I'm a fan of the series too, especially since I and others see it as Wastelands succesor. My point is 3 was very well aimed more towards nostalgia and bringing many points of 1 to an audience that doesn't know what Fallout is(The fanbase of the series was much smaller before 3 launched. I'd say Bethesda and Interplay both realized the worth of the franchise at that point.

While they could of moved forward and crafted something not sticking so much to 1s points they were afraid of the unavoidable really devoted fan backlash not to mention that the majority of 3s players would be new to the series so they had to ease them into it.

I think with 4 and with every reintroduction and refinements brought by New Vegas that Bethesda can come into their own with the series.

This is a belief I have mostly because I admire Todd Howard. That and I don't mix up what Black Isle was and current Brian Fargo-less Interplay. I feel Bethesda will put all their muster into Fallout 4 racked by expectations from 3, New Vegas fans, and their biggest critics the old fans(Us. Although we're a varied crowd. Then there's that other breed of really devoted fan from NMA. *shudder*

You have a point that they had a choice, but the alternative choice could of potentially led to a loss of millions of dollars and laying off of dozens of workers.

There's points to be made about what mechanics 3 did and didn't bring, what new things were brought to the table, how 3 reverted to 1 moreso than 2, and etc. but I won't talk about that here.

Going back to the OP, well read my original post on the other page.

Now, more than ever (since the days of PoS) Fallout needs a reboot (to the right direction, of course).

It's a darn good thing that Fallout 3 was so successful that it made the series "mainstream". I, too, would never have gotten to play this series if it weren't for Fallout 3, because I barely knew abour Fallout 1 and 2. So I owe Bethesda on that point, and I don't like criticism on their awesome game.

...And that justifies it? (that they would lose millions?) ~how about not buy it? They had that choice too.
There were others in line for it, but Bethesda/Zenimax bid the most... for something that they couldn't use without stripping it down to a mascot and a collection of names; assets to apply to their existing engine.
How is this unlike say... a company buying 'Wing Commander' and using it's name and assets to make a Starcraft 2 clone?

It does help.

What do you mean toggle fun in the settings?
DERP DERP.

Of course it justifies it. Game Development is a business, not a dreamland. Thats a reality that some people seem to reject to accept.
And don't think that other studio's wouldn't do the same. Only the Studio's that create the game MAY choose not to go mainstream (for whichever reason) but studio's that buy it definitely want.

10 years passed between F2 and F3. Many old gamers retired and many new gamers don't know about old Fallouts. And today's market depends on today's gamers, not the ones from the past decade. Bethesda took a place where they wouldn't need to trouble themselves with breaking lore (I think you would be more angry if they choose to place the game into west coast) and tried to use many old factions (especially BoS and Enclave) to introduce new players to the world of Fallout. That brought nostalgia in old players and made entrance to new fans easier.

At the same time, Bethesda has its own style of making RPG's and their own fanbase (TES fanbase... which could be attracted into Fallout fanbase as well). F3 gameplay is more similar to TES gameplay for both of those reasons. Some old Fallout fans may cry and scream because of that, but many of us are content with that so your argument only stands for some of old fans and a minority of the current Fallout fanbase. Enough elements from the old Fallouts stay for this to still be called Fallout.

F4 SHOULD be less of revival and more of a sequel to Fallouts and SHOULD have more unique elements in its gameplay in comparison to TES. F3 tough had another mission... a mission it accomplished perfectly: it successfully not just revived the Fallout franchise but also made it one of big players in RPG market, bringing both new players and pleasing some of the old fans. Everything else (including pleasing the rest of old fans) can be done in future installments.. There is enough time for everything and rushing would just screw it up.

Just a joke.

I don't think it justifies it. You cannot blanket justify all things in the pursuit of the dollar; doesn't mean that you can't get away with it legally, but it does not justify it.


This is true, but this also means that Bethesda did not have to spend 6? million dollars to buy the Fallout name so they could make a post apocalyptic RPG; their intended market has mostly never heard of it, and thinks Fallout 3 is the first game; and New Vegas the second. They could have called it "Outlands" or "Wasteworld" or whatever they wished, and the bulk of the consumers wouldn't care either way. Calling it "Fallout 3" only ticks off those that expected a proper Fallout 3 derived from Fallout 1& 2 instead of TES. Had it not been called Fallout 3, I'd have bought it without baggage along with everyone else that bought it without even the slightest foreknowledge of it being a series. :shrug:

It gained practically nothing from it, it only made use of the mascot and a couple of names. A company could write a game that breaks no canon in a series [any series], and imply that its the same world, but in a different location and with different technology and characters living in a different century, and it would be scarcely different than was done with Fallout 3. :shrug:
**In fact... Interplay did just that with Fallout 1 ~but they didn't call it Wasteland 2, and it certainly wasn't a sequel.

