What's salvageable here?

The Pitt.
>setting is both unique and lore friendly; it isn't a ruined shithole like CW and is slowly growing in power thanks to a growing arms industry
>has Fallout elements like mutants and BoS, but has them included with respect to the original franchise
>mutants are unique to the area and doesn't rely on rehashing shit like centaurs and super mutants
>grey morality; yeah its underdeveloped, but it offers more choice than most of what Fallout 3 offered

Point Lookout is pretty good also. Rest of the DLC is trash.

>starting area I full of rats to fight
>Took you five fucking minutes to figure out it was turn based

Attached: 1300044776986.jpg (600x600, 35K)

>cutscenes
>character creator
>menu options

I probably spent more like 15 minutes.

50s music

The Pitt

Fo1>Fo3>>>NV>Fo4

>being wrong

Fo1 was made by a different team than 2 and NV. Fo3 stays more true to the original. Fo4 tried to be like 2

absolutely fucking nothing, just move on to the next entry that's actually worth the time

Attached: 1553288280956.jpg (810x1035, 488K)

>FO3 stay more true to the original

how and why?

Attached: 1552828910312.png (449x500, 248K)

>Fo3>>>NV

Attached: wrong.jpg (458x458, 29K)

Tales of Two Wasteland with various NV mods

Not him but they both present pretty standard depictions of post apocalyptic environments.
Granted the user is an idiot and seems to forget Fallout 2 advanced the setting onward to show actual development of infrastructure, and so Fallout 3 is retarded for showing an environment which shouldn't exist anymore.

I am still of the opinion no one at Bethesda played Fallout 2.

IM A MIGHTY MIGHTY MAN IM YOUNG AND IM IN MY PRIME

HE'S HACKIN AND WACKIN AND SMACKIN

agreed, after Bethesda acquired the franchise, they just conveniently forgot the first 2 games and made an entirely different one (shallow story and barely functioning gameplay)

Attached: 1557366750037.gif (300x169, 349K)

>image
Kill yourself.

ANYTHING GOES

I feel they only played Tactics and copy FO1 plot

>Actually saving this webm.
God damn incels are out of control.

Honestly I never got this argument. Bethesda just rehashed the first two per batum because they were afraid to put anything original in FO3 due to fan backlash.

Bethesda dumb down every entry in the series

fucking despicable

I wouldn't mind if they had used stuff like super mutants and the Brotherhood if they had used them correctly. Saying "oh we HAD to include them" is horseshit. If they had to include super mutants for example, change the setting from DC and move it back to the west coast; or create an entirely new mutant for DC to deal with.

What's strange is that the two of the DLCs which did showcase original content were better than the base game. So it shows that they can provide something worthwhile to the franchise.

Nothing, the very fact that it's built on Gamebryo means it's flawed down its very foundation.

I have to agree with this fag in that there are barely any side quests in 3, where NV has a lot more. but hes also a faggot for saying they suck, they dont.

Bethesda didnt even bothered to read and set the lore properly, Pete Hines himself confirmed that the fallout lore is something they change constantly for convenience

the utter state of these brain dead devs

Attached: 1565800704541.gif (506x565, 858K)

>Fallout 1, 2 and 3 are about depicting the horrors of consumerism, the nuclear world etc
>New Vegas is more neutral, focuses more on the narrative of rebuilding where as the previous games are about the wastland prior the major rebuilding
>Fallout 4 is "DUDE 50s MUSIC IS SO COOL, WOW I LOVE CAPITALISM!!!! ITS SO COOL THAT NUKES WENT OFF BRO!!! LOL IM THE WANDERER!"

where'd it all go wrong bros.

skyrim

NV was boring and not great to explore. The multiple endings were dull and the politics as well. The western vibe didn't fit for me either.

There are a few things that I'm fine with being in each entry, like the vaults and Nuka Cola, but the Brotherhood and super mutants don't need to be in every fucking game.

nice opinion

too bad you're too retarded to comprehend and appreciate it

Attached: 1563720466478.png (400x564, 54K)

The BoS and the Super Mutants are well done in both 2 and NV
>minor groups
>just trying to live out the in the waste
>still stuck for lore reason in they ways

2 didn't advance it. It made it less Fallout. They sold us on a wasteland and a new team changed it. NV shows it just becoming a western. Sure it's all competent but also not what we were sold in the beginning

The Pitt and the atmosphere of Point Lookout
Literally nothing else

You now remember how much of a pain traversing the city sections was.

No the 2nd and NV were the ones that made it feel too political and boring. Bethesda made it go back to wasteland like Fo1.

Bethesda use the brotherhood because its in their game cover every fucking release, easy marketability and "muh power armor"

super mutants are the staple, copy pasted enemy in the game (and raiders), they help fill the void of their otherwise empty game

It did make the city feel much bigger. I'd rather they do this again but just make it more obvious where each place leads. The problem with 3s metro was the copy and pasting.

