That's the problem, then >_<

Glare/daylight makes it hard to see anything on a screen I find. It's alright for casual use, but yeah, games like Fallout/BG etc, where darkness means it's going to be frigging dark, well it's better to contrast that with the darkness of the room you're in.

@Talonfire I hate quest arrows. I prefer the way games like Metroid Prime did it. Where you could toggle the hint system, and even then it just gave you a general location where it thinks you should go next, with some vague text relating to what its significance could be.

Haha, so true. Granted the maps are a bit different, but they could just steal from MMOGs and have the quest guy tell you a general description.

I loved fallout 1 - at the time, it was my favorite game ever (except maybe MoO 2), but I hated fallout 2. I hated the tribal premise, I hated the time limit, I hated the main quest. Fallout 3, I think, is a really great game, although I dont think it has as much replay value as oblivion does. I'm really looking forward to new vegas.

Er... Fallout 1 has a time limit, Fallout 2 doesn't. And I actually like the sense of urgency.

Aye, what's a crisis if there's nothing pushing you to find a solution.

It's not like the time limit was stifling, for me anyway. It just reminded you that actually, you NEED to hurry up, or your people will die. So get off your lazy ass and stop uncovering fog of war, for example.

That's what Bethesda did in their earlier games including Morrowind. Oblivion is where they decided to start hand holding the player, and sadly they brought that over to Fallout 3. Bethesda must have a very, very low opinion of its player base since quest arrows imply that they think we're all mentally retarded.

Gamers are hard to please. Bethesda introduced map markers because of gamers whining they got lost. Then after Oblivion, gamers whined that it was impossible to get lost. :shrug:

Lazy on the dev's part then, it's not a binary issue of having no location assistance or total assistance. WoW, for example, had quests that were for the most part helpful without the hand-holding that say WAR has (not a slam against WAR - it's not a PVE game after all)

That says a lot about Bethesda if they only listen to the folks who can't figure out what direction "north east" is.

Bullseye.

QFT. And in before "waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah elitist old school gamers"

No, I liked it. It's not for you that o.k.

Well, I just got it, and I'm quite enjoying it. I did think that it was kind of [censored]ty that But I truely love games where you can just wander around finding stuff, and the way Fallout implements that into the main storyline is nice to me.

Really? I only got the first game last week, and I'm not finished with it yet, but so far I've found quite the opposite. No one seems to give a rat's ass that I wiped out the Khans, for example; the mayor of Junktown is still reffering to that casino owner in the present tense long after we worked together to oust him; and the Brotherhood of Steel seems rather "meh" about the fact that I told them an army of super-mutants is coming. Compare that to a game where you can blow up a town, move to an apartment complex for evil aristocrats and potentially get that place occupied by sewer-spawned ghouls, et cetera.

I can only assume, sir, that you played a different Fallout 3 than I did.

Play Mass Effect, my friend. :deal: Their world may not be as unique, but they sure do well with fleshing it out.

It always seems that every topic started here ends up being a Fallout 3 svcks one. Most of the time with few reasons explained besides it wasn't made by Black Isles. Is it so hard to change, I mean I began with Fallout 1 and 2 but will today never even imagine going back to them...It's not because they're bad, its just my playing style has changed. I can't deal with Isometric Turn-based games anymore, its a thing of the past. But, hey, if you fell some sort of gratification complaining go ahead. Me, I'll choose to play the [censored] games of today over any game from the past, except maybe the origional Command And Conquer RTS, but I still kinda like Command And Conquer 3 better. really, it seems like we can't have any constructive Threads anymore that deal with the Fallout Franchise without loads of [censored]ing and moaning, this stuff is worse then a soap opera, really I could write a script right now of these forums and it would be on air in three months right next to days of our lives.

I came to Fallout 1 after having spent 2 years with Fallout 2, having got into FO2 back in 1998 and having somehow missed FO1 when it came out (beats me how, I knew about the game when it was in development - maybe it was too much dames). Honestly, I enjoyed the story, but the interface improvements from 1 to 2 are important. I struggled against what I consider an unituitive interface and as such it's the game in the series I spent the least time with (only 3 playthroughs). I can see a lot in that game that can turn a new gamer right off and I don't blame them. But there is a good game there, you just have to be willing to put in the effort.

All that said and I love FO3. I love FO2. Are they the same thing? Hardly.

That's a pretty good way to put it.

Wait, so you'd play a crap game over a non-crap one simply because it's newer ? Gee, new age consumers.

I'm tired of people that say Fallout 3 is a "crap" game lets just get one thing perfectly clear, this is an opinion and not a scientific fact okay? Just because you can't get your head out of the turn based 2D isometric world that Interplay created a decade ago does not mean that anything else is garbage and unworthy of the Fallout name.

