favorite overall for the setting and story. Fallout 3 for the exploration and world building that Bethesda of old was known for. FO4 is the weakest of the 3D Fallout games, IMO, but it does have solid gameplay mechanics. It's a terrible Fallout game, but a fun post-apocalypse sandbox.
So, NV > FO3 > FO4.
literally 20 videos with objective statements and constructive analysis
"jsut subjective hate"
ok then kid
@@ryszakowy I didn’t say *all* videos are filled with subjective hate. Many of the ones out there raise lots of good points, but a number of them also turn into hour long rants over insignificant minutiae just because they have a hate b0ner for Bethesda.
Because it is trueee muffin Bethesda needs to have the new Vegas devs working on it I’d love to see the classics modernized but that’s never going to happen with Tod Howard so I think get the og devs working on the game using Tod Howard’s engines n u got bread n butter ima go walk in the snow now n rip sum out my supermutant piece
what are the mod names in the gameplay footage for fallout 3
Good video, I like the genuine honesty & integrity with the subject of elitism and gatekeeping. Fallout 3 got me into the franchise in 2012 and also New Vegas. I watched videos of old Fallout and Fallout 2 appreciating the 90s CRPG gameplay/cutscenes.
I can argue that this whole elitism & gatekeeping applies to every video game “community”. Like Halo with the original trilogy being exalted while anything past 2010 is “garbage”, it’s arbitrary, dumb, and makes no sense because the reason why these IPs are so big is because of the marketing and it encourages people to discover them. Going back to the beginning games and investing into the time.
I can understand why people are like this today: it’s because the gaming industry is in a rough spot and the resentment attitude is that new is bad and old is good. People are so depressingly sad that they’ll genuinely hate anything that is new or wasn’t apart of their identity growing up. Like grow some common sense and let people enjoy what they want. We all need to survive together and get along but alas it’s the Internet so trolls and punks rule the wasteland lol
TTW is the only way I can properly play Fallout 3 because I like the open world of FNV and F3. Bringing the F3 Weapons into just sound cool. But playing Fallout 3 by itself is just boring imo.
Really, I thought that New Vegas is much less dense, I mean you start in town, do the quest, leave down the long ass road till, primm, do the quests or just dome deputy beagle, then continue down the long ass road, maybe stop at the mojave outpost and do the quests, which are going down the road, its a lot of walking
@matnotmatt8479 That's only really if you feel like taking the paved road forward, you can basically go everywhere at the very beginning if you know what you're doing
@@FlackBackTV oh so only if youve played the game before, meaning only good or old players know this, which is gatekeeping and elitist?
@matnotmatt8479 not even that dude. On my first playthrough, despite being warned not to, I hiked straight through Quarry
Junction and headed straight for Vegas. All I knew was that Deathclaws were too tough and strong for me to kill in a reasonable time this early (which I learned through trying to kill a Deathclaw with a 9mm) and I logically deduced that I could probably climb up onto the Mountains and get past them. I knew deathclaws were a problem, I knew where Vegas was because of it being constantly visible, and I knew I had to get past the Deathclaws. It's not "Gatekeeping" or "Elitist" as you moronically claim, it's basic deduction skills. The only thing stopping you from getting past the Cazadores, Deathclaws, and Radscorpions at level 2 is how long YOU want to spend and all the Different ways YOU want to try and solve them. Sure, people who have played for longer will obviously have better and more efficient solutions, but you can still bypass all of the high level enemies in new vegas at level 2 without a stealthboy, hell the Cazadore skip is stupid easy. All you have to do is run past the point where they chase you. newsflash, it isn't "Gatekeeping" or "Elitist" to have difficult enemies that are easily bypassed with preserverence as you idiotically claim. Seriously, do you even know what those words mean, or are you just using them as buzzwords?
