One user on NMA that has really caught my eye is a user named Norzan. Most NMA members have somewhat chilled out over the years, still hating Bethesda but more of in a grumpy old man "in my day" kind of way. Norzan on the other hand is essentially a 2008-2009 NMA user" in the modern day. Every other post of his is something anti-Bethesda it seems and he seems actively hostile to the idea of moving on from it.
I think NMA and a lot of the fandom back in the day really set up this idea that modern fallouts are being attacked. To be honest I think most fans of FO3, NV, 4, and 76 are all stuck in 2008 where they think everyone hates all the modern fallouts, even if nobody does these days.
Maybe. I see it a lot more with the NV players. To some of them it's not just a difference of opinion. No, you're objectively wrong if you say older games are better, or even just enjoy them more.
Wouldn't say FO3 was "much" worse than the originals, but it wasn't a good game. Idk, the jank is so much worse when it's right in your face. No, I'm not one of those faggots who got in at 3, decided it was cool to hate on it, and then go and praise 1 and 2 while probably not even playing them.
Imagine getting Fo3 after the franchise almost imploded, and deciding your strategy as a fandom is to call it horse shit as much as possible. The fanbase has unanimously decided to turn the franchise into a competition, with NV being the returning champ to beat.
I sincerely enjoyed FO3 more than NV, especially in the first ~6 months of each's launch. I think people just have rose tinted glasses now because FO3 became unplayable due to Microsoft's retardation, and NV is still quite usable on modern hardware.
Maybe I'm the biased one, but FO3 was more enjoyable to me than NV also. To be perfectly honest there isn't much engaging to me about waddling around a flat, empty desert being stuck in dialogue boxes for twenty minutes at a time. NV might be considered the better written of the two, but FO3 is infinitely more engaging.
My bias comes more from how the game was functionally not playable for ages. It works now due to community efforts, but on release and for a long time after the game was a nightmare. A horrible mess of CTDs and softlocks. I'm glad some people figured out what the story was, but I couldn't play long enough for that until I reinstalled it years after launch with all the bugfixes.
FO3 is bad because the gameplay is bad. I mean who the hell thought the shooting was passable enough to put in the final release? And the FO3 landscape may be better in settlements but 99% of the time it's just grey subways. F04 could have been best easily if they didn't get rid of skills and added a set player character.
I mean, NV's gameplay is almost identical to 3's, unless you really think crafting gun mods is the difference between a good game and a bad game. The Mojave is just not as interesting as the Capital Wasteland, both in terms of visuals (CW is grey and subways but has more varied geography + landmarks and the Mojave isn't much more diverse) and actual map traversal (everything levels with you isn't my cup of tea, but Bethesda's chance card ideas made trips more fresh and exciting).
Gotta be honest, even if the whole growing up in the Vault thing is a major drag (seriously, Bethesda struggles with getting people actually playing the game), getting your first bit of true sunlight in your eyes as you crack open that door to reveal the blasted hellscape of what used to be the D.C. area is one hell of an opening to the world of Fallout.
I was more thinking things like more interesting perks and the best combat in the 3d games. Also the gun lineup is much better IMO. There's only so many .32 hunting rifles and sawn off shotguns that you can fire before it gets boring. And the fact that you only have one side in 99% of quests. As silly as the factions of FO4 are they are still better than the brotherhood and a button on a panel to "side" with the enclave.
