what if… racism was bad? but what if… hating racism too much… was also bad? wish roger ebert was here to see this… he’d understand just how Important this game is

…I guess, on that point, it’s always interesting to me what games get put on a pedestal — what, according to Gamers, ‘proves’ that games can be art. Every few years it always seems like something comes out that’s immediately lauded for pushing the medium forward, for being more than just something where you press the buttons to run and jump, for really showing just what gaming can be… and they’re usually all triple-A western franchise titles, exorbitantly priced, and being touted as such by more mainstream publications — the ones that don’t generally cover games that don’t have a marketing budget or pre-existing hype behind them. No judgment towards any of those games, of course, I’ve yet to play any of them, but it seems as if the argument is more as to whether mainstream games can be art — whether or not we can make Roger Ebert a Gamer. There’s so many cool games out there that, to some extent have already proved what this medium is capable of, but to some extent, it's always been a measure of self-validation more than it’s ever been a desire to broaden one’s horizons. It’s kind of like those weird Gaylor Swift conspiracy theorists: why listen to an actual LGBT artist when I can instead pretend my favourite white woman actually stands for something? Why leave my comfort zone when I already have the validation I want?

What personally bugs me is that a lot of what gets pushed forward as 'prestige,' I feel, doesn’t truly take advantage of what the medium truly offers, or, as is often the case, are actively scared of letting you actually play the game. There are so many cool things you can do, so many ways you could use game mechanics or ludonarrative to illustrate or underline a thematic point, but so many of these Elevated games instead feel like they’re going for things that movies can already do, and I feel like that’s leaning in the wrong direction as to what can, honestly, feel profound. Just as an off-the-cuff example, the final choice of Ace Attorney: Justice For All asks whether you, as the defense, plead your client as guilty or innocent. Do you believe in protecting your client, or protecting the innocent? Do you exact (relative) mercy on somebody who’s wronged you? Or do you subject them to the monkey’s paw-esque fate they've more than had coming? Which of those is truly just? It’s not a choice that matters — the scene plays out the same regardless of what you pick — but in this sense the option you choose exposes something of you, the player: what you value, and what you, personally, have taken out of everything that’s just happened. You have to choose — the scene doesn’t move forward until you do — and in that sense, it's something that could only be done within an interactive medium: you are directly made to engage with the text, you are directly made to provide your own interpretation of its thematic content. BioShock Infinite does something similar within its first hour, and the question asked is just as profound: are you racist? Or are you not racist?

…I don’t think it’s really going to be possible to talk about BioShock Infinite without talking about… all that, huh?

sigh

I have to begin this with a disclaimer, I guess: I’m white, I don’t think I’m entirely equipped to be talking about this, but the guy who wrote this is also white so maybe, actually, I’m just as qualified to at least try. This game thinks it's making this grand, profound statement about how racism is bad — and how the ‘good old days’ of the U.S, as is the visual aesthetic of Columbia, was built on the abuse and discrimination of the non-whites and immigrants — yet fails to back that up at every turn. For as loudly as it says it, it doesn’t feel like it has much to actually say, with most of its observations feeling so so, surface level. What does the game define ‘racism’ as, anyway? Is it the mere act of an individual discriminating against another on the basis of their race, or is it the systemic act of providing opportunities and benefits to one group over others? Is this society meant to be based off of the pre-emancipation era of the United States, the ‘separate but equal’ segregation that preceded the civil rights movement, or one of the periods in-between? Is there anything that can be said about how white supremacy movements are still prevalent today? Is there anything worth mentioning in how almost all the enemies during the first half of the game are cops? I wouldn’t know: the game doesn’t seem particularly interested in actually going in-depth on the topic, feeling like it’s merely taking a brave stance of ‘racism was bad’ and expecting that to be enough.

And it’s frustrating because it often feels like the game is on the cusp of saying something actually potent… right before it veers away without fully committing to it. You start the game in a church, it becomes clear that Columbia is very much a fundamentalist state. You could maybe lean into how most fundamentalists will misquote or selectively take from the Bible to justify their bigotry, or maybe even go into how the church was often used to subjugate and control colonized peoples… or you could simply treat this the same way the racism is treated in general: very surface level, religious fundamentalism is bad because religious fundamentalism is bad and because using religious words like 'our prophet' and 'messiah' to surround your bad guy is subversive and creepy. Early on, after rescuing Elizabeth, you’re sent to a beach area, you get to mingle, and you learn that the segregation discriminates against the Irish, as well. You could use this to maybe go into the historical mistreatment of Ireland, maybe show how these fascist systems will keep moving the goalposts until those at the very top of their hierarchy remain… or you could just, like, never really bring it up again. That works too. Later on, you go into a museum, you find out that the justification for this discrimination is that the founder/prophet of Columbia lost his wife because the labor underclass rose up and killed her and this could be so fascinating and a window of the paradox in how fascist systems treat women: both as one of the defacto ‘inferiors’ to be subjugated… yet at the same time the madonna figure, whose innocence must be protected, and who through this comes the justification to commit atrocities against the other inferiors. The game is on the cusp of realizing this with Elizabeth — being locked up in a gilded cage, being forbidden from interacting with the outside world, yet also being a literal symbol, both the justification and continuation of this totalitarian system — and then this is all just thrown to the wayside because the story wants her to be Cute and Quirky. Every time this story stumbles on something it could actually say it decides it doesn’t feel like doing so. It wants credit for taking the stance it does but never actually wants to get its feet in the muck. And here I thought art was meant to alienate. Silly me.

(also… I feel like if you’re at least trying to condemn racism I don’t think it’s a great idea to have the only defined asian characters be speaking in broken English? again, white guy over here, I don’t want to make assumptions on things I don’t know well about, but, like, maybe not the time and place?)

