Fallout 3 Is Garbage, And Here's Why

This video popped up in my Youtube subscription feed this evening, by one of my favorite youtubers, hbomberguy. I immediately thought of you all. It's a long video, but he's a funny guy and does a good job of highlighting how Bethesda went wrong with its interpretation of Fallout.

Nice find, Kana. Not surprisingly, I agree with pretty much everything he said. F1 and F2 truly were games in a league of their own and greatness that will never be equaled.

But, as much as Fallout 3 is a load of bollocks, it still remains a competent open-world Bethesda game. I installed the FOOK2 mod recently and it gives F3 a solid dose of fresh air, improves some mechanics, adds more guns, armor, improves the Black Talon (and that improvement makes them much like the Gunners in F4, which is not a bad thing) and overall makes F3 a better experience.

TBH, I could give this game a lot of shite, and there's no denying it's a red-headed bastard stepchild, but I don't hate it. I'm pissed off that we got this bollocks instead of Van Buren and never got a proper Fallout 3 -- it's sad to think that Wasteland 2 is the closest we will ever get to a true old-school Fallout game. This isn't a knock on Wasteland 2, I bloody loved the game and enjoyed every second of it. Hell, if only the inXile guys landed the Fallout franchise, just think of the solid gold they could make with it.

He briefly touches upon that in the video. The game can be fun as an open world sandbox, particularly if you ignore the story and just explore. That's really what Bethesda does best, and I think they fully embraced that with Fallout 4.

I actually have the Tale of Two Wastelands mod installed and a character that I periodically load up. It's basically BGT for Fallout 3 and NV, allowing you to play Fallout 3 in the New Vegas version of the engine. I also have Project Nevada to overhaul the gameplay, the interiors project to add more places to explore/rest, and a mobile truck base mod to replace fast travel. Do I care at all about Project Purity or the conflict between the Brotherhood and the Enclave? No. I just hunt for unique weapons and expand my massive collection of garden gnomes.

Hbomberguy is overstating things when he calls the game garbage. It's garbage as a sequel to Fallout 2, maybe, but it's pretty good Bethesda game, with all that entails (better than the last few Elder Scrolls games, at any rate).

Fallout 3 in the NV engine? Interesting -- I'll have to check that out!

Fook 2 is actually pretty damn good, and I accidentally discovered that gathering tech for Casdin and "befriending" the Outcasts also yields power armor training -- which means I can skip Anchorage completely and I don't even have to bother with the main quest! The arsenal of guns added by the mod is also pretty damn good and I have no shortage of assault rifles, and there's even 7.62mm weapons. There's also Outcast T-51 now, although I prefer the T-45 because the T-51 is downright fugly.

I played F3 and NV before playing F1 and F2 (I know, HERESY!) and when I did got around to playing the originals, they absolutely blew my mind. As Carabas said F1 and F2 did not restrict my ability to think outside the box and unlike the Bethesda games, the originals do offer true freedom of choice and were much more flexible, allowing you to do choose the outcome that best fits one's personal morality.

I agree that as a direct sequel to the greatness of F1 and F2, F3 is absolutely abysmal, but looking at it as a direct sequel is I feel the wrong way to look at it -- I see the Bethesda Fallout games are an evolutionary offshoot, kind of related to the original but that have evolved into their own thing. I also agree with your point that Bethesda Fallout games have been better than ES games, at least better than Ob or Skyrim. Morrowind has a special place in my collection and it is a game I like to replay every now and then -- sure, it has it's flaws (but then again nothing a few mods can't fix) but as far as I am concerned ES3 was the pinnacle of the ES series and Oblivion was the beginning of a downward spiral. Skyrim is abysmal and again Bethesda have overlooked a perfectly good plotline -- Stormcloaks VS the Empire -- and tacked on some asinine, uninteresting bollocks and I am still pissed off about adding bloody dragons to a series of games that was doing perfectly fine without those overrated, overgrown lizards. Same thing with Fallout 3, the Outcasts VS Lyon's Brotherhood would have been a perfectly fine main quest -- but no, let's ignore and spit on our own lore and bring back a faction that was completely wiped out and tack a stupid bollocks quest on top. And bloody Liberty Prime -- I cannot overstate the hatred I have for this "MURICA FUCK YEAH" giant trashcan. It's exactly why I didn't bother doing the BoS in F4. Well, one of the reasons, but that is a debate for another time.

