No. If you look at other sites that did reviews on both game most people consider FO3 the best in the series even story wise. I don't hate it but it lacks much needed depth and to explain things better. Not to mention it's too black and white/Good vs Evil for me. "BoS good. Enclave bad. Me fight Enclave with BoS. "

Like most people on this forum I was introduced into this series by Fallout 3. I didn't mind (keyword mind not like) Fallout 3's story until I began playing all the other games in the series. After that it was immediately apparent how atrocious Fallout 3's writing was. I was never impressed with the story (really enjoyed some of the side quests though) but rather the world and all the things I could do. It was an endless stream of entertainment and I have never found a game universe as interesting.

Yes and no. The story itself was entertaining to be sure, but it wasn't exactly bar non the greatest writing in video gaming history.

Pretty much this. I was the same.

My first Fallout also was 3 and after that I played New Vegas. And then 1 and 2 but I never got into them and I just didn't see how their storylines were superior to 3/NV... Whatever

You just said that you never got into them. In Fallout 1, You have to get through the rats and exit the cave to experience the story/writing.

Then you will see how superior it is to anything bethesda can hope to write.

Also NV>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>3

New Vegas is more in tune with 1 and 2. The storyline of NV, 1, & 2 are all superior to 3 based on the choice & consequence, gray morality, and multiple faction paths/ways of approaching the quests and general storyline. Fallout 3 is a linear mess of a story full of plot holes and an indoctrination that BOS = good guys. It was almost as if you were playing a Call of Duty game.

Yeah, there were more options how to play, especially towards the end. But I just think 3's story better, longer and just more interesting nevertheless. And the BOS in Fallout 3 ARE good, fact. And yes I know how they were in the first two Fallouts. But whatever, Fallout 1 and 2 seem to be like holy cows in this board, so there's no sense in discussion about this plus this board is about F4.

Gods, New Vegas was too morally gray to be honest. I could never actually feel like a hero, or that there was anything even worth saving in the Mojave. I wish Fallout 3's dynamic was better than good guy/cartoonishly evil, but New Vegas was so damn heavy-handed with the gray morality that it svcked the life out of the story. Forgive me for being the jerk that quotes tvtropes, but it's http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DarknessInducedAudienceApathy all the way. Or at least grayness-induced.

Writing in Fallout 3 is decently good, particularly Tranquility lane and The Pitt. The Pitt is probably the best writing in Fallout 3. You think Werhner is the best option but when you talk to Ashe or whatever his name is (Can't remember his name exactly) and he tells you about the cure it gives you 2nd thoughts as to what the right choice is. I'm hoping for more of that in Fallout 4.

This. I couldn't be made to care about the Mojave but I cared a whole lot about the CW, like things weren't going to get better if I didn't do something about it. This is why a liked F3 story so much more the NV. Your experience may vary.

Don't know about you, but with me being on pc I had mods that added all kinds of hellspawn to the underground. Ghoul variants in particular. I also cranked up the amount that would spawn at once because I hate myself. Plus there was an option where if all of their limbs were attached, ghouls had a % chance to come back to life.

I still have nightmares.

Unofficial patches made it (more) stable, so running outside with a hoard of ghouls behind me only to get caught in the middle of a super mutant vs brotherhood firefight happened a number of times.

I can understand why the metro bugged people, vanilla or otherwise. But for me, because I never knew what flavor of hell I was going to run into down there, and how I had to be the one doing the navigating despite all that, it was just so much bloody fun.

No, I agree with you. What we've been shown (plus the speculation) sort of reminds me of the racially charged storyline in Bioshock Infinite with a Bioware twist of it being about andriods instead of race. It seems like it would be fun watching it all play out, but I would have a hard time getting emotionally invested in any storyline about "persecuted andriods". They would have to do a lot to make is so I don't feel silly siding with a bunch of robots.

Anyway, I wouldn't have a problem with the storyline as long as it's not so rigid that it starts to interfere with the typical freedom that you have in a Bethesda Game Studios game.

Face Off 2

I agree. The only reason I even got attached to ED-E was because he was useful and added +10 to the Courier's style. I can't imagine myself giving two craps about a bunch of glorified toasters.

I too really liked them. Only thing missing was a pump-action shotgun to kill all the zombies there

Come on he had 7 years or so to read. Come on, at least give him some rope. The only reason why F3 story was so bad(Except the main plot of Project Purity and James, that wasn't so bad), because it was the first Fallout game they made and also they just chucked all the things that sold Fallout 1 and 2 into one game then realised they SCREWED UP! Now that don't have that, but they do have a much bigger fan base to please.