I mean, I guess it’s trying to be anti-racist. I think that’s what it’s trying to be. I mean I’m not as confident as I was initially because holy shit does the game fucking swerve on its message right at the halfway point. See, by opposing the forces of Columbia, you eventually come into contact with a cabal of rebels seeking to overthrow this fascist system. You help them out (but… only because you’re forced to, Booker is rather ‘yeah whatever’ about basically everything other than Elizabeth), and by changing the timeline to give them GUNS you give them the means to meaningfully act out and rise up against their oppressors… to which the game immediately goes “oh no… this protest… is too violent… are these people really all that different from the slave owners?” And then suddenly the rebel leader goes “oh, by the way, something something you’re not the real you, you must die,” the game decides to show she’s actually The Bad Guy by having her try and murder a child, Elizabeth is made to kill her, and Booker’s response, verbatim, is “the only difference between [a racist, totalitarian system] and [trying to overthrow said racist, totalitarian system] is how you spell the name.” Maybe the Vox Populi should’ve just protested peacefully, ala MLK and Ghandi. Maybe we should’ve just voted out Hitler. And- and honestly what’s most wild for me is that this is how the game just fucking forgets that it’s about fascism and racism right after this. You watch Elizabeth shoot the only named black character in the game the rebel leader and the fallout of the scene is pressing F to reassure her that everything’s okay. The rest of the plot that follows is almost exclusively about time travel and alternate dimensions as opposed to anything regarding the rather delicate subject matter the game was attempting to handle earlier. The slavery of this one white woman is more important than the slavery of Columbia’s entire underclass. You shoot down rebel soldiers almost exclusively past this point and neither you nor the narrative bats an eye.

(addendum here: a friend pointed me towards BioShock Infinite’s Wikipedia page and I really just have to share this paragraph here because, like, what the fuck do you mean “the good and bad sides of racism”? what the fuck do you mean you weren’t trying to make a point and were merely trying to be 'accurate for the time'? I’m going to selectively apply death of the author here so that I don’t have to edit everything I just said because, like, jesus dude, I don't think a game has ever made me lose respect for its writer like this)

One last thing before I move on past the story: I’m notttttttt an Elizabeth fan, sorry. She never quite felt real or consistent as a character; more like a manic pixie dream girl, malleable to be whatever is required to facilitate the plot. The moment you meet her is the moment you free her from the gilded cage she’s been trapped in her whole life, and it was the same moment my suspension of belief broke. It feels like Elizabeth has barely any reaction to any of this, no horror at realizing just how large the world around her actually is, no transitional period to actually being outside for the first time in her life, she’s just immediately exuberant, so wide-eyed at everything, unable to stop herself from dancing with racists as soon as she hears fiddle music. And it comes off like like it’s trying to make her so Cute and Quirky and Lovable and to me it never really worked. Especially when the game pulls absolutely all the narrative beats you’d expect it to. The Liar Revealed bit leading into the Second Act Breakup — where once you get back together and she still doesn’t trust you the game can’t even fucking commit and have her not help you as much during combat because then maybe that’d at least be a fun way this attempt at art could actually remember what medium it’s in. You’ll have an argument that’ll open a (metaphorical) rift between the two of you and then you’ll point at a locked door and she’ll be like “I’ll get that open for you Mr. Booker : ) “ So much of her dialogue — especially once the game decides it wants to be about alternate dimensions and time travel — is so flowery and… honestly, I’d say a bit pretentious in execution, feeling like it’s actively trying to position itself (and a lot of the plot elements here) as complex and smart, thinking that by making it just barely intelligible whoever’s playing it will be like “wow… this is so complicated… and beyond me… this game is so intelligent…” By the way I just love how the game says, verbatim, “[y]ou don’t need to protect Elizabeth in combat[,] she can take care of herself” like it’s some girl power, progressive thing… then all she actually does in combat is throw you items, open doors you can't, let you tear rifts in time to give you things that’ll help you, teleport right near you when you’re not looking like that one Sherlock Holmes game. She’s basically all the things an escort NPC does except I guess making you actually have to escort her would be a point of division among the Gamers. And it very much falls into that trope where a female character primarily exists to bolster their male counterpart, except here they try and dress it up as if it's subversive and feminist. Between that and some of the quips, you could’ve made me think Joss Whedon wrote this.

So, uh, yeah. I’m not particularly into what this game has going narrative-wise. It wants to act as if it’s tackling these huge themes, it thinks it’s profound by doing so, yet at every turn it feels so unwilling to divide, or challenge, or properly stand for something that it veers away from anything interesting it could actually say — let alone how little it does anything with the medium it’s actually in. And- and Jesus I’m still so thrown by how it can’t commit to even going just ‘racism’ is bad, it has to both sides it, it has to please everybody, it’s so scared of alienating that it alienates itself. If this is art, then maybe that speaks to having to go back to art class.

...At least the gameplay’s loosely fun?

Which reveals my position in the debate, I guess. For all I’ve talked about what makes art — and why I feel like sometimes what gets touted as prestige doesn’t quite meet the metric — I don’t really have much of a horse in this race. I’ll be happy to do my best to discuss themes, and I’ll always look at these things as more than just product, but as a writer, as someone who looks at things from that lens, I’ve always personally been more interested in looking at things from a technical lens: the craft, how it’s refined, what works, what could use improvement. And from that lens, BioShock Infinite is… cromulent. I like shooting things. I like the way the game only giving you two guns basically encourages you to vary with what you carry with you — building an impromptu armory from whatever you can scrounge up around you. I’m fond of the ‘vigors’/phasmids/magic spells you can use, how they all help out in different ways. I especially like how this combines with the gear system in a way that lets the player create legit builds: on my end, I eventually ended up with this playstyle where I’d use a vigor to fling myself directly towards an enemy, whereupon I’d create a giant AOE explosion and wipe out whatever cluster of enemies surrounds my target. I also like the way the game… both hews close and veers away from BioShock the series. It has all the hallmarks, all the defining characteristics that made the series what it was, yet it alters or recontextualizes them in a way that makes them feel fresh. Chief among these is the setting — which, while visually rather breathtaking on its own, really works as a companion piece to Rapture, a city in the sky rather than a city in the sea — but there are other things too: the anachronistic covers of 60s-80s songs mirror BioShock 1/2‘s usage of period-accurate music while also working to set up the timey-wimey aspects of the plot. The combat feels exactly like the previous two games, yet the use of more open areas, in addition to mechanics like the skywires and the rifts make it feel much more fluid, much more arcadey than the claustrophobic meat grinder of Rapture. I’m not entirely sure whether it’s a step forward or a step back, necessarily, but it’s certainly an iteration: things have been looked at, tweaked to become brand new… while not losing the same feel they used to have. It’s neat to see in action.

