This all started because of my reaponse to Miss Stark, and Gab replied to my comments directed to her.

Which, there are people here who Beth and FO3 svck/FO1,2 NV are the win!

And well, I think that whole line of thinking is ridiculous, because there are things in every game someone can point at and complain about.

If, you are gonna play a game with the mindset of looking for stuff to whine about, you won't have fun.

Out of all the things you listed, Harold is the one I don't like either. Which is why in several playthroughs of FO3, I went to Oasis once.

But FEV: Vaults were a government contract. FEV a government research project, either they licensed West-Tek or eventually siezed control, when moved to Mariposa, or combo of both, I can't remember. So, the govt doing this wasn't a shock to me. It is believable to me the govt would eventually have more than one facility working on a project they thought was going to WIN them the war.

Enclave: personally, I think there is enough evidence in FO2 that the Enclave is a little bigger than people think, and have probably aquired more resources, bunkers, etc. So, with about 40 years after, about time a population can double, I don't find it unreasonable.

But again, Harold dumb.

This is all true, I just find that Bethesda made it far easier to find stuff to complain about then the original developers did. I didn't play Fallout 3 looking for stuff to complain about, but I can understand why most fans of the originals would have.
This could all be true, we don't know. My point is that Bethesda either doesn't explain any of it( ) or puts up a pretty thin explanation( ) that is clearly just there to have more awesome sauce in the game. This is another reason why I want them to create new content, it'll be easier to explain it all.

Maybe I'm just a evil sob, but I don't care. I can force feed myself some reasons to care, but all I see in the Mojave are a bunch of wussies who are tools and renobs that deserve a good smack. Which is why I nuke both, and if I could nuke the strip, I would. If I could lead BoS to victory, or Boomers, or be a true slaver, then I would.. I guess I like chaos.


Boo hoo, sniff sniff. Mercs! I kill deathclaws. My character is shaking in terror to this threat of mercs from a old hermit I also murder. As far as I'm concerned House uses me, so he deserves my vengeance. Benny dead, House dead, then I'm like...meh.

An idea of how I play the game. In goodsprings this old fogey comes up to me and interrupts me to tell me a story about Sunset Saspirilla caps. After his interesting tale, I equip a shovel and when his back is turned I cave in his head, because he lied to me, I think, about not having these special caps.

After this brutal act of murder, do I care about NCR, Legion, House, or Mercs coming to get me? No.

Then that's your problem, I personally find it very easy to care about the conflict in the Mojave. If you can't find a reason to care then role-play as someone who would, if you can't do that then I don't see a reason why you should play the game.

Hey, I agree whole heartily writing can be better. But man, IMO if you want to talk plot gaps, 150 years of wtf Enclave doing created by FO2 writing takes the cake. If you want to talk poof... Magic...abradabra, here is the Enclave.

Really, haters need to take a chill pill, have fun, and if FO4 is a wtf, THEN I could understand some hatred.

Edit: I don't view it as a problem. I have fun, I just do not finish the main quest. Some people just like watching the world burn.

I guess you are true to your user name

actually I did not find any main quest more interesting than others they all are excuses to get out and kill some evil bastards.
what I like in New Vegas was the conflict: it was not the same to side with ncr or Caesar and in the end you could serve yourself. it was nice
what I liked in the first 2 fallout was that the main quests were simple, there were shortcuts to end them fast, no artificial crappy quests to make the game longer than it should

1. Then roleplay a character who does care, or one who is just out for a personal gain which one of the three powers can supply.

2. The Overseer is part of Vault-Tech, he is in charge of the control vault and he wants people to stay in it for some reason, they can't go outside due to no information about the outside world and once you do give him information he's even more scared of letting people outside. As for the GECK? I take it that Arroyo are somewhat religious and doesn't want to leave their lands. Besides, in Arroyo, excluding the drought, they are safe. They are hidden and have good strategic position, it's also their home, of course they want to save it. They aren't nomads exactly.

1. I don't think New Vegas is truly Fallout, it's the best out of a bad situation, the most Fallout one can get out of Bethesda's design.

2. It's not about being frozen in time, it's about making sense, the west coast was having troubles with NCR's expansion and they send out a chapter to the east? Why? Especially since the last faction they sent east went rouge.


