If I may be so bold, I would suggest trying Arwen Tweaks instead.

FWE is really good and a commendable effort, but it comes with its own set of problems. Personally I prefer the increased cohesion and grittiness that Arwen brings to the table. Point being: there's options.

I completely agree, though; the game desperately wants mods.


See, and this is where I think that, even though you're probably not wrong, many people don't take into account that gaming as a whole has evolved since the 90s. Sometimes people have very narrow expectations of what a Fallout 3 should have been, maybe even understandably so, and fall into the trap of judging the game through that lense. Often at the expense of reflection and retrospective.

Allow me to bring up your earlier post.

Yet Fallout 2 brings nothing new to the table, gameplay-wise. Which not only is never brought up as a critique (not specifically by you, but by anyone), but actually as a virtue, when the first two games get conflated and the general consensus is "Fallout 3 is not a Fallout game" - implying Fallout 3 actually does too much differently. And that's not criticism that you directed at the game, but it does happen a lot.

And I see your point. The game does take inspiration and pays homage to its predecessors. But now imagine how much louder the "Not a real Fallout!" cries would have been, if it didn't. That's just an unwinnable situation for Bethesda.

Furthermore you go on to critique the quest writing. But that means that the game does deviate from 1 & 2 in terms of story, otherwise what would there be to critique? And if you excuse me saying so, some of that critique is rather forced, too. For example:

The Museum of History is the biggest community of ghouls in the game. Right in the heart of mutant territory. They know about this stuff from exposure, experience and conversation. There's a very valid reason why Willow would be aware of the fact that mutants ignore ghouls. At the very least in principle - keep in mind that mutants in that region are rather preoccupied with the Brotherhood of Steel and while ghouls may be worthless for the mutants' FEV shenannigans, who's to say that mutants wouldn't mess with ghouls for ressources or target practice, were the situation just a bit different? But even if we take that for granted as a hard rule, why would some random ghoul wastelander be aware of that? He's not just trying to stroll past a super mutant patrol on the off-chance they might ignore him and I'd argue it'd be terrible writing, if he did.

Another one:
The originals had utterly blatant scifi pop culture references far worse than anything Fallout 3 ever did. And you might have a problem with those, too, in which case: fair enough. But most of the time I see those chalked up as "quirky dark humor" instead of being held to the same standard. And I'd go as far as to say that Mothership Zeta did it a lot better than earlier games. Not only is it a self-contained DLC that doesn't bleed over into the rest of the game, but aesthetically in mimicking the Roswell imagery it fits perfectly into the 50s retro-futuristic theme. Meanwhile in California: "S-see, we like Doctor Who, too, t-that's good writing, r-right guys?"

I really think you have some very valid points. And Fallout 3 is by no means perfect - I wouldn't strongly advise using mods, if it was. But I hope you don't mind me saying that it sometimes reads a bit like "Fallout 3 is too much of the same, which is bad. But it does all these things differently, which is also bad - even when the originals sometimes were a lot worse in a few of those aspects."

And somewhere there's the point where I have to ask in general: what should Fallout 3 have been, then?
Because considering all the criticism I honestly don't think Bethesda could have done anything that wouldn't have been massively shat on.

I did come across it when first building my mod list (given in the link in my first post in this thread), in the end i went with FWE as it seemed more compatible with the other mods i wanted to use and FWE also has lots of options to turn things on/off or change the effects of the mod etc. In the end with the options tuned to the rest of my build it is as good as i wanted the build to be (hard but not punishing) and is pretty seamless in how the rest of Fallout 3 plays.

But yeah mods give options and we can each make the build we prefer :)

Even the simplest mod build is a huge improvement over default FO3 i found.

Soon, all games will be always-online VR/FPS with microtransactions/loot boxes. Because that's progress. And progress is good. Anyone who disagrees with me is a luddite. People who like old games are just living in the past, and need to finally move on, because games aren't going to regress to meet them.

There's a reason i don't own 49 of the top 50 best-selling games of all time, and only marginally want (i.e., I'd play them if they were free) maybe 8 of them. 99.9% of the population wants something different than what I want. Somebody made a game that actually appeals to me, and I'm supposed to call it a relic of the past because everybody else doesn't. People still make games that appeal to me, though, so obviously getting with the times has nothing to do with it.

edit: The situation on wikipedia's best games of all time list is even worse, with my only liking 6-9 after 1984. This just proves that games have been made for people other than me since the dawn of home video games.

This argument is, in and of itself, utter bullshit. Gaming and what gamers want has not evolved. Technology has evolved, but that doesn't mean expectations have. Looking over Fallout's contemporaries, I see the vast majority are games I would not like, even though they were probably popular at the time. The year before was, if anything, even worse.

