But that is how games evolve. They change from text, to graphics, to improved graphics, from 2d, to 3d.

The fact that FO1, 2, and Tactics were top down, was a sign of the times. Even the new turn based XCom appears to have a rotating camera, and not limited to top down view, at least from what I have seen.

I would love a tactics 2 wth that kind of tech. I have no problem with VATS as my pseudo turn based combat, although improvements are nice. It is genre, story that matter most to me. Game engines, pov, matter not.

Btw just tested my theory and I was correct. Val turned into a pile of dust. Cassidy and Sullik go on murderous rampage, killing even unarmed civilians. Vic rejoins my party. Vault City hates me, no one else cares.

If I write a book, then I decide, well, I will continue this story, but as a comic. Then for part 3, I make an audio cd. Then part 4, a TV mini series, and part 5 a movie. You going to tell me it isn't my world, characters, and story, because it is no longer a book?

Btw, a scroller, is a genre. RPG is a genre. Sports games are genre. The pov does not decide the genre, IMO.

Ah, didn't know that. Just gave an example from my memory of what I played 'em back then. It's just the general idea of how I view and prefer sequels.


An intentionally exaggerated paraphrase. I remember what a number they made about the chair and their fandom (later it becoming obvious that majority of their staff hadn't ever even touched the originals) back in 2007-early 2008.


Sign of times? Why so? There were FPP RPG's even before them. Rotating camera, if it complements the gameplay is an evolution of static camera and does not create an issue of making an apple an orange. Van Buren was to have rotating camera and 3D graphics - that game was to be an evolution and a complete turnaround.

And people would have complained about VB as well. Technically, you could say Bards Tale was "first person".

But, top down was hot at the time. Xcom, jagged alliance, a lot of games were top down. I'm simply saying the pov does not make the genre.

Styles: you never had the urge to wipe out Vault City? They deserve it.

However, I have not just killed everyone in the game...but I have in some playthroughs wiped out VC and NCR.

Also, it seems I remember some NPCs hating me and maybe not even talking to me after murdering some people in FO3, but hard to remember.
People want to complain and complain and complain about Beth and FO3. It is a game. Have fun.

Sure, someone always complains, but not at the extent that the core gameplay experience would've been shifted drastically. The new XCOM will also be top down (albeit with a free camera). I haven't claimed a pov "makes a genre", but it can and will have a drastic effect on the gameplay and percievance of the game overall - especially in cases where the original pov is completely bunked over another (and gameplay changed to better suit the new one).

If BGS developed Fallout New Vegas, the open world would be better but every other area of the game would suffer. The only thing that I would change for New Vegas is to give it an extra year of development time.

I've been wading through this thread for about a day and a half, and I gotta say Evilbastard makes some pretty valid points. He isnt trying to bash any game, rather makes a great case that the F3/Beth in general bashing is a bit stale and overstated/inflated.

Of course the perspective, engine, studio/publisher, being released to consoles and not just PC and other changes are going to invite people to scrutinize the game more.
But i gotta wonder if rose tinted glaasses and the need to fit in with OG/Dino FO fans doesnt prevent people from holding the originals tot he same level of scrutiny. Ultimately, I guess that wouldnt matter, since they dont hold the IP anymore and can't make any improvements. *shrugs*

I say all this with a chuckle of good natured humor, but.... I have read more than a few people throw out "Look, we are just gonna keep going in circles on this, so we may as well not continue talking about it/ we already have a thread for this/ this topic gets brough up too often" in the past week over a few different threads. But at the same time, people will continue to bash F3 for the same reasons over and over and over and over...... and over, regardless of what the threads OT was about. I have been posting on here with this and one other SN since 2008 and it s like war in that it never changes. Then, there are people that tout F1 and 2 as being so much better haven't even beat them. Take your time and give that statement the thought it deserves.


Its not quite to the level of side splitting, but surely someone has to see the humor in all of it, no?

Humor?

yes, in te same context of someone saying.
"I will not be redundant" over and over.

Humor.

Wanting to fit in? What if they genuinely think as they do, instead of, you know, just want to belong with the cool guys?

Funny because it's true

And yet very very sad, heart breaking even

I still hold out hope for Fallout 4.


Nope, those big gun towers keep me from doing it. I have however destroyed Gecko and the Slags at the Ghost Farm as well as the Hubologists. A couple of times I have taken on Navarro, doesn't end well. Also the mob families in Reno but for the Wrights, I like those guys.

heh,mentioned rose tinted glasses as well.

any rate, it isnt an all out statement. It is an "I wonder", just meant to spark some thought on the subject.
I suppose i could have put "some people" as opposed to just "people" in there, but hey.
The actual point of "some" people not holding the originals to the same level of scrutiny, for at least a couple different reasons, stands.

I hope not much. It'd be better to choose between "I knew it" and pleasant surprise, than disappointment and a pleasasnt surprise.


The lack of "some" wasn't a source of confusion. I understood you perfectly. Just wanted to poke it a bit.