>Super mutants are the staple
Only because Bethesda are absolute retards. I can forgive adding the BoS because how iconic power armor is to Fallout's iconography, but Bethesda making super mutants post apocalyptic Orcs is unforgivable, frankly.

Makes sense a bethestard would say this. You're not smart enough for politics.

FO2 and NV had those elements to further advance the storyline and lore, if they kept using the same theme more than once, the whole thing would be stagnant and boring, according to what you just said, bet you're the kind of drone who will malfunction if your mission is more than a standard fetch quest/dungeon clearing

well sucks to be you

Attached: 1565813257655.gif (224x224, 1.52M)

>it made it less Fallout
On the contrary, I don't think think Fallout's identity was properly realized until 2 came out. Fallout 1 is very by the books. 2 conversely shows a setting underused; the POST, post apocalyptic wasteland. The initial struggle for survival is done, and its now a war between the emerged societies. Without this advance, Fallout would be another Mad Max inspired wasteland adventure.

And before you go "but it changed and change = bad" consider this. The change makes sense, and the setup for said change is perfectly valid when you look back on the events of Fallout 1. It's only when you get to Brotherhood of Steel and Fallout 3 where the cohesiveness fades.

>too political and boring
It's mostly just two major factions duking it out with a third asshole wanting his city to stay independent. If that's too much for you maybe roleplaying games aren't for you.

they cant be bothered adding new units in the lore/game, I guess they dont have the time and resources even though they spent 4 years making FO3

>replay 2 and NV every few months
>finished 3 once and dropped 4

It's just sad when it's very easy to take the lore and bolt-on small factions/interest groups, although I think the problem with NV was Bethesda twisting obsidians arm as far as reusing certain assets from 3.

Oh yeah anti-FO3 are illiterate kek

I do agree with what you say. But then that leads to longevity issues. The prime drive (what we was initially sold) is to survive in the wasteland as well as see other surviving groups and make it a little better than before. 2 pushed it too fast imo and went straight to politics. There are other games for that.

The politics are pointless.

obsidian only had one year to make the game, they had no choice but to reuse assets, meanwhile FO3 had 4 years of production, at least NV had an actual story

>We was

Sorry for phone posting

>FO2 pushed it too fast
not my fault you're too slow

now that societies have emerged in FO2, friction bet. each other is unavoidable, that's politics. Its the only logical route to take

>The politics are pointless
Contrary to what Todd would have you believe, the point of Fallout is(or was supposed to be)to show the world after the "Mad Max days" were long gone and New political factions arose. "The politics are pointless" is a take so retarded it's beyond parody.

Attached: Me looking at your post.png (575x413, 302K)

nothing

From my view they weren't smart enough to keep up the wasteland survival vibes. Politics are easy and boring

>be bethseda
>buy rights to a classic RPG franchise that was dying
>have to build an FPSRPG for the first time
>spend most of development focused on making a game like this work in our engine
>Set game far away from previous games as to not tarnish the older titles
>figure old school fans would appreciate classic enemies like Super Mutants and such being in the game
>add them in and rework the lore slightly to allow it
>inspired by the story and main quest of Fallout 1, we do something similar with water in DC
>know fans are upset that Van Buren got canceled
>Hire Obsidian and tell them to use that game to establish lore for new vegas
>Obsidian uses the base we built to focus on writing a better story and making quests more abundant, something we couldn't do because we had to build the game from the ground up

Later
>people complain about the gunplay in fallout 3 and NV
>Focus development on improving that aspect
>people complain about power armor not being lore friendly and generally underwhelming
>focus on that
>people complain about lack of settlements in Fallout 3, even though we explained this by the lack of clean water, harsher nukes and super mutants killing everyone
>focus on settlement building so players can make the wasteland in their imagine

Explain to me how Bethesda is the bad guy. The only issue with 4 and 3 is that the main quests are very linear, but it's not like Fallout wasn't linear in the beginning. Where as Obsidian made a mailman decide the fate of every faction in New Vegas, basically creating a god character who does more than any other character in the fallout universe.

In Fallout 3 people are still looking for food in abondoned stores 200 years after the war because fuck logic.

There are anons who believe if Bethesda goes tits up devs will start making games they like again.
They won't.

What kind of preservatives will be available in 60 years?
We will probably have shit that will let an apple last a thousand years.

being this fucking warped

the story already progressed by the time FO2 hit(from simple survival game to the complexities of post war societies), why are you so fucking slow

I blame genetics. For instance if that were to happen right now the only people that could thrive after a global nuke would be country bred peoples. Everyone else don't have a base of which to operate if the lights stopped working

>be me
>living in Capitol wasteland
>can't farm because the nuclear radation makes it damn near impossible
>scavengers are often killed by super mutants, mirelurks or other tough enemies
>thankfully the chemically engineered cheap processed food from before the war is so full of preservatives that we can eat it

How does this not make sense?

