Yeah, you're both right, it was likely a poor choice of words. But I guess on the bright side I just demonstrated one of the effects of this split. It's easy for me to become hostile like I just did because the possibility of it being a poor choice of words never entered my mind, instead I assumed it's just someone trying to insult all of the Fallout 3 fans with legitimate reasons for not liking New Vegas.



I have not seen "New Vegas isn't as epic" threads anywhere, and because of this all I'm aware of in terms of why people don't like it is what I already mentioned; exploration and atmosphere. So, in that case, I apologize. But I would appreciate if, in the future, you didn't make it sound like the only reason FO3 fans didn't like it was because it wasn't as epic. That may be a reason, but it's far from being the only reason.

I'm glad this misunderstanding happened though, not only did it demonstrate how easily arguing and misunderstanding of opinions can arise when discussing Fallout, but it's also made me think about how I react when I read (seemingly) biased posts.

http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1165312-there-isnt-that-much-epicness-is-this-game/

that the most recent one that popped up in the last few weeks. I think I saw atleast one or 2 others.

It doesn't really bother me; any game series which has been revived after such a long time is bound to have a divided fanbase.

To use the Heroes of Might and Magic series as an example; the last widely liked HoMM game, HoMM III, was released in 2D in 1999. The series was rebooted in 3D in 2006. There's plenty of people who prefer Heroes III still, and make their opinions known.

They aren't as vocal as the FO1&2 diehards here, perhaps, but it's still a divided fanbase. People like what they like, and there's not much that can be done about that.

I think that Fallout fans all like the same games for different reasons. Personally I like that it showcases the 50's and Vaults, but others might like VATS or popping Caesar or Benny as many times as possible (which is fun too). The series shows a divergence in the typical RP format and combines semi-unrelated ideas into a coordinated game that can rival any PC game in its own right. The split in the fanbase is natural because we as humans split into different groups with different religions, countries, e.c. But let's not forget that we have a common interest, and that interest is Fallout

I hated that topic so much.

Eh, the split mostly happens because fallout 3 basically gutted the whole Fallout gameplay, mechanics, and storystyle for oblivion's. Do you think a rift just as strong would happen if the Skyrim and all future TES got the same treatment? lets say to full turn based, iso with a focus on story, and not action and exploration?

You gotta admit, Liberty Prime is a tough act to follow when it comes to epicness.

The B-29 carpet bombing run added plenty of epic to FONV's final battle for me, at least, though.

@Andaius-I honestly don't see a 3-D turn-based Fallout game being successful in this day and age; it'd be very difficult to market.

In my NCR final battle, I had the B-29 and vertibird support, not to mention thanks to mods probably 200 Legion to fight along with the defenders. Optimus was boring to be because you didn't do anything, you just stood there and watched as he blew up his own guys along with a force that should have turned him into dust in the first place. I mean is it "epic" to see the enemy reduced to a ridiculous Dr. evil type of villian, that lets his enemy "escape" to beat him because he put him in a "excruciatingly slow lowering mechanism for his pit of death?"

the enclave would have I don;t know, shot the crane at any point that they where raising Optimus? or Invade the Pentagon and killed everyone?

Edit:
Why not turn-based isn't so different than RTwP. Dragon age and games like it sold plenty well. Plus there's plenty of turn based JRPG's that are extremely popular. (Turn based would just equate to "pausing" every so often.)

Andaius, if you want to compare to Dragon Age's RTwP, that's basically what FO3 was; VATS/Pipboy is essentially a RTwP system. You can make the argument that it wasn't well implemented, sure, but that's what it is. And there are modern-day turn-based JRPGs, but JRPGs are a very different genre of game (party-based, etc).

As far as the final battle goes, yeah, even though I had no influence over Liberty's actions, it was pretty freaking epic as far as I was concerned. The Remnants showing up in FONV was also epic, although less so due to how bugged they were.

Logic is also kind of hard to apply to the final battle of FO3 when you consider that a single individual pretty much single-handedly knocks out bases filled with expert troops in both FO1&2. Awesome? Yes. Fun? Yes. Realistic? No. Applying realistic military logic to Fallout games doesn't always work too well.

It doesn't really bother me. I think veteran fans of the series have more of a say than a bunch of teens who picked up Fallout 3 because they saw videos of a person's head flying off.

You see, this split is really quite silly. What it boils down to is veteran fans of the series who were disappointed in a game that had NOTHING to do with Fallout 1 and 2 and felt it was catered towards casuals, and well, the casuals.

I'm not going to say whose side I'm on... this is just my two cents.

there's bethesda fans and anti bethesda fans, bethesda fans like plenty of exploration, combat and dynamic open worlds... anti bethesda people don't care about exploration or combat nearly as much, they want a believable game world with a complex story, i don't want a "believable" game world or a complex story. so for example, i like the super behemoths in FO3, i also like the mechanist and the antagonizer fighting it out like super heroes, i also like all the robots cruising around the national guard armory talking smack, i liked going in the capitol building fighting super mutants or looking for the declaration of independace for a guy named abraham washington, or killing slavers at the lincoln memorial, that stuff might not be believable but its fun as hell.

original fallout veterans generally aren't really into bethesda games, they just like bashing bethesda for not making fallout the way the original fallouts were, well as a bethesda fan i expect bethesda to make games in their own style, not in the style of a game company 10 plus years earlier that went bankrupt, seriously, they're gonna make games in their own style and make loads of people happy and keep their company going strong and sell tons of games. there's a reason bethesda is at the top with the other big game developers.