@@MatNotMatt theres a ton to do in pretty much every area of new vegas. fallout 3 is mostly copy and paste shithole buildings with the occasional town to interact with (most of which dont effect the rest of the game world or even relate)
Bethesda added building mechanics to 4 which was a nice feature, I just wish their games had more story paths and decisions.
Something that I don’t see people mention is the layout of the world in FO3… and what I mean specifically are all of the barriers, dead-ends, rivers/broken bridges that separate areas and make it a pain to navigate. The entire downtown D.C. area is a labyrinth of rubble and debris that just confuses you. And don’t get me started on the subway tunnels.
Meanwhile, New Vegas is not only pretty straight-forward (it’s a big, empty desert), but I actually really like how some of the threats of Cazadors and Deathclaws encourage you to take the long way around to the Vegas Strip, without outright stopping you if you’re skilled enough to get past them early on. I still remember on my first playthrough, I stumbled into the Scorpion Gulch (forgot the exact name) and came across Novac and the free house early on, so I could hoard all my junk without having to go through Nipton first.
If Fall-out 3 was set 50-100 years after the bomb set and before Fall-out 1 and 2 it would of narrativly made alot more sense as a whole because Humans advance society faster than Bestheda thinks, 80 years since electricity was discovered people made prototype planes. Also tweaking the setting slightly with more radiation storms and more use of masks for practical use would've hammered it home and made it a placeholder in Fall-out Rather a divide amongst fans.
I played New Vegas before 3 but liked 3 in the sense Bethesda really knew how to use the engine they had for Gunplay and set Peices but it did fall short at the end Narrativly, not enough for me to hate it though. It was basic and if it was set before the political divide of 1,2 and NV it would've been suited better, plus its in the East Coast so easily could've told its own story with its own unique factions, instead of breaking the Brotherhood of Steels back in carrying the plot.
Even though I like Fallout 3, I have to hard disagree from this Video, Fallout 3 is a bad game. Emil, the main writer is a complete hack. I also think in some ways you misrepresented TDI video. Fallout 3, 4, and 76 have a hugely different feel to 1, 2, and New Vegas. There was also a lot of sketchy acts and corporate bullying that Bethesda went through to attain the Fallout IP. When people say "Bethesda never understood fallout" they are right, because if you look at bethesda fallout and its writing as a part of the Fallout world, it completely breaks the lore.
The Brotherhood is (somehow) in DC and have abandoned all their ideals to help people? Makes no sense with their original ideals. The brotherhood we see in 3 should be the outcasts and the outcasts should be the main chapter, not the other way around.
Super Mutants shouldnt be in new fallout, point blank, FEV was a super secret bioweapon that the US had to keep under wraps against the Chinese government, and now its everywhere? It makes no sense.
The Enclave was wiped out in FO2, they also specifically chose the west coast of the US because they knew Washington would be hit the hardest by China nukes, and yet theyre in 3?
See what I mean? In relation to the lore of Fallout, Fallout 3s story and characters are nonsensical, and almost everything in 3 is surface level and makes no sense after you go under the surface. I DO like Fallout 3, I bought it and play it on my PC on TTW all the time and I have a really good time doing so, but the game just makes no sense and is on an objective standpoint bad.
4:06 RIP Sheamus Young
Fallout 3 is loved by many, just disliked by a loud minority
I hate New Vegas purists
I also hate how they ignore what makes 3 good even if it’s different from NV
3 does have some good story and rpg moments too
fallout 3 is hated by man, just liked by very quiet and stupid minority that locks in small echo chanbers like this video to repeat like parrots "vegas bad"
i hate bethestards
i also hate how they ignore everything that is wrong with fallout 3 especially that new vegas did it better
3 doesn't have any good story that wouldn't be a wasted potential and it's rpg "moments" suck at the core
I think the reason West Coast Fallout games are praised because Falout is *NOT* a Post-Apocalyptic game but a *POST* Post Apocalyptic one. Meaning that after the world is destroed by the nuclear fire, people rebuilded parts of the soceity in their image already, and spreading. This is a lot more visible in Fallout 2 and New Vegas with all those locations thriving despite all. And when you compare it with East Coast games, everything is desolate, empty, still in the Post Apocalyptic phase, people clinging to live. There are no nation builders, no person to gather power and control beside the Bethesda's favorite children Enclave and BoS. Rest of the 'factions' in East Coast are either a poor settlement, or a "we can also make a thriving town" show.