Also, it hasn't been 200 years, as the overwhelming majority of survivors came from the vaults, which didn't open until at least 50 to 100 years after the war.

You shouldn't attempt to build upon an established franchise if you know fuck all about the IP you are creating a new product for. Like I wouldn't attempt to write something based around Harry Potter for example because I have no interest or real grasp on the story. And I certainly wouldn't want to annoy people tackling something, quite frankly, I don't deserve to handle because I wouldn't do it justice.

Point Lookout is top-tier.

Attached: point lookout.jpg (1024x576, 96K)

I'm glad you said this

>soundtrack
>seeing the ruins of DC is cool
>mods that get Amata's tits out

That's all I can think of. It was good enough to get New Vegas made, so I guess that's a plus

It doesn't matter if the food in pre-war stores last for 10 years or a billion years,it'll run out eventually. People have to grow food and here animals eventually. Are you suggesting that Megaton, Rivet City, Tennpenny Tower and the Republic of Dave are all hunter gatherers who live off scavenged store food their entire life? Because I'm not buying that shit for a second.

Fo1 were created by a different team than 2.

bullet sponges the dlc.

>people complain about power armor not being lore friendly and generally underwhelming
Retcons power armor lore in the process, gives it to you not even 10 minutes after leaving the vault and ruined unarmed playstyle in the process.
>people complain about lack of settlements in Fallout 3, even though we explained this by the lack of clean water, harsher nukes and super mutants killing everyone
Clearly the answer was to have even less in Fallout 4 then.
>focus on settlement building so players can make the wasteland in their imagine
Alright, SHUT THE FUCK UP TODD HOWARD.

No one's buying your bullshit, Todd. Nobody actually think that radiant quests equate to infinite replayability

most settlements and cities in FO3 dont grow their own crops, I dont know how they last with just scavenging

Rivet City to be fair does actually have indoor farms. But yeah you can't build a permanent settlement without a semi reliable and stable food and water source. Like Andale, I can get behind. They eat people. That's their food source. Fucking Megatons source is traders and raider filled super markets.

That would be Mothership Zeta

>they couldn't make a decent storyline because they were to busy making polygons
Is this what retards that have no idea how games are made actually believe?

People do herd animals which you see with Brahmin. Growing food is a huge challenge when you're dealing with irradiated, mostly sterile soil. Even if you do grow food, when you grow a plant in radioactive soil, the plant absorbs the radioactive material, making the crops especially bad for you in a universe where radiation mutates you.

Even food that was inside buildings or underground is irradiated, imagine how much worse food grown in the wasteland would be? Especially when you don't even have clean water to grow crops with.

You're just repeating what the 2nd devs put down basically

Half of those missions becomes unavailable when you pick a faction over the other and vice versa, but ok let's see them.
>classic inspirations.
Classic fetch quest but the locations in it reminds me of missions that are oddly left out fron your sceencap, especially because they are ramificated and better than the "good" ones in fallout 3, very strange.
>cry me a river.
It's a mission whose goal is to gain the trust from the great khans so that they can help you and your faction in various key moments in the story,im aware that if you see it by itself it looks bland and bad, but if you see the wider ramifications that mission is part of you will understand why new vegas has a better and more intricated story than fallout 3
>don't make a beggard of me
Same as above
>can you find it in your heart?
Same as above, it's also part of cass companion quest, another ramificated questline you left out.
>Ncr/legion walktrough
You pick one of the other, the choice is in wich faction you choose to support, wich guess what? It afflicts deeply the ending.

Fuck me the others sidequests you posted follow the same patterns from above + a arena mission wow, new vegas truly btfo'd lmao.

Attached: 1495416609224.jpg (960x600, 74K)

>focus on settlement building so players can make the wasteland in their imagine
There should have been no more than 5 settlements in Fallout 4. Having 20 completely ruined the game and made the Commonwealth feel lifeless and empty.

Fallout 3 is actually a Fallout game. It's like a JJ Abrams soft reboot in that it focuses on the "feeling" of Fallout rather than the actual elements that made it great, but that's still better than a bastardization like 4.

>There are barely any sidequests in the game and they all sucks

Oasis, Wasteland Survival Guide, the choice between the Slavers and the Slaves in the Lincoln Memorial, the quest for the T-51b, and a bunch of others are actually good.

They're mostly linear or binary choices but they're still fun.

The environment should not have been as poor a quality as shown in the first place. I'd buy it if the setting was like, what, 20 or so years after the bombs fell. But it isn't. It's 200 years. And in the meantime, you have places which have running water and electricity. Hell you have working democracies and money printing.