...but I digress. It's still a shame that we never got Van Buren. Wasteland 2 has shown there is very clearly interest for an old-school isometric Fallout-like game. I am not sure if you played it, but Wasteland 2's ending left a lot of unanswered questions and while inXile hasn't said anything about it, I think this hints at the possibility of a Wasteland 3. W2 lacks the magic that made the original Fallout games truly special (pun intended), I feel it is as close as a modern game will get to the essence of the original Fallouts.

Yes, I played W2. Loved it. Will probably give the Director's Cut a try this year, if I can find the time.

And you're right, the Outcasts vs Lyon's Brotherhood or Empire vs Stormcloaks would have made for a much more interesting main quest. That seems to be a pattern, with more interesting elements in their games getting shoved into the background to make way for a dull and simple main quest. Except in the case of Oblivion. I'm struggling to remember any interesting elements in that game.

Here's the link for the Tale of Two Wastelands.
https://taleoftwowastelands.com/

Cheers, definitively will have a look at that once I am done playing through with Fook2.

The Dark Brotherhood was the only highlight of Oblivion for me, much like the Morag Tong was in Morrowind. Mage guild had some good moments, especially when you got the opportunity to make Black Soulstones as the story unfolded. Seeing as they are the only soulgems capable of trapping human souls, and I was doing the Dark Brotherhood anyway, might as well put those souls to good use and get some nice gear. Some of the Daedra quests were good too -- Ob definitively had some good moments but a well-modded Morrowind is better. I never cared much for Bloodmoon but Tribunal had some good moments. As for Skyrim I still have it on my old Steam account and I am quite content to let it gather dust.

W2DC is definitively worth your time, it polishes and improves what is already a very damn solid game, IMO. I haven't finished it so I am not sure if it addresses the questions I had about the endgame, but we'll see, I guess, I've been meaning to pick it back up myself once the end of semester madness settles down.

I haven't finished W2 myself. The DC is a major improvement but it's exactly like you said, the "magic" isn't there.

I think it has to do with playing members of a militia/ paramilitary organization. Playing a grunt isn't as cool as playing a Mad Max type bent on surviving in a desolate world with no place to call home.

Back in 1997 I played the Fallout demo and it blew my mind. It was during the summer and the demo was still based on the Gurps rpg pen & paper ruleset. I was a student so I was broke but I started saving to be able to buy the game when it came out later that year. I spent years playing it and marveling at it greatness.

To me Fallout 2 was a mixed blessing. It was bigger, better and longer but it was riddled with cultural references and zany stuff that prevented it from being as good as the original. Still, there is something to be said about a game with such depth and such an intricate world.

I'm not sure about F4 yet. Some things are better than 3 and NV but the main quest is mind numbingly ghastly and so far I have no incentive to start a new character. I need to soldier up and finish the main quest so I can leave it behind and focus on the rest.

F3 is pretty much Oblivion with guns and as such it's fun but that's the end of it. Ever since FNV came out I couldn't see the point in going back. The only part of Oblivion that I'd like to replay would be the Shivering Isles dlc.

The problem with Bethesda is that they will sacrifice a good story in order to get some scenes that look like they've been lifted from a blockbuster. Never mind that it cheapens everything like the big ass robot in F3 or the dragon in Skyrim intro. Given a choice between flashy-stupid and intricate but low key, Bethesda will always go for the nonsensical but visually appealling option. That's just how they roll.

The problem is probably that today's gamers don't seem to like games with a slow start. I've seen people posting on steam forums that they lost interest in some games because they didn't start off with a bang. It's silly but I guess we have to thank those gamers for the obnoxious dragon intro in Skyrim. Why is it obnoxious? Because it is scripted and breaks the logic of the game. At that point your character can't die so introducing a dragon is only showing off and ends up being incredibly heavy handed.

Back on the topic of F3 and F4 I find amusing that in 3 you're playing the brat and in 4 you're playing the parent. It sucks so much I can't even put in words how much I'm annoyed by that move. It's as if the good people at Bethesda thought that the players who enjoyed F3 have grown and would now better relate to the plight of a parent... I wish they would give us a break. F3 was all about where is daddy and F4 is all about where is my kid... Yuck! The worst part is that F4 protagonist is so slow that most of his or her lines come across as being incredibly stupid. Considering it's supposed to be an rpg that's not even remotely funny.

I blame the Witcher series for blurring the lines even further. In my experience an rpg is about creating a character and choosing a path. The Witcher and F3/4 have the rpg tag but they force you down a path. FNV gave you a starting point and the freedom to build upon that and that is as it should be. What the people at Bethesda don't get is that by forcing us to play the kid or the parent they are not helping us but actually hindering us and preventing us from playing the characters we want to play. I'd rather they went all the way like the Witcher does because at least playing a named protagonist means that the story is going to fit the character like a glove. That's another point where F3/4 fail in my opinion. Either give us a vague backdrop like FNV or go all the way like the Witcher but don't get stuck in between like F3/4.