I already mentioned Wasteland 2 above, which I guess you hate, but regardless you have to admit that it presents its world in the same way as Fallout 1 & 2 using a 3D engine. I wasn't going to mention Van Buren, since I've never played it and it's incomplete (to the point where one review linked to in this thread claims that it was going to have real-time combat, even though the developers stated it would be selectable, similar to Arcanum). Both of these show that "moving with the times" does not have to mean throwing everything away and starting from scratch.

Which is exactly why Bethesda shouldn't have bought the franchise in the first place. They should've just come up with their own thing (which they did, and then gave it a Fallout-themed makeover). Then again, the original team was already long gone, and the console game was proof enough that Interplay wasn't going to do anything positive with it, either. The only reason we're having this discussion right now is that Bethesda continues to grind the franchise further into the ground with each new game, rather than letting it die like Interplay would've (due to dying themselves). I wouldn't care at all about what crap Bethesda releases if they didn't call it Fallout (well, I did care about TES for a while, but Daggerfall and Morrowind were the only ones I could tolerate for very long, and I have no desire to play Skyrim or its successors).

You're right and I never, at any point, implied anything different. What I did say was simply that gaming has evolved. Ignoring hyperbole for a bit, this also means things like UI design, general pacing, full voice acting, less rigid genre categorization. Unless you hate all of that, too, I'm sure you can see how a developer might reevaluate their design approach after 10 years (as they bloody well should) and put out an updated product. That doesn't mean that all of those updates are good, but they're not all bad, either, and what I did imply (actually elaborated on at length, come to think of it) was that that seemingly is ignored a lot.

Furthermore, Fallout 3 doesn't throw everything away, to begin with. Here, patrikc for example even stated the game takes too much from the originals in terms of story and to an extent I agree with him on that. So all of this is a bit confusing. I've got to be really honest with you here: I had a hard time trying to grasp what point you're making here, so I went through all of your posts in this thread again and I think I can comfortably say that we are not going to see eye to eye on this.

And for what it's worth, I think I get it. You define Fallout, at least to a large part, through its gameplay mechanics, right? If that's your focus, I understand your frustration. I would argue that an IP has to be able to try new things (and in every aspect) or it risks stagnation. But we're already at the point of pure personal preference, so there's really not much to argue about.

However, as an aside, in case you haven't heard of it, Atom, from all I heard, might be something up your alley. Could be worth keeping an eye on it.

And that I absolutely agree with. I don't want to, because I think all of this would be fine, if the devs had a long-term vision that in some shape or form was in line with Fallout (or even Fallout 3), any form of authentic, artistic direction for the series. But let's not kid ourselves here, it's Bethesda.

In Fallout 1 the democratic NCR is born. In Fallout 2 they undergo a period of uncontested rapid expansion. In New Vegas they've become bloated and corrupt without a universally beloved figurehead like Tandi to lead them, their advance brought to a screeching halt by Caesar's Legion who claim the NCR are the remnants of a failed system we've already seen the end result of when the bombs dropped.

In Fallout 1 we meet the extremely powerful Brotherhood of Steel, staunch isolationists ruled by a rigid mindset. In Fallout 2 their refusal to adapt has condemned them to a slow death. In New Vegas they're reduced to spectators watching the real powers fight it out, and the world has passed them by.

Fallout 1, 2, and Vegas flow into each other seamlessly, as if the minds that built it actually sat down and worked out how societies evolved from the last game (or more importantly, didn't) in a logical and believable manner. That's a big part of what Fallout is - the life cycle of ethoses born in the baking heart of the wasteland, and which, if any, could be mankind's doom or salvation. Fallout 3 doesn't have the same intent behind it. The Brotherhood of Steel are suddenly more powerful than ever, the explanations given failing to conceal how they're the heroes not because Bethesda has a strong artistic vision for them, but because they're iconic and marketable. It's pandering, plain and simple. And I say all this as someone who liked and played Fallout 3 BEFORE the old games.

I wish I could upvote you more than once.

OK, I'll apologize for my rant. I fail to see the difference between your argument and the ones which say that the change to 3D FPS was inevitable due to gaming progress, but I'll just pretend your argument is different and drop it.

True. They even tried to recreate a Fallout 1-type first exit experience, so that new gamers would not have to go back and play those nasty old games. Perhaps I exaggerated too much.

It's a large part of it. It determines pacing and gameplay priorities. It also plays into what I believe an RPG actually is. It's not all of it. The two videos linked in this thread contain a lot of my gripes (as well as some things I don't complain about, and some factual errors). Rather than repeat their points, I'll just let it be.

I brought up the focus vs. exploration thing because it was a major, often repeated point in the video this thread is supposed to be about (and is also often cited by people as the reason Fallout 3 is their favorite). I also thought the game mechanics necessitated the "exploration", but in retrospect, TES 1-3 didn't feel that bad, so I'm guessing the wasteland aesthetic made it worse.