But man, while I’m not somebody who usually likes judging a work for being an adaptation, a sequel, whatever, it is just… rather tragic that a lot of the wrong lessons seem to have been learned from it. The original BioShock, to me, is genuinely so cool in showing just what videogames: silly moral choice system aside, there’s so much going on with ludonarrative, and diegesis, and it feels like every little videogame-logic thing has something going on behind it in a way that contributes to the overall picture. To go from that, to something that has virtually nothing going on mechanically is such a disappointment. And, in turn, when what’s there instead is something that feels like it’s convinced itself of its ascension, that takes real-world sensitive subject matter for the sake of set design and abandons it once it's no longer needed, that mistakes being complicated for being smart, man am I not impressed. It’s funny, honestly, how this loosely ushered the whole era we’re in of prestige, ‘artsy’ games that at the same time seem so afraid of being video games, because it’s BioShock Infinite’s gameplay that makes me hesitate to call it outright bad. It thinks it’s some profound work, some real watershed moment, something that’s really pushing the medium of gaming forward. In reality, it feels much more like Oscar bait. 4/10.

I have this annoying problem where, whenever I play a truly transcendental videogame that wows me from head to toe, I enter a state of post-masterwork malaise where even other good games just look worse.

And Library of Ruina was phenomenal. Truly the best game I've ever played, which naturally meant playing anything else was an impossible task.

But I'm old now, and I know how to cure this: I need to play something terrible. Something that, top-to-bottom, inside and out, is just irredeemable. Something not only indefensible, but laughable.

Every brilliant light casts an equally dark shadow, and as Library of Ruina stands at the zenith of gaming, I must look to the nadir for guidance.

Having slogged through the entire game and it's DLCs, I think it's time to put the pin in this journey.

It's interesting to consider just how much Bethesda lucked out with this game.

Soon after its release Fallout: New Vegas would be birthed in a haste at Obsidian's hands, proceeding to dominate the overall population's idea of "Fallout" for a good few years before Fallout 4 came out and the conversation became an eternal NV vs. 4 debate, underscored by endless quibbles about voiced protagonists and that one "yes/yes (sarcastic)/no (yes)/no" meme about FO4's dialogue. In the midst of all this is Skyrim, a game so influential and popular despite its flaws that Bethesda are "The Skyrim People" to a not-insignificant number of people on Earth.

All of this is to Bethesda's benefit, because it means people have forgotten about Fallout 3.

Not me, though. That's my curse; I'm a career hater, I can't forget bad games.

But let’s put 3 on the backburner for a moment.

Let’s talk about Oblivion.

Even a decade on from its end, people are still trying to figure out which games defined the 7th generation of consoles the most. I’m going to throw my 2 cents into the ring:
The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion was, by far and bar none, the most defining title of 7th gen.
Not to say that other titles weren’t influential, of course, but even though we live in a time where the words “Ubisoft open world” have entered most people’s lexicons, I think the progenitor of said open worlds was Oblivion and Bethesda.
Oblivion was a game with a very clear message: You don’t need to meticulously design every part of a game for it to sell well or be beloved. You don’t even need to meticulously design a small part of it. All you have to do is make a big empty bowl, put in some markers that allude to it being bigger than it actually is, and then give it a clutter pass before dotting some reused fortresses/caves/mines into it. There’s no need for a personal touch in every corner, merely the illusion of one.

But I can forgive Oblivion for a lot of things even if it is terrible. It was one of the earliest titles released in 7th gen, and the first of its scale. It took four years to make in a time where that was an incredible abnormality.

Fallout 3 gets no such mercy from me.

In part, because it’s worse.

Most RPGs either force a goal onto you but let you pick your motive, or they force a motive onto you and let you pick your goal. These are streams that’re best left uncrossed. Fallout 3, for some reason, attempts to do both.

F3 opens with you, the player character, being born and causing your mother to die of postpartum cardiac arrest. This is already a horrific indicator of how obsessed it’s going to be with its own unearned sense of profundity and much like the actual act of being born, it gets infinitely worse.
Just to get this out of the way: This sucks. It sucks on a creative level - Bethesda clearly couldn’t figure out how to stoke player investment without giving you a dead mom, a sad dad and showing your birth - but it also just sucks as the opening to a Fallout game?
This observation is so common that even comparatively normal people who don’t engage with Gaming as a culture often make it: Fallout 1 and 2 open with “oh yeah some shit’s fuck, go save your home”. Fallout NV starts with you getting shot in the head, and sends you off after a brief intro.
Fallout 3’s intro, then, sticks out like a sore thumb even compared to its more immediate sequel.
Afterwards you get warped to a birthday party filled with named NPCs who share voice actors and who you don’t care about. After that you get warped to a school test with the same named NPCs who share voice actors and don’t actually speak more than one or two lines, who you still don’t care about.

After that most of them die and the game tries to make you feel sad about their deaths I guess, but it’s moot because you finally get to leave the Vault and I’m incredibly confident 99% of people regardless of age or maturity felt elation at not having to wander through boring, visually bland corridors anymore.

Unfortunately, that’s all Fallout 3 has to offer outside the Vault too.