That's just Bethesda. Their idea of making enemies difficult is to give them a lot of health.

bullet sponges the dlc 2 electric boogaloo.

New Vegas is my favorite Fallout game, try again.

Lack of massive settlements can also be attributed to the game engine, it's the same reason cities in skyrim and Oblivion are way smaller than Daggerfall's cities. That's an understandable complaint.

I don't see people complaining about how small and lifeless New Vegas' strip is, everyone understands that it's game limits.

check again sweety

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Isle_Studios

Attached: 077870978.png (1422x1091, 154K)

B-but I liked mothership zeta

Yeah NV farms and it's kinda retarded for that. Original humans need herding animals resistant to radiation and can eat radiated weeds basically

Fallout 3 was boring and not great to explore. The multiple endings were dull and the politics as well. The geen irradiated wastelend vibe didn't fit for me either.

What are you even trying to argue for, you literal fucking retard? That we shouldn't have settlements and NPC at all?

Well shit negro, Bethesda's already got you covered with Fallout 76. Go play it

You can't apply real world nuclear knowledge to Fallout. It's the capital of America, of course it's gonna be way worse than other places, it was probably nuked significantly more.

>but if it was nuked so hard their shouldn't be anything left
Game design explains that issue, they wanted to have a ruined DC so they didn't level everything. Hell, maybe America reinforced DC to help reduce the damage for the war.

this fucking guy

Attached: 1565580655351.jpg (261x226, 16K)

What politics? It's just good VS bad which everyone focuses on in the end

If there's one thing Bethesda does right, it's exploration (not Fo4)

>You can't apply real world nuclear knowledge to Fallout.
Nigger are you serious. You literally just had a go at soil not being arable in Fallout 3 because of radiation.

No, I'm arguing that they can't replicate the big cities in the NCR from the first two games, which explains the lack of large settlements in both NV and 3

NV had the benefit of being shielded from most of the nukes by house, so it makes sense that farming would be easier. Even then when you get to the NCR sharecroppers farms you are told that the farmers are struggling to deal with the radiation killing their crops.

>Well it probably got nuked more, so that's why it looks like everything was just nuked not 5 minutes ago
Not. Good. Enough.

You cannot make lore justifications if the lore is fundamentally shit.

>Complain that Bethseda ruined Fallout's lore
>defend the same company that made BoS and wanted it to be canon

Yea Forums please

Please don't fucking sit there and tell me you're one of THOSE gamers.

Attached: ma3r2pdf0w831.png (1000x953, 1.03M)

Oh for god's sake, you mongoloid, nobody's discussing the sheer size of cities and settlements, only the amount of them.

Bethesda also made Morrowind and I have no problem with that game. I just don't think they handled 3 onward very well.

That's completely different as issues with radiation and farming is shown in New Vegas. Besides that, I'm refering to the overall power of the nukes, obviously if a Nuke hit DC in our world it would be leveled, but that's not the case in Fallout

>but but it's just 3 that does it

Untrue, New Vegas was hit by 9 nukes and most of the city is still standing. That's just for a non priority target like Vegas, as opposed to the fucking Capitol

gaymers who dont like thinking for more than 5 seconds

I bet its an absolute nightmare for them to finish Deus Ex

Attached: 11524865.jpg (417x353, 25K)

>NV had the benefit of being shielded from most of the nukes by house

Fair enough. But this isn't what Fallout was about initially

>Defend the same company
Black Isle have fuck all to do with Fallout: PoS

It's like sperging out at Bioware because EA's FIFA division did something stupid

Bethesda serves the essential purpose of the world's. People are slowly picking up on that.

Its combat was more varied and frequent than F:NV. Although F:NV had much better combat as a result of the enormous variety of weapons, ammo, weapon modding, iron sights, etc., it was let down by there really not being much to actually fight. Arguably the biggest (and only challenge) in the game were the Deathclaw caves. The Mojave was fairly sparse with enemies--I remember, late game, when I was testing out my weapons, I was having genuine difficulty finding enemies to kill (let alone anything remotely challenging). Meanwhile, combat was pretty frequent in F3.

Also, personally, I thought the Capital Wasteland was much more fun to explore than the Mojave. There were a lot more memorable landmarks, and I liked exploring bombed out cities. Lastly, the Capital Wasteland conveyed much more of a sense of dread and misery. It was right and proper fucked, whereas much of the Mojave honestly seemed pretty okay to live in.

Of course, these are all fairly minor in the grand scheme of things. I still vastly prefer F:NV. But I thought FO3 had some merits.

>can't farm because of irradiated soil, lack of clean water, etc
>rely on most scavenged food, hunters trading food and herds like brahmin
>very few survivors from the war because DC was nuked to hell and back

Gee buddy, I wonder why they havent had huge cities in the capitol wasteland yet. For big settlements to appear you need agriculture. For agriculture to appear you need a solid source of clean water to grow crops.