Agree and strongly disagree.

New Vegas got me depressed the first time I played it and almost got shelved because I found the burden of all the moral responsibility to cumbersome for me to even move forward and make decisions. After giving it another shot though, fell in love with it.

The conflicts seen in New Vegas are all based on real world conflicts, either historical ones or ones we can see now in this day and age. It's realistic. As such, I appreciate the game immensely for actually giving me conflicts and questions I could expect to encounter in the real world. This isn't a game that holds your hand, lets you escape reality and dream about a world where you can be Superman and save everyone just by farting glitter, this is a game that knows you've gotta turn it off and face the world sometime.

As such, I don't think there's such a thing as "too morally grey." The only way I think it's possible to be too morally grey is if the conflicts are legit just tacked on for flavor, say for example if New Vegas had a faction choice that was almost flawlessly perfect, but the faction leader demanded you mercilessly wipe out the Kings and Followers of the Apocalypse because a Follower slept with his now deceased wife. That would be a case where he opposes them not fundamentally and ideologically, but rather it'd be clear the devs said "crap, he's too morally good. Quick, invent some excuse as to why he has a personal grudge against some of the nicer factions!"

I guess it's ok for FO1 and 2 to have ridiculous moments, but little kids living together with established (though hilarious) means is a hallmark of bad writing.

Let's not forget we're playing a game with colonies of death claws in the lore, but of course that is ignored by FO's gallant knights. Fallout has had ridiculous stories in it long before FO3, a small few on this forum just seem to love reminding everyone that they are the best games in the series (except, not quite. They don't hold up well. At all, and the stories aren't exactly stellar.)

After Dragon Age Inquisition I would prefer Bioware writers stay as far away as possible from Fallout.

As I've pointed out, I think the clear difference is that the other Fallouts all knew when they crossed the line. They were conciously aware of how ridiculous some of them were, and sure enough if we look at where we left off with New Vegas, there's almost no ridiculous premises left in place because they saw those were unpopular; the only exception is OWB, which embraces it's absurdity for comedic effect.

Anything ridiculous Bethesda has produced, they've shown little to no understanding for how ridiculous it is or why it's not exactly a fit. They just keep producing more of the ridiculous content. Prime example: the USS Constitution has rocket engines on it in the trailer. Why? It serves no purpose as the entire boat itself looks to be glorified decoration for a bank, and yet somewhere along the way someone said "yknow we really should attach rocket engines to that boat for no apparent reason." How often Bethesda does something ridiculous is outrageously common, and unfortunately their mindset seems to be "hurddurrr rocket engines on a national landmark r kewl hurrrr let's do it" rather than following any pattern of coherent sense or logical thinking. When Fallout 5 takes place in New York and the Statue of Liberty is a giant transformer robot like Liberty Prime, I won't even be surprised, though that still won't mean that anything about that plot hook makes a lick of sense.

Oh, on regards to F3 writing and plot - I actually enjoyed it. I don't see how it was so much worse than F1 or 2 when both of those had some rather silly aspects.

My major gripe with F3 was the portrayal of Lyon's BoS and the ridiculous robot Liberty Prime
Aside from that I thought F3 had some quality writing

Have you got any insight on to as why the ship has rockets on it?

Clearly you must have played the game to know such things. It must be 'hurr durr rockets are cool' because it's a Bethesda fallout game.

And really? That's the argument we're going to make? The other games knew it was ridiculous because I say it, but Bethesda did this (slightly) less ridiculous thing, and even explained it with fallout logic, but it's totally serious, and we are to take this complexly as it is and not laugh. Even though this kid keeps saying unholy things to me.

And you think the old fallouts wouldn't have had lady liberty as the wife of liberty prime?
Keep in mind these are the same games with mutant computers being a danger to the world.

I didn't have a problem with the writing in Fallout 3, until it forced my character to be the good guy making the ultimate sacrifice for my dear old dad and of course the Super Mutant or Ghoul couldn't just nip in and imput a number for me......just dumb all around, I did't have a problem with the game ending but the sacrifice shouldn't have been forced on my at best morally grey character who stumbled across his dad and wouldn't have shot the SOB if he had been given the option.

No.

Playing through the game again, I actually don't see any nagging faults with the writing. With Skyrim's writing, nagging faults are pretty obvious.