Over the years I’ve started to take incredible amounts of umbrage with the establishing shot of DC the player is greeted with upon leaving the Vault.

It promises a grand, open world - a reprieve from the suffocating Vault you just slogged through!

Springvale School is just down the road. It looks like this. Walk a bit further and you can find a metro. It looks like this. You can even find some sewer tunnels. They look like this.. Maybe, if you go a bit further, you’ll find an office building. Looks like this!.

Okay. You’ve now seen 99% of locations in Fallout 3.

Before we get ahead of ourselves, let’s just have a little design chat.

I’m not a game dev, but I’ve played so many open world games and developed a fondness for them that I’ve managed to figure out some criteria that helps measure how good these games are on a technical level.

To wit, a ‘good’ open world is dotted with areas where one or more of these applies:

A visual reward, in the form of a lovely view.
A progression reward, in the form of loot that directly makes you stronger.
Something you can’t see or obtain anywhere else in the game world.
Depending on the world structure, it should lead to somewhere else that’s only accessible via a specific location.
At the very least, for more out-there or hidden areas, there should be some acknowledgement that you made the journey successfully.

Right, all that is out of the way.

Fallout 3’s open world is badly designed, but to really dig into why we need to talk about the other parts of the game that’re badly designed, and I think the topic of loot is perhaps the most pressing.

The first shotgun the player can acquire in Fallout New Vegas is the humble Single Shotgun. It does respectable damage for how early it drops, but true to its name it only carries a single round and its short but frequent reloads can leave you wide open against hordes or particularly tank enemies. It also uses 20 gauge shells as opposed to 12 gauge, so while it hits hard early on it ultimately stops being useful fast.
Later in the game’, the player can luck into possession of the venerable Riot Shotgun, an absolute beast of a weapon that boasts a 12-round drum magazine with 12 gauge shells as its primary ammo type, on top of a high rate of fire and respectable reload time.

Meanwhile the first shotgun the player can potentially find in Fallout 3 is the Combat Shotgun). It is, like the Riot Shotgun, a veritable moment that can dish out respectable damage and uses 12 gauge ammo. In the Capital Wasteland, this is an extremely common weapon with an extremely common weapon type - 20 gauge does not exist, so all shotgun wielding enemies are walking topups.

To really illustrate this issue, we need to talk about damage.

New Vegas uses two types of defensive stat: Damage Resistance (percentage-based) and Damage Threshold (flat reduction).

All incoming damage taken is reduced by the DR value at a percentage. So if you, for example, take 100 damage and have 50 DR, you take 50 damage.
Next is the DT value, which is a flat reduction. Seeing as we’ve just taken 50 damage, let’s imagine we have 20 DT. Since it’s just a flat subtraction, all in all we’ve taken 30 damage. This goes both ways.

This hypothetical only involves a single instance of damage. Shotguns, as they fire multiple pellets per shot, have the formula applied to each individual pellet. The end result is that despite high damage stats and seeming to be catch-free, shotguns in NV do a lot less damage than you’d initially think - though, as NV is a competently made game, this can be circumvented with alternative ammo and perks.

Fallout 3, however, only uses Damage Resistance. This is alarming on its own, but it gets worse as you learn that DR in Fallout 3 rarely if ever gets above 40. Most non-humanoid enemies don’t even have any DR stats, just health.

This is where the problem really starts to take shape.

While this does still impact the individual shotgun pellets, the reality is that a 10% reduction applied to 10 damage is incredible miniscule, so the Combat Shotgun becomes a weapon sent down by the gods to smite anything with a pulse.

The Combat Shotgun is incredibly powerful, uses bountiful ammo and is incredibly common. As are the Hunting Rifle, Missile Launcher, Assault/Chinese Assault Rifles, and Laser/Plasma Rifles.

Final result?

Most loot rewards are utterly worthless and incredibly unsatisfying.

99% of Fallout 3’s generic, copy-pasted dungeons end with you getting little more than some sellable stuff, a few caps, a handful of consumables, one weapon which you already have 15 of in stock, and a surplus of ammo that you’re probably already overflowing with. Fuck dude, even a lot of main story stuff just dumps excess on you. The final ‘dungeon’ doesn’t offer anything you don’t already have assuming you’ve bothered to go for a walk between the midgame and then.
I can only really describe this game’s world design as a sort of maniacal creative ADHD. You’ll find a marker or something to gawk at every couple of minutes, yes, but in actuality all of the stuff you find is superfluous gunk that at best rewards you with thirty 5mm rounds and a stimpak.
A couple of years ago I replayed Deus Ex: Human Revolution. While that game has many issues, the only relevant one is: Loot scarcity. In a sort of dim, artificial attempt to keep the player ~on their toes~, Deus Ex HR frequently has players break into hidden vaults and armouries only to find at best a weapon they already have and some ammo.
Fallout 3 has both this exact same issue and the opposite problem: Loot excess. Because there’s so little of it, and because it’s all so strong, the simple act of finding things is simultaneously unsatisfying and unneeded. What am I going to do with some leather armor and a knife? I found a weapon to kill god in a bin.
Lastly, there’s a very strange issue running through Fallout 3 wherein loot containers that need skill investment to unlock often have worse loot than random bedside cabinets. In the game’s final dungeon I cracked open a Hard-difficulty terminal, and behind it was… 19 10mm rounds, a Stimpak, some drugs, and one missile. Opposite, in a random footlocker, was a useful amount of money and a significant handful of Microfusion Cells.

Truthfully, though, all of that isn’t the actual problem - New Vegas also has its fair share of dud locations. The actual problem is that there’s a lack of loot progression. You get a Combat Shotgun or a weapon of your choice and you’re basically set for life. Besides Mini Nukes there are no rare ammo types, and caps are plentiful - in part due to loot itself being plentiful - meaning it’s easy to just cycle around each vendor and empty their ammo stock if you need .44 Magnum or .308 ammo.