This is not a slander to the FO3, but to their world design people missing this part of the game. I also enjoyed 3 and one of my favourite games, but New Vegas just raises the bar so high.
This video was interesting to say the least. I came into it actually expecting to agree with you despite my own misgivings about Fallout 3 because I too find the constant vitriol this game receives on youtube to be annoying. That being said I'm not gonna sugar coat it, despite you trying to make it clear you're not a Bethesda fanboy the video really did feel like it just devolved into corporate boot licking and throwing out nonsense buzzwords akin to "gamer elitism" that make for a garbage argument.
I think the main issue for me personally though is just my mentality when it comes to video games. I see video games as art and critique them as such and arguments like "Well it appeals to more people so therefore it's good" hold no weight with me. I see that kind of shit as souless and spineless. I don't care about what the "smartest decision business wise" is, I care about what makes an interesting game so to me personally arguments *for* simplification for the sake of profit and wide reach are appalling corpo drivel.
Now that all being said and looking up at what I've wrote I can understand how that can come off as elitist and pretentious but to pretend that's not how I feel would be a betrayal of my own values. That being said, I actually appreciate Fallout 3 for what it is, as this experimental attempt at converting Fallout to an action RPG, of a new studio trying their best to branch out from the Fantasy style games they're use to and into a whole new genre. It's got some soul to it even if there were decisions made that I personally disagree with.
Which is more than I can say for Fallout fucking 4, souless money cow that it is but...eh that's irrelevant to the current video.
In short I liked your video even if I found myself rolling my eyes at it's closing arguments and I apologize for the goddamn wall of pretentious ramblings this weeb has left in your comment section. Gonna Subscribe to see what else you put out.
The metro tunnels are fucking ridiculous, I am not playing this game for ‘get lost in the subway for 10 hours simulator’. Bethesda cannot make a fallout game. Obsidian should be given the property out of good fortune.
if it was the same obsidian that made new vegas then sure, but its clear that obsidian has definitely lost much of the talented people that worked on new vegas which is very unfortunate.
I’m in the minority camp for thinking Fallout 3 was a better game than New Vegas.
Like it or not Fallout 3 was a smash when it first came out, there were few games like it at the time. Being my first Fallout game it is still my favorite just for it’s atmosphere, exploration, and variety of different side quests, awesome back stories on locations, something to find no matter where you’re at in the wasteland etc. Not to say Fallout 3 is perfect, it’s far from it, but for me everything just felt way more alive, the wasteland was a cruel and inhospitable place. Coming out of the vault you KNEW you were on your own, you waltz through a destroyed town, see an eyebot, and from that moment on it’s up to you if you want to go to Megaton or go in any other direction you want. NV puts you on a direct path and if you deviate from it at all then you’re getting r*ped by deathclaws or cazadors.
If you want to roleplay and be anybody you want to be then NV hits the nail on the head. I will say however the main storyline is vastly overrated. You get to side with different factions sure, but the uniqueness in each faction only varies slightly. Go meet the tribes, get on their side, have them fight with you at Hoover dam. Fallout 3’s main story was mediocre, but let’s not act like New Vegas had a TLOU1 or GTA 4 tier storyline. After killing Benny I really had no motivation to keep going, I didn’t care about who wants Hoover Dam and the game seemingly tries to make you side with NCR or House, Caesar’s Legion was painted as the comically evil “bad” guys and their entire storyline was extremely underdeveloped. Literally everyone in the Mojave wasteland hates the Legion so why even bother siding with them anyway, there is no reason other than to be the edgy and evil courier. Why does killing Caesar, the most feared and hated man in the wasteland, do almost nothing in the grand scheme of things? Oh, some NCR troops will remark they wish they saw him die, big deal. You can literally wipe out The Fort, Cottonwood Cove, Nipton, and all other Legion bases, absolutely wipe them out, obliterate them, and somehow the Legion is still in the picture and still feared by everyone in the wasteland.