Now I'm an old school gamer, I played old RPGs on my Commodore 128 like Might and Magic and King's Quest. I've done the Baldur's Gate series, Neverwinter Nights, Knights of the Old Republic 1-2, Deja Vu (NES, was this an RPG?), Final Fantasy 7-8-10-12, Phantasy Star 3, Chrysalis, DUNE (DOS RPG), Vampire the Masquerade Bloodline/Redemption, Shadowrun, Diablo 1-2 (Not really an RPG), Planescape Torment, Mass Effect, Two Worlds, Fable, Elder Scrolls 3-4, Fallout 3, Guild Wars, SW Galaxies, just to start with. As you can see, I have experienced a wide variety of RPGs spanning PCs and consoles from old Isometric 2-D to First/Third Person Perspective modern day RPGs and even old school table top RPGs.

Now I have the Fallout Trilogy and I'm currently enjoying the original Fallout quite a bit. Is it a great RPG? You betcha! Is it the end all, be all master RPG that many F3 haters describe? Hell NO, not even close. In fact, imo it doesn't even come close to Baldur Gate's 2 storytelling, characters, or combat which I find anti-climactic in F1. However, I'm still having a blast with it in spite of this and other flaws I find in the game. The same can be said of just about any other game including my own favorites: KotOR, Vampire: Bloodlines, Mass Effect, NWN 2, BG 2, F3, TES 4.

So fine players like FalloutChris, Ausir and other Fallout vets don't like F3; that's completely cool, it's not for everyone but just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's crap nor does it mean it's Fallout In Name Only or a betrayal to the name or other absuridities I hear from time to time. You guys have opinions just like everybody else around here and are worth as much. My God, it's like those whiners on the Oblivion boards that Morrowind was somehow this absolute example of perfection versus Oblivion being some kind of flaming turd because every npc doesn't repeat the same 5 backgrounds in dialogue and a stupid arrow over the compass. The whole better writing argument is constantly brought up with Morrowind and save for a few special exceptions, it's a bunch of bull there also; a good deal of the writing in Morrowind is about on average with Oblivion, except more cluttered with all the repeating to death dialogue choices of background, little secret, etc. There's also the whole lore headache with those two games aswell.

Can I understan why someone would like Fallout better than Fallout 3? Sure I can, everyone has different tastes. Does it mean because somebody comes here and says Fallout is greatness and Fallout 3 is garbage make it so? Not on your life.

My apologies to FalloutChris, Ausir and anyone else that feels singled out by my comments above, I respect your opinions; I simply get frustrated (Needlessly so I know) by some other posters attitudes towards people that like F3 because they like F3.

It helps to read the bit I quoted before you start the sermon.

@Malcador

Modified the previous post, I thought your post was regarding the first half of the quote where he stated the thread went into a Fallout 3 svcks routine as many threads around here do. Sorry 'bout that.

On topic:

In terms of disappointment there are a few things I don't entirely like bu just in terms of preferences, not really disappointment where it ruins the gaming experience. As far as Fallout 1's storytelling, is it as great as everyone says and so much better than F3? Don't know yet, haven't reached far beyond Junktown yet. See I was having my conversation with Killian when the assassin stepped in and I mistakingly walked away from the fight and went to another part of town. When I came back to talk to Killian about being recruited to take down Gizmo, the offer simply never comes no matter what I do; no tape recorder, no nothing; the quest won't initiate. Since I didn't have any saves before the Killian assassination attempt to help him and trigger the quest to bring down Gizmo I had to start over from scratch.

So far the writing has not really impressed me with either the questlines at Vault 13, Shady Sands, Junktown nor the Khan Raider camp; of course it's still very early so maybe the excellent writing will kick in some point after where I'm at? Right now is about the same average as most RPGs, it's good. But I haven't found it near the level of Bioware writing just yet. Vampire:Bloodlines also has much better writing and characters than Fallout 1 and yes I know Troika's Boyarsky was part of F1's dev team.

I dislike the combat system in Fallout 1 because I find it too mundane but I knew what I was getting when I bought Fallout Trilogy so I can't say that there has been any kind of huge disappointment for me playing at the moment. I'm still looking forward to having a good (Hopefully great) experience with Fallout 1-2 and the RTS Fallout Tactics so the best advise I can give is to give it a chance and see where the game goes. If you end up not liking it because it's gameplay is too retro for you to enjoy then your best bet will be to stick to modern day RPGs.

My two cents

I'd say that's a design choice, and not a technical limitation or anything. They made the old Fallouts that way because that's the game they wanted to make, not because what they really wanted was a real-time 3D game, but had to settle because it was impossible for that time period (since it wasn't - plenty of real-time full 3-D games out in '97.) You still see people making 2D sidescrollers that still manage to bring something new and interesting to the table (World of Goo, Braid, The Dishwasher, and so on...) I don't see why one gameplay format could be outdated when no other type is at this point. The only type of game I'd say is inherently a "thing of the past" would be the old text-parser games like Zork. And even then, I'd argue you could probably come up with something really cool utilizing modern technology in that format.

Hey, not everything is for everybody. I don't like Fighting Games very much these days, and I haven't seen how any of them have progressed in any meaningful way since the original Street Fighter beyond better graphics and more "interesting" physics. I think it's just more of the same. But if they came out with a new Tekken game that played in a completely different way than anything before it, and then after having enjoyed that one I decided to go back and play Tekken 1; and then posted on the official forum about how I was dissapointed about the original game - of course I'd get some posts "complaining" about the new direction the series was taking.

