What difference does the order he played the games make? None.

Also I forget what this topic was about after the first page.

Ughh ..help again I started and adored fallout 3 and had the same view as you that fonv was lacking in the fallout feel BUT having played the originals it has changed my opinion , fallout 3 is too book of eli and looking at the destruction of the war where it should be looking at the progression since the war.

Errrr *bzzzzzt!* Wrongo!

I've yet to see somebody who played the first two games back in the day have the opinion that Fallout 3 is either:

1) Better than the first two games.
2) Better than Fallout New Vegas.

I'm sure that opinion is out there, but I've yet to see it in the past 5-ish years. Why I asked. Because this is very much a situation of: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm-zWDaoCtI

He isn't saying its better, he's saying he enjoyed it more. Theres is a difference between the two, look at stuff before galloping your primative nostalgia horse into yawnable arguments.

Thats a fair enough reason to prefer Fallout3 over New vegas, because he's gave fair points to why he has his preference and even acknowledges that New vegas is better for Canon although it isn't best for gameplay.
You just seem to look for fights

I did like the originals when they first came out. They were good games, but to say they are better than FO3 or NV is madness.
Theres lots of old games i loved for the amiga, spectrum and commodore that are just absolutely crap now.
The problem with FO1 and 2 is that there is just too big a gap between them and FO3 NV
To a lot of people they will never be linked to the series. The series has begun a 3 for them, and if fallout goes on to make another 5 or so games then it wont really matter will it.

I played them when they were released.
FO3 and NV are better games IMO

Why, exactly? I don't see anything in the new games that would inherently make them better in relation to them being new.

I assume you mean technological changes since you bring up Amiga and C64, but technology isn't really a valid argument here as the games are not that old, and were not technologially limited back then (mostly because hi-tech wasn't their point). If we were talking about, say driving simulations which rely on tech like physics and drivability modeling, it would work, but Fallout never relied on technology. It's OK for you to think that old=bad in every case, but it certainly isn't madness to think otherwise (especially not in cases like this, where tech has no real bearing on the quality of the games).

P.S. if my arguments are making you sleepy you can always opt out of quoting me and responding.


They are better than FO3 and NV.

By very long shots. In fact, there is nothing which FO3 is better than. I'd rather someone fart in my mouth (still not madness) than be forced to play through that piece of trash again. I personally feel what you are saying to be madness. And since they didn't hand out certificates for playing and beating Fallout 1 and 2 upon release, I'll take your word for it and assume you just simply don't like Fallout.

You clearly are mad because i stated that i did like FO1 and 2 when they first came out. They are old outdated games now that simply cannot be compared to the new fallouts.
I don't care that you hate FO3 or bethesda. I couldn't care less who makes the games. The only bethesda games i like are fallout and TES. The rest have been crap

Put it this way. If they had the same tech as today back when FO1 and 2 were made they would be totally different games. a lot more similar to today's fallouts. Tech has a massive bearing on all games. FO turn based games are dead for a reason.
When did i say old=bad in every case? This is just one case.

What makes you think that? If those games weren't intended as they ended up being, they would've been made differently. It was not a tech issue, nor is it to this date. There were FPS games back then, there were third person OTT games back then, etc. The design was very intentional.

I also fail to see the specific reason for TB Fallouts to be dead. It's just something Bethesda didn't want to do (either they can't, or they're after easier money by recycling their 15-year-old design formula) even though they could've, and seeing as they wanted to make a sequel to such games, should've.

Yes they can. Whether you think they are outdated is entirely subjective. I prefer the older fallout games, and I compare them to the newer ones when I want to. I enjoy the turn-based more, and I think the stories are more interesting, and better. Just because the market interest has changed dosen't mean certain game types are outdated, it just means that the majority have different interests now from the gamer market 10 years ago. When it comes to gameplay, its 100% a matter of opinion.

If the majority have different interests now from 10 years ago then that means they're OUTDATED.
It seems the main reason a certain amount of people still prefer the old FO's is because they prefer TB games. I still play TB games like civilisation, where it still works fine. But FO has been vastly improved by ditching the slow boring TB system.