A ton of the side quests are integrated into the main quest for NV which isn’t the case with FO3. For example, Oasis had absolutely nothing at all to do with the main story and it was an amazing and memorable quest all on its own. In NV, most if not all of the side quests had something to do with the stupid battle for Hoover Dam whether it be trying to get good with a certain faction and being their errand boy, or just eliminating that faction because someone else told you they would be in the way. (cough BoS and Mr. House)
As for side quests, New Vegas lacks as well. Bleed Me Dry made me want to shoot myself. Do NOT get me started on Scribe Ibsen’s terminal virus quest. Return to Sender was maddening. If it wasn’t a fetch quest then it was passing speech checks or going from point A to B, back to A, then back to B, and so on. Come Fly With Me was a chore with no good reward other than watching the rockets fly off. The Brotherhood of Steel quests were redundant and the Boomers even worse. Some locations were very interesting but had no decent quests towards them, Jacobstown for example. You got the Rex quest, then the Nightkin with schizophrenia which is completed quickly after a fetch quest to a nearby cave. You got a whole lodge of friendly super mutants and they couldn’t find anything more interesting to do with them.
There are amazing quests like I Put A Spell On You, but they are so few and far between compared to some of Fallout 3’s side quests like Our Little Secret, Oasis, The Replicated Man, Reilly’s Rangers, The Superhuman Gambit, the Megaton bomb quest etc. Not to say some weren’t bad as well though, it also has some dud side quests like the vampires and the Grayditch ants, and even Wasteland Survival Guide felt like a glorified fetch quest.
I’m not saying New Vegas is a bad game, but it just doesn’t feel as polished as Fallout 3 was, which is completely understandable given the development time. Obsidian still made an amazing game with what they had, and Bethesda resurrected the series in the best possible way they could have.
I’m ready for the bombardment of hate coming for me.
New Vegas is my favorite game of all time, but I still love this comment.
I hate the current state of the Fallout community, where people are afraid to acknowledge and talk about the numerous flaws of fo1, fo2 and NV and are supposed to treat them as perfect godsends, while consistently shitting on Bethesda's fallouts for every possible miniscule detail.
I respect your bravery and I hope that more people in the community will eventually accept the fact that all major fallout games have their fair share of both flaws and impressive achievements and someone is not in the wrong for preferring one game over the other.
Fallout 3 is my favorite game of all time for the exact reasons you listed.
I enjoyed both Fallout 3 and NV but I enjoyed Fallout 3 a lot more and it captivated me for a lot longer.
People tend to bring up having more choices in Fallout NV but I disagree, Fallout NV doesn’t even give you the choice to keep playing after beating it…Therefore none of the choices you make actually matter.
At the end of Fallout 3 you can see the aqua pura everywhere which makes you feel like you made a difference. At the end of Fallout 4 you can see the Institute, BOS, And/or Railroad get Destroyed. Then you’ll see new checkpoints (for whatever faction you picked) scattered across the Commonwealth. It feels like you made a difference. At the end of Fallout NV I just felt like “Well that was it I guess” lol
Agreed, I have been deep into quite a few fandoms, and honestly, my way of dealing with that now is just to dismiss it as the typical fanbase infighting, wich is maybe a bit condescending ^^"
Elitism and at times, very agressive behavior towards the less appreciated games in the series, and those that likes them should not be. It has actual negatives impacts in the enjoyment of the games and the community around it for all parties involved. Fallout 3 to me is easilly a, at least decent game with fun to be had even if not the best, and beside that, you should be able to say it's your favorite without being insulted on the internet, wich is not really a guarantee.
