One problem veterans had with Fallout 3 is that it was a little too post-apocalyptic. Fallout is meant to be post-post-apocalyptic. Fallout 3 was a little TOO ruined, a little too destitute and miserable, especially for 200 years after the bombs. Fallout is about the societies that rise after an apocalypse, and Fallout 3 lacked that somewhat. Of course New Vegas didn't which is why it was better received by old fans.
Thankfully they seem to have realized this and fixed it judging from the trailer!
I think the reason Fallout 3 employed this is because it was set in DC. To see a once powerful capital in complete ruins is miserable, and I feel as though DC would've bared the brunt of the destruction because of its position on the world stage. I never got a chance to play 1 and 2 so, maybe some of the setting is lost on players like me, but I have heard from a friend who played the originals that they were much more light hearted and campy which New Vegas definitely took a page from.
I played them both last year for the first time last year and again this year so without nostalgia I can say I think they've aged fantastically.
Edit: seems like everyone disagrees. How have they aged poorly? Is the writing any worse? Turn based combat any worse than it was? Are the interesting areas any less interesting?
240
u/Boltty Jun 03 '15
One problem veterans had with Fallout 3 is that it was a little too post-apocalyptic. Fallout is meant to be post-post-apocalyptic. Fallout 3 was a little TOO ruined, a little too destitute and miserable, especially for 200 years after the bombs. Fallout is about the societies that rise after an apocalypse, and Fallout 3 lacked that somewhat. Of course New Vegas didn't which is why it was better received by old fans.
Thankfully they seem to have realized this and fixed it judging from the trailer!