There are some unique pieces of equipment here and there, but they run into a teensy tiny little problem:

They’re overkill.

Fallout 3’s greatest sin, looping back to that discussion about damage earlier, is that it’s an easy game.

Most enemies rarely have health in the hundreds, and basically everything besides the .32 pistol and the Chinese pistol is capable of outputting that with impunity. Conversely, unless the player cranks the difficulty right up, enemies don’t deal enough damage to be a threat unless they’re in large groups and even then it’s incredibly rare to fight groups of enemies in open terrain. Indeed, the first real swarm most players will find during the main quest is fought with tons of cover and chokepoints to exploit.
It’s not until the DLCs that enemies start appearing with difficulty attached, and said difficulty is little more than them getting a +30-40 extra damage for free. They do have bloated HP, but realistically if you’re at the recommended level for the DLCs then you have enough damage output to ignore that.

In most other open world games where loot is a frivolous, tacked-on system with no merit, usually exploration is its own reward. This sentiment carried BOTW to many people’s good graces, after all.
Fallout 3 has no such luck: The Capital Wasteland is a horrifically unappealing place. There isn't much in the way of landmarks and the ones that do exist are so… American. I suppose it may be resonant and even disquieting if you’re an American with any degree of patriotism but I’m an embittered Scot that views the entire country as a disease that’s gone on too long. The sight of the Washington Monument in disrepair makes me feel about as much as the styrofoam box I get my chips from.
It’s easy to throw up one’s hands and say “Oh, but this is a post-apocalyptic game, Mira! Of course it looks like shit!” which isn’t an entirely unworkable stance, it just ignores that pretty much every other famous piece of post-apocalyptic media - especially the Fallout game released immediately after this one wrapped - managed to nail this while still being ‘ruined’.
I have a relatively good sense of direction, to the point where my friends instinctively put me in charge whenever we need to find somewhere in Glasgow. With that said, I find it incredibly easy to lose where I am on Fallout 3’s map, for once the player leaves the downtown DC region the Capital Wasteland is little more than a grey/brown wasteland dotted with the same 4-5 ruins for miles upon miles. Most of the notable map markers are in the southeast of the map anyway.

Not helping this is that, as opposed to having regional spawn lists to spruce up the act of exploration, Fallout 3 uses a global spawnlist which deposits the vast majority of enemies into the world at random.

Which sucks because there’s not that many enemy types. Humanoids, Radscorpions, Radroaches, Yao Guai, Deathclaws, Botflies, Feral Ghouls, Super Mutants, Centaurs, Dogs, Mirelurks, Mole Rats, Ants, and robots. There, that’s basically every enemy in the game. You will most likely encounter all of them within 20 minutes of following the main path.
Oblivion has a similar problem of dropping random enemies all over the map, but that game’s level scaling is kind enough to replace enemies rather than simply dropping reskinned versions of them with higher HP in the same places.

The enemies, I feel, are where every issue I talked about up above comes to a head. Bad loot variety? Human enemies attack with the same 5-6 weapons. Bad location variety? You kill the same enemies with the same gear in samey locations. Bad quest variety? Regardless of context, you’re hitting the same things in the same gear in the same locations for only slightly different reasons.

And, as is the trend for Fallout 3, enemies being miserable to fight is both a culmination of other issues and introduces its own!

Namely: Combat is, at a very base foundational level, deeply unsatisfying.

Normally I wouldn’t repeat criticisms that other people have said uniformly for decades, however as a career Fallout 3 hater I reserve the right to do so.

It’s accepted by now that Bethesda games lack weight in their combat. Melee feels floaty and impactless, and every gun regardless of caliber or damage feels like using a BB gun. Nobody reacts to damage besides the odd grunt and maybe a canned stagger animation until they die, at which point they either limply collapse like a puppet with severed strings or explode in a shower of gore which is… Honestly, kind of juvenile? And I say this as a certified gore whore.
This in itself is an extension of the game’s nauseatingly childish fixation on gore; raider camps have dismembered corpses impaled on hooks, many areas are filled with random bits of internal organ, and Super Mutants carry entire fishnet bags filled with gore.

But on a technical level, shooting things in Fallout 3 is both deeply unsatisfying and badly designed.

FPS games were some of the first to really crystallize as a genre, and by the time Fallout 3 ripped itself free into the world there were already certain ground rules that not even outsider games dared to break.
If a gun sways, it’s accepted that it should aim where it’s pointing. If a gun’s projectiles have spread, it’s commonly accepted that the gun itself should be steady. Easy enough, right?
Fallout 3, for some asinine reason, does both.
On some level I can vaguely maybe kinda possibly appreciate the attempt to recreate the experience of trying to fire a gun in Fallout 1 with low stats at a target far beyond its effective range, but the problem here is that that experience was temporary until you powered up and here it’s a permanent fixture of gameplay. Weapons have less sway as you increase their respective skill, but unless your Int stat is high (because skill points are asininely tied to it) then that’s a relatively slow crawl - doubly so when there are other skills to increase.
What really hurts shooting is that hit detection is wildly inconsistent. The hitbox for projectiles is seemingly tiny, and it often gets caught on terrain or misses ‘direct’ shots by one thousandth of an inch. Said terrain seems to be poorly constructed, as wafer-thin bits of rebar will obstruct bullets around them and cause them to seemingly clatter off of thin air.
Call of Duty is terrible yesyes but this game came out a year after CoD4 had already introduced the average person to snappy, responsive and satisfying shooting which also lets you shoot through chainlink fences. I have no idea what was in the water to make people believe this game’s shooting was enjoyable.

As a brief aside: I discovered only now that oftentimes projectiles in third person mode don’t even go where you aim them. My metric for how good shooters are at a base level revolves around how good it feels to fight in close quarters, and because of this Fallout 3 feels even worse.