Carabas wrote:

The problem with Bethesda is that they will sacrifice a good story in order to get some scenes that look like they've been lifted from a blockbuster.

So, basically, Todd Howard is the Zack Snyder of video games.

I enjoyed Fallout 4 well enough as an open world shooter set in the Fallout universe. However, the quest design is the worst Bethesda has produced since Daggerfall. When Skyrim came out, I feared that the radiant quest system would negatively impact their quest design, and Fallout 4 proved me right.

Some supermutants drop a note called "Supermutant Orders", or something like that. It reads, "Loot, kill, return." There should be a mod that renames that note to "Bethesda Design Document", because that's pretty much every quest in a nutshell.

At no point in FO4 did I think, "Next time, I would like to come back and try to solve this problem differently."

Unfortunately the bit about not wanting to go back and do things differently is very true...

Also Zack Snyder made Watchmen so as far as I'm concerned he did something great in his life (which is more than can be said about many directors these days).

Wuut? Neither of you have finished Wasteland 2? Well, have either of you completed Wasteland 1? The story is a continuation of W1's story arc, and although W2 gives you the necessary background to understand the story, it certainly helps to have played W1 because there are several references, like the Night Terror, amongst many others.

I am also not very fond of the idea of playing a squad of grunts, but having Snake Vargas as General and seeing all the other W1 rangers is a nice throwback. Besides, as long as you're not a complete evil bastard you get a degree of free reign in how you handle situations along the way. Like the Atchisons and Topekans, for example, and sometimes there is no right outcome, no matter how hard you try.

Personally, the second half of the game I feel was truly amazing. You get to interact with several other factions all with their own moral ethics and you actually can sway/change their ways (except for the main antagonist faction, of course), and if you handle things REALLY well later in the game you can work things out with the secondary antagonist faction and ally with them.

Fallout 1 and 2 are in a league of their own and will never be equaled, but Wasteland 2 is a solid game that gets a lot of things right and has been an absolute blast to play. I especially liked the beginning of the game where you are forced to choose if you want to save Highpool or Ag Center, and that this is one instance in which there is no right choice and the game makes you feel terrible for it -- very few games achieve that with me.

If the rumors of W3 are to be believed, I certainly will throw money at inXile. The story could be further expanded, or at least part of it could be fitted in W3 because as I said many times W2's ending left many unanswered questions and that's something I'd like to discuss with either or both of you once you've beaten the game.

Carabas wrote:

Also Zack Snyder made Watchmen so as far as I'm concerned he did something great in his life (which is more than can be said about many directors these days).

Wot!?! I'm with Kana on this one.

Released the same year, Punisher - The War Zone was a far better cinematic realisation of a graphic novel. At times, it's style, sets and dialogue made me feel as if I was turning a page rather than merely sitting in a cinema seat watching a film.

How about Todd Howard is the Michael Bay of video games?

Kana wrote:

How about Todd Howard is the Michael Bay of video games?

This sounds about right.

Sue77 wrote:

Released the same year, Punisher - The War Zone was a far better cinematic realisation of a graphic novel.  At times, it's style, sets and dialogue made me feel as if I was turning a page rather than merely sitting in a cinema seat watching a film.

No matter what can be said about Snyder (I'm no fan of 300 or Man of Steel) he did manage to turn one of the greatest graphic novels into an excellent movie. Everybody (me included) used to think that adapting Watchmen couldn't be done and he proved us wrong.

Plus it is a really good movie. There are so many adaptations that simply don't work as movies unless you're a fan of the original material. It's definitely not the case here.

I know it's trendy to dismiss Snyder's movies these days but I stand by what I said about Watchmen. As far as I'm concerned it's the greatest superhero movie ever made. Sorry but we'll have to agree to disagree.

BlackZarak wrote:

Fallout 1 and 2 are in a league of their own and will never be equaled, but Wasteland 2 is a solid game that gets a lot of things right and has been an absolute blast to play. I especially liked the beginning of the game where you are forced to choose if you want to save Highpool or Ag Center, and that this is one instance in which there is no right choice and the game makes you feel terrible for it -- very few games achieve that with me.

If the rumors of W3 are to be believed, I certainly will throw money at inXile. The story could be further expanded, or at least part of it could be fitted in W3 because as I said many times W2's ending left many unanswered questions and that's something I'd like to discuss with either or both of you once you've beaten the game.