The entire story of 3 has you getting clean water to the wasteland, something that hadn't been done yet.

It's painfully obvious our world nukes and Fallout nukes are different. Even if we are going off Fallout 3s design, the payload is entirely different for starters.

Even if it was leveled, there needs to be an actual attempt of cohesiveness regarding settlements otherwise don't set your game in DC. There is reason we haven't seen New York yet and its because it got completely wiped out. I doubt even as of Fallout NV's timeline there is must going on there bar ghouls and animals. 2 established a change that should have been carried on into 3, especially if you are setting the game a considerable amount of time after the previous installment (and I'm not counting BoS spin off because its up in the air, along with tactics, as to whether or not its actually canon or not)

And don't give me shit about engine limitations because Oblivion rendered vast sways of forests fine.

That person is sleeping because in the top panel because everything in that vignette, apart from MGS, is a total asspull.

>it's not like Fallout wasn't linear
It wasn't, you had little to no idea what you're supposed to do besides "find water chip".

There was too much of a reliance on shit from 1 and 2 which didn't mix well with the wackier tone. I think Bethesdout would work a lot better if they only had a handful of BoS kinda stuff, and focussed more on specific factions of the east. 4 was a step in the right direction, but fell down a staircase with the fact it hardly had any actual roleplaying.

There is no reference in the lore that shows NYC being completely leveled by the way. I googled it a while back and it's actually a fan theory that great legs, like the whole no transistor thing.

It's pretty obvious that nukes in Fallout are more focused on insane amounts of radiation, radiation that while having similar properties to our own radiation, is completely different. Look at the NCR camp that was hit with a dirty radiation bomb, everyone became feral ghouls a d the whole place is an irradiated zone. That's a dirty bomb, imagine that on a larger scale, with hundreds of them hitting DC. That's the kind of nuke we're dealing with in Fallout, less explosive (still very explosive tho) a d more focused on radiation.

he's a very intelligent gaymer

Attached: 1553190779504.jpg (320x320, 19K)

seething

And yet the most populated state of the union has managed to not only build farms, but an actual functioning civilization. I'm sorry but the whole issue about "you can/cannot build farms here because X" is irrelevant in the bigger picture.

They should have not been as fucked. They should have had clean water. It's not a prequel/equal to Fallout 1. It's a sequel. Regardless of it being DC or not, the level of "apocalypse-ness" should not have been as large as presented.

Cities are made for millions. Look up how much the population suffered after the nuclear blasts. There's plenty to go around. Obviously humanity hasn't espanded exponentially yet

YOU STUPID NIGGER IF THEY RAID THE SAME SHITTY PLACE FOR 200 YEARS THEY WILL RUN OUT OF FOOD IN THREE MONTHS TOP.
That shit is the baseline problem, plus cities like Megaton and Rivet city dont produce anything of value outside scavenging a few materials worth something. Hell even fucking FO3 dlc fixed the problem by saing the Pitt trades metal for food and slave and Point Lookout got punga fruit and other shit.
Capital Wasteland taking place in 200 fucking years after the bombs is plain dumb

NCR wasn't founded until over 100 years after the bombs dropped, in 2186.

Also in real life, California is one of the beat places to grow crops. How many crops are grown on the east coast?

Also, Rivet City, the best city in DC, was founded in 2239, where as the game takes place in 2277. So you're telling me, that in 38 years, the capital wasteland should be this thriving civilization? Because it took a lot longer than that for the NCR to grow, and they had help from the Vault Dweller.

If the DLC fixed the issue then why are you seething over it still?

I'm saying in 200 years it should be at least viable and not a shithole, and if Rivet City is all that can be shown, then fuck me.
Also
>You can't apply real world nuclear knowledge to Fallout.
This is you. This was literally you 36 minutes ago. And this is you now.
>Also in real life, California is one of the beat places to grow crops.
Can you actually stop doing what you are doing?

There is a complete difference in debating how nukes work in fallout vs saying that California is more fertile than the east coast, you smooth brain

Because people still think cities in base Fo3 can exist 200 years after the bombs. Even Bethesda realised they fuck up but "fans" didnt

I get over generalizing is your point but these generalizations don't fit 3 even if you wanted it to

What's more likely to be nuked into oblivion? The Capitol of America, or fucking Pittsburgh?

Plus, it's shown that most of the survivors in the wasteland come from vaults, one of the biggest vaults in DC is sealed off and isolated, meaning there would be less survivors overall in DC

satire.

the game in general is fun, just avoid the main story and be prepared to only use the Hunting rifle, because there's fuck all ammo for anything else.

