*ahem* Some of us have been playing RPG's (on the computer no less, and I remember when FO was originally published) since before a lot of you were born....

I'm not sure why that makes me right regarding anything, but apparently it means something to you. :shrug:

I never said anything about the majority of Fallout 3 fans being younger, and Carolina and several others never played Fallout before then, or want to now see what it is like.

Although I have noticed the majority of Fallout fans on this forum seems to be in the 16-19 age range.

Agreed.

The point is, your post implies that there's some sort of extra validity involved in the opinions of people who played FO or FO2. A lot of peoples posts do, in these never ending FONV vs FO3 threads.

Not true. If there were, I would be able to say with complete confidence that The Bards Tale was the apogee of RPG gaming, and FO (and every other RPG since) is but a pale imitation of this, and you would not be able to argue with me. God, the glorious 16 colours, and XGA graphics... so frigging sweet.... The world moves on. Inexorably. Even though war never changes, games do, and someone who has just started playing the FO series of games' opinion of them is just as valid as yours, or mine.




Unless of course you feel that "seniority" does, in fact, convey some validity, in which case your opinion is not the equal of mine, and the newcomers, why, theirs would be even less so!

We have seen an example of a Fallout game, I'm not saying we have more validity, I'm saying we know what to have expected from Fallout game and Fallout 3 failed to provide that.

People say that Fallout 3 is the way it should be without seeing an example of what it once was, and that can cause some people to lose credibility in some cases.

Ok then, please tell me why Fallout 3 has no personalty and Fallout New Vegas personalty is so great? Examples will help me out allot guys.

Any personality Fallout 3 had was directly taken from Fallout 1 and 2.

Some examples:

Fallout 1 had to leave a vault to search for water, Fallout 3 had you search for water.

Fallout 1 also had you kill mutants in their base and destroy their FEV vats, guess what happened in Vault 87 with Fallout 3?
Fallout 2 had you search for a GECK to save alot of lives, Fallout 3 does the same.

Many more and other examples.

Fallout: New Vegas brought us closer to the originals and had some original writing, had gotten rid of many inconsistancies Fallout 3 had, and brought some of the correct 50's type of feel Fallout had.

Again, stated as fact. "Failed to provide that".

The way it should be is a purely judgmental call with no objective benchmark. I would argue that the way it should be is as FO3 became, and now it is FNV, working on the premise that the programmers came close to achieving their goals.

And I'll let you in on a little secret... *cue shocked gasps* I preferred FO3 to FO or FO2.

I know, I probably need to be put against a wall as a traitor or something.

I understand what your saying,but to me it seems kind of like your swinging a double bladed sword everywhere your saying its not like the first two Fallouts but, at the same time they just took all of material from it.

Alright, It's an opinion shared by several here, then again so is everything then.

I'll put up with more of this tomorrow as my son is annoying the heck out of me, and I have to get up in five hours.

For me the first Bethesda game i played was Oblivion, but i played both FO3 and FONV and i like all three games for what each has to offer and what each tried to do. Another point i would like to make is that with the trends in the gaming market where everything is going flashy graphics, chop suey flick wire work combat with people flying all around and [censored]. It is the minimization of any player customization options, story arc choices where the player has some choice in the ending, basically removing ANY individuality from the game until each and every time a player plays the game is identical not only to thier own personal experience but the same as everyone else who plays as well. Bethesda or Obsidian it does not matter to me anyway, was this one better than the other maybe but that maybe is all subjective anyway. My point is that with the current assault RPG gameing is under with the ADD or the lowest common denominator productions like Mass Effect 2, and now the major dissappointment Dragon Age 2 if we as a community do not support Bethesda or Obsidian we will all be playing the SAME game. For the complainers who say Oblivion, Fallout 3 or Fallout New Vegas or the development studios lack personality should consider a romp through Mass Effect 2 or Dragon Age 2 which has the personality of a turnip before launching complaints at the only RPG game developers who still remember what a RPG is supposed to be.

Could O or B done things better probably, but they did not forget what they made thier bones on the fiddly details oriented game play known and loved by true RPG fans. They did not forget to create a world where i can be who i want today, subject to change tomorrow or when the fancy strikes me and the world moves with me. They made a game that while not perfect, that will not satisfy everyone, has enough depth that each play can be different if the player chooses. The key for me in all of this is player choice, and the more choices and details that the developer takes the time to include in the game makes me a happier camper. My god we could all be stuck playing Mass Effect 2 or Dragon Age 2 clones, with all creativity and life svcked completely out but parasitic executives who have boat payments but no clue about games and gamers.

Asai

New Vegas you can join or at least help out every Faction but for Viper and Jackals which are just minor raider groups. Even the fiends you can at least talk to their leader and sell them drugs. There are four different faction endings along with many different changes that let you know what happened to the people, towns and small factions you came in contract with. The game has an original story line that adds a new major faction, the Legion. The quests are moral grey. Not Black and White. You can talk your way out of killing if you want. Character creation in the game allows you to make unique characters. Ones that are not all super powerful people but you still can if you want. New Vegas does not rail road you into joining any faction like Fallout 3 makes you join the BoS aka the Good Guys.

Fallout 3 is just copy and paste of Fallout and Fallout 2.

Fallout: Find waterchip to get pure water for your vault and save the world from super mutants.

Fallout 2: Find a Geck and destroy the Enclave.

Fallout 3: Find a Geck to get pure water, destroy super mutants and Enclave.