Doesn't mean that I would be wrong posting my opinions in that forum. And it wouldn't mean that anyone who disagreed with me had any less right to theirs. I honestly don't see this incredible glut of people "complaining" about Fallout 3. I honestly don't think everyone who gets labelled as someone who "hates" the game, actually does to the degree they're being represented as.

I mean, if you take a look at the more popular threads in this sub-forum - most are either suggestion threads about the next games or personal reviews and insights of the originals. Seriously - is it really that big of a suprise that in a "suggestion thread" people at times will come in and say "this is something I didn't like about Fallout 3 - let's do this in a different way the next time around?" Or if someone starts a thread that says "I loved Fallout 3, but didn't like Fallout 1" that someone will come along and say "Well, I didn't like Fallout 3 but I really liked Fallout 1?"

I haven't seen anyone ever post something along the lines of "Fallout 3 svcks - you're totally wrong if you disagree with that statement, and have no right to participate in this discussion." Yet, I do occasionally see posts come up with the converse of that statement - ie, "Fallout 3 is awesome, and anyone who finds faults must hate the game - and you don't belong here if you disagree with me."

I play it simply cause its funner. I put my hundreds of hours into Fallout 1 and 2 and have moved on. I enjoyed the elder Scrolls and Fallout 3 more then the origional Fallouts, I like there all the oldies, Daiblos, Baldur's Gate, you know th rest, but I've moved on and have more in my life then playing Turn-based games. I like the action, I like the First Prson View. The enviorments are breathtaking and far more interesting the the wastelands of the origionals. I enjoy fallout 3. I understand you don't, but I'll never go around berating another player or game just because I don't like it, or waste my time arguing over it on a Forum. I only visit these forums every mornig to get info on upcoming DLCs and I jump over here every now and again and it seems this end is full of people that can't take the fact that the world and gaming has moved on.

I'm not saying the Threads are all Fallout 3 svcks ones, it just for every constructive post there are three that complain about Fallout 3. And I can honestly say that half the time its the same argument in each post, how Fallout 3 isn't Fallout 1 and 2. I just get annoyed how good threads become arguing matches over the origionals vs Fallout 3.

I just want a few good threads that just simply say, Fallout 3 was a different game then Fallout 1 and 2, They all had their pros and cons...Lets discuss stuff in a mature and respectful way a talk about ____________.

Well, this thread is getting more off topic every time I post.

To the OP.-- Fallout 1 was good, but if you don't like it I would suggest playing Fallout 2, it had many very good advancements over the first.

I started on number 2, but haven't finished the temple of trials yet. I'll carry on later.

That's certainly not my argument, I think Fallout 3 is a good game but it would have been better if Bethesda A. Paid more attention to the setting's lore, B. Catered less to the lowest common denominator.



I think you'll find that even "Fallout 3 haters" have a lot of experience in the genre, I don't think very many hardcoe Fallout fans play just Fallout.



I certainly agree that some people place Fallout and Fallout 2 (especially Fallout 2) on too high of a pedestal. On the other hand... Baldur's Gate II? While I like Baldur's Gate II, the dialogue and writing in that game is often sub par. A lot of the endgame dialogue made me cringe, such as Jon Irenicus' conversation with Queen Elliseme. I actually thought the original Baldur's Gate had better dialogue and writing.



I think you're missing the point. I can't speak for everyone, but I don't consider the original Fallout, Morrowind, or any RPGs the height of role playing perfection. I don't consider any game perfect no matter the genre. Just because I don't agree with every little thing Bethesda does, doesn't mean that I think their games are "flaming turds". I also don't agree with everything Black Isle did. I critique because I'd rather see Bethesda improve their games, Fallout 3 certainly isn't a perfect game and it's my duty as a fan of the series to point out what Bethesda did wrong, not give them endless pats on the back even if there are some elements I disagreed with.



You're joking right? The dialogue in Oblivion was not only shorter, but just as repetitious as the dialogue in Morrowind. That's the downfall of the sandbox RPG, too many NPCs and not enough time. With full voice acting that becomes even more of an issue because you have to shorten the dialogue to fit all of the game onto one DVD. But saying that Oblivion has less repetition in its dialogue than Morrowind? I'm sorry, but that's just wrong.



It's not about mindless hate, at least not from the Fallout fans who still actually post here. The ones who simply hate Fallout 3 for petty reasons left here long ago and are sulking over in places like the Codex, and NMA. I don't think anyone here is insulting the Fallout 3 fans either, if you got the impression that I was I'm sorry. I do think it's ridiculous how Bethesda caters to the people who can't figure out the difference between north, east, south and west; yet ignores those of us who can completely. And why shouldn't I? If you don't know common knowledge like that you should go back to school. This isn't just a gaming issue, it's a society issue. If someone doesn't know the difference between east and west they should be taught the difference, not babied and hand held. I operate on the philosophy "give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, give a man a fish and he'll eat for a lifetime".