“[Developer] made a competent [genre] and didn’t bother to make the rest of the game” is a phrase that popped up a lot around the late 00s and early 2010s as more and more people began trying to blend genres together. See: Alpha Protocol.
Fallout 3 is unique in this front because Bethesda not only failed to make a competent shooter, but the corpse of an RPG around it isn’t very good either.

Let me just quote myself, from earlier:

Most RPGs either force a goal onto you but let you pick your motive, or they force a motive onto you and let you pick your goal. These are streams that’re best left uncrossed. Fallout 3, for some reason, attempts to do both.

Fallout 3 gives the player a rigid, established backstory and also an annoying rigid, established goal. It’s quite alarming to come across as an NPC related to your father and see every dialogue option be variations on “where my dada :<”.
But even beyond that, there isn’t much room to actually roleplay in this game. The Lone Wanderer as a protagonist is painfully straight forward, and their two forms are “person with human decency” and “guy who condemns kids to slavery.”
Fallout 3, like any other RPG, has quests but I hesitate to call them that. They’re more like guides towards shooting galleries that sometimes stop and ask you if you want to be a nice person, if you want to use a perk/skill to bypass a third of the quest, or if you want to be unfathomably and needlessly cruel.
Even within the main story, there isn’t much framework to roleplay because the Lone Wanderer assimilates their father’s purpose without even giving the player a morton’s fork dialogue choice.

As for the actual main story… I’ve always hated it for the same reasons most other Fallout 3 haters dislike it - it’s flimsy, way too short, has no room for player choice, is entirely linear, etc etc - but as I replayed it, something stood out to me.

Do you know what the Great Man Theory is? In short, and in layman’s terms: The GMT is the belief that Great Men aren’t necessarily nurtured or cultivated, but are simply great from birth. It is these Great Men, and only these Great Men, that are allowed to dictate the course of history. It sucks, I hate it. We don’t use the phrase “product of their environment” for nothing.

I’m gonna take a hard pivot here. Bear with me.

When you think of the word “fascism” you likely have a strong image in your mind. Goose-stepping Nazis, death camps, red hatted Americans screaming in hordes, the most boring European men in suits putting uncomfortable emphasis on the word “superior”, that kind of thing.
Those aren’t invalid. Good on you. Fascism sucks.
But my mental image is defined by a lot of uncomfortably up-close experience with these kinds of people, and it’s boring.
My mental image of Fascism is the dark underside of the Great Man Theory. Of people who believe that, if Great Men are simply born, then Un-Great or ‘Degenerate’ Men are also born. If there are enough Great Men, why shouldn’t they rule? Why should the world cater to Degenerate Men when Great Men can be classified? We should keep Degenerate Men from usurping our Great Men! So on, so forth.

What I mean to say here is that Fascism as a belief system often manifests in incredibly boring ways that’re so banal they often go unnoticed even by people that’re otherwise keyed into such things - at least when they’re not like. Insane.

Fallout 3’s main story is passively Fascist, then.

I don’t think Bethesda Game Studios’ writers are Fascists. I feel you could probably convince Todd Howard to write “1312” on his shirt with a mild amount of transgender Charisma. There’s enough queer people in this IP that I don’t think they hold any real malice for anybody, albeit in much the same way I don’t think they hold any beliefs at all.

But they are incompetent writers, and they’ve accidentally made a story which has awful undertones.

Your first real hints as to the game’s nature come up if you take a walk around DC. There’s a lot of veneration towards the USA Founding Fathers that at first seems quaint and in line with the setting’s propaganda, but…
As the story goes on, it’s made abundantly clear that the player’s father was a Great Man, being the only one capable of rallying a team of scientists and the only one capable of actually putting Project Purity into motion.
When he inevitably dies thanks to the Enclave delaying the ending of my suffering by 2 hours, it falls to you - only you, nobody else - to follow in his footsteps. Because you’re a Great Man too!
In the original version of the game, you die activating the Purifier, and a statue of Thomas Jefferson looks down at you - unmoving, yet seemingly approving… BECAUSE HE’S A GREA-

There’s also the matter of Three Dog’s radio commentary which gets a little… Suspicious, I’d say? It starts out innocently enough, but even a neutral Lone Wanderer starts getting referred to as an actual saviour, with such overdramatic gestures such as Three Dog admitting you cured his misanthropy by being a saint. It’s rather telling that the Very Good Karma icon is a Jesus caricature.

RPGs as a genre do admittedly have a problem with sometimes accidentally stepping into the Great Man shit, it’s just the nature of the genre; to have things occur without the player’s influence or awareness is unsatisfying from a design perspective, so of course things have to be up to you. Wiser RPG devs go out of there way to ensure you’re just an everyman, or you’re woven into the setting in such a way that it avoids such pitfalls.
Fallout 3, unfortunately, leans a bit too into it. Especially with the way Raiders are portrayed, and how often Three Dog talks about them and other wasteland randoms as if they’re actual animals.

It always did strike me as odd that handing total control of Project Purity to the Enclave is rightfully seen as a mistake but handing it over to another authoritarian organization - the Brotherhood - is fine. Yes they’re allegedly benevolent but even in Fallout 3 they show a distinct disgust for ‘wasters’ and it’s stated outright they shoot Ghouls on sight. If you have a more holistic view of franchises (as opposed to my individualistic one), then Fallout 4 confirms they’ll go on to be an actual Fascist organization.

And what better topic to add into this mix than slavery?

In invoking many prominent figures from America’s history, Abraham Lincoln naturally gets brought up a lot, and so do slaves. Slavers make up a decent number of the Capital Wasteland’s population, and they’re everywhere. The few settlements dotted around the map have an eternal fear of them, and their base is perhaps second only to the Brotherhood’s in size + population.

