I have a different theory, it's all about timing.

People love Fallout 3, despite it's shortcomings.
People are in love with New Vegas, and can't see it's shortcomings.

Oh, and people like you are dirty bigamists and will end up in jail for it! :wink_smile:

I can see the shortcomings, and could make a list if you'd like:

1. Initial launch was laden with bugs, though since the first patch I've encountered none.
2. Lack of random encounters is a huge blow, and should be fixed without having to shell out any money for DLC.
3. No dice games in the casinos. How in the hell did that happen? Ridiculous.
4. Radio New Vegas feels half finished to me. Luckily I have Conelrad, but I don't know how the console players will cope.
5. Casino jackpot limits are ridiculously low, and kill immersion a bit.
6. Regarding one group in the late game, there are only two options to spare them... that's ridiculous, and there should have been speech checks to get your way out of doing that.

Just off the top of my head.

Now even jokingly meant remarks are being argued with? This has to stop I tell you !

This is the internets, and internets be srrs bssns.

I disagree my good sir. Shall we have an arguement?

This is not to say any argument's against Fallout 3's writing isn't valid, but remember that some nostalgia is likely involved in most of the classic fans' love for Fallout 1, 2, and the other Fallout games before Fallout 3's time-if they liked those at all. By no means is it the only factor, but it certainly has a bit of influence. I'm guessing you've had SOME experience where you miss something or love something that much more because of memories involving it? I, for example, moved from my birth state when I was fairly young-about fifth grade. Even now I am sort of reminiscent about it, I probably slightly idealize it mentally-and I recognize the fact it's unreasonable, but I'm a bit nostalgic...reason doesn't have anything to do with it. Though, FO1 and FO2, from what I know and have heard, IS a very good game. And writing wise (again, from what I know and hear) is far better than FO3's. There's plenty of reason to complain about the degraded status in that regard.

But I noticed how you discussed graphics, there-and you really shouldn't suggest FO1 or FO2 is bad/worse for its graphics. Graphics are not the most important thing in the world. Now, environment and detail put into it is important-and thus to an extent so are graphics(plus, I'm pretty sure everyone would agree it's more fun to look at pretty/cool things than total eyesores). The Bioshock series would be the best example I can think of, at this moment, as it makes use of its concepts and puts crap loads of details into every situation you're in visually. However, it is NOT the MOST important thing to a game-gameplay mechanics, writing, etc. etc. play a huge part too. Which is another reason why complaining about a game's poor writing is entirely fair and valid. (And note, I'm a FO3 fan myself, so I don't say this out of spite or hate)

I'm aware you agreed to some extent with people who replied later into this thread, but I wanted to put my own two cents in response to the beginning post.



While they did explain to an extent how they got there(ignoring the Enclave), I do agree with you-at least partially. There's some definite contradictions to the canon of the whole Fallout universe in general, as well as hideously obnoxious plot conveniences following the trope of http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FridgeLogic or worse-where it's just blatantly obvious from the moment it occurs.

And as you said, it lacks depth-even though they typically explain things, it's not in the detail that would rank the writing as good or amazing.

I actually didn't totally hate the writing-it's better than some other games of seen, for sure. And it is VASTLY better than Oblivion-which gave you no real options, was completely black and white in all ways in everything I saw, and would do that annoying thing where no matter what you said you'd get the same frickin' result. If, on writing, I can credit Bethesda for nothing else, I can give it props for improving greatly from its previous game.



I completely agree that the concept was awesome-having a family made a more firm identity to the character and some sort of previous involvement in the world. You weren't some random character coming form no where in particular, you have a background and relationships. And I agree that, overall, the masses look toward pretty graphics and special effects more than decent writing. There's a lot of trash in the media that really doesn't own any particular quality of its own-but still gets a lot of popularity. On the matter of the whole start of the game and family situation, I personally think they could have made use of that more or gone into detail more with it. It might have made characters more likable and developed, which is a big deal-in my opinion.

Based on everything we know about the Brotherhood how is the trek to D.C. not stupid? It is completely illogical for the Brotherhood, a largely isolationist faction of limited resources that has consistently demonstrated caution in dealing with the outside world and unknown situations to opt to dispatch an expedition across a vast unexplored continent to a thoroughly unexplored location in pursuit of technology that may or may not be there. How do they know the entirety of D.C. hadn't been utterly leveled? How do they know a faction like the N.C.R. or the Enclave hadn't sprung up on the east coast? Even if there was valuable tech at some point how do they know it hasn't been lost to looters and simple wear and tear over two hundred years? Even if they manage to retrieve the valuable tech that may or may not be there how are they planning to get it home? Were they not planning to get it home? Why was the expedition sent then if it can in no way benefit the West Coast? If they run into serious opposition how are they planning on getting reinforcements or supplies?

The expedition to D.C. is a completely idiotic concept that is thoroughly out of character for the Brotherhood of Steel.