I also bring up game mechanics because NV has the same mechanics, mostly, and that is enough to demotivate me from playing the game in spite of its rave reviews. That, and the fact that although they brought back the proper plasma rifle (now called caster), they nerfed it (and power armor) so hard that I can't imagine building a character capable of using it any more.

I thought I'd also explicitly mention that the only Fallout game on wikipedia's list of best games is Fallout 3. I'm clearly out of touch and don't know what I'm talking about.

To be fair, Interplay was already doing a pretty good of dragging the name through the mud. The fact that they held out for the rights to an MMORPG says all I need to know about what Interplay would've done with it. I guess at least Bethesda tried to keep it a single-player game (well, until Fallout 76, that is, although again to be fair that was apparently developed by a 3rd party).

Don't worry about it. The argument is indeed different, I might have just expressed it in an unclear fashion. The perspective is one part of it, but the main point is: a shift in design was to be expected in a few areas and I think many people were ready to criticize that from the get go, no matter what was different and how it turned out. But no, the jump to first person was far from a necessity.

Maybe it's expectation vs reality, too? Clearly it's not just bad gaming experience on its own, but also a contrast to the earlier games, which in turns embodies the loss of a sequel you would have wanted. That's usually the case for me: the worst games are generally those that have to meet expectations.

Well, those lists are always difficult. I mean, you can objectively rank games, but it's not easy and it's important to know how the reviewer weighs different aspects.
Of course, if a list doesn't mention titles like Star Control 2, Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis or Dune 2, and then includes every Zelda it can get its hands on, it's unfortunately wrong no matter how you look at it.

I don't think there's a need to be fair here. Bethesda holds the rights and they decided to whore them out. If that results in a shit game and they go ahead and release it, that's on them.

Sorry for the late reply,

As a whole, I understand and agree on many things you said, especially on how quirks, perks and skills were flawed in Fallout 1 and 2, and how those weren't rightfully "balanced", or rightfully "unbalanced", but were plagued with inconsistency.

I felt those flaws when I played Fallout 2 before the release of Fallout 3, even if I thought the original games were fun.
All I hoped was Bethesda would fix these flaws, but instead the shift was to big, and I don't think it should have been the answer.

I forgot something very different between the original and later games, the whole XP progression. I barely reached level 12 for each original Fallout, while I easily caped to level 20 (and with further addons to level 30), I think that a cap to maintain the impression that what is your level, the Wasteland is dangerous, is a good thing, in the other hand, the original difficulty to obtain XP kept the impression that the Wasteland is something to discover. Wanders or ugly things, or both.
Since I'm more on the explorer side than the survival side, I personally felt that the original system was better on rewards, but it's a matter of taste.

Should I even try to discuss objectively why a game is crap/great although the topic is completely subjective because it's about taste.
The only thing that video proofs is why the creator of it likes Fallout 3.

That's pretty much the gist of it, and a point I referenced earlier. For example, I like the game a lot, so no amount of videos or no amount of pointing out the flaws in the game is going to make me not like it. I mean, objectively, someone can point out all the flaws in the game and be correct in assessing there are issues. But it still won't change the mind of people that like the game. It's totally subjective.

That's a bit beside the point, though, isn't it?
Whether a game is good or not is not subjective, not entirely at least. Whether you enjoy it, is.
But I'm not writing essays here to convince people to change their subjective taste or to "win" some keyboard warrior debate. I'm doing it to show some different perspectives, maybe to learn something about others' perspectives and just shoot the shit with other people, because I enjoyed the game and just have a bit of fun talking about it.
And while that's not going to change my mind with regards to me having enjoyed the game, it might absolutely change my mind with regards to how good the game is. Might have happened already, actually.

Fair enough, and there's nothing wrong with that at all. I wasn't trying to say discussing the game was pointless. I was more talking about when people post videos or long treatises on why a game is 'bad'/'good' in order to (apparently) try to convince people they're wrong about that game.

Talking about games is a big part of the reason we hang about the forums anyway, though, right?

I doubt this would change my opinion on how good it is (not just for this game, but for any game). I'm well aware of the flaws and issues with games I play and that still doesn't change my opinion on how 'good' it is. But I guess I'm looking at that from a more subjective angle as well.

Right, I'm with you there. Absolutely hate when people take part in discussion with the sole aim to "win" them. But I figured we're all just taking the video as a starting point.

Probably. I don't know, I've lurked for ten years. :>

Could also be you're having an easier time differentiating. I can be somewhat blind to strengths/weaknesses, if I dislike/enjoy a game, so things like this tend to help. It can be useful to know if something's a bit shit, even if I enjoy it.