Even tho I'd agree that a statement that "it's not Fallout" or "They don't understand Fallout", that's a statement that I feel is straight up irrevelent, I do think that does not invalidate the rest a whole discourse, I say that since I think there actually fair arguments and thinking points in Twenty Sided video beside them being bringed this way, and I think it's fair not to dismiss them.
One more thing, serious subject, for people that don't know, Twenty Sided, real name Shamus Young passed away in June of 2022, I think he was a cool content creator, I liked his content, but it still feels weird to see him mentioned in another video, I guess it's not been long enough for me, that's all, just tough that would be important to show our respect when mentioning his later work ^^
I wouldn't say Bethesda doesn't understand fallout, but the fallout they are interested in making is not the one I am interested in investing any time or thought into.
I thought Fallout 3 was great. It was slightly shallow, but it is a great experience. I still play and enjoy Fallout 3 today.
Fallout 4, by contrast, was repetitive and boring and 1 playthrough was all I could bear. It was so contrived and uninspired that I have forgotten it except the points that I found particularly egregious, like "another settlement needs our help" and the main twist with father being your son.
Fallout 3 open world was mind blowing to me and 1st FO I every played. Loved that game. New vegas just took it to next level. Generally loved both games.
Your tripping balls, Bethesda writers can’t even keep their shit consistent in their own games, let alone maintaining anything that came before. Does the phrase “if it’s not broke, don’t fix it” mean anything to you? It wouldn’t be so bad when Bethesda puts there own spin on things, if they didn’t always fuck it up one way or the other. They’ve had some wins, and it’s not all bad. The point is the massive majority of players like New Vegas better, and instead of recognizing what they’re audience wants, they fuck off. They’re clearly jaded that obsidian did it better, so to stick it to them they want to do they’re own thing, but in doing so they fuck shit up for the audience. Fallout 4 did a lot of things well, but it could’ve been so much better if Bethesda did shit that made sense instead of being insecure about obsidians masterpiece.
I played Fallout 3 before NV. I love Fallout 3 but after I played NV I viewed 3 so differently. Take for example Point Lookout DLC, you get constantly shouted at, the two sides you're supposed to help never explained to you why they fought and why you should help them instead of the other one. Even in the final boss room, they just straight up told you the bs "This is a nemesis story you wouldn't understand." I BOUGHT IT WITH MY POCKET MONEY. Not to mention how it still bugs me to this day how I can't fucking tell Dad that it is because of him leaving the vault that I got shot on sight, that I have to leave. The story was so bad you barely ever got a say in how things go like tf??? The wasteland was cool and all but what's the point of playing if there isn't interesting stories ties to it? If you view Fallout 3 as an FPS shooter with some RPG elements the way I treat Skyrim and its exploration then you'll like it.
For those who say that fallout 1 and 2 are the 'true' fallout games.
I say if they were so amazing, how come the developers had to file for bankruptcy and sell the rights in the first place?
soooo true
They were contracted with making an isometric MMO, got sued for using another company's software and lost the license to Bethesda. Research helps.
@@MLPDethDealr32 Interplay had already had to sell the license for Fallout for three games and then eventually the entire series to Bethesda before they were sued by bethesda for project V13
You realize that happened well after 1 and 2 were released right?
1 and 2 were pretty successful games at the time, it was a series of bad decisions that killed interplay, it wasn't these particular games fault that they fell.
And besides, sales and the company's fate don't really have any say in the actual quality of the games.
@@danzer9307 you are right, I believe the issue was due to a Fallout MMO that they had wanted to release but was in violation of a copyright.