But slavery in this game isn’t really substantial. It isn’t something to be commented on or observed or interrogated, it’s basically another vessel for quests. There’s one liberation faction, and one enslaving faction. Kill slavers, or enslave people. Enslaving people is 100 negative Karma, giving two bottles of water to a beggar is 100 positive Karma. Ethical slavery, yeah!
But even though there is a faction dedicated to the emancipation of slaves, that’s your job - if you want. The slave liberators are tucked away in a corner of the map, easily missable because there’s frankly not that much out that way. Their fate, and the fate of all slaves, is up to you.
I don’t like Fallout 4 all that much but even that game was willing to create the idea that people other than you were working to liberate the Synths.

All of this really compounds the banal and straightforward design: Arguably more than any other Bethesda game, or indeed open world game, Fallout 3 is the one that feels the most static. It is your playground because only You can do anything.

With that all said, there is one part of the game I admittedly think is decent.

Vault 101, the player’s home, is like almost every other Vault in the Bethesda Fallout canon: A social experiment under the guise of a shelter for humanity. Note that this concept basically doesn’t exist prior to Fallout 3; Vaults in 1/2/Tactics/Van Buren were simply shelters.
Vault 101’s experiment was simple: Stay closed. Never reopen. Compared to other experiments in Fallout 3 and subsequent games, this one was incredibly merciful.
Naturally, like other Vaults, 101 faces a violent reckoning when your father leaves - violating the experiment - and the Overseer reacts harshly.

When you return, the Vault has split into people who want to keep the door closed and people who want to go outside.
Uniquely for Fallout 3, there is no right answer here; barring ‘destroy the vault’, each branch of the story offers a degree of good Karma and neither are explicitly better than the others.
You could side with the rebels and open the Vault. They’d be free, and the resources of an active Vault could do good for the surrounding area and settlements… But the Wasteland is filled with a lot of people who’re pure evil, and while you might be able to survive out there there’s absolutely no guarantee anyone else will besides Butch.
Or, you could side with the Overseer and keep it closed. Despite the Overseer being authoritarian, the Vault did run fine until your dad leaves at the game’s proper start and considering future games it’s one of three depicted on-screen that actually were completely fine. Every negative about opening the Vault is a valid reason to side with him, but… It’s quietly brought to the player’s attention that the Overseer’s control over Vault Security isn’t as tight as he thinks it is, and they’re all too willing to take drastic measures to enforce compliance. Not to mention that while he might be able to end the conflict, the Vault still needs a doctor and families have been either destroyed or split asunder.

This is the only quest of its kind in Fallout 3.

Unfortunately like every quest in Fallout 3 even potentially poignant moments are ruined by the voice acting.

I have to commend Jennifer Massey (Dr Madison Li) and Erik Todd Dellums (Three Dog) for being the only voice actors who’re even pretending to give a shit about this script, because everyone else is phoning it in. This game only has a small handful of voice actors and pretty much all of them are audibly reading the script for the first time as they’re saying the lines.
More often than not, the subtitles carry a tone that the actual voice acting doesn’t. It’s marginally improved in the DLCs, but only slightly. In the base game, the same 5-6 voice actors will mumble out their lines with zero enthusiasm or variety. It does, to an extent, turn into accidental comedy when you walk into the Rivet City Market and have three different NPCs greet you in an identical voice.

There’s a somewhat sad irony to the fact that Fallout 3 can be played through New Vegas via Tale of Two Wastelands and yet it doesn’t make it better - it makes it worse. That’s really this game’s legacy, isn’t it? It needs sunlight to grow, but New Vegas is the sky and it won’t be having it.

With everything I've said, observed and read in mind, I'd ultimately argue that Fallout 3 shows more signs of a rushed, ramshackle development than New Vegas. Of the two, it's infinitely buggier, rife with cut/scrapped content and saddled with an omnipresent feeling of "this game isn't done".

As I reach the end of this review, I find myself struggling to answer a question: Why do I keep playing this game every couple of years?

It's not Schrodinger's Game, I don't need to observe it to find out if it's shit or not. Not once has my opinion on this game gotten even SLIGHTLY more positive over my various replays - which, as of writing, is the only game this sentiment still applies to.

But yet, like clockwork, I return to it. I install Fallout 3, then New Vegas, then Tale of Two Wastelands followed by the same QoL/maintenance mods I always get. I boot it, I beat it, I hate it. We're sitting at like ten full replays over the last decade. It defies all sense to me. Is this what a manic compulsion is? Something my body craves but the brain cannot comprehend? It's so very eldritch.

In typing that, I awakened a memory of the day Fallout 3 barged into my life, a week ahead of schedule thanks to a shipping error. My father text me while I was on my way out of high school for lunch: "Yer game's here". Wanting to play a shiny new game and not wanting to read The Cone Gatherers, I opted to make the lunch trip into a trip home.
Having a lot of free time these days, I decided to retrace my steps and walk that route again.

I boarded the train to my old town, and as trains do it came to a stop at the end of the route. I departed and made my way to the route I once took - mercifully, the train stops right behind where I went to school. Following my steps, I did everything as it was; popped into a cafe for a hot roll, got a can of juice from the (still open, yay!) newsagent, and took the long way around to what used to be my home.
I grew up in one of the many, many towns in Scotland whose only real purpose was to house poor people and host an ironworks/coal mine - and those were shut down decades ago. As a result, going back during the quieter hours fills me with the same kind of discomfort one can also vaguely experience in the remnants of Fallout 3's depiction of Washington DC. My old town, too, is a place mostly occupied by shambling zombies and people that might kill you if aggro'd.

You're perhaps expecting me to admit that returning to Fallout 3 is secret nostalgia, right? That I hold a soft spot for it and have been denying that?

No, I still think it's terrible, but I did find out why I keep coming back to it.

On my walk I passed by a bus shelter that, in my day, was little more than a standing rail encased in bricks with a sheet metal roof. Nowadays it's been renovated, with a bench, windows, and a bus timetable.