It's on my list, these days I have too many games and not enough time. If I drift and lose interest it can be months before I'm back in the game.

Fallout 2 was a HUGE letdown for me. I expected a better Fallout 1 and what I got was a Pythonesque version of Fallout. Seriously they took things so far it was a joke from start to finish which is incredibly sad as no other game I know has managed to have so much depth as far as options and freedom are concerned.

You could blackmail the Vault City doc who asked you to smuggle some jet inside the walls (he wanted to study it to find a cure and alternatively you could help him with that) but after taking his money if you went to get a treatment for radiation poisoning he would give you a lethal injection instead and taunt you. It happened to one of my characters simply because I didn't expect the devs to have thought about that. It was such a great surprise that I decided not to load a previous save. I was 100% happy with my character dying like that.

I haven't played Fall out 1 or 2, so I can't contribute much to this conversation, but I will just pipe in to support Cara. The Watchmen is an incredible movie, Zack Snyder was able to transfer it from book to the screen without losing the essence of the story and respecting cinema as a medium. I was also very much impressed with his remake of Dawn of the Dead, which I think is one of the best horror movie I've seen. The rest of his movies have been a let down, but we have to give credit where it is due. My two cents.

I didn't mean to suggest that either Snyder or Howard are talentless hacks. They do both have a taste for spectacle, which is why I thought to compare them.

The scene which best sums up my feelings about Zack Snyder is the death of Jonathan Kent in Man of Steel, and the stark contrast with the same events from the old Richard Donner Superman film. In the latter, Pa Kent grabs his arm in pain, says, "Oh, no," and falls down. Death by heart attack. It is so human, relatable, and comparatively, quite subtle, and it was accomplished with mere acting

In Zack Snyder's version, Pa Kent dies in a tornado. He is swept up in a huge, CGI spectacle. Was it a good idea? Was it an improvement over the heart-attack death? Who cares?! It looks awesome.

Likewise with Liberty Prime. Was it a good idea? Does it belong in a Fallout game? Who cares?! It looks awesome.

That said, I do agree that Watchmen was a good film, and I'd say Dawn of the Dead is his best film. I'd even defend 300. It's not a good film, exactly, but it is a masterful adaptation of an ugly, stupid book.

Snyder is very talented. He does love his visual spectacle, but he is also one of the best in the business at creating spectacular visuals. Snyder's films are always beautiful. He started out as a cinematographer, and as a director, he thinks in shots. All his shots are awesome.

But unless you are making an experimental one-shot film like Birdman, then a film's narrative isn't in its shots. The story is in the cuts, and that's where Snyder is weak. He can film a bunch of beautiful shots, and then it's the editors job to figure out how--and if--they can be assembled into a coherent narrative.

The easiest film editing job in the world is to cut Zack Snyder shots into a trailer, and the hardest is to cut them into a film.

He is especially proficient at adapting graphic novels because they serve as a sort of assembly manual for his film. They lay out the narrative, and he follows along. Without that assembly manual, Sucker Punch happens. His films end up feeling like a loose collection of really cool shots that barely fit together, and many of which seem to exist for no other purpose than style.

There was a particularly jarring example of this in Batman v Superman, which I saw in the cinema. At one point in the film, he cuts to a scene of Clark Kent hiking in a snowy wilderness. At this point, the audience is asking some questions that the film needs to answer: What is this place, and why is Clark Kent there? But it offers no answers. Clark has a vision of his deceased father, and then the film cuts to a different location. The snowy wilderness was never seen before this scene, and is never seen afterwards. The scene could have taken place almost anywhere in the film, and serves no real purpose. It's just there. Because.

I know that dream Kevin Costner imparted some parental wisdom to the disillusioned Clark in this scene. I mean, I remember him talking, but I couldn't even begin to tell you what he said. I was too busy trying to figure out what the hell was going on to pay attention to the dialogue, and by the time I was ready to start actually listening, the scene was over.

So, in summary, I don't hate Zack Snyder. In fact, I would be willing to call him a genius of visuals. He is not very good at visual storytelling, however, and the tighter his reins, the better his output. It's not a coincidence that the reception of his films has declined as his clout has increased.

Sorry to go off on a tangent, but this is a subject I could talk about until you all told me to shut the hell up.

I won't be the one telling you to shut up!

I hated that scene in Man of Steel it was so bad it was probably the worst scene in that movie (and that's saying a lot considering what movie we're talking about).

Sucker Punch is a stunning piece. I would agree that it's slightly disconnected but visually speaking it's a real treat.