For success,I mean more about sales than reception because being good games isn't enough to create a franchise
i played fallout 1 and 2 during summer this year both great games but you know what fallout 1 and 3 have a very similar atmosphere to me i think 3 does good at being a fallout game when compared to the classics
0:30 a real life example of why marking prices as a few cents below rounded numbers is effective
Bethesdrones will continue to defend this game to death.
Absolutely obliterated by obsidian in 18 months vs 7 years bethesdumb took to make fallout 3.
Lol
I love both Fallout 3 and Fallout NV . I Have to disagree with you here i dont worship bethesda, however i put fallout 3 slightly ahead of fallout NV because i prefered the enviroment the npcs and the dlcs. Playing that game for the first time was a crazy experience. Much better map imo too and more darker side quests and unmarked quests .
LMFAO Couldn't have said it better
Just because something is a "valid decision" in light of Big Business doesn't mean it makes for a good decision on the line of products for what they are to fans - GAMES. To companies they are money makers, great - we can see what that's done for games as a whole. Are crappy successful games "Valid" commercially? Sure. But it's just like immemorable movies a dime a dozen to be "successful" in making money yet NOBODY remembers them. They're two different sets of criteria. Us fans don't rate games on their commercial viability we rate them on how we ENJOY them. People need to stop blending these two as a way to stomp on people who actually do have valid complaints.
It’s a child debate because they’re both great in different ways. New Vegas’ crafting system was highly improved upon but was also completely different than Fallout 3s where you could construct weapons like the Junk Jet and Railway Rifle etc. which you didn’t get in Vegas. Reputation replaced karma and karma in Vegas wasn’t worth a lot (literally only Cass reacts to karma). Fallout 3 combat and gameplay is ultimately more challenging than New Vegas’ but no one gives Fallout 3 credit for that. They’re both amazing games, twins.
Fallout 3 just has too many tanks.
The enemies in New Vegas aren't really tanks but can still be absolutely lethal
@@absolutezerochill2700 I agree, but as someone who plays on very hard + hardcore every time I still find the enemies in FNV to be too easy. Kinda miss the tanks.
Fallout three is my favorite game by far. I love new Vegas and it’s second for me but fallout three will always have a special place in my heart and I live them.
i like both but new vegas is way better
In my eyes fallout 4 and 76 dont belong because they are looter shooters instead of a roleplaying game... there is zero roleplaying in fallout 4... and 76 supposedly has the same mechanics (can't say for certain because I have never and will never play it because it released in such a unforgivable state)
Fallout 3 is a good game but it's best enjoyed in New Vegas through the tale of two wastelands mod... I wish we had more liberties for role-playing in the vault sequence but that just means you have to think a bit harder about how to fit something in...
My current character got infected with a mutated strain of fev while on the way to vault 101... This mutated strain left him looking the same but gave him the traits of a super mutant without changing his appearance at all... To add this to the game I'm using THE new Vegas race mod and adding the race perk that is normally added only when you choose the race with console commands... Before fixing the perk's associated height change with the console
Fallout 3 was the first Fallout game I played and is my favourite, yes it has flaws but I still love it, I love its atmosphere, the characters and gameplay. I have played New Vegas, but didn’t really like it even though I tried playing it multiple times.
New Vegas has many issues that the hardcore fans will not acknowledge or will write off. It’s a good game but like Fallout 3 it has its flaws
I like fallout 3, it was lesser than new Vegas and the original two but it still was a CRPG at heart. Their were still world impacting choices to make even if they had less depth.
Fallout 4 was really where the series started to loose it focus in my opinion. The game actively tried to give you impression there was choice but it was an purposeful mirage on the part of the developers. The gunplay was more fun and there was still fun exploration but the games core design philosophy seemed to shift hard away from CRPG roots of fallout. Then fallout 76 made it clear that Bethesda's approach to game design was getting for the lack of a better word 'lazy'.
