Well the Bottom of the barrel was The Burned Game. That game killed Fallout. Yeah I agree 100% that Fallout 3 is dumbed down. Todd Howard and Michael Bay share the same mind. Obsidian has give me some hope that maybe Fallout will get better in the future. If Bethesda doesn't learn anything from Fallout New Vegas than I fear Fallout 4 will be worse than Fallout 3. Once you go down the road of "eveything must be super EPIC!" than every game has to be more Super Epic than the last which only means more dumbed down mindless crap.

You think all of us could agree on how the games should be made?

We'd kill each other in the boardroom.

Gizmo once made a comparison of PoS and Fallout 3 in a debate with someone of the Fallout-3-bestestest-evah crowd. They have more similiarities than one'd think (can't remember all the bulletpoints as that debate happened quite some time ago, but if you look at and compare the gameplayvideos of both I think you can spot some of 'em).

You can look for similarities in anything if you look hard enough or if you're intent on finding them.

Was not like that. To my recollection they were quite obvious. Needless to say, though, that the other guy disagreed with almost the same argument as yours and there was no consensus on the matter (the thread got to the limit and discussion was over).

I agree, you can find similarities in anything if you look hard enough. I am not a big fan of Fallout 3 as a Fallout game. My fear is that Fallout 4 could easily become another Burned Game if Bethesda tries to make Fallout 4 an even more "EPIC explosion filled hiking simulator" than Fallout 3 was. I am hoping the learned from Fallout 3. That Todd Howard got to sit down with the devs of Obsidian and learned from them. I hope he goes and sits down an plays the Orginals and New Vegas.

I don't see how Fallout 3 is any better than P.O.S.

I don't think it will be. I'm going to remain optimistic.

If its no worse than Skyrim I'll be content.


And you won't. Because you have it in your mind to hate the game for your own reasons.

I think there are some definite redeemable qualities of Fallout 3 which the Burned Game does not share.

I wish I could be more optimistic - that I was given a reason to be. Would be much easier dwelling these forums and discuss matters. But I guess it's in my nature to be cynical.

I don't think Fallout 3 is worse than BoS. Fallout 3 is my least favourite Fallout not including the Burned Game. I can see Fallout 4 becoming a burned game. Like if the Lone Wanderer makes an appearance.

For me it goes:

1) Fallout

2) Fallout 2

3) New Vegas

4) Fallout Tactics

5) Fallout 3

Didn't say it was worse. Said I don't see how it's any better. They're both irredeemably crap. TUNNEL SNAKES RULE!!1

Really? I thought Tactics was pretty bad personally.

Why I like Tactics more than Fallout 3. Fallout Tactics wasn't sold as an RPG. As a tactical squad based game its great. Fallout 3 was sold as an RPG and as an RPG its crap. I can forgive Tactics for not fully explaining things, like how the cars are fueled, cause it isn't an RPG so we aren't supposed be invested in the game world. But still Tactics does show people growing crops, while Fallout 3 doesn't.

I find Fallout Tactics has a better more interesting story and it has multiple ways to play the game. While Fallout 3's story is poorly writen and there is a very limited number of ways to play, really in the end there is only one way -"The Good Guy."

To me Fallout 3 failed in every way possible as a Fallout game, yet I don't see it as bad as the Burned Game.

Eh, I won't argue Tactics has a more branching story than 3, it's just the ingame presenations of various things made me feel disconnected. Fallout and Fallout 2 were vague on what the Pre-War world was like, and Fallout 3 added to this, in my opinion very nicely by making it look like the Pre-War world was trying desperately to cling to that 'perfect Atomic Age family and moral values' culture, even in the face of global political tensions and possible global war. But Tactics felt to Anarcho-Punk for my tastes.

While Fallout 3 has its fair share of problems, it's at the very least a good game on its own merits, and Bethesda didn't twist the Fallout setting beyond recognition like Interplay did in order to match what they believed the console market wanted. I'd argue that Fallout is much better than BoS, despite its flaws.

I haven't played any of the COD games since COD2 but I think Yahtzee had something about this with COD MW and MW 2 that in MW when there was one soldier you played dying of a nuclear explosion then it was pretty awesome but then they tried to pull it off again and it wasn't as effective.

But yeah, I think that if a franchise is going to continue develop games then they should never go to the "epic" scale at all and keep things interesting in a down to earth fashion instead.

He had something about this in GOW3 too, that the last card that can be played for epic proportions is to save a planet or "the" planet you live on.
While not having played Mass Effect 3 (so I don't want any spoilers, not even in spoiler tags) does it really have anywhere to go beyond that game?

I don't think it would. That is when a series normally reboots which is my nightmare. They push the epic factor to far and you get to a point where it can't go any further. The only logical thing to do is then reboot

That or go completely off the rails with the game like Resident Evil did. It did both, went off thr rails then rebooted.

I just hope that the same people that created the quests in Skyrim don't have any part at all in Fallout 4. Skyrim quests are so linear and unimaginative that I can't believe that game is so popular. But as an earlier poster said, the vast majority of Bethesda fans are those that care nothing about the storyline of the game and just like to run around and kill [censored]. It makes me sick actually.

No, not really, I don't think you can get any more "epic" than the Reapers in the Mass Effect setting. I don't think we have to worry too much about Fallout reaching that point though, Fallout storylines tend to be smaller in both scale and scope. A global threat that is actually recognized by people all over the world would be the point of no return for Fallout.

Fallout: Alien Invasion

The world sees alien ships all over the atmosphere and sky as aliens come for revenge, and conveniently have world-wide communication as they band together to defeat this alien menace, with the help of The Protagonist, who flies into space with his pet dog, he crashlands on the ship, fights aliens, (A slightly reskinned alien from MZ) saves a hot chick in a form fitting outfit with cleavage showing, arms the self destruct sequence he just happens to know, and hijacks a ship, sailing off into space with the chick in his lap as he smokes a cigar, and returns to Earth hailed a hero by the earth.

I CAN'T WAIT!

Is our protagonist called "The Duke"?

It is?




Oh really now? Funniest thing I've ever read about Fallout 3 or Bethesda. Thank you for this.

Tbh, I feel bad saying fallout 3 was a bad game. Its very fun, but similar to Skyrim, falls flat on being an rpg and dialoge and stuff.

It's okay little baby, we'll change your diaper when you're done crying.

@YM=MB- I feel the same way when I bought the Fallout Trilogy pack a while ago. Fallout 3 has wonderful aesthetics, but it lacks the depth and richness in lore like the other games.

You both sound like husband and wife. Question is, which is which? XD