Obviusly you are part of the split.

I support this, and I am going even further: The only true Fallout story-line is the one playing out in my, and only mine, mind.
All others especialy the developers are dead wrong. Oh I am willing to speculate about alternate views but damn you if you dare call them facts.

I just got into the franchise with New Vegas, so I can't really say much about which "side of the split" I'm on, but I've enjoyed my 500+ hours in New Vegas, and have now taken up RPing in-game. I haven't played any other Fallouts, but I plan on getting FO3 soon.

I suggest you start from Fallout 1, going from New Vegas to Fallout 3 is...well it svcks.

Have fun with one of the best games known to man (Fallout 3), you will notice the large amount of content it hasover it's sequel (New Vegas)



Not necessarily, it depends on your taste.

And we are going down into a flame war... Back on topic:

Yes the split bothers me greatly, how can a series have a fanbase that's so diverse and argues so often!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

500+ hours?? I have just clocked 200... My game-cred are falling fast...



Is that even possible? I played FO1 ages ago, tried to instal it on my new computer. No dice. And that was actually my late computer. Is there any recoded or whatever version that works with the computers of today?

Lol, yeah, around 40+ hours on 8 playthroughs, so it's somewhere around 500, maybe more around 4. This is basically my time with New Vegas:

1.) Got the game on release day
2.) Beat it in one week with Yes Man
3.) Returned it, thought it was boring
4.) Got it again for Christmas
5.) *ZOMG, This is the best game ever, I'll play it five times!*
6.) Played it five times, once on every ending, and once just for goof off (Independant Vegas again)
7.) A couple weeks ago: *I should get a platinum trophy (PS3) for this! Yeah! Good idea!*
8.) Trophy hunting on my final NCR playthrough, then I'll do a complete RP after I get 100%

Fallout 1/2 both work perfectly fine on modern computers save for color issues, and these can be fixed by downloading the high resolution mod for each one and setting the color depth to 16 bit. Windows 7 doesn't like 8 bit/256 colors for some reason.

The spilt doesn't bother me, as long as the next Fallout is epic. Honesty I don't hold very high esteem for Fallout 1 and 2, because my gameplay experiences with them were bland and boring. I loved Fallout 3 and it's one of my favorite games. I don't mind the orginal fans of the series and they've got good experiences like me, but lets' not go back into the past. Lets not take away first person shooting or go back to more RPG elements. By that same token lets not ruin the classics and redo them, lets just move into the future together.

So you want less RPG elements in this RPG?

I certainly want more RPG elements in the next game (RPG elements of New Vegas+ Fallout 3's sandbox= Amazing game), but as a Bethesda fan they don't matter as much to me as they do to fans of the original games. In that sense I partially agree with Alois Hammer when he says it's a split between Fallout fans and Bethesda fans. The first two games were primarily RPGs and didn't focus on exploration. The fact that the series was picked up by a developer that has focused less on RPG elements and more on the open world aspects with each of their games was bound to create such a split. For me, them focusing more on the quality of a game's sandbox instead of the quality of it's RPG elements isn't that big of a deal, but for fans of the originals, it's a huge deal.

...That said, while I understand why fans of the originals are so upset, the split still bothers me. And why wouldn't it? It's shown time and time again in topic after topic that this fanbase can barely manage to compare Fallout 3 and New Vegas, let alone the previous games, without getting into an argument. One side screams "You aren't real Fallout fans and Fallout 3 isn't a real Fallout game!," while the other screams "Why can't you just drop it already!," and all it does is sour the enjoyment we get out of this series. I want to be able to enjoy this series again, like I could before the New Vegas forums were first created and the split became impossible to ignore, but I see no end in sight until, at the very least, Fallout 4 comes out. And even then, there's no guarantee they can make the kind of game that will satisfy both sides of the fanbase. Maybe one day we'll all just get tired of spoiling each other's enjoyment of this series with constant arguments. A man can dream...

That's not necessarily true. I had never heard of Bethesda, but I went to Gamestop right after I bought my PS3 to return all of my PS2 games, saw it on the shelf and decided to buy it. BEST 'WHY NOT' ACTION I EVER MADE!!!!! I played the game for a very long time before deciding to try Oblivion, then come to these forums. So I'm not a Beth fan but I'm not an original fan either... WHat am I?



I'm hoping Fallout 4 just stops all of the argueing. It has to be amazing to everybody, but a few of the Original Fans say they want turned based back which will never happen so there's always that.

I think even the most stubborn of us have accepted that there will not be a TB system (never say never though...), and would settle with a well made compromise (VATS is not a well made compromise) in a form of more RPG oriented gameplaymechanics. And on the subject of TB never happening... if noone voices their desires of it, it surely will not happen, now at least there is genuine want and support for it.

A FPP sandbox fan?

