I highly enjoy Oblivion and Fallout 3, even though I hate their writing and Oblivion's leveling system. I'm not an all-or-nothing guy.

Fallout 3 is definitely a fun game, and a good one to introduce new people to the Fallout series. But it isn't a smartly-made game. Bethesda obviously cared about gameplay first, and the internal logic of the universe, and the quality of the story second.

New Vegas blows it out of the water with the scope of the story and the multiple endings it has.

I know Obsidian mostly re-used assets created for 3, but they are a mercenary studio, and Bethesda is a multi-million dollar AAA developer. They could have have put just as much if not more effort into 3 as Obsidian did into NV.

Bethesda most likely sees Fallout as just an IP they need to keep alive to make their quarterly projections, but Obsidian saw a passion project they needed to make real. Passion in this case won.

So those people pick what they judge so it suits their preference.
If people bring up bad writing for Fallout 3, and when presented with examples in Fallout 2 respond with "well, I didn't mean that type of bad writing", that's bollocks.

I don't know about dialog. Didn't strike me as that bad, though not memorable, either. It could suck, that's something I'd have to replay the game for, so I'm not going to defend that blindly.
But I think choice and consequence was explained here quite well, too. There's a lot of choice/consequence in the game, the choices are just less grandiose and the consequences not always immediately visible. You're generellay more acting on a small scale and don't make any sweeping decisions about the wasteland as a whole. But how is that a bad thing? I see that more as a matter of preference, not one of quality. Unless I misunderstood the argument, if anything I'd say it works rather well within the rest of the game.

Basically everyone involved hates eachother. A lot. Roy also spills the beans about his plans to kill the inhabitants, if you decide to help him. So the whole outcome should probably not be extremely surprising. You might have incomplete information in that situation, but it's not a deus ex machina.

That's fair enough and I wouldn't want to try to persuade you to suddenly love the game in spite of your preferences. The point wasn't aimed directly at you. I've just witnessed so many people over and over again declaring Fallout 3 a horrible game and not a real Fallout due to the writing, while never looking back at the stuff the first games got away with with any sort of critical view. I think at that point it's not a matter of preference anymore and turns into unwarranted hyperbole.
Also I wouldn't say I don't care about dialog/quest writing, but I need the game to work with me a bit and help me care. Which is difficult, when its world and characters are a joke.

I've got to clarify a bit, I didn't want to argue in favor of Fallout 3 having more choice/consequence than New Vegas. I'm in no position to do that; I've dropped New Vegas around Boulder City. The point was that Fallout 3 offers plenty in choice/consequence, just on a small scale and as a more understated aspect of its narrative. Many people need to have a very palpable effect on the gameworld and want to see the influence of their choices on a large scale. That's fine, but I think that's largely a matter of preference and I feel flat out stating Fallout 3's choices/consequences suck, keeping that in mind, is a bit harsh.

Fair enough in return. For what it's worth I don't focus on comparing FO3 to the first two. They're such completely different games in almost entirely different genres, and I don't judge games based on the name on the box. I'm just saying judging FO3 for what it is there are things I love about it and things I hate about it and the writing is in the latter camp.

Hour and a half long videos are worse than you think!

Yeah, I actually had to remind myself somewhere along there that you mentioned you enjoyed the game, too. But I think that is somewhat exemplary. I've read about how Fallout 3 is the worst thing in gaming ever compared to 1 & 2, which retroactively can do no wrong, that just presuming that as a default position happens almost reflexively to me at this point. Apologies for the confusion are probably in order.
Suffice it to say, judging the game on its own merits is a different ball game and while we might disagree about the details, I'm with you in that there certainly is room for critique.

This guy right here... great post... nailed it!

I'm not sure if you're being entirely fair. I agree that NV is the better game, but Bethesda did a lion's share of the work transitioning Fallout into a modern, first person game and Obsidian had the benefit of not only re-using assets which meant more attention and time could be given to other aspects, but also of learning from Fallout 3, what worked, what didn't and why. I don't want to sell short the the work Obsidian did, but in many ways their job was easier.

I like them all. ;) F1&2 inventory/trade system is beyond painful though. *commence perpetual scrolling!* Ugh.

I don't get the whole empty world complaints for F3. F1&2's maps were plenty empty too except for the set locations. Wander the wasteland with a shit-ton of random encounters. At least in F3 and later you can actual discover places and the occasional loot stashes that did not need to be tied into some sort of quest line. And then one can just bounce around places at will due to fast travel. Wandering the wastes in the originals was never all that fun. The car in F2 was definitely introduced because of that.

I'm surprised you would. I mean, if you hate a game, I can't imagine that someone else's opinion or youtube video would change your mind. I know it doesn't for me.

Personally I found it extremely dull. I go back to it now and then, thinking "Well, let's give it another try." Snooze.

As long as you mean "Fallout 3 and its successors" when you say "series", I can't disagree. Fallout 3 is designed for different audiences than 1 and 2. Why it even bothered trying to attract the old games' audience by calling it "Fallout" I have no idea. People who like Fallout 3 tend to call Fallout 1 & 2 quant, ugly, and boring. Fallout 3 also introduces the Bethesda version of Fallout history, so there can be no inconsistency. In fact, I'd say starting with Fallout 1 would be the worst thing you could do, because there will never be another game like it (thus limiting you to 2 games, rather than Bethesda's infinite supply).

Well, in two posts now, I just dismiss this with "it's for different audiences". I guess I should at least give a few specific points, so you can tell me how wrong I am.

Probably the biggest thing, and one which the maker of the "Better" video (MATN, I guess) repeatedly states is the best feature of Fallout 3, is "Exploration". Instead of going from one focal point of activity to another, I am expected to bask in the glorious graphical rendition of the DC wasteland and look behind every nook and cranny. Instead of having graphical renditions of homes with junk in them, the homes actually have junk in them that I should rifle through. Wow. To me, this is a mind-numbingly boring chore. Yes, I will still do this chore, because I am a completionist (or borderline OCD, if you prefer to call me that). In Fallout 1 & 2, the wasteland was huge, and I skipped most of it as a blip on a map. I don't want to have to pay attention to every little nook and cranny (except in the focal points), and find out that the 500th boring terminal has a hint that can let me defeat the Antagonizer in a special way. That's the kind of crap that "strategy" guides are made/needed for. Instead, Fallout 1 and 2 only make you care about the locations that matter. Everywhere else, you are fast-traveling over miles of uninteresting desert. Having a "3D open world RPG" means that sort of thing is no longer possible.

Real-time combat against level-scaled enemies also makes the game nearly impossible for me to play. Yes, I play other real-time games, but I consider real-time combat something I can live with, not something I like or want. I am expected to change my combat style from the old games entirely, because standing around with a high-powered ranged weapon picking off enemies doesn't work when the enemies are permanent bullet sponges (thanks to level scaling) who are on top of you before you can fire the second round. The best I can do is hide and hope that the psychic enemies lose interest. I can at least deal with this in TES games due to my use of melee combat and magic, but I refuse to use melee in a modern combat game.

Is the game well-written? I don't care (much; the writing affects the Fallout universe, and I still have a microscopic hope that there will be a Fallout 3). I am annoyed that they took everything that they thought was cool in 1 & 2 and cranked it to 11, but I have come to realize that arguing about details like this is pointless, given that I am just not in the games target audience, anyway. I don't care if Grand Theft Autio V or Super Mario Bros. have good writing, even though they are among the top-selling games of all time, because I would never be caught dead playing either... unless they renamed them to "Fallout 3".