I thought only the "lore, world building, and design style" mattered?

( I have to be serious here, i cannot RP this one out. As I might have mentioned in the last thread, it bothers me that we have to have such a divided base, on one side we got Devoted fans of Bethesda who love the last two games regardless of how they turned out. On another side, we have the traditionalists who is pissed about anyone who speaks out about the slightest infraction of things going off lore or canon from the original games, and think the NV is the third game, and FO3 is Oblivion with guns. Then there is the side that just likes all the games regardless, and does not like the petty bickering that goes on here. Then there is the side that does not care one bit and does it's own thing. And so on and so forth.....

WAKE UP!!! Do we have to be so divided? I mean seriously, we have one thing in common here, we are FANS of a series of games we all love so much to play, can't we just simply just talk about it without nit picking the slightest features and say" This game svcked because this character walked and turned left the wrong way!" Or be so needy and want every little feature in every game, i mean i do not thing Bethesda can fit in every little thing from every game, that would be impossible, and unrealistic, it's like a kid getting everything for Christmas, and crying for more. Or so bitter that we have to rip into each other and tear at each other like Lions into a dead gazelle? I mean seriously, we are advlts, and if your not, what the [censored] [censored] [censored] [censored] [censored] are you playing a rated M game( or whatever an advlt rated game is in your country) for in the first place! Do you have to act like you have to say" i am right, so what, your stupid!" That makes you sound like a [censored] five year old, and when you don't back up your argument with proof, and just simply state your argument with your opinion, That's fine, but when someone asks for proof, show reliable and firm proof, not proof that comes out your [censored]. And no matter how much you may hate a game, saying " I don't care what awards it has won, this game is better, your game was bought off to be better" only leads to an argument, again, you need to show proof the game was bought off, otherwise look at the facts and just accept it as is, fair or unfair, don't ruin it for someone else. Stating an opinion is our given right, and i will never deny that, but be careful not to trample someone Else's opinion with your own opinion.

In closing, I am not singling out anyone, pointing fingers, saying names, looking for a target, asking to be argued at, looking for a fight, wanting to get into a flame war, or anything. I am trying to open some eyes, and hopefully make some people realize that all this infighting does nothing and solves nothing. I know it will not stop, but if someone takes the time to truly read this and learn from it, maybe it will help and we can be a stronger community for it.)

Yes, we all are, but some of us want the series to not become a TES-Based adventure game. We want it to stay a Post-Nuclear Role Playing Game, using Fallout: a Post-Nuclear Role Playing Game as the template.

Well a racing game wouldn't fit since there are very few functioning cars. I don't care what kind of game Fallout is, RPG, Shooter, Strategy Game, dating sim(that would actually be pretty epic), book, whatever.

I would really really like a Fallout Strategy game, the beta for the Civ 3 mod wasn't enough.

It's not the split itself that bothers me, so much as the few people who seem committed to making that split as wide as possible.

So, as someone who is absolutely in love with FO3, I feel like I should say I've just started playing Fallout 1 and I already love it. It's perfectly possible to like all of the games in the series, despite their differences.

Except that game.

Fallout 1 has a way of, enthralling, doesnt it? You see why the "dinosaurs" are so loyal to it.

Oh, most definitely. All I can say is, thank god for Ian.

Dont give him a SMG, he will murder you.

God so true....Fighting the Deathclaw on a low level and almost winning....and then Ian shoots me in the back.... :banghead:

Needless to say when he died fighting raiders I didn't mourn him.

For me I rejoiced when he was split in half by a mutants laser rifle :celebration:

No it doesn't bother me. The real fans have more of a say than some 15 year olds whose first Fallout game was F3.

My first Fallout game was Fallout 3.

I'm not now and nor was I at the time when I played the game, 15 years old.

I went back to play the originals because Fallout 3 inspired me to, and I like them, and I respect them. However, I will still defend Fallout 3 to anyone and, while I recognize that it is not as true to the originals as it could be, it is still my favorite Fallout game, for reasons other than "OMG DAT GUYS HEAD 'SPLODED".

Since you so eloquently characterized all first time Fallout 3 players as "some 15 year olds" who don't understand squat about Fallout.....

Does this mean that I have less of a say?

Compromises need to be made to accomodate both sides. At this point, we're all equally invested in this grand venture that is the Fallout series. Successful negotiation cannot occur without proper understanding and a willingness to realize that both sides have a "say", and that we are on equal footing.

Thank you for illustrating my point so well Mr Mayes. This is what bothers me about the split in the fanbase. While most people can come on to the forums and make constructive comments and talk intelligently about the high points and flaws of all the games. You then get people on both sides of the argument who feel they have to say things like...

"You're a bunch of dinosaurs stuck in the past."

"You older fans are elitist."