1. *sigh* You, are, a, mailman, you are not a demi-god just yet, you are a mailman, that's it, you survived a shot to the head? That is due to pure luck, not skill. Think about how you'd feel in the Courier's shoes instead of thinking of how awesome you are at playing the game. Cause again, you are a mailman, not a soldier, not a spec ops, but a mailman.

2. So what you're saying is that we should get mercs sent after us after everything we do as that's the only way to have action and consequence?

Where would you go then?
East to the legion?
West into NCR land?

It is your own interest to side with the rising power, to live a better and safe life.
Even if you think you are a demi-god, cause that's the impression you get while playing, mercs will still be a thread. Even demi-gods need to sleep and can easily be killed then.

It is your choice to just don't care, but you will have to face consequence sooner or later. The game might not be designed well enough to make it clear, but that's where roleplay and imagination kicks in.



Of course you will find a lot of flaws in every game when you search for it, I never do, but while playing Fallout 3 they were jumping into my face.

There is a ring of truth to that. The gameplay mechanics were as much a part of the appeal of the franchise as setting and narrative mechanics. There wasn't anything back then I can recall that could be comparable to the overall experience Fallout (1&2) offered. New Vegas excells on writing and narrative design, but the gameplay is not very good overall (or, very "Fallout") even if improved from Fallout 3 - in fact the new ES design core hurts the overall appeal with forced and too apparent downscaling of locales, variety and scope provided by a sandboxmap, simplified FPS gameplay (in which the RPG hurts the FPS; and the FPS hurts the RPG - resulting in, as Gizmo would say, a "frankenshooter" which does both of its aspects unoptimally), among other things.

My feelings exactly.
And despite how much of a TES clone F3 looked to be before release, I was expecting the gameplay mechanics to at least be as developed as they were in F:NV, but unfortunately not, and if these were already in F3, I could imagine even greater improvements for NV if it had that base to build from.

And fonv required you to feel something for benny so thats a mute point .And at the Jefferson memorial with enclave James probably killed himself due to the fact the enclave are going to sacrifice the cw using Project purity as there medium yeah that could have something to.do with it.

Not really. It was the job your character was doing pre-opening of game that was presented as something the character was obligated to care about (up to a degree), it had an explanation as to what the situation was. Whereas in Fallout 3 the dad issue was almost completely hamfisted in - you never made any bond to him, you barely got to know him in the first place, and then suddenly you were obligated to find and care about him and help him at your own peril even when there was no logical reason to, quite the contrary as he was the one that left you in the mercy of others. The game never gave any incentive to care about what he was doing, nor a choice not to.

This is where I stopped. Why? Because it's obvious you have either a limited understanding of those games or c&c in general. You sir, are very special. Good day.

Yeah I really wanna know about this part, evlbastrd, why do you feel like there is no consequence to killing everyone in the entire game? And what kind of consequence were you expecting?

Order of best Fallout's IMO

1st: Fallout

2nd: Fallout 2

3rd: Fallout New Vegas

4th: Fallout Tactics

5th: Fallout 3.

New Vegas could have been different and by different I mean even better. Bethesda could have given them at least another six months. With the time given they made an awesome Fallout game. I know what some are thinking "New Vegas just took alot from the modding community of Fallout 3." To counter that, the modding community got alot of those ideas from Fallout and Fallout 2 but was left out of Fallout 3.

Also as for killing eveyone in Fallout and Fallout 2.. In my countless play throughs I have never attempted that and don't think I ever will. At least in Fallout and Fallout 2 the characters remember your actions unlike Fallout 3

Edit: I would also like to point out that at least we can kill everyone, unlike Fallout 3 with Little Lamplight.

I think that bethesda gave obsidian chance to make new vegas so they could see how people would react to some things.

They atleast learned that NO closed endings, perk every level is better, no blocking areas with imba monsters thats are too fast negating tactical advancement, no invisible walls.

All Bethesda learned was that their fan-base doesn't like real RPGs or Fallout.

If even that.

Gab: Wait, are you explaining FO1 "OMG we need a water chip or we all die" funky MQ because of Vault Experiments that didn't even exist yet?

Brilliant! So any shady story is NOT shady at all... to be continued! So all the plot holes in FO3 cannot be criticized, because... stay tunes.. FO4.. and FO5 will explain all....

As far as BoS, Lyons ledt or arrived in 2255. Roughly a decade after FO2. I doubt NCR conflict with BoS had started. Technically, we do not know BoS numbers. It could potentially be 16,000+ by that time. Potentially.