Not going to happen. Bethesda is going to end up disappointing many of the current hardcoe Fallout 3 fans no matter what they do, and this will lead to Fallout 3 versus Fallout 4 arguments. Let's also not forget the inevitable Fallout 1/2 versus Fallout 4 arguments, and New Vegas versus Fallout 4 arguments in addition to the current Fallout 1/2 versus Fallout 3 arguments, and Fallout 3 versus New Vegas arguments. With every new release the split will only get worse because there's always going to be people who hate the changes the current developer makes to the formula. Just look at Bethesda's very own TES fan base; they're constantly bickering over whether Daggerfall, Morrowind or Oblivion is the best TES game that all future ones should be based upon, and there's less differences between those three games than there are between the Fallout games.

To mention "turn-base" play and "a form of more RPG oriented gameplay mechanics compromise" together.. is not to understand the turn-base RPG shortcomings and failings.

There's nothing wrong with the RPG elements of Fallout 3, or of Fallout3's writing, no fault is with the game itself.

IGN - Best RPG
GameSpot - Best RPG
10th Annual Game Developers Choice Awards - Best Writing

Very few would want any of those qualities lost by a so-called "compromise" that would effectively greatly diminish the game, half trashing the game for a lack of understanding by the very few is not the way to go.

Speaking as one having played all, and have appreciated and understood all the progress made along the way.

Future Fallouts should continue along the lines of open-play.

The term "sandbox game" seems a derisory comment made by those into the linear type of game that gives direction of play by telling exactly what to do next and that kind of limits any imaginative play.

Will there be arguments with the next Sequel, of course, that's what they do on forums, you always get the tiny few. Will it matter, not to me and I doubt it will to the game-maker who is not going to trash any improvements that they have gone to so much trouble to make, and will ignore those tiny few who do not appreciate them.

Huh? Why would you think that? Calling a game a sandbox game is just another way of saying it's open-world or free-roaming, it's not meant to be a derogatory term. Just because a game is a sandbox game doesn't mean it can't also be a RPG.

Clearly the definition of "RPG" has changed since 1997 Fallout 3 in my mind can hardly be called a RPG.

The term "sandbox game" seems a derisory comment made by those into the linear type of game that gives direction of play by telling exactly what to do next and that kind of limits any imaginative play.

No, Fallout 3 WAS NOT imaginative at all. It was so linear my mind exploded (Not literally). I was forced to join the BOS, I had no choice whatsoever. Plus, FNV won many more Best Writing awards than FNV.

And no, future Fallouts should not copy TES, because TES =/= Fallout. Fallout should remain Fallout, and TES should remain TES.

Also, Fallout 3 was the best RPG of the year, why? Because no other good RPGs, or games were made that year. 2008 was a crappy year by game standards.

That's not saying much, 2008 wasn't exactly a landmark year as far as game writing is concerned.



This doesn't say much either, Fallout 3 was the only mainstream RPG released in 2008 to my knowledge.

New Vegas has Vaults, Bunkers, Caves and one being under water, it has train tunnels and sewers. The only difference is that New Vegas gives you the freedom of not having to "dungeon crawl" your way through subway tunnels to get to game locations.

New Vegas has alot of unique weapons. The only difference is that some of those weapons require a quest to get. They arn't just sitting there waiting for you like most are in Fallout 3.

Most are also Unique as in one of a kind and not just a re-skinned common weapon.

I think the 12 sq miles of terrain you can explore and do bugger all in is what classifies it as a sandbox game. Just because the main quest is linear doesn't mean the actual world is.

Edit: Oh lord we're arguing again aren't we...

So Fallout 3 is beyond all criticism because of a few vacuous awards from gaming press?

"So called" compromise greatly diminishing and half trashing the game... Yeah, well, others might be a bit more open to the thought. Afterall, a compromise is a compromise, not favoring - and in this case, wanted to offer a better experience to more people.

The world in New Vegas gives alot of freedom as well. So you are saying you rather play a black and white game that forces you to join the good guys over a game that lets you pick between four main factions and effect many smaller ones? All just because the Black and White one has a "bigger open world?"

And they called Fallout 3 and RPG :facepalm:

*Rubs forehead*

Where did I say that in my previous posts? I said Fallout 3 is a sandbox game, and this is true. New Vegas is also a sandbox game. I never said New Vegas isn't a sandbox game, did I? I've complained about it's quality many times in the past, but not in these past few posts. Are you so used to arguing about this that you just expect the person you're arguing with to follow some kind of template, and just assumed I was bashing New Vegas if I was also defending Fallout 3?



No, no I don't think I'm going to follow your template much more, thanks though. I'm sure someone else will be happy to argue with you over that oh so original line though...

No it dosent, I love both the gamesfor diffferent reason, bethesda did the world better, but the story/characters and gameplay is better in NV imo, personally I dont see why they cant have bethesda do the world obsidian do everything else. B est of both worlds, unless you are a fan of the old fallouts and hate the new.