>Said that still better than Oblivion.
No

I mean if you want to go there the City itself wouldn't even be in ruins, pal. The entire fucking city would be completely flattened, and there wouldn't be any trace of it's existence left after the war, other than documentation of it from outside the city.

Additionally, Vault 87 was hit directly with a nuke, killing everyone.

So that's two vaults worth of survivors that you lose in DC. Comparing that to the NCR, which was founded by vault survivors and it makes perfect sense for DC to be sparsely populated and struggling.

See:

By that logic, then nothing should be left of anything

This. The Pitt is the most "Fallout" part of the game. And the heavy industrial elements make it feel like something out of the 90s as well.

Blame NV

And on top of that, MGS attempts to explore those political themes, and to do so with some intellectual honesty. They weren't thrown into the game haphazardly because due to trend-chasing or mob pressure.

Ew opinion

pleb

>on PS3

How did you make it through the 5 minute load times and sub 20 fps

2 > NV > 4 > 3 > 1 = Tactics >>>> BoS

Played every game in release order last year. Haven't played 76 but I like the lore I've read on it, the Lovecraftian stuff, the cryptids, etc are neat.

>I am still of the opinion no one at Bethesda played Fallout
I genuinely wonder how much they played any of the previous games at all. Every reoccurring element is just recycled with no thought put behind them, and for no other reason to fill out a checklist of what they considered to be the iconic elements from the series.

>Created in 1996 by Feargus Urquhart, the studio was named Black Isle after Urquhart's homeland. The studio, although credited for the creation of Fallout was, in fact, not responsible for the game. Rather a key portion of the original studio came from the team that made Fallout. When developing Fallout 2, the studio's first official game, several employees left Interplay to form Troika Games

>I am still of the opinion no one at Bethesda played Fallout 2
Kind of suspect when Fallout 3's plot is a shitty retread of 2.

Bethesda is great at writing lore. NV and 2 are good games but dries up the well quickly.

>Same studio always means same exact people
>sweety

Attached: 1563071086503.png (500x610, 270K)

>It's like a JJ Abrams soft reboot in that it focuses on the "feeling" of Fallout rather than the actual elements that made it great
This is actually a perfect analogy for why F3 sucks cocks

And they did their due diligence while Bethesda did not. What's your point?

JJ fits more for NV and 2 though since it's going to be endless nothing that route. 76 while being a bad game still makes the lore deeper

Here in the coastal plain of Georgia, we can grow any food crop that California can, with the exception of vast orange orchards, but lemons and limes just fine.

No they didn't they changed it for the worse. It's a complete switch in themes

I can't believe someone has this correct of an opinion.
Fallout 76 is at least one > above NV.

Yeah, that's all the FO3 side quests, huh?

for what i did play i did actually like the sounds more (or at least noticed) in 3 than NV

It was an evolution of the series that remained thematically consistent with the original. FO3 was a shallow rehash of all the ideas from 1 and 2.

Fun fact, Fallout 3 was originally envisioned to be only 20-50 years after the war, but was pushed farther up the timeline when they started actually making the story.

>Pop culture references every 10 minutes, 5 by endgame
>Limited build viability for final boss
Shiggy diggy

Not that Bethesda really did better, but Fallout hasn't been consistent literally ever.

>Being this wrong.

pretend it's 20 years problem solved

In a setting like DC (with the Pentagon and all) they could have had literally a group of randos who set up shop there and figured out how to use Power Armor by studying the terminals.

Boom. Power Armor group quota filled and you didn't need to jump through hoops to drag the brotherhood from the west coast all the way to DC. You can also make the group entirely your own because they're new. They can have different ideals/goals.

No not thematically. Just aesthetically. Fo3 was deep just not politically. Bethesda does amazing lore but it's not immediately noticeable I guess when people are looking at multiple factions fighting as better world building. I get that it's immediately more gratifying though but it will feel the same quick that way

>the map

Are you fucking shitting me? The captial city was a bullshit ant's nest of subway sections connecting the ground sections. It made navigating to objectives take 4 times longer than it should have. The Rivet City ship was cancerously obtuse as well, with many quest markers being on one of 3 floors and your compass never told you which one, so you often ended up underneath where you should be with no idea where your objective was.

>Bethesda does amazing lore
No they fucking don't, they add whatever cool shit they can come up with previous lore be damned, every single game they release they retcon shit out of the wazoo.

okay, ill humor you

how was f3 deep?

Exactly, the whole thing is retarded. The Capital Wasteland should be doing a lot better in 200 years. And if not, because they just got nuked "harder," then DC should be one fucking crater.

Best way to play the game is to head straight to the Pitt. Dump ALL your gear before starting it, because getting your gear back halfway through the DLC ruins the balancing.

Just the location. Fallout 4 is otherwise superior because of gameplay improvements and equally shit story and choices.