And seeing how it what? 80 years between 1 and 2, and Arroyo was founded by Vault Dwellers, they are now primitive, superstitious, tribals...weird.

Did you start this franchise with 1 or 3? I was under the impression many here started at 3, went backwards, and now act like what FO *really* is. Well, a game engine, or pov, does not decide a games fate to me. Is it a rpg? In a world I know, with connecting stort? Then fine.

I do not see how waking up from near death is going to pull me into the power struggle. I want revenge. I talk to House. I kill Benny. I return to House, an kill him. Who sending Mercs? House dead. I don't take short cuts in games. By the time I hit the Strip, I'm pretty much a machine o death. I guess if I got there at level 4, House and his threats would be intimidating. It doesn't hurt my feelings that I don't finish the game, if you do, great. I have fun playing my way

Ya know, I didn't even know there was a FO3 until I saw a commercial on TV. Then I was like wow. FO. Finally. So, I go Wallyworld night it comes out and get a lunchbox. I was very impressed. I had never played any ES games. My thoughts were "wow, rpg has come along way".

Then of course I find out about TES, so after a year of FO3 I got Oblivion. Was fun, but I'm kinds meh towards fantasy games..played way to many.

Games have come a long way since Zork. I don't want to go back in time, and if I had such a desire I would grab a pen, paper, and dice. You have a lot more fun, IMO, if you just play. Now, I do like turn based games, but I have zero problem with rt rpging, or improvements to the way games are made. I embrace it, if it is fun.

True that. Picturing The Todd learning doesn't quite compute:

Fallout Fan: Hey Todd, I was thinking. There were some pretty glaring issu-

The Todd: BOOMSPLODE!!!

Fallout Fan: Um, yeah. Anyway, there were some pretty glaring issues with Fallout 3 and I'd love to discuss them with you in hopes of creating a better game. You know, something closer to the classic Fallout experience if you will.

The Todd: VIOLENCE IS [censored]IN' FUNNY!

Fallout Fan: Eh. Yeah, sort of. But that's not really- ok nevermind. Let's change gears here. I want to talk about the writing and dialo-

The Todd: BOOMSPLODE! BAM! SPLODE A NUKE! SPLODE A NUUUUUKE!!!!

Fallout Fan: *leaves room, pledges money to Wasteland 2*

Figures, because you just hate, hate, and oh hate this, too.

Slurp slurp slurp FO1. Slurp slurp slurp FO2.

Fact is, you can do that in those games. Oh no, the people of the den hate me, wait, there are no more people in the Den.

Last time I decided to kill everyone in NCR for no particular reason, Sullik, Vic, Cassidy all joined in gleefully. Whats up, Boss? They didn't care. Mass murder. As a matter if fact, I could prolly leave Vic sitting somewhere, go kill his daughter, and join him right back up.

Whats up, Boss? Nada, just killed yer daughter. Say, can you holster your weapon? Sure thing, Boss.

It kind of a given if you kill a quest giver, you can't get their quest. Ooooh.

You act like FO1 and 2 have some awesone consequences compared to FO3. And I by means of devils advocate criticize your comments.

Noone's advocating for backwards movement, though, nor would it be such if the game (for some strange twist of fate) was made using the original concept as a base. In fact, I find this "moving back in time/stuck in the past" arguing pointless and, to be frank, somewhat offensive even. Realtime is not progression, not in this case, it's just changing (and same with FP and ISO perspectives) and aside from graphical advancements, I don't see anything that could really be viewed as a real, called for improvement.

The issue is not about progression. Not at all. It's about unnecessary mutation. If there ever was a Zork sequel, I would want it to be a text adventure. If there ever was a sequel The Lost Vikings, I would want it to be a sidescroller. If a sequel to any franchise is made as a complete opposite of what the original was, why call it a sequel or a part of that franchise at all instead of giving it another name (because, you know, it being a different game).


That sounds about right so far (remembering the discussions here during Fallout 3 developement). Sadly.

"We remodeled the vault chair to a tee because we're such a huge fans of the series... all of us. Even those who never played any of the games."

Too late for that, the last three installments in the Zork series were http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHKKq7kMF8w.

Of course, I don't think the final three Zork games are that much of a departure from what Zork was, they were still inventory/puzzle based first person adventure games. The transition from first person text adventure to first person graphical adventure isn't nearly as extreme as what Bethesda did with Fallout.


That sounds more like PR talk than actual reasoning, at least that's what I hope it is.