I would argue that Fallout 3 is a good game, but it is not a good Fallout game. It is fun to play, and has all the other hallmarks of a good Bethesda game, but the vibe is wrong. It feels like something ripping off Fallout (because, it kinda is?) and misses the beats of the originals. It’s more than likely just cultural differences between the developers. Black Isle was Californian, Bethesda is somewhere on the East coast.
That said, the Oblivion remake showed me that just updating the graphics but keeping the original jank was not a good thing. Fallout 3 now would not hold up the same way it did back in 2008.
undrwater@lemmy.world 20 hours ago
FO3 was my first fallout experience, and I loved it. Currently playing 4, and it’s not as engaging. Some elements are cool (building), but the stories seem flat.
Can you expand on the idea that it’s not a good fallout game? What does that mean? What makes a good fallout game.
Thanks!
Kolanaki@pawb.social 18 hours ago
My first one was the first one, and what sets it (and 2) apart from 3 other than literally the entire game (1 and 2 were 2D isometric, dialogue and choice heavy, CRPGs with turn-based tactical combat) was as I said the general vibe.
It didn’t take itself too seriously and the humor was incredibly seated in pop culture references. Bethesda’s brand of humor is more muted and generic, and their writing is incredibly dry sometimes (the best writing they’ve ever seen is in Elder Scrolls 3).
4 has the same kind of silliness as the originals, the visuals also fit a lot better IMO. But the CRPG elements are almost entirely gone at this point, which is why I regard it as a fun shooter and not an RPG.
New Vegas, however, is still the GOAT among the 3D Fallout games. Not only does it have actual RPG elements that I expect from something calling itself an RPG, it has the exact same tone and vibe as the first two games mainly because it had Brian Fargo and one of the other original writers working on it.