I don't mean lazy in that they don't work hard to make their games rather that the leadership can't or doesn't want to actually aspire to making truly interesting games or ambious games. They just wish to keep making more and more 'Bethesda style' games, open world exploration with looting and combat. They seem to hyper focused more and more on making their games more and more distilled versions of that formula, with each game stripping away or half-assing aspects of the game that are not core to a 'Bethesda style' game.
Starfield is the penultimate example in that they added so many new mechanics around exploring and a bigger open galaxy to explore. The dialogue got worse from fallout 4, companions got more shallow, choice and consequence was minimal, the leveling system was definitely inferior to previous titles. They have taken this hyper focus on certain aspects of their games so far that even players who like 'Bethesda style' games bored of starfiled much quicker than any previous titles because Bethesda's overfocus on crafting, exploration, and open worlds. Those things are fun but only when the things your exploring and crafting are interesting; story, choice and consequence, and intricate character progression all provide a means of rewarding players as they explore. Nothing but loot gets dull after a while, an exciting hidden quest in dungeon is a better more memorable reward than another bunch of resources. By over stripping down their focus they have made their games more and more unengaging.
Great video, would love a part two dwelving deeper explaining this pov, youre right without fo3 almost nobody would know fallout.
I have a hard time believing anyone who enjoys fallout actually "hates" fallout 3. Loved all the fallout games 3 and up
I always chalked it up to the fact that new vegas 1. had the ability to correct issues that 3 had. it also gave you a fairly straight forward path with what felt like unlimited choices. Fallout 3 just kinda chucked you out into the wasteland, and thats all it felt like. a unpopulated wasteland with not much to explore and a strict story line. Fallout new vegas since it implimented the mountains so well. it forced you to most locations and it just overall felt bigger. the boomer pocket, jamestown, the khans. they felt like magical places to find and explore.
“With not much to explore” I checked out at that point. Fallout 3’s map has more meaningful exploration with denser dungeons to explore, with far more hidden locations as well
I'm one of the ones who had no knowledge of the Fallout series until our neighbor's son let me barrow Fallout 3 back in 2015. And I've been hooked ever since, granted I only play 3 and NV, I really enjoy both but prefer NV.
It's so empty, there's like 5 different enemies spread across the capitol, you have no ADS system, barely any customization, why is big guns and small guns separate, you can only go up to level 30 (that's with dlc), and FNV's story is just good.
The sanest fnv fanboy be like:
@@bunnitomoe3866longer reply would just fry your brain
I like the game play and it's good.
Althought I would have difficulty understanding your points. And I think the argument fell off towards the end.
The reason why alot of people don't like Fallout 3, is that it was extremely expiremental. From story, environments, dlcs, and gun play.
And because New Vegas is just better in every single way, it's hard not to compare the two; since it's literally using the same tech.
Plus with most of the quest lines of Falliut 3 being very shallow; it's hard to really get into a role playing immersion. With the case being even if you sided woth the enclave you have to fight them. And being evil just to be evil.
Plus I would say your case of elitism towards the end, is a bit silly and extreme of itself. I wouldn't say that story and depth wise like you said ( That fallout 1,2 and new vegas are better for those quailies), is a case of elitism.
It's a group of fans that want the stories of the new games to follow the same great direction that the older games had.
Hope my insight helps and have a good day.
West Coast in 2277: Society Rebuilding, Nations/faction rising, people finally receiving a chance to live a rather decent Life
East Coast 2277: Everything stayed the same for about 200 years, BOS and Enclave conflict, not even mentioning an existence of a larger or dominant nation/faction aside from the Brotherhood or Enclave that came from the west coast
Looking at Fallout 4, at least they had something going on by having the Minute Men being a larger faction or at least what have could be a larger faction but then a large crab ruined everything for them
I like to think the reason why the east coast isn't fast as the west in rebuilding is because the east was hit hard by the bombs, expecially d.c, since it's the capital of the good old USA.