Lyon's Brotherhood taking on the role of protecting the human inhabitants is not necessarily stupid nor have I ever claimed it is. As you point out he's cut off from home and in need of reinforcements and supplies. Protection in exchange for recruits and support is a very sensible idea. Regrettably that is not how Lyon's shift is presented but I don't even have a major issue with his sudden moral shift. Isolated soldiers going rogue is how the Brotherhood was founded and it's not like everyone followed him. My point is, however, that Lyon's Brotherhood bears little resemblance to the actual Brotherhood of Steel so explaining away how they managed to end up on the other side of the continent is doubly stupid because it's unnecessary. A new faction from the East Coast could've filled the role just as well and then Bethesda wouldn't have had to come up with such a ridiculous explanation for the Brotherhood's presence in D.C.

The opening of Fallout 3 is still my favorite opening in any video game. It has more depth than Fallout 1 where you are just thrown outside, and even when you return, there's no one that really knows you. In Fallout 3, you literally live your own backstory. You have friends, family, and enemies. Then suddenly every thing you know is yanked out from under your feet, and you have to find your own way. I hear a lot of people complain about "having to find daddy", but were I in that situation, that's exactly what I would be doing. He's the only link to the world I knew. Why did he leave the vault that, as far as I knew, no one could enter and no one could leave. As the story unfolds, you find you've been lied to. You weren't born in the vault. What more haven't I been told?

My friend even reasoned that he was trying to find his dad simply to kill him after he abandoned him. He scares me sometimes... Needless to say, he was very disappointed when he finally found his dad, and couldn't kill him.

Right, exactly. While I said earlier I would have liked perhaps some more depth to it, it was still a really cool concept. It was a break from that idea of a character being absent of a real background and sort of jumping randomly into a story, and having no ties to the world once in that story. Even New Vegas has some sort of background-though one doesn't get to live it beforehand or have any relationships as one starts out and such. It was nice to see there was a genuine bully, best friend, father, etc. etc. in the character's life. Which gave one reason to find the vault as at least remotely familiar later on in the game, as well as one's dad.

And yeah, good thing New Vegas doesn't have that essential character thing going on, eh? You can kill whoever you want. ;]
Though I had no intention of killing the father in Fallout 3(and I didn't hear of anyone else intending to do so until now, either), personally. My brother, however, had wanted to kill Dr. Li.

To me, it is completely illogical to believe that the Brotherhood did nothing in the 116 years between Fallout 1 and Fallout 3. Leadership changes. Ideas change. At some point they have to realize sitting in their hole gains them nothing. Holding on to what they have can only get them so far. They have to explore, they have to expand, or they die out. How many families actually started the Brotherhood? How many generations before the inbreeding catches up to them? Pure isolationism is a protracted death sentence.

You are right though. They don't know the status of the D.C. area, or really any of the land in between. That's why they send out scouting expeditions, to learn. Knowledge is power. Once they know the status of the areas, they can make plans what to do about them.

However, this action still follows the Brotherhood's isolationism. They don't just spread out from Broken Hills, taking everyone under their wing and set up a government. They send scouts and expeditions, set up watch posts and still mostly keep to themselves. Even Lyons set up a base they worked out of that wasn't exactly open to the general public.

If they just stayed in their hole, by the time of Fallout 3, they'd be a faction of Slags in power armor.

When it comes down to it though, this whole argument is irrelevant. We're arguing what the logical course of action a faction would take, when the faction itself is completely illogical. Why would a group of military deserters and scientists evolve into a quasi-knightly order in just 84 years? The Vaults managed to maintain a more or less pre-war society. Why don't the descendants of former US military want to help the struggling population? Mothers and fathers would have passed on the values to their children that made them join, then desert, the military in the first place. They are the way they are because it's cool. And cool they are, otherwise none of us would be arguing so vehemently about them.

Agreed. Good thing I'm not saying that.



Yes they could certainly explore and expand. Once again I'm not saying they can't. Look at the Brotherhood in New Vegas. It's believable and in keeping with what we know of the Brotherhood that there would be Brotherhood forces in Nevada. It is not believable that the Brotherhood would send an expedition to Washington D.C. for all the reasons I have laid out again and again.



What kind of scouting expedition includes children? Furthermore rather than this being a general recon mission they already had a plan. One of the clearly defined goals of the expedition was to scour the ruins of Washington D.C. for lost tech. That is a ridiculous mission and completely at odds with everything we know about the Brotherhood.



You keep coming back to this strawman. Arguing against the plausibility of a Brotherhood expedition to D.C. is not the same as saying the Brotherhood would never budge from Lost Hills.



No this just doesn't work like you want it to. The entire setting of Fallout is completely illogical. Would you then have no problem with unicorns appearing in Fallout 4 since hey, it's no more illogical than radscorpions or geckos or deathclaws? Of course not because it'd thoroughly stupid and not in keeping with the setting. The base realism of the setting isn't important for a game like Fallout. A sense of realism and rationality within the setting, such as expecting characters and factions to act logically and in line with their motivations, is.

hate is just a more honest expression of love. hate means "love you so bad it hurts me".

nobody here dispises, loathes or is disgusted by Beth.

but lots of us sincerely hate Beth.

I am.

Then you need to get a sense of proportion.

I don't hate Beth, they seem to (very slowly) improve upon past mistakes with each game. That's a good trait for a company. Let's hope they fire whoever wrote the stuff in Fallout 3 and hire someone who will do a good job.