Bethesda Softworks - Fallout Style Countdown Timer

Fallout 4 was better than Fallout 3. Fallout 76 - as a solo experience - was inferior but, then again, it wasn't a solo game.

That said, I was never a particularly big fan of Fallout - the setting. I don't like the post-apoc atmosphere that much. Well, I don't like it at all.

So, I'm not terribly excited for yet another one.
 
Fallout 4 was better than Fallout 3.
Fallout 4 sucks compared to Fallout 3 by any reasonable measure, and not just in the opinion of classic RPG grognards either: Metacritic scores are 91% for FO3 and 84% for FO4.

Given the trajectory of Bethesda, it's also pretty damn safe to assume that whatever this countdown is leading to will also suck.
 
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
3,469
Fallout 4 is miles ahead of FO3. Couldn't even finish FO3. FO76 private servers seems the most likely to me. If they did remaster FO3 I might try to finish it this time.
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
3,971
Location
NH
Fallout 4 sucks compared to Fallout 3 by any reasonable measure, and not just in the opinion of classic RPG grognards either: Metacritic scores are 91% for FO3 and 84% for FO4.

Yeah, because we all know Metacritic is the gold standard when it comes to measuring quality. ;)

FO3 having a 91% rating is laughable, and FO4 would have had the higher ratings had it been released first. FO4 was objectively better in many ways, but it was scored lower because the games are too similar, and many critics felt the gameplay hadn't evolved enough.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
39,337
Location
Florida, US
About the only things superior in Fallout 4 are gunplay and graphics. But, if you're the type of person who doesn't care about dialog - who thinks four dialog options all leading to the same reaction makes for a great game - then, ya, Fallout 4 is amazing! For a hiking simulator. Certainly not an RPG though.
 
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
5,980
Location
Florida, USA
Nick and Piper vs Cross and Fawkes, no contest. F4 wins by miles. The main quest? Fallout 3 wins imo. I think 3 did quirky better too. For instance the baseball quest versus the fire ants. I found the games to have different strengths. I'm a fan of the idea that Bethesda games don't need a main quest. The game isn't really built for endings so why have them?
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
8,836
Yeah, because we all know Metacritic is the gold standard when it comes to measuring quality. ;)
There is no "gold standard" for measuring quality, but Metacritic is pretty much the best thing we have when it comes to getting the opinion of the mainstream, as it aggregates the opinion of around 50-100 of the bigger publications/reviewers. And since pointing out that even the "mainstream" thinks FO3 is better than FO4 was my point, yes, it makes it extremely well. Feel free to present some stronger evidence to the contrary...but here's the thing, you won't be able to, because there isn't any.
 
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
3,469
There is no "gold standard" for measuring quality, but Metacritic is pretty much the best thing we have when it comes to getting the opinion of the mainstream, as it aggregates the opinion of around 50-100 of the bigger publications/reviewers. And since pointing out that even the "mainstream" thinks FO3 is better than FO4 was my point, yes, it makes it extremely well. Feel free to present some stronger evidence to the contrary…but here's the thing, you won't be able to, because there isn't any.

So mainstream reviewers rating FO 3 slightly higher means it's a better game? I'm not sure what I could possibly do in the face of such overwhelming evidence. :)

Thing is though, trying to directly compare their Metacritic scores and claiming it means something is pure bunk because - A. It's not the same number of reviews aggregated for both games, and - B. It's mostly different people doing the reviews. If it was the same number of reviews and same reviewers, such a comparison might have more merit.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
39,337
Location
Florida, US
Fallout four wasn't fit to carry water for Fallout three. Fallout three I've played through on three occasions, I could never imagine being desperate enough to ever replay Fallout four.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
18,989
Location
Holly Hill, FL.
There is no "gold standard" for measuring quality, but Metacritic is pretty much the best thing we have when it comes to getting the opinion of the mainstream, as it aggregates the opinion of around 50-100 of the bigger publications/reviewers. And since pointing out that even the "mainstream" thinks FO3 is better than FO4 was my point, yes, it makes it extremely well. Feel free to present some stronger evidence to the contrary…but here's the thing, you won't be able to, because there isn't any.

I personally prefer OpenCritic. Though it hasn't been around for that long and, as such, you won't find Fallout 3 on there.

Also, I'm probably the only person who enjoyed Fallout 3 the most. Although I can acknowledge that F:NV is a much better overall product, and F4 is vastly superior in terms of combat, F3 stuck with me longer. I think it has to do with the world and soundtrack, both of which are superb. Say what you will about F76, but Bethesda was always great at world building and atmosphere (to me, anyway), and I think they went above and beyond with F3.

I'm not keen on the story or the characters of F3 much, but a few of them were interesting. I think F:NV had a much more engaging story and many more unique characters.

I'm curious about the countdown timer. I'd be excited for a F3 remaster, but I don't think it really warrants a countdown, and a deluxe/collectors edition would seem odd for a remaster. And that doesn't even include the full $60 price tag which, again, seems unlikely for a remaster.

Of course, it may not even be Fallout related.
 
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
481
Location
California, USA
Back
Top Bottom