So you're saying we are the cool guys?

In all seriousness. Do you know many people will not even give Fallout, Fallout 2 and Fallout Tactics a shot simply because "Bethesda didn't make them" and "They're old"? All us Dinosaurs like Fallout 3 for what it is and enjoyed the hell out of it. Many were introduced to the Fallout Universe by Fallout 3.

Yeah there are some (none-dinosaurs) that hate Fallout 3 but I believe they also started with Fallout 3. But here is the what I am getting at. At least those that critizes Fallout 3 have played Fallout 3. Those that bash the older games and New Vegas don't even give the orginals a try. Hell I have seen some people come on here, bash Fallout New Vegas but then you ask them and they say "well I only played a couple hours of it." Yeah that isn't giving a game a chance.

Indeed. In fact, even after the announcement that it would have an FP perspective, despite being tad disappointed, I expected the gameplay mechanics to be robust and RPG-like instead of... how it became, skills and stats just for the show and fake illusion of consequence at best. I had waited for the game for 10 years (the only series I ever gave as much attention to actually wait for a sequel), so it was quite a cultureshock to find out that I had more fun with Battlefield 2 than (a sequel to) an RPG.

Oh well, the only way now is up -- unless they decide to ditch the what little there is left to remind that it is a series of RPG's (fonv notwithstanding).

I guess the difference is that those people aren't on the devs forum bashing daily 4 years after the fact.

Ultimately not that big a deal, I guess. people gonna react how they do for whatever reasons they do. Just pointing out what I see and how I find humor in it.

The only way to get changes is to press on with your opinion.

Oh, I know. I mentioned in the post you quoted (i think) that, of course people wont scrutinize the older games as much, because they don't have any chance to fix anyting by doing so..... or something to that effect.
The squeaky wheel does get the grease.

I do like how some actually mention what they feel would be improvements.

I enjoyed all of them, faults in all of them as well.

But FO3 has the most faults.

Even still I enjoyed it because thats the game I was first introduced too. At least the Pit DLC gives you a choice for once at the end.

I would feel like an idiot if I produced all my preferations for improvements in all threads where I do criticism (read the speculation&suggestions threads first page).
But yes, a good criticism always gives, at least, a direction towards the preferred improvement. I can admit I'm guilty of neglecting that for many times as these days I mostly post out of boredom, but I generally don't like repeating all the points I've made over the years since they don't seem to produce a fruitful discussion.

Well exactly. I don't even understand why some people bother to post here, if it all just hate boom pow hate swoooooosh boom hate.

Good, go have fun, play wasteland 2, and complain and whine about that later when something isn't how your holiness thinks it should be.

Where as I will play both, and enjoy myself.

Plus, if all you like doing is complaining, I'm sure there is a Game of Thrones forum out there somewhere you could complain all day on.

I am actually pretty disappointed with this thread.. Part one had some good discussions..
I understand what you are/were doing.
The thread, sadly became a let's all agree on how svcky FO3 is/was, kill it with fire and than dance on its corpse..

I dislike FO3 compared to the other titles within the franchise.. however.. on its own. it's a perfectly enjoyable title.. (and as a hiking simulator I still like to stroll through the DC wasteland)
( It is actually a lot like a third part in a movie franchise... overblown, simplified, but still giving you a good time.. if one is open to it)

My post in the OP summarizes what I meant with fandom..
You may dislike a title in a franchise but at least you acknowledge it.. The only one I have actually seen do just that is Styles..

Then you do not understand the concept of being a fan of something.


I would play Wasteland 2 if it was out (I pledged, I will play it eventually, I will participate on the beta testing, I am part of the forums to discuss what it could be), but Wasteland 2 is not the next Fallout. If you are a person who can swallow everything that's shoveled at you, good for you. Truly, I do respect your point of view at that, but what I have to ask is, if you do not care about what's changing and how (as you appear), why do you participate in discussions that talk about change using a tone that's pro-change?

Thorg: I have no problems with FO3. My main beef is writing. I could rank the games in any order, it is the only game franchise I played every title, except for the ps2. Take that back, I also played all the bard tales, and xcom, but xcom was strat.

And as far as being a fan and caring, I do want improvements. I just won't throw FO3 under the bus, because it is a rpg and for a first run, they gave a good effort. Not to mention, I had fun. A lot of fun.

Then that's your train. You accept (and accepted) a wannabe-RPG sequel to an RPG-series that it has almost nothing to do about. You don't really care about the concept, so why would you care if other people care?

Wannabee RPG? It is an RPG..

Are you a sports fan? If a owner of a franchise fires the coach, or signs, trades, cuts players, are they still not the the team? Or, do they become something else?

I would say sports teams, that have a rabid fan base, change wayyyyy more, and more frequently than a video game would.

I originally wanted FO to be gurps. The fact it isn't didn't alter my enjoyment.

One thing is fir certain. There will always be people who want to complain. Then don't buy it, or play it.