Looking back at it, I recalled a discussion I once had at that old bus shelter with a good friend of mine who we'll call Gary. We'd been out that day for quite some time, poking through forests and trails with our friends. It was a long day in the middle of a mild Scottish summer, something we no longer experience. By the time we were due to go home, both of us were exhausted.
Exhaustion, for teenagers, is often the harbinger of naked sincerity. The kind you can only really experience in that time where your 'golden years' are in their twilight and their end seems closer and closer every time you turn, trembling, towards the horizon.
I offer to walk Gary to his bus and he accepts. On the way, our chats are about normal things, nothing heavy. When we sit down, though, the silence around us creeps in. A busy town center, now without a soul save for the odd car. We sit by ourselves, wordless, as the last breaths of sunlight choke and die beneath the coming night.

I whip out my iPod Nano and, on the screen, is the last thing I was listening to: A song from In Flames' 'A Sense of Purpose', which at that point was two years old.
Gary scoffs, and we begin the ritual that teenage boys do where we rib one another for our tastes over and over.
But we're both tired, it's just past 8pm, and we were kinda enjoying the silence. The jabs and japes soon end without much fanfare, and silence falls in.
The bus was late. This I remember clearly. So late that Gary, a jovial and relatively stoic lad, was getting antsy.
Apropos of nothing, he turns to me.
"Mira," He asks in a surprisingly cold voice. "You know, I hate A Sense of Purpose, but I love it at the same time."
This so dumbfounded me, it did. My thinking was so very binary back then: Things I liked were good, things I disliked were bad. How and why would one love a bad thing?
"Gary, that makes no sense." I croak out, bewildered.
"Aye," So he says, like he just confessed to a murder. "Wanna know why?"
Of course I did, and nodded in assent.
"Things keep changing, and I'm scunnered [tn: tired] of it. But that album," He nods to my iPod as though it were a child - not a creature of sin, but innocently misguided. "That album is always shit. No matter how much time passes, it's always shite. I like that."
I didn't have an answer in me, much as I wished I did. It was my first introduction to the concept of 'terrible but I love it'. We sat in silence for another few minutes before the bus pulled up. I wished him well and we saw one another off.

Coming back to this memory 14 years later, I get it.

Fallout 3 and A Sense of Purpose were both 16 years ago.

In the intervening years, my tastes have changed. My top 25 from 2019 looks alien to me, the same list from 2015 utterly unbelievable. My walls are no longer adorned with band posters and game memorabilia, but shelves and stuffed rabbits I collect. While I once longed to work in the IT field, experience has made me pray that I never wear a shirt and tie again. I no longer live in the old mining town, the sun does not hit my face from the same angles while I rest. When I exit my house I do not see fields of green and distant towns, but endless houses, apartment blocks and industrial estates.

It is, suffice to say, rather obvious that not only have I changed, but so has the world around me. Indeed, I often wonder if I'm the same person as the one in these memories, or if they were simply taken from another when I was constructed at the age of 21. The changes I describe have occurred over what is now half of my entire lifespan, a period of so many years that not even my pristine memory can keep those years from occasionally blending together or faces from getting blurred.

But Fallout 3?

Fallout 3 never changes.

Trying to replay Fallout 4 pissed me off enough to finally go back and actually finish this game. For the longest time, I found it borderline impenetrable due to its clunky and dated UI, but after actually taking the time to learn how things work, it's really not that bad.

The game is ultimately still very flawed. Some skills are basically worthless to the point where you have to wonder why they're even in the game. Certain weapons and armor are just straight up superior to others. Getting the Brotherhood of Steel power armor seems basically necessary to survive the end game battles. Once you've obtained the Plasma Rifle and leveled up your Energy Weapons skill, you've pretty much won the game. On top of that, the game is filled with various bugs, including the ending slides where somehow the Super Mutants destroyed multiple locations despite the fact that I both blew up the military base they were spawning from and the cathedral where The Master was controlling them from. Good to know that this series was a technical mess held together via Elmer's Glue and scotch tape even before Bethesda got their hands on it.

With that being said, it is extremely addicting once you start making some progress. Each location feels unique with their own quests that have to be solved. The characters feel real and the voice acting is definitely significantly better than the voice acting that would show up in the later Fallouts. Granted, there are very few NPCs that actually have voice acting. There's a very dark atmosphere and general feel of dread and looming destruction that you don't quite feel with the modern Fallouts either. The devs really put a lot of effort into making this feel like a truly fucked world.

Combat can be a little annoying, but you can just save scum pretty easily if you don't want to deal with dumb RNG. Companions are cool, and I like that Charisma affects how many can follow you at a time. Probably the only thing it's good for. You definitely do feel like you're progressing and getting stronger over the course of the game. There's nothing more satisfying than landing a crit that violently blows off a chunk of an enemy raider's torso. Death animations in general are great in this game. The silly dismemberment stuff can can happen in Fallout 3 and NV can be fun, but there's something about the animations in this that are way more cool.

Fallout 1 is a bit of a mess and has a lot of issues, but it certainly does leave an impression. It's very simple and feels pretty small, however the writing and replayability make up for it. I can see why Todd Howard, being the big CRPG guy he used to be back in the day, would be so heavily influenced by this and want to try his own hand at it. Kind of a shame how that eventually turned out. I guess becoming a massively popular franchise with some mediocre entries is still better than it dying on Brotherhood of Steel, a bad console exclusive that nobody played nor should ever want to play. Still, it would be nice to see another developer get the opportunity to step up to the plate and give us their own take on Fallout. Maybe something a bit closer to the first one.

We got milkshake ducked, this sucks. I can’t consciously endorse a project where the entire team chooses to espouse transphobia as if it is an “opinion.” Also if a pokemon fan game is taking time away from your faith you either have fallen into 1990s televangelism moral panic or have such pisspoor time management that you can’t set like 2 mind aside to pray. This sucks. The community was in love with this game but bigoted creators ruin anything. Fuck a pokemon battle this a long life battle with yourself.