There shouldn't even be people there, humans are a fucking nomadic species by nature, they don't stick around if the ground is shit and there are no animals to eat.

>people complain about lack of settlements in Fallout 3
>focus on settlement building so players can make the wasteland in their imagin[ation]
meanwhile what actually happened
>people complain about the world in Fallout 3 being disconnected and lazily-designed
>give up immediately, make players responsible for it instead

To be fair its not like the original games were safe from this even with the short timeframe. Let's not forget that even back then a lot of the details on Ghouls were flipflopping back and forth.

>Fo3 was deep just not politically
No it wasn't. Any moral choices you had were between being a paragon of virtue and justice or being a baby-strangling maniac.
>Bethesda does amazing lore
Not with Fallout. They're constantly raping Fallout's lore, and their response is usually along the lines of "deal with it." Admittedly, TES has some interesting lore, but little of that actually surfaces in the games, at least since Oblivion.
Here's what Bethesda is good at, small self-contained stories. Short side quests, journal entries, some of these can be good. And on occasion, you'll find some fun environmental storytelling. But just don't expect them to deliver compelling, overarching narratives.

Everyone knows the main quest and I'm not talking about that. But the side quests were heavily far different from each other

>ten penny tower
>oasis with meeting a familiar face as well
>that radio hero whose sidekick you find dead
>fake vampires
>cannibal family
>that girl in Megaton

Anyone can simply make multiple factions fight against each other like NV does. Fo3 was deep with variety of quests. Overall it makes for a more interesting world

just.. need to jump over this car.. and invisible wall

This. FO4 is less of an RPG in terms of pure mechanics and choice, but FO3 gives such awful options, that they may as well just drop the pretense. Combined with vastly improved gunplay, more involved crafting, and the settlement system, FO4 is unironically a fine "turn your brain off" game.

All of them except for tempenny tower were linear with completely black and white choices and no depth to their writing, most of them don't even feel like you are playing the same fucking game with how disconnected from everything else they feel.
>Anyone can simply make multiple factions fight against each other like NV does
If that is so, what does that make Bethesda, considering how they even fuck that up royally?

Skyrim added a lot of good lore. Even ESO. Oblivion was the worst for sure though.

cardinal directions didn't even match up sometimes, map markers fucked out all the time, everything was green/grey without mods. don't get me wrong i loved the first two times i played it on xbox and the third playthrough i [never finished] on pc with a fuckton of mods, but new vegas is just the better game in every way. i would rather play fallout 3 than 4, tho. it looks like bethesda took the retardation up a notch even more than skyrim.
it's baby's first moral dilemma. it's really not that deep except when carol cries over gob dying in the blast, that's about it.

Fallout 3 was good for me because it really gave me a sense of doom and gloom. The design of the capital wastelands is so atmospherically dreary and unpleasant to be in, like hope itself is literally dead and the world is just taking its sweet time to catch on. Made me more immersed as a whole. Practically named my bolt action and obsessed over keeping it repaired because it genuinely felt like if It wasn't in working condition at any point, I'd be seriously fucked.

In comparison, Fallout NV was also good but it felt much more adventure-like than survival-like, even on the mode where you literally have to survive. The Mojave itself doesn't have the same "The Road" vibe that 3 has, and so I never really got that feeling of danger or dread. If anything this actually made sense, since the courier is a long-lived veteran of the wastelands compared to the vault dweller who is effectively forced out against their will.

Bethesda needs to let Larian or InXile remake Fallout 3, rewriting the story, reworking the game mechanics, and making it isometric.

Attached: prXZji2[1].png (640x480, 571K)

Fo4 did OK with multiple factions but overall I get your point. Bethesda gives a good variety of choices like killing whatshisface in oasis. Siding with ten penny tower through Megatron and/or with gouls entering. You can hurt the girl in Megatron to never do the survival guide. It's not as varied in the main quest compared to NV and that's about it. But the world is still better to explore in 3

Tobe fair they were saddled with exiting lore with Fallout.
It was a mess when they bought it and unfucking it is a nightmare.

Bro the road is truly a great movie too.

>Fo4 did OK with multiple factions but overall I get your point.
From what parallel universe do you come from?
All of Fo4's factions sucked major dick and were written like shit, the institute acted like evil scientists for the lulz, the railroad were annoying sjws who didn't accept any kind of middleground, the BoS was turned into the Imperium of man despite them being the white knights of the wasteland on the last installmente and the minutemen were so underdeveloped and pointless it isn't funny.
>But the world is still better to explore in 3
I never got this, for all the people memeing about NV just being empty deserts at least when you reached a marked location there was a guarantee there was something interesting going on, in Fo3 there was absolutely nothing but empty deserts and ruined cities, whenever you reached a location there was a guarantee it was some shitty dungeon or a godawful settlement.

