One thing I don't understand; Fallout 3 is often accused of having a rather linear main quest, which it does, but isn't Fallout 2's just as linear? You have to go to the Oil Rig no matter what, correct?

NV seems to be the first game in the series with a main quest that lets you go multiple ways for more than just the final stage of the game.

Yes, but you were allowed to choose how to do whatever you like, in Fallout 3, it was not only linear but very skinny, it required James to die at a certain point, he was essential up to that point, you know what i call that? A movie.

Indeed welcome to the club! You do get several ways to kill off the oil rig however. You can talk a few people into sabotaging the oil rig for you.

How exactly were you allowed to choose how to do whatever you like? The main quest was pretty straightforward as far as I remember, and the ending seemed to have even less choice than FO3's in that you can't just leave everyone to die. Fallout 3 allows you to choose a completely evil ending (poison the Wasteland or let the purifier explode).

I really don't have any problems with essential characters that are essential in order to further the story, which James was. It's nearly impossible to construct a plot revolving around specific characters and not have them be essential; NV got away with little to no essential characters because its storyline was much bigger in scope.

There's plenty of ways, you could blow up a nuke yourself, release FEV into the air vents, convince the scientist what there doing is wrong so they sabotage the oil rig so it blows up. You can recruit an enclave squad to help you fight Frank, plus get the keycard to arm the turrets too.

what? your idea of an RPG is different than bethesdas i guess, so go ahead and cut down bethesda all you want, thats all you're doing, i like bethesda rpg's, and so do tons of other peolple. i hear so much bethesda bashing on here it ain't even funny, but the bottom line in people like their games, so if you're not into bethesda games why are you on this forum even?

Cause (sadly) Bethesda bought the license and we're hoping they're going to get the next installment right and have it actually be a Fallout game?
(Don't get me wrong, Oblivion was fun, Skyrim looks awesome, and I can't wait to play Morrowind but after FO3 I ain't really going to say it was good for the Fallout franchise to end up in their hands, but it all depends on how FO4 is and whether or not they can handle two franchises without them becoming the same except one is fantasy and one is post-apoc.)

What master Fishy said.

This.

oh boy, i've played through new vegas lots of times and its the same experience pretty much every time, the only real change is the end game slides, thats about it, cause other than that its the same map experience every single time, not one random encounter, no good buildings, tunnels or caves to explore etc, the same 3 powergangers with their hatchets and varmit rifles, the story in new vegas isn't that great, so not sure whats so great about it. its an good game but its not groundbreaking. its just an average game.

Would you have preferred EA's Fallout? They'd possible let BioWare develop it; you'd be running around the wasteland, gaining support of various factions against the Enclave or Super Mutants :hehe:

Or perhaps Activision's? Call of Fallout: Super Mutant Warfare :lmao:

Not saying the alternatives are better but I heard Troika were bidding for it as well.

I see this topic is at the top again. With good reason.



This is exactly the way I feel. I don't think the New Vegas story is all that great either.



See I think they've changed Fallout from being a pure RPG to a RPG/FPS/Exploration. It's all encompassing. They call it an RPG to satisfy the purists I suppose. I think the combination is for the good. Personally, and I think a lot of people would agree. Fallout is more fun because it gives you more to do than just follow a story. Your character has a life other than the story. I think what they did with Fallout 3 was very innovative. I don't want to go back. I want to go forward and RPG, explore and shoot things in my Fallout game. For me the main story in Fallout 3 or New Vegas is not the only reason I play the game. The stories are not all that great anyway. I also get immersed in my role by exploring and shooting things to try and survive. Too many of the quests in New Vegas are go here and go there without any real challenge. You're just running back and forth telling people stuff. Frankly I'm bored. They should have made more of the quests in New Vegas a little harder and more complex.

Why does there have to be an exact line drawn into the sand saying this is an RPG and you can't step over that line into FPS in any given game? I think Fallout sells more games because it does cross that line.

If Fallout: New Vegas was just a game where I ran around fulfilling quests without shooting anything or exploring (which there isn't much of in NV anyway) I would NOT have bought the game. I would have just stayed with playing Fallout 3.

The companions and their quests are the best things in Fallout: New Vegas not the main storyline. That's my opinion of course.

Yep.



And yep again. I still can't figure out why people think New Vegas is so great. Sure it's got the great companions and great dialog and maybe a couple other small things, other than that...well, it's not all that. I thought I would be as obssessed with Fallout: New Vegas as I was with Fallout 3 when I first started playing it. But that hasn't happened.

Well the RPG part:
It depends on what the game is focused on, if it's the RPG aspect, stats, choices, consequences, dialogue, things that generally define who your character are, then it's an RPG game.