Though it was very familiar....
http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/example2.jpg
http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/example1.jpg

That is the problem. They make one game, over and over. Its a good game and they try to improve it each time, but its opposite spectrum from the Fallout series ~they just dressed up TES with a new setting and cosmetic relabeling. There are no significant differences to either game... save dismemberment. They are almost as alike as Doom and Heretic.

One cannot play Fallout in Fallout 3, for the same reason one cannot play Warcraft 3 in World of Warcraft. (notice WoW is not called Warcraft 4)
The argument you state doesn't seem to hold true for Blizzard, as they clearly understand the term sequel, and Starcraft 2 and Diablo 2 and 3 are what one would expect from sequels to those series.

You guys are blinded by the nostalgia! bethesda has made fallout a better game! The people that moan about bethesda....simple...dont buy anymore bethesda games! you wont be missed!

No, Fallout is different due to Bethesda. Play Fallout 1/2 and say Fallout 3 is better or worse. It's not. It's different.

Ok man, from what i have read on this forum, you seem like you would like The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (also made by Bethesda). much more civilization and life but no guns. bliviongate: other than that, try turning the brightness up to make it a little less dreary, bring along a companion to add a little life, get ED-E, and go to black mountain for some good old fashion super mutant @$$kicking

Its not nostalgia if you keep it installed and still play it. If I could have only one, I'd pick FO2 ~though I like FO1 better.

I have FO3 & NV because of the mod tools; and the potential to hack the game back into shape; not for the new gameplay.

Have played fallout 1 and 2. fallout 3 and (yes im serious!) NV are way better games! open your eyes! fallout 1 and 2 are pathetic!

I'm open... why? ~Please be specific. What disappoints?

Why was Fallout worth 6? million dollars?

Please cease this. It's quite obvious what your goals are. You're obviously a guy who prefers graphics, we prefer originality and story-line. Okay? You're entitled to your opinion, we're entitled to ours.

ok, why in the samhell has this guys question that is a big problem become a FO1&2 vs FO3&NV fight, take it elswyre

The topic was disappointment.
[ with NV, and it came to include the others...] There is a lot of disappointment ~most of it justified in one way or another. Most FO3 fans (that don't like NV) seem to detest the slower more believable pace and environment of NV... they consider it not fun. :shrug:

I love NV for its improvements...(often the same ones others dislike), but I am myself disappointed with it for a myriad of reasons (most are understandable though; given the arrangement).

slow and believable are words that shouldn't be involved in a post nuclear world! That is exactly why NV gets boring at times! lol

I do not think it is possible to assist the OP with ideas and suggestions. :shrug:

His OP states clearly...

Fallout New Vegas is not [IMO] a good shooter; and that appears to be what he wants.

Edit:
Will you say why? (usually the reason is the graphics, or unfamiliarity with the combat mechanics).

i prefer graphics?? how have you worked this one out?? your a genius! i dont care bout graphics. But i know that fallout 3 (and NV LOL) are way better games than fallout 1 and 2!

Eh they're both good games. I think Bethesda did right with Fallout 3 but I don't think Obisidian did such a bad job with New Vegas either. I find it hard to understand that people could "get bored" with New Vegas though. :shrug: I guess it could get boring if all one tries to do is explore, but in that case Fallout 3 is the way to go (and it wont disappoint in that regard, at all).



soooo...if Fallout 1 and 2 were beautifully rendered in the same 3d enviroment as Fallout 3 and NV....they'd still be bad games? :whistling:

In my honest opinion, I'd hate it if they were put in 3d graphics that're pristine and amazing. I love the dated graphics, just like I love Morrowind-esque graphics. Sorry, but I think it lets you get a feel for a different era.

In my honest opinion, I'd hate it if they were put in 3d graphics that're pristine and amazing. I love the dated graphics, just like I love Morrowind-esque graphics. Sorry, but I think it lets you get a feel for a different era.

I can see why that is. I don't have the same opinon with Fallout (since I like how the 3d eviroments allow for better immersion, for me anyway) but they're are a couple series of games where I like and prefer the "outdated" graphics (the Age of Empires is one actually, as well as a few old console games). I know what you mean when you say "it lets you get a feel for a different era". I was more respoding though to Chutz's post about how he "didn't care about graphics".