There was never a sand box FP role playing game like FO3 back then though was there? Because they never had the tech. They hardly even have the tech now! The PS3 versions of FO3 and especially NV were terrible for freezing up

Daggerfall (which is vastly larger than any of the new Bethesda sandboxes). I don't remember if Arena was that kind of game too. And I believe there were more, but I can't be arsed to check right now. It was not a tech issue, those games were intended to be as they were -- if there was more tech, the games would've worked and looked better, but they would've still been ISO/TB games as intended (the intent was to emulate PnP/tabletop RPG's).

I'm mad because you don't like Fallout? Why would I be? Why would I possibly care?

Daggerfall? c'mon........lol
Well we will never know will we. All we know is that FO is no longer TB....and is becoming one of the most popular games ever.
Over and out

What? You weren't sure if there were open world sandbox games at that time, so I answered yes there were with a concrete example.

I don't give a [censored] about popularity, I give a [censored] about if the game is actually any good. Too much popularity only brings pressure which cheapens the overall product due a wider demand base to be pleased - they lose focus and end up being "general" rather than "to the point", which is painfully evident with Bethesda games.

Out and over.

Its pretty obvious that your a bitter man because games are no longer made the way YOU want. Why dont you try moving with the times, instead of being hung up on old relics like FO1 and 2.
also if you think people only buy games because they are popular, then you are deluded.

Never got the impression he was bitter. Most of his posts are well-thought out, well-stated and perfectly reasonable. You on the other hand? Not so much. Games not being made the way we want? Let me direct you to Double Fine's Kickstarter page. Then after that let me point you to NMA's interview with Brian Fargo about the forthcoming Wasteland 2 Kickstarter page. Then after that I'll bring you up to speed with Obsidian's current flirtation with crowd-funding which I'm sure will see the light of day soon enough. Probably a bit after the Wasteland 2 buzz dies down, naturally.

Your arguments = invalid.

Games have never been made the way I want. So no, I'm not bitter about it. But I am critical on how there's a steady decline and focus on easy solutions and flashy looks instead of actual substance. I'd move with times if there were valid reasons to, but I'm not going force myself to like the taste of [censored] just because it was a product of today.

I also never implied people buy games because they're popular. Instead I commented on the effects of popularity.

Then i would have to say your taste in games is..............outdated lol jk

i don't see how comparing games can be anything other then subjective so no this isn't madness. Fallout 3 was my first Fallout, I really liked it so I moved onto New Vegas which made me see Fallout 3 in a different light. I went back and Fallout 3 again and noticed that the writing, characters and story were all lacking, to be polite. I became interested in playing Fallout 1 and 2 after being on this forum for a bit. I played them and really enjoyed them, they are now right up there with Age of Empires as my favourite pre-2000's games. You may think differently, but they still hold up in my opinion. Maybe not in graphics and sure the style of gameplay was most likely improved, but it sounds like this is all you're referring to. The story, the writing, the lore, the setting and the characters are all amazing in those games, far better then Fallout 3's.

I personally judge a game by how it makes me feel and the most important thing to me is a good story, with good characters and good writing. Gameplay is still incredibly important and I really liked the gameplay of the originals as well. Our opinions seem to differ, what a shock.
1. There's no need to insult him.
2. Progress is important in gaming, but so is staying true to the origins of a series. At the very least a respect and knowledge of where a series came from is required to be a fan of that series.
3. If you think the majority don't then you are very deluded. The entire entertainment industry is a huge, constant popularity contest.

Yes, It would've been different but it wouldn't be better.I personally liked FO3 setting but when it comes down to story I prefer FONV. If Bethesda developed the game world and Obsidian did the writing, I think we would have a pretty decent game.

Outdated means its obsolete, which Turn-Based isn't, it just isn't part of most popular games today.


Please stop stating these things like its fact. It's your opinion, and just because you say something, dosen't make it so. Turning a game into a FP hiking simulator (at least for FO3) doesn't make it better, it just that some people prefer it to the turn-based format of the old games.


God forbid somebody should have a different opinion to you. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with soembody, but at least back up your arguments and don't just call people 'bitter' and 'deluded'. If your not going to accept that some of us like the old games more, than just [censored] off.