>turn your brain off
good point. i don't want that in a fallout game, tho.
the only reason i haven't turned my brain off for my current run of skyrim is that i'm doing a creative writing project where i first-person journal events that happen while i play. it's more fun than playing the game and i have a ton of mods.
what also kills the game is that i have mods that fuck with combat mechanics and now somehow i'd rather be attacked by a dragon than a pack of wolves because they're all retardedly strong. common enemies have also turned into retarded murderous sponges and i'm on the easiest difficulty to try and mitigate that. stops being fun when you get one shot-ed by a druagr that takes 8 lighting bolts to kill and i'm a no armor spellsword who's legendary sword is a toothpick to these assholes. bandits/humans are ok i guess.
maybe i should stop bitching and play around with in the mcm for difficulty settings. haven't played in months tho...

>Shit world map
>corridor dungeons
>muh genociding the entire capital wasteland because of muh radiations
>Forced endng with minor changes
It fills all the checkmarks.

I don't like defending Fo4 to be honest. You're right that it was written horribly.

But NV made the whole world feel contrived with its exploration. They didn't know how to let the world breath. Fo3 let the player scavenge while still letting the quests crazy feel like you discovered it before anyone else did.

This. Lore was already quite a conundrum when you tossed Tactics and BoS onto the flame. In terms of a wholesale company and genre change it could have honestly gone worse. And these days they're actually pulling things from the Bible to put in newer games.

>Cherry picking

>What's salvageable here?
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
Fallout 3fags have been seething for over a decade now

Attached: file.png (1324x942, 535K)

Fallout 3 is not a fallout game
youtube.com/watch?v=amtsN-NRqwM

Let's not forgot how many of those unmarked quests are the simplest shit, or even some of the named ones. Hell the ones up at Mojave Outpost are literally just kill some ants, and run to Nipton and back.

Even without those New Vegas has more.

I really enjoyed 3. Trekking through the wasteland felt fucking terrifying, especially with a lighting mod and realistic nights. It was a wierd juxtaposition, you have a vault dweller who's forced into this hellscape with no realistic chance of survival, but at the same time your survival was pretty key in making the wasteland a better place.

Overall it definitely suffered from being the first fallout in this new genre, and some of the writing could have been better, but it's pretty good imo.

My issue with New Vegas is that the player had too much control over the narrative. 3 had too little, NV had too much.

These factions have been at war for at least 5 years, and yet you just show up and decide everything.

The game world was bigger, but it felt very empty. Very few times in New Vegas did I feel like I had discovered something new and exciting. The map also has the entire western part of it unassessable and empty, with the furthest settlement being Jacobstown.

It's pretty obvious that Obsidian had a time constraint and instead of focusing on an interesting wasteland to explore, they focused on writing and quests, where as bethesda focused on creating a cool gameworld.

I feel like both games have their strengths and weaknesses, I prefer New Vegas but 3 is still pretty good.

Even the Bible is full of contradictions and retcons.

People think Interplay had perfect lore but that's completely false. If Van Buren was released it would have only gotten worse.

Nothing at all, just like fallout nv and 4

Attached: 1560104546061.jpg (2000x2694, 684K)

>people praise NV for it not being linear
>you pretty much have to go one direction because of the death claws

>>you pretty much have to go one direction because of the death claws
Except you're objectively wrong.
It is entirely possible to get to Vegas via the northern route.
Invest in sneak. Avoid the highway. Find alternative mountain passes that don't have cazadors or claws.

It's possible. You're just not trying hard enough.

A game being (or at least appearing) less open in the beginning and then opening up over time is a good thing.

Legit most things. Great game

It let NV be made.
That's literally it.

Attached: what in.jpg (1000x1126, 243K)

There's plenty of side quests, not as much as NV but still quite a lot and all of them ourr interesting and quality. The majority of NV's quests were just bullshit. "Walk to this town for me" "Tell this person this one thing" The many that were great of course were excellent, but don't act like every quest in NV was a marvel of side-quest roleplay design

He's not wrong. How would he know the mechanics and map on his first playthrough? It's clearly not possible to try that until multiple playthroughs and that's really not a fun way to play.

Same. Lot of things Sawyer and Avellone couldnt fully agree on. It even bleeds into NV with Avellone's dogshit thing about wanting all of civilization to end because TUNNELLERS LOL.

There's a stealth boy in the goodsprings school.
You don't need a billion iq to realize that you can use that to get past the deathclaws. Plus Sunny literally gives you tools to get it.

Honestly a better route is to cut through that road by the gas station you find Ringo at. Just bring along a 9mm SMG to utterly rek any Cazadores that happen to notice you and you get dumped right out near Red Rock Canyon.

>since it's going to be endless nothing that route

What does this even mean?