Fallout 3 Is Better Than You Think
Video Statistics and Information
Channel: Many A True Nerd
Views: 6,447,665
Rating: 4.5525942 out of 5
Keywords: Fallout 3, Fallout 3 game, Fallout 3 gameplay, let's play Fallout 3, Fallout 3 walkthrough, Fallout 3 playthrough, Fallout 3 part 1, Fallout 3 discussion, Fallout 3 good, Fallout 3 review
Id: 5z8XHe2NoAE
Channel Id: undefined
Length: 114min 44sec (6884 seconds)
Published: Sun May 13 2018
Please note that this website is currently a work in progress! Lots of interesting data and statistics to come.
The only thing I really disliked about fallout 3 was the main quest and mainly how it both failed to grasp you or get you attached to the player characters plight while creating a narrative break. I didnβt care about the father or finding him. In fact I thought he was kind of an ass. Yet you had the nagging βI HAVE TO FIND DADβ narrative in he background of a rpg that begs you to explore it. And for some reason they repeated the same issue in fallout 4 (which had a slew of other issues) I really donβt understand why Bethesda thinks this story narrative is compelling since it really limits the players character development and customization while not telling a very interesting story anyway.
He does bring up some interesting points... I haven't watched the entire video yet (44 minutes in) but I think he kinda misses the point on some of the criticisms though. People wanted to kill the children in Lamplight because they honestly should absolutely not be there. Their entire concept makes absolutely no sense whatsoever that are entirely obvious, not to mention they are right next to both a raider camp and the home base of the super mutants yet apparently they're fine? They just should not be a roadblock to the main quest like that. It's just terrible.
Also, the point about the super mutants... He brings up actually very interesting points about their backstory that I've never heard of before and the mirroring to them on their own "find the water chip" quest is an interesting one. But the fact is that is never brought up in the main story, or dealt with in any interesting way. This was gathered from observations from notes from terminals and noting where certain super mutants are (the vault tech museum was a nice touch) ... However, aside from Fawkes (and Leo, which, let's be honest, most players won't ever encounter and he doesn't have anything to say anyway), your interaction with this "society" is just blowing them all away and that's it. They always attack you first, because they're another enemy type Bethesda thought up to throw at you. They're such a missed oppertunityTM to create something truly interesting. Their storyline is never resolved either, the BoS are just there to kill them in DC because they're "looking for something", but then that entire plotline is completely forgotten once the dumb Enclave come around. He only made comparisons to Fallout 1 (which had far more non-hostile SMs than Fo3, to the point where dumb SMs can be outsmarted), but doesn't mention the transition for SM in Fallout 2 as a non-hostile faction in Broken Hills that just wants to be left alone (and New Vegas continues this interesting concept).
Sure you can form a tragic backstory from some background information, but the fact is all player's interactions with SMs in Fo3 are hearing them scream "no more games, TIME TO DIE!" and then run at you with a shotgun before you blow their brains out. Or blow up a ridiculously large SM with a stupidly large fire hydrant that came out of nowhere.
He also does bring up interesting points regarding the quests not being very linear as people think, but the problem is the way it handles skills is horrible (
I'm sure he'll bring it up later in the videoedit: he didnβt), due to speech being a percentaged-based dice roll, and things like [intellegence] and [science] checks being entirely... pointless and really dumb? He also brings up the point of the intro being wrongly criticized because it offers lots of options, and while that's true, it doesn't take away from the fact that it's overly long and honestly just a boring drag that makes repeat-playthroughs worse. I get the idea that the point was to have it feel claustrophobic and so once you get out of the vault it's freeing, but... I don't think they should've done that in this sort of game, IDK. Plus, they used that time to develop Dad as a character, but completely failed. Dad is as one-dimensional of a boring character as it gets.I could probably go on about how his point regarding "what do they eat" being "mole rats to hunt and eat and the irradiated water" is a bit dumb, considering what the shandification video was referring to was things like growing crops, and that the entire concept of project purity is poorly reinforced because aside from the copy-pasted beggers outside of Megaton and Rivet City (why don't that walk inside?!), nobody actually seems to have any trouble with water (and to purify the water, it shouldn't need a purifier that emmits loads of radiation for absolutely no reason). There aren't any quests or dialogue in Megaton or Rivet City where people are saying "we've all been dying because all we've had to drink is irradiated water!" (again, aside from the dumb beggers which are disconnected from everything else in existence), the closest we get to that is "fix our water pipes" in Megaton.
