MysteriousD this is off topic but are you typing out "it's your job to be you, it's my job to be awesome. Our jobs are the same." with every post as a signature? Cause you don't need to do that. Go into your profile, then "Edit my profile" and open up signature and type it in there. Saves you alot of time.

It doesn't bother me if someone played the originals, but, you are missing out.

Turn based can be tedious to some.

However.... aimed shots to the eyeballs with a gauss rifle and pulse rifle are fun.

But, FONV could have been way better. A couple epic fails, IMO in NV.

That, right there, is what gives me pause. You won't play the original Fallouts because they have "inferior graphics", yet you consider yourself a fan? That is just completely contradictory, IMO. If you are a fan, the quality of the graphics isn't an issue. It is certainly not enough to stop you playing the games.

At least give them a try. The graphics may grow on you.

Ok Ok everyone you've convinced me. I'll play the originals and smile while doing it
And thanks for the info Styles I'll put that to use immediately
Also how are the Originals in terms of difficulty? I've only played F3 on Very Hard and NV on hardcoe/Very Hard mode. How will its difficulty compare to those on their hardest modes?

Well as a veteran of turn based games and rpgs, neither is hard, imo.

For a new person to the games... SPECIAL is very important.

You get a perk every 3 levels. You cannot save perks. If you don't use your perk by the next time you gain a perk, you lose it.

If you want to be a combat/speech ty pe for FO2(no max level) I suggest tagging small guns, doctor, speech and maybe switch out pickpocket if you like to steal, but pickpocket around 60 should be all ya ever need.

There are a lot of science, outdoorsman, first aid books, and guns and bullets books to raise those skills to 90%, higher if you are kinda cheating, and more higher if you like drugs.

Because of guns and bullets books I actually tagged energy weapons on my last playthrough, and I have played with doctor, speech, lockpick.

Fo2 is easy, imo, if you go in order, ie no shortcuts.

FO1 similar, but initial character development even more important as max level is 21.

I could give a lot of hints, but what fun is that?

Yes people buy games because they are popular. Look at CoD.

Saying you are a Fallout fan when you have only played Fallout 3 and New Vegas is a pretty dumb statement.

That's like me saying that Super Mario Bros. 3 didn't feel like a real Mario game when the only other Mario game you played was Super Mario Bros. 2. You know, the Doki Doki Panic re-skin they gave Americans because they thought the real Super Mario Bros. 2 was too difficult. It was just too different. No power ups, just a heart life system. The mini bosses were a mouse that threw bombs, and a trans gendered dinosaur who spit eggs and fire out of his mouth. Not to mention the final boss was a giant frog instead of the giant turtle we all grew to love.

Sure it introduced mechanics to the newer games that are still used today. Like picking up items, bosses that weren't all Bowser, a few enemies like the bob-ombs and the special abilities of the characters. But it didn't feel like the Mario game that it claimed to be. At least it kept some of the platforming.

Fallout 3 is a good game. It's different from the previous games but it's still fun to play. At least it isn't FO:BoS for the consoles!

Edit: also everybody in this thread got trolled by the OP. But it's still a nice discussion that should be had. Even if we are past the point of a civil discussion and had resorted to name calling.

Hope you aren't being sarcastic. As for difficulty, the games aren't as long as Fallout 3 or New Vegas. As evilbastrd pointed out your SPECIAL is very important. Perks are given out every three levels. You don't have to pick the perk right away but you do have to take it before the next perk. So you get a perk at level 3, if you don't take it by level 6, then you lose it. You can't be master of everything like you can in Fallout 3 and New Vegas. If you aren't used to turn based it might be a big learning curve for you. Chances are you will die alot but don't let that discourage you.

You can really specialise with your characters in the orginals. If you have any questions while playing just ask the forum
Edit: It's late and I forgot about the signature advice. You're welcome and welcome to the forum

there's no need to play every fallout to call himself a fan. however it's better to have played the first 2 a lot.
Fallout 3 and NV are based on a universe created in the first 2 so it's quite logical to know the original game to fully understand the franchise.
turn based old graphics can be unappealing now I understand that. I'm prejudiced as I bought the 1 fallout at release.
what a new fallout fan must understand is that when you're old time lover you're less asking for revolution but evolution. I'm glad Bethesda is there to continue the series they have their way, they often add good ideas but they must respect the fallout dna and spirit.
fallout 3 and NV are good but they lack the little extra that made the first 2 so extraordinary. the guys at interplay were mad and dared so much. I often think Bethesda tries more to do a game for teenagers than advlts. they dare little and the strange sense of humour is gone. the new fallout are good but won't be great without that humour.

You are misreading what I am saying, but yes.. You can be acknowledged as a fan.. I am giving you my blessing
You are acknowledging the previous games and therefore can be called a fan.
The distinction I am making is not about the requirements of being called a fan. It is logic.
Someone who doesn't know or acknowledge previous or future parts of an ongoing franchise.. cannot declare to be a fan of the franchise as a whole.
He can call himself a fan... but not necessarily for the franchise as a whole.. The same is however also true for the latter..
(in this thread there also examples of those)
As a fan, I will repeat myself, one embraces the franchise as a whole. One can like titles better than others etc.
The problem with someone, calling him/herself a fan based on part of the franchise without knowledge or acknowledgement of the franchise as a whole is this:
They will inherently use entitlement as an argument.
My comments about FO:NV's story is just an example of this. If you claim that you love the lore: Than how can you claim that FO3 has a better story or is more of a FO game?
However that same argument could be used if you argue that you liked the more defined good/bad atmosphere in FO3 better.
For the same reason: Dismissing FO3 as a whole because of how it played out is also empty.. (the "you cannot possibly like FO3 ... you are a beth fan and not an FO fan" type) or using, for example, isometric gameplay and TB combat not being part of FO3 and NV in dismissing those two games.
Logically one can.
In your example: No someone who only played FO1 and FO2 can also not be called of the
franchise.
Can I call myself a fan of an artist if you only know his/hers latest album? No. Can I become a fan... by investing in this artist? Yes..
Can I be fan of that album...? Yes..

fallout 1 is tricky but nothing crazy but fallout 2 can be as hard as you want it. Because you can get power armour in the first 20 mins so blah..

Me too! "Styles, you are correct sir."


It is known.

XD You have to know where and what to do in the first place. Not something you can do if you haven't played the game to completion in the first place.

New thread is up, please continue there if you have anything more to discuss: http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1367921-couldve-fonv-been-different-part-deux/

Post limit is exceeded.