Birdman was a major disappointment to me. Maybe I expected too much. I don't know. It left me wondering why we should even bother. I agree that editing a movie is important but if anything the current trend of longer movies proves that most directors can't (or won't) cut the fat. Take Nolan's last Batman movie for instance, it could do with being 40 minutes shorter. I think some directors can get away with too much because they're selling tickets but with hindsight it doesn't mean that it's a good thing.

To remain on our tangent for a short time.....

Great post Kana!

I agree with your last point about director's not cutting the fat - for whatever reason. This is why I love Cronenberg's films. He's a master at telling a complete story in 90 minutes.

/continuing to be off topic.
I do agree with you, Kana. Zack Snyder just lacks the ability to tell a story. He used to be a director for publicity commercials. He has the eye for a beauty shot (that displays his product and sells it), but he just doesn't understand his material.

I remember a scene from Dawn of the dead. The survivor are climbing up a stairwell, chased by zombies. They get to the door, open it. Then, there's a slow motion close up (with muted sound) of a human firing his shotgun unto the zombies. Then, there's the slow motion close up of the empty shell dropping on the ground. The ambiant sound is muted but the sound of the dropping shell is deafening. Then it goes back to normal to the humans escaping. Why did he use that shot? What's the meeaning behind ity? None. There's a similar scene at the end of The Matrix, but it's about the emotionnal impact of a character being shot. It's a very minor detail, but it was very telling to me.

Anyways, all i'm saying is he made some good movies (DotD, The Watchmen), but it appears he did not try to better his failings over time. He started to go downhill.

I agree about the Michael Bay assessment, though...

/stopping to be off topic.

There was a good bit of unnecessary slow-mo in Batman V Superman, too, including several shots of falling shell casings. Some things never change.

I agree that Birdman was overrated, Carabas. I thought it was an interesting film, but also very self-indulgent. It's a film about actors. Of course Hollywood adored it.

The point about directors failing to cut the fat especially rings true of Batman V Superman. Several of the sub-plots in the film, specifically the ones involving Amy Adams and Holly Hunter, are narrative dead ends. Amy Adams as Lois Lane spends half the film investigating the villain, but then the villain confesses everything to Superman and her investigation is completely forgotten. Holly Hunter is a Senator to whom Lex Luthor tries to sell some kind of anti-Superman program. She says no, and then she blows up and is completely forgotten. In a 2 1/2 hour film, do we really need sub-plots that are tangential and don't contribute anything to the main story?

I laughed when I heard the news that BvS would be getting an extended 3 hour director's cut. The last thing I thought when leaving the cinema was, "This film needed to be a half-hour longer."

Thinking about Fallout 1&2 there is something we've failed to take into account and that's the fact that you could complete both games without killing anyone (except the big bad in F2 but even then you didn't have to attack yourself). The implication is that by choosing to embrace the violent solution we are responsible for that decision. Killing is not something you have to do as much as it is a choice you've made at a certain point. The new Fallout games completely overlook this aspect and with hindsight it's a real shame.

Fallout under Beth are evolutionary offshoots which have kept a small fraction of the originals but became something else entirely. This evolutionary fork will never equal the brilliance of the originals but look at them for their own merits, not as piss-poor sequels to legendary games. Don't forget Bethesda tends to be a special needs child with some of their boneheaded choices.

Spoiler:

Oh wait, nevermind, you must be talking about

Spoiler:

Yes, the Big Bad Boss is the one from Fallout 2. You could finish Fallout 1 around level 8 without a single kill (iirc I reached level 15 in Fallout 2 with a non violent character).

Ah, right, kind of had a brain fail there and mixed up my Fallout bosses -- unacceptable!

There's a mod for NV called Area 51 in which the endboss is a clone of said boss. It makes zero sense -- anything including the Enclave past F2 doesn't -- but the dubbed F2 dialogue on top is kind of a nice touch and it's an interesting, if weird and useless, throwback to F2.

Spoiler:

That's one of the reasons the original Fallout is my favorite game. It's a shame Bethesda didn't implement disguises in Fallout 4. I mean, Obsidian showed them how it was done in New Vegas. Then again, disguises probably don't have much use in a game where most of the quests are, "Kill, Loot, Return."

I made a mod I called "infiltrations" for Fallout 3 to implement disguises. Once the editor is out it should be possible to replicate what this mod did with the new game. The important thing would be to implement disguises without actually breaking the game. It should open up new option and not make enemies passive.

I was disappointed when I realized there was no way to play Fallout 3 without killing. It was a sure sign that they didn't understand what made Fallout 1 so great.