I think the main problem people have with Fallout 3 is less the whole "it's not a great Fallout RPG" (although like I said, the way it handled skill checks was dumb) and more "it's just dumb when it comes to Fallout", at least from my perspective. I think this article, that goes through the entire main quest of Fallout 3, highlights this best. It talks about lack of reinforcing themes, terrible character and plot issues (the entire conflict ends with who gets to push a button first...), lack of motivations for certain factions, stupid decisions.... If you don't want to read all of it then just skip to part 5. I promise, it doesn't devolve into a "New Vegas is better!" thing either.
I still liked Fallout 3, btw. It was my first Fallout game. I had fun shooting stuff, had fun modding, it was also arguably my first real open world and rpg experience. But I just despised all of the story content in 3, especially when playing New Vegas, 1 and 2 afterward. It just felt like a waste of potential and one big bad fan-fiction story.
Edit: Watched the entire video. He brings up some interesting points, and throughout there are things I disagree with, but I'm obviously not going to go through one-by-one because this is already too long. He brings up stuff like how NV's map led you around to all the locations, and that all the locations on the map are tied to quests, and that Fo3 didn't, and therefore Fo3's better at exploration, but I disagree. That's just obviously different design decisions, and I vastly prefer NV's IMO. It gave every location a sense of purpose. He also brushed over the whole "writing/story is bad" criticism of Fo3 by showing some funny good lines from Fo3... and of course, my counter-argument is above in that article.
But anyway, overall, it's a good, interesting video that shows off an alternative viewpoint for once. Some of his points have some holes in it that I countered above a bit, but he still makes some good points in favour of 3.
I totally agree with his final point about how the emptiness of the wasteland allows for much greater exploration and giving you a feeling of accomplishment for going out of your way to find a point of interest that catches your eye far in the distance. This is the same exact reason that I love Breath of the Wild and wish that more open world games would ditch the dense minimaps and give their world a bit more room to breathe. Yeah, sometimes scaling a hill or cliff in BoW or running to a distant shack in FO3 yields a mediocre reward, but the gamble and payoff of finding a shrine, unique weapon, cool area, etc. makes exploring those games so much more exciting.
Loved exploring the Washington wasteland with the awesome radio, good memories. But I was never an original Fallout fan so I do think the criticisms of it are valid.
I'm not fan of Fallout 3 myself. Finished it once, it's defi not terrible it's just I really don't plan on playing it again. I tried to once heavily modded even but nah.
Hearing all this does not change how I felt about the game ofc but at least I understand why so many people enjoyed it more than I did.
Really that is main reason why I love these long video essays. To learn why people disliked games that I liked or liked games that I disliked.
Since I personally don't divide games as good or bad but simply as games that I like and games that I don't.
It makes discussing games with others much more peaceful :D sure lot of people have different stance, seeing their opinion as absolute but no matter what anyone says I always see it only as opinion. Well and I like hearing different opinions! Lengthier the better.
Since TES is so far away, I need a NV equivalent, FO4 just dropped the ball. I am actually replaying it now and even though it is not a bad game it just does not compare to older BGS games. They put way to many resources into settlements and no matter how robust they tried to make it, it will never compare to actual dev created content. FO3 was packed to the brim with original quests and cool locations, same goes for NV.
I will take anything following the game design formula of BGS games.
Fallout 3 is only just behind New Vegas as my favorite Fallout title. Lot of great characters and quests from when Bethesda still cared about interesting objectives. Moira Browns quests, the simulation, and Andale really nailed it for me.
I liked exploring F3 more than FNV, which this video touches upon. But my biggest issue was that Bethesda clearly didn't think much of the lore in the previous Fallout games. At times I felt they probably should just have created their own setting from scratch.
I hate all these video essay titles. "Fallout 3 is garbage", "Fallout 3 is Better Than You Think", "Bethesda's design is insulting". Can't they just do the Matthewmatosis, SuperBunnyhop or Raycevick ways where they just have a title saying what the video is rather than a jumping "THIS IS WHAT YOU SHOULD THINK, ANY OPPOSING VIDEOS ARE WRONG!".