@@bunnitomoe3866 If thats true, I would take it as a bad excuse to having no former larger faction
@@artiv117well there’s also the super mutant infestation, I mean think about how many you encounter in F3. There’s more of them than settlers. Basically made almost all of DC uninhabitable except the ghouls in underworld which aren’t bothered by super mutants and rivet city which is very well equipped.
Idk man, I think reducing the minute men’s failure to a “large crab” is kinda simplifying it a little. You think a 20-30 foot tall crab queen is an easy obstacle? It literally left a whole in the wall of the fort. Not to mention that the minute men lasted for a while afterward but slowly degraded from lack of leadership, betrayal for power, and corruption. Not saying F4 doesn’t have problems but cmon
@@unclesam326 But no one decided to put an end to this for about 200 years. Like a meeting in Rivet City where representatives from multiple settlements would start fighting agaist the supermutant threat? There isn't anything related to that topic in the games.
Now shamus is spot on to whats they got wrong about the fallout series.. also he passed in 2019 so he isnt going to reply just fyi . No sarcas ment with the last bit genuine fyi
Wrong - he died on June 15th, 2022.
Well crafted and well said my friend, glad to see more stuff from you!
Tbh I think you should've dwelved deeper into the channels fixated on making day long videos on FO3 its one of those situations where people are literally beating a dead horse on something that could easily be condensed into a 20 min video but because OPINIONS it has to be engraved in stone that this thing people like is wrong and we have to prove people why it wrong to like something lol
Channels like that fascinate me because with that level of dedication they could make videos in that same format on more better or even serious topics.
Personally for me, the parts between the Colonel Autumn sightings, so purifier and capture, just never made me feel as great. I got to Little Lamplight, and then after bringing Sticky to Big Town, did a bunch of stuff with Big Town's Quests, and saved the kids. But, I didn't feel like trying to see what all is out there. I did that, and managed to force myself into Vault 87, and then I got back on track, and same with Broken Steel. Though I never completed certain stuff, just letting it be.
In NV, I did an NCR run, and notably, side quests seemed to be taking me away from the main story, and needed to force me to stay away from the main quest. I eventually came back to the main questline, but that was notably after I had cleared my quest log outside of stuff that wasn't already failed, but since never hit the trigger, wasn't cleared. Add onto the fact your side quests actually impacted the finale, like BoS, Khans, and Enclave helping the NCR, you felt more impact from doing them.
Tldr: I felt more like stuff I was doing in NV mattered, and was written coherently, while 3 seemed like I could take it or leave it. Prefer NV over 3, but still at least enjoyed 3.
Fallout 3 is fine. I find it enjoyable, even if I do wish it had writing as good as NV, but it is fine.
the proliferation of two hour+ long ‘retrospectives’ that describe everything in a game without giving more commentary than ‘this is good’ or ‘this is bad’ has been terrible. hbomberguy’s video is a mess in some ways, but I do think it was entertaining and had legitimate and well argued points of criticism within it.
like you said, 3 had different priorities and design goals. judging 3 vs. NV solely on what NV does good is dumb lol. I’d got sucked into the 3 hate but I replayed 3 and really enjoyed it (even if there were times where my immersion was broken momentarily). its world is pretty great even if I dislike some of the lore and story elements it introduced.
In the begining i disliked Fallout 3 since it was too hard. But now that i have played all other Fallouts, its not so hard anymore and im actually really enjoying it. Fallout 3 is amazing
I love new vegas cause it was my first fallout game but for some reason fallout 3 was such a different feeling for me it felt different seeing how big the city was in the game, it was also my sisters first and only fallout game all the way back when it was just barely released
I think what fallout always was supposed to be is interplay/obsidian way of fallout. I really liked, Bethesda fallout 3 the current fallout feels like the same body as the original, but a different soul. replacing the original creator from his creation only makes it in interpretation but that’s only my opinion.
Fallout 3 is my favorite Fallout game, but I do need to replay New Vegas again for more clarity! ❤