It doesn't bother me at all, in fact I find it rather amusing. It's starting to get a bit old now, but I find it funny how, no matter how intelligent the debate was to begin with, it always degenerates to......

Old fan "The origionals were better, I don't care what you say."

New fan "You're elitist."

Old fan "Well, you don't like the origionals, so you don't know what you're talking about."

New fan "But Fallout 3 revived the series, bethesda saved fallout."

Old fan "Van-buren would have been better."

New fan "But VB never happened."

Old fan "Liberty prime was stupid."

New fan "The old graphics were stupid."

Old fan "The super mutants in fallout 3 were stupid."

New fan "The Enclave putting everything on one oil rig is stupid."

Old fan "You're stupid."

New fan "No, you're stupid."

Old fan "No, you're stupid."

New fan "No, you're stupid."

Seriously guys, read over some of the debates, this pattern comes up with depressing regularity. But the arguments from both sides become so pointless and childish that it renders the debate amusingly pointless.

But even though being "less epic" was actually a real complaint by a few people, I don't feel it's very appropriate to use the oddest complaint you've seen to characterize the complaints of an entire group of people. It's effectively the same as if I said all fans of the older games don't like the new ones because I saw someone make a topic about how the new graphics hurt his eyes. What, you mean there are other reasons? Well I'm not going to tell you them, just like shdowhuntt60 didn't. What I'm trying to say is, just because you saw some people saying they don't like it being less epic, doesn't mean you can use that as your main reasoning for why Fallout 3 fans as a whole didn't like it. It's just plain insulting to those of us who prefer FO3 for more reasonable reasons.

Black Isle got laid off, they didn't go bankrupt. They were an in house dev team in Interplay. They made plenty of best selling games. The games that made Interplay lose money, that caused the execs to lay them off, were made by other people. Also poor decisions made by the higher ups didn't help things either.

Bethesda was also on thin ice till Zenimax was formed.

Topic: The split doesn't bother me. Difference in opinion is a great. I think blind loyalty is bad thing. Some criticism helps improve a series' growth.

I think there may be a TES fanbase split going wider with (IMO so far from current info) the series going further from crpg to action with Skyrim. Course without as much heated discussion as with this series.

It's called the "Hype Machine". You see, the actual quality of the game takes very little into account. What matters is how much hype you can drive up so you can beat out competition. It's a reason why godawful games like Call of Duty are so damn popular and amazing games like Rainbow Six remain obscure.


You see, Interplay was and always will be [censored] at advertising and forms of hype generation.

Bethesda on the other hand, oh boy. They go all kinds of crazy for when they are about to release a new game. Oblivion, Fallout, oh you name it. They call the press and make cool advertisemants. You can see it right now with Skyrim.

Now, am I saying that Bethesda games svck? No! But don't use success as a support as to why one game is better than others when you have games like Call of Duty selling for millions.

Edit: Just to clarify, I like TES. I really do. I just don't think it's as high and mighty as a lot seem to claim.

I think this is the crux of the matter. While some series evolved through the years but retained the same basic gameplay (Final Fantasy, Might & Magic), the changes in F3 were extreme. I can totally understand why those who absorbed the originals would be unhappy. (I almost wish that Skyrim would be turn based isometric, just to observe the firestorm. Man, can you imagine?)

Personally, I see no reason why a future Fallout couldn't include an option for turn based. The skeleton is right there with VATS, which was an homage to the Fallout targeting system. You'd enter combat when a hostile enemy sees you, move, retreat, change weapons or attack, all using APs. It's easy to visualize. It might be tough to program SPECIAL & perks to benefit both styles, but it could be done. And it could be pretty exciting.

I can't support isometric, though. Too artificial for my tastes -- I'm spoiled by 3-D.

A split in the Fallout fan-base?

There are differing preferences of play, and having played the slants in the Fallout sequels, enjoying both the taking-turns combat style of the early Fallouts way back, and now the real-time combat role-play of today’s sequel Fallout3, I can appreciate the improvements that were made.

Including the Fallout spin-off New Vegas.

Some seem not to be able to appreciate changes, even improvements in keeping with it's prequel, and seem to be in a fan-base time-warp.

They are few but very vocal, disgruntled at the changes made by Bethesda in the sequel Fallout3 and seem out to kick them at any chance they get for those changes, often coming out with ludicrous statements lacking in intelligence or truth.

I have explained how the improvements are indeed improvements and how and why the old would not fit well with the new .. to closed minds.

Yes they do spoil sensible discussion but that is a fact of forums.