"My oppinion is more valid than a fifteen year olds, and nobody above the age of fifteen plays FO3."

And from there it degenerates to petty name calling and flaming. These sweeping generalisations are just stupid and do nothing to help any of the discussions they appear in. And the suggestions from both sets of people that they are the only "true" fanbase is just moronic.

I'm a member of the "one true fanbase" as I have played and absolutely loved every Fallout game, there was even one aspect of the "burned game" that I thought was good, it was the only game that lets you select a ghoul as your character. Every game (other than the one mentioned above) has been an improvement on the one before, sure they've all had their flaws but I think that they were all superb. Maybe FO3's story wasn't as good, but it did improve every other aspect IMO, then New Vegas further improved on FO3. I personally can't wait for FO4, and the new round of flaming and mindless insults that will come with it.

That really helped our point, ya' know :facepalm:

I just want the next Fallout game to be a middle ground.

-Less Combat
-Exploration (Don't personally like it, but, its fun now and then )
-Former Black Isle Staff (Obsidian) make the factions, story, and quests,
-Bethesda makes the world.

PROFIT!

I feel the the people who insult Fallout 3 lovers are over generalizing. I love Fallout 3, I started the series with Fallout 3, and until I go the trilogy pack at Target, I read the Wiki, attempting to learn all I could, I'm thankful Bethesda revived an otherwise likely dead, or at least longer in a coma state series. But my Loyalty isn't to Bethesda or the 'Old Ways'. My loyalties are to Fallout as a series. I will defend the lore added by Fallout, Fallout 2, Fallout 3, and Fallout: New Vegas with equal vigor, Tactics to an extent. I am personally against TB and Map Node. Mainly since Turn Base isnt my skill, and Map Node because I feel exploration enhances that 'Lone wandering hero/antihero' role. My problem is the 'New Generation' that won't accept teh older Fallouts existence, seeing them as 'svcky' because they came out in the 90's. As a man who hates turn based combat with a passion, for me to still enjoy that game, that says alot about a game.

Quoted For The Great and Definite Win

I approve, except maybe the first point :hehe: That also allows Bethesda to get TES VI: Elsweyr (:P) out sooner.

The split definately bothers me.

I think a lot of this division has been caused by the suspicion and hostility of the FO1/FO2 fans to FO3. There HAS been a lot of nasty criticism of FNV by FO3 enthusiasts, but I think the hostile tone in this debate was established largely by the old game fans.

On one hand, if you dislike something (like FO3 for example), you are entitled to your opinion and no one can take that away from you. On the other hand I do often wonder how many of the FO1&2 fans actually played FO3 with an open mind? I believe for a lot of them it was rubbish (or at least unauthentic) before it even came out.

There is also a kind of tribal loyalty amongst the old game fans that I think is a big motivating factor, where you would be considered something of a traitor (or an idiot) to express a love for FO3. You are effectively resigning your supposed intellectual-hardcoe-conneseur status and going over to the 15 year olds camp.

On old skool forums like No Mutants Allowed this effect is way exaggerated. If you think people here can be closed minded and aggressive about FO3 here, have a look on those forums. I don't look on there anymore cos it's a bit like the last remnants of the enclave or something.

To say all FO3 haters are motivated by prejudice and tribal politics would be unfair, but I think a large part of this debate, and also the angry tone of the debate is influenced by these things.

Happily there are alos loads of people like me, who liked all 4 of the big FO games and are looking forward to the next.

Very well said Shambo, very well said indeed. :foodndrink:

I thought most "old school" fans hated FO3 because it jumped genres, and generally dumbed down and completely changed every aspect of the fallout series?

You know Story from C&C, multipath, shades of grey to linear, dungeon crawl, black and white.
From Classic RPG with player and character separation, to action adventure with FPS.
From somewhat serious take on nukes and there effects, to Micheal bay 'xplosions around every corner.
Also you have the liberties taken with the lore, from Sudden and unexplainable faction jumps, to complete faction overhaul, to fit the above mentioned black and white paradigm.

I completely agree.

there's bethesda fans and the original fallout games fans, two seperate groups, i like any game bethesda actually makes themselves, so i don't want fallout to be like the old fallout or new vegas, i prefer how bethesda makes games, with plenty of exploration, action, epic moments, dynamic map world, huge dungeons, plenty of fantasy incorporated. so i never want any bethesda game to not have all those elements.

So essentially you don't want Fallout to be Fallout, but TES. :palmface: Dude just... Whatever...

Bethesda made a great survival game, if they would have made the plot happen about 50 years after the great war it would have made perfect since. The black isles fallout, and nv, was more about post post Apocalypse. Oh well, they are fun games, and they all have something that makes them worth playing.

Also i love the exploration in fallout 3, it was probably the best part