Pretty much every quest is good or evil in FO3 and you can't join many of the Evil Factions. Can't join the Enclave or Talon Company. Very few quests that allow you to be evil. The Writing is not that great in Fallout 3. There are many plot holes and somethings like Megaton make no sense. A man sitting there asking anyone new in town to blow up a nuclear bomb and no one stopped him?

Anyways I could go on but I will stop with this. Fallout 3 is fun. I enjoyed hundreds of hours playing it. I enjoyed some quest and three of the five DLC are great. But I never felt like I was playing a true Fallout. What they did to Harold :sadvaultboy:

After waiting 10 years for a Fallout 3. I was let down with Fallout 3. It does not have any real RPG elements, its pretty much a FPS.

LOL Well if Harold represented the old fallout games, I guess it really didn't help that I burned him alive :flamethrower: lol

That sums it up for me as well ~ except, I doubt that I played 35 hours in FO3; (Though technically I've run the program for longer than that fiddling with mods and the GECK).

I can't say much about New Vegas. According to Steam I've only played it 25 hours ~but most of that has been fiddling with mods and the GECK as well.

I can say that I liked the game within the first 10 minutes. It just feels right IMO. The game has the right atmosphere, and seems a good ? step closer to Fallout 1 than FO3 was.
(*IMO FO1 remains the best in the series so far.)

Agreed :foodndrink:

For me its: Fallout, Fallout 2, New Vegas, Tactics and Fallout 3.

Nice to have a chat, even if we disagree a little.

you're in the middle of a barren wasteland and you expect personality?

honestly, i don't like how theres so very few dungeons, but theres plenty of things happening above ground. 2 armies clashing together, big important dam, and quite a few poeple who can't possibly do things for themselves.

Dude had a tree growing out of his head. It was never going to end well for him.

New Vegas has Vaults. It has Caves and one of them is under water! It has Sewer systems and train tunnels. It has bunkers as well.

To me it has just as many underground "dungeon crawling" as Fallout 3. The only difference is you are not forced to go "dungeon crawling" to get to locations like the subway tunnels in Fallout 3.

You are going to hate this but.. I like the Harold in Van Buren. Bob got bigger yes but he kept it small like a bonsai tree. Harold in Fallout 3 was just an attempt at fan service but god what a backfire that was IMO.

:facepalm:

Not again with this

Bioware have a different way to works with RPG, its not the same way like Bethesda Does

the term "True RPG" varies depending of the company

Bioware games always uses the same cliche since Baldurs Gate 1, but they done it well, saying that they lack of personality is like saying that both Bethesda and Obsidian havent it too

And EVERY COMPANY IN EXISTENCE WORKS FOR MONEY, without them don expect new games anyways

Indeed, (and so did Black Isle), but this is an established series, and a professional dev studio. They should make for the series, not ego.

(Imagine if it were reversed, and Skyrim was being made by Kalypso or Relic; No one would want the game to be made as an overhead strategy game, and they [the developers] shouldn't consider even it. This cuts both ways. A professional can build to suit, and is not restricted by familiarity).

You might want to put "I think" at the end of that sentence. As is, it's stated as a fact, which it is not. It is your "opinion". Not trying to argue. Just saying.

So much to say. I've been in the desert for a week, so I've missed a lot. First I'll address the subject of this thread.



I agree about the map markers. I do think both games, FONV and FO3 have personality, it just depends on what personality you like better. Having just come from the very desert location which we are discussing I am even more convinced it is a poor location choice for a game. Large areas of nothing. Great to visit and sight see though, as it's stark and gorgeous there. Anyway...



Hee. I don't like too much realism in my games either. I'm one of those who doesn't understand the need for realism in a game that already has so many unrealistic aspects to it. I loved how fanciful Fallout 3 was. New Vegas could use more of that. I mean, it has giant stinging wasps, and a vault full of plant people.

Despite my not minding the fanciful, they could have added more realism to the game and still made it more fun. How?...

...In a souvenier store I found this little poster that is a map of authentic Nevada ghost towns, old mining camps and old trails that still exist today and the first thing I thought was, "Why didn't they put this in FONV?". They could have used artistic license and crammed a few of them into Clark County. Can you imagine a whole ghost town to explore in FONV? Wouldn't that have been fun? There is actually an old trail just north of Goodsprings. It would have been a fun thing to discover and follow in the game. And instead of having them just there with no explanation and no story behind them, they could have had little side stories and quests go with them like they did with many of the locations in FO3 and with great detail. For I believe there is detail lacking in many of the FONV locations. So many missed opportunities with FONV.





The way that FO3's story was implemented I think is more interesting. Like westoftherockies said, stuff happened during the game. Not much happens during FONV's story. You run here, run there, back and forth, back and forth, without much happening. But I guess some people like this. :sadvaultboy:

The dialog in FONV is much better, and the choices are much better, I just wish some of the quests had more interesting aspects to them besides dialog. Because once you've read it, you've read it. If there isn't a challenge to going through the quest then it gets boring. Why? Because a quest with a challenge like a fight with mutants or raiders or whatever is dynamic. They will unfold differently each time. Just dialog and running back and forth in a quest isn't interesting (fun) enough to hold up to more than two or three readings, for me anyway. It's a game, there needs to be some action involved in at least half of the quests. A challenge of some sort. And it doesn't always have to be a fight. We can all read. No challenge there.

I just hope we get a combination of both games for the next Fallout game because there are aspects to both games that I like.