Officially New Vegas isn't a spin-off. It's an "indirect sequel".

And the "very few vocal old fans" is a crap statement. A very large portion of the fanbase consists of the "few vocal old fans". NMA is Fallout's biggest fansite and the vast majority of its community is "very few vocal old fans".

I think most of us elitists know that the series ain't gonna change back over night.
But there are several awesome features from the old games that can return with a compromise.
A map node system could for example return, with each node including a town and a part of the wasteland to explore around in.
That way we could get both a map node system, realistic distance between towns, realistic sizes between towns and those who want to run around in dungeons and explore the wastes can do so as well.
Compromises can be made to bring back the old features.
Even have TB come back as an optional game mode.

But the new games aren't purely improvements, lots of the old features are still missing, features which made Fallout the great franchise it once was.
So the change from FO2 to FO3 was infact several steps backwards and one step to the side rather than several steps forward.
But now that Fallout is up and running again they have the chance to improve on the current series by bringing it closer to the past series by compromises to please both sides.

Anyway, point is; I fail to see how the chance from FO2 to FO3 was an improvement.
The graphics?
So what about the graphics? They don't make or break a game.

FPP/3rdPP?
I think most of us here can actually accept that change, while not what we want we can at least accept it.

Open world?
How is it any better than the old map node system? The open world just makes everything clustered together. Just look at New Vegas, they managed to squeeze one real city into the game which was about the size of New Reno. Well, New Vegas had one town, and FO2 had like a dozen.

They have the chance to now make improvements to the current series by bringing it closer to the originals slowly while still giving us new stuff to innovate the series.
But the change from FO2 to FO3 was anything but an improvement in my eyes.

The most annoying and pointless argument and really its stupid and smacks of ignorance. "They don't like it because it's a Bethesda game."

God forbid people like, great writing, story, lore building more then Fallout 3 which is a TES in Fallout clothing.

Fallout was made by Interplay. Fallout 2 was made by Black Isle. Fallout Tactics was made by Micro Forté and Fallout New Vegas was made by Obsidian using a Bethesda Engine. I love them all. I enjoyed Fallout 3 for what it was. I played the hell out of it, countless hours and countless play throughs. I bought it when it came out, bought all DLC as they came out and I stopped playing it about a month before New Vegas came out.

At least many of the "Diehard Elites" fans have played all the fallout games before we judge a game.

At first I was a little confused about FO3 when I started it and I gave it a chance to be honest, was fun during the first playthrough, too immersed to really see the flaws.
Then I started the subsequent playthroughs and more and more I got to see the flaws in this "Fallout by name only" game.
So I kept an open mind for it, and it didn't meet my expectations as a Fallout game.
As a game it was awesome, by it's own merits as "Post-Apocalyptica Knights To The Rescue" it was just plain awesome, had tons of fun with it on it's own merits.
But again, as a Fallout game I hate it with a passion.
I don't "hate" Bethesda either, I'm cynical about them, I'm disappointed in their QA on NV and forcing it out the door too soon and disappointed in their understanding of lore and writing in FO3.
But I don't hate Bethesda.

Honestly, it does bother me that there is a split between Bethesda vs BI fans. I mean, I personally love all the Fallouts so far, Minus F:BoS, that game is the only Fallout in my opinion that breaks canon in full. All in all though, I believe the fans should not try to favor one group and despise the other, that is not a true fan, that is someone who likes to claim they are a fan. I personally consider myself a true fan because I appreciate every aspect Fallout has. I was introduced by Fallout 3, I fell in love with it, then I got the trilogy pack and played the 1,2 and T. I still havent finished Tactics, havent beaten Frank Horrigan, but all in all, I've absorbed their stories and characters. I don't hate any of them because it's the way to get cool points as a Fallout Vet. To me, I think I'm just as experienced as a vet that started in '97. Why? Because I observe the wiki extensively. I read the dialogue, absorb the background and etc.

In short, I think elitism is just an attempt at looking better and different from the 'new fans'. You might know more about the games as a whole, but the elitism puts off alot of new fans, letting them continue their 'Fallout and Fallout 2 are for elitest fan boys' ideals. I believe we should all try to make unbiased opinions. But some people are just incapable of unbiased opinions I suppose.

I am still pretty new to Fallout but I am a long time Elder Scrolls fan. And I can say that the Elder Scrolls Community is much more split. In the ES forums there are down right nasty arguments over which game is better. Some people are die hard Morrowind fans (like me ) and some people thinks The Elder Scrolls Morrowind is the greatest game in the history of the universe. and Oblivion is the best thing ever, and some people are hard set on Daggerfell. I'm not saying there does not seem to e much of a split here but it is not that bad, and most of the arguments seem to be friendly.
I have never played the original Fallouts, my first was NV then I preceded to play FO3 and I prefer NV, but they both have good points.

That seems rubbish to what I have seen.

.... and the Fallout spin-off New Vegas being an.... "indirect sequel"

Where did you get that euphemism from? I love it, got any more? lol
Look at this ------