Fallout 3 was not so much of that.
It had RPG elements, stats, black and white choices and allowed for good or evil dialogue, but outside of that the biggest focus on the game was killing crap and running through dungeons.

So what aspect is the biggest?
That is what the game is.

New Vegas clearly has less combat and dungeons and emphasize on the RPG aspects a lot more.
It's an FPP/3rdPP RPG game.

While Fallout 3 is more of a FPP Dungeon Crawler with RPG elements.

But yeah, the RPG stamp is all about perspective.
My perspective on it is: If it allows me to take the protagonist and mold him/her into who I want them to be and can do so by editing the appearance, choosing the dialogue, deciding what he/she's good at and what he/she isn't good and gives me choices and consequences then it's an RPG.
Basically, allow me to create a kleptomaniac smoothtalker which is handy with a blade and have it be viable for me to play through the game as that.

But yeah the "true RPG" is all about opinions clashing really.

I agree with some of you points. But I personally think NV is better than 3. I like the feel of it more. I like the western theme and the casinos. I think it has a better skill system (admittedly there are just some minor differences). And the storyline and writing is much better.

lolz what you just said applies to Fo3 but it's even worse in the story, characters, writing, and has even less gameplay improvements. You don't even get proper endgame slides. So if that makes NV an average game, that would make FO3 a very poor game?

i totally agree, i got into bethesda games exactly because they have an open world with tons of exploring and fun enemies to fight, i like dungeons and big buildings to explore and fight in, and i hear people keep saying, "fallout isn't about exploring and combat" ....well a bethesda game is....they don't get that part, bethesda makes games people like to play and they made fallout their own way and i don't care if people say"oh its not a real rpg" who cares, i like how they make their games and its pretty fun to go into a big building and explore, or a underground dark tunnel or some huge cave system and have enemies in their to deal with...thats fun to me.

Just Dragon Age: Origins

We have a others, for not saying better, Bioware games

Activision is the new "EA"

EA got their senses back again

:facepalm:

Ok, what part of quit bashing did not register? We are allowed to express our opinions, but at the cost of bashing another game again? I will say this again without saying my opinion of what i think of NV or FO3, they are just games, we are advlts, and we are allowed to express our opinions without getting bashed, it is as simple as that. Respect people, that is the key here, we are entitled to our opinions without bashing, end of story, we are advlts, not overgrown children.

What would you do if TES was bought by Nintendo and they made it into a copy of The Legend of Zelda? Please understand, yes Bethesda owns the franchise now, but all we ask is for them to respect the fans who have been here before the buyout and take our requests for consideration, and not make Fallout into a TES: Wasteland Edition series.

Right, mistake on my part. The recurring theme of BioWare is traveling to four different places, not recruitng four different factions. I'm referring to this chart http://gza.gameriot.com/content/images/orig_320200_1_1257581825.png. Using that chart you can pretty nicely guess what BioWare Fallout3 would've been like, though :hehe:

Something about: "Your small tribal village is attacked by Enclave. You encounter the Brotherhood of Steel who is waging a war against the enclave, and are recruited to their ranks. The key to defeating the Enclave lies in a pre-war prototype weapon, whose parts you must gather at four different location, while Enclave patrols are tracing your every step."

And yes they are, and yes they did.

no...the vote is in already, FO3 is rated a 9.0...new vegas at 7.5... you might think FONV is more popular but not according to game ratings and i think dlc sales for NV are gonna show how much less popular NV is. not only that, lots of people are going back to FO3 because new vegas wears off in about 2 or 3 playthroughs cause there isn't one random event, the map is super static, the same 3 bark scorpions are in hidden valley every single time you go there and you can't even find ceasers legion on the map unles you go out of your way and head to the river, and there isn't really anything on the map to explore except for maybe 2 or 3 buildings, combat is pretty weak after level 15 and really no fun at all, i get tired of fighting enemies armed with pool ques, spears, macheties and varmit rifles.

I can play numbers to, Fallout: New Vegas has sold more copies than FO3, therefore it is better :teehee:

You know, I am going to play Fallout 3 again, and this time i am only going to use a .32 pistol. I've beaten the game with a Chinese Pistol before, this should be just as fun.

This is what i have been trying to say as well IMHO, but was not able to find the right words for. I like NV as much as the next person, but it is boring, it is not captivating, it has nice features, it has nice additions to it, but that is it. It is good to know what has happened since FO2 to Marcus, and what happened to the NCR, and sadly, the Brotherhood, but that is about it, i am bored now, it is the same thing over and over, and i have played over 300 hours already with at least 8 start overs. I look forward to new installments, but for me, until i can pass final judgment when all the DLC's come out, so far, it is a major let down.