Fallout 3 vs Fallout New Vegas : Fallout Series Discussion

» Tue Mar 15, 2011 3:35 am

I know for a fact MCA reads at the Codex and many developers still post once in awhile at NMA.

That's a good thing. I'd rather they get ideas from those two places than here.

» Mon Mar 14, 2011 11:22 pm

The problem I personally have with Nell's position is the "turning a blind eye" approach. That approach is why you end up with products which are "lesser than" in your mind.

And Fallout / Fallout 2 is "lesser than", in my mind, which is why I have no interest in going back and playing them. I know enough about them to know that their game engine / design is not what I want in an RPG - Bethesda's vision, and game engine / design is exactly what I look for in RPG's, and has been since I was first introduced to it with Morrowind.

Any interest I might have in going back to play the original Fallout games is completely destroyed by the pretentious attitudes that come from the OG Fallout fans towards those of us who were introduced to the series through Bethesda's vision.

» Tue Mar 15, 2011 5:25 am

And Fallout / Fallout 2 is "lesser than", in my mind, which is why I have no interest in going back and playing them. I know enough about them to know that their game engine / design is not what I want in an RPG - Bethesda's vision, and game engine / design is exactly what I look for in RPG's, and has been since I was first introduced to it with Morrowind.

And there's the fatal flaw to your arguments: You don't know enough about the series history to form a valid opinion.

Any interest I might have in going back to play the original Fallout games is completely destroyed by the pretentious attitudes that come from the OG Fallout fans towards those of us who were introduced to the series through Bethesda's vision.

So your only reason for not exploring the original games is to somehow spite the old-school fans? Silly.

» Mon Mar 14, 2011 6:07 pm

Any interest I might have in going back to play the original Fallout games is completely destroyed by the pretentious attitudes that come from the OG Fallout fans towards those of us who were introduced to the series through Bethesda's vision.

What has fan attitudes have to do with your feelings towards a game?

» Mon Mar 14, 2011 8:11 pm

And there's the fatal flaw to your arguments: You don't know enough about the series history to form a valid opinion.

And the fallacy of your whole argument is thinking that I care enough about Fallout / Fallout 2 to want a "valid" opinion of them.

I know that I am a Fallout 3 fan, and I'm just fine with that because Fallout 3 is the best RPG / video game I've ever played.

What I'm not just fine with is the notion from people like you, Whiskey Rose, or Panda that I am somehow "wrong" for the fact that I love Fallout 3 as much as I do.

I have no problem with the fact that you all prefer the Fallout / Fallout 2 vision, I have no problem even that in your eyes Fallout 3 isn't "true" Fallout.

What I do have a problem with is your attitude that I am unarguably "wrong" for my preference of Fallout 3 over Fallout / Fallout 2, or for my preference of Fallout 3 over Fallout: New Vegas, and then throwing around the "objectivity" card so that you can insult me with a false justification.

» Tue Mar 15, 2011 12:42 am

And the fallacy of your whole argument is thinking that I care enough about Fallout / Fallout 2 to want a "valid" opinion of them.

If that's the case, then give up.

What I'm not just fine with is the notion from people like you, Whiskey Rose, or Panda that I am somehow "wrong" for the fact that I love Fallout 3 as much as I do.

I have no problem with the fact that you all prefer the Fallout / Fallout 2 vision, I have no problem even that in your eyes Fallout 3 isn't "true" Fallout.

I don't think anyone ever said that you were wrong in loving Fallout 3. I believe it started with you claiming that Fallout 3 has a better story (which it doesn't.)

What I do have a problem with is your attitude that I am unarguably "wrong" for my preference of Fallout 3 over Fallout / Fallout 2, or for my preference of Fallout 3 over Fallout: New Vegas, and then throwing around the "objectivity" card so that you can bash my opinion with a false justification.

Again, seeing things that aren't there.

» Tue Mar 15, 2011 5:03 am

[quote name='Whiskey Rose' date='07 November 2010 - 01:25 PM' timestamp='1289161546' post='16645961Your opinion doesn't have weight here, as this is a fact.
[/quote]

Keep telling yourself that.

Franchises evolve. CastleVania evolved. It is no longer the series that I grew up with. It's not "less" CastleVania because it's different. The X-Men comics have changed, the comics that come out today are not "less" X-Men because they aren't Stan Lee's original vision. Fallout 3 is not "less" Fallout because you say so. You're nothing more than a disgruntled fan, your opinion holds no more weight than anyone else. Get over yourself.

» Mon Mar 14, 2011 10:18 pm

Lol.

I don't think you'd be passing the same philosphy logic class, partner. Fallout 1 cannot be "lesser than" since it IS "than". It is Fallout. Everything is only "Fallout" to the degree to which it measures up to the work which gave birth to the series. Your opinion doesn't have weight here, as this is a fact.

Bravo.

» Mon Mar 14, 2011 6:31 pm

You're nothing more than a disgruntled fan, your opinion holds no more weight than anyone else. Get over yourself.

Funny how when you're backed into a corner, all you can rely on are insults.

» Mon Mar 14, 2011 11:25 pm

It's obvious FO:NV is not just lipservice to the fans of the originals, but directed straight toward us (albeit with the aftertaste of compromise).

To be fair, (from what i've read) Bethesda left Obsidian alone to develop FNV. They were told they HAD to have an ending to the game, and it had to be around the same time as FO3.

Funnily enough, FNV has restored some of my faith in Bethesda. It doesn't seem like a compromise (it might be though), more like Bethesda showing us that they are also fans of the original spirit of fallout, and allowed Obsidian to attempt to make a spiritual successor (they succeeded IMO).

» Mon Mar 14, 2011 5:45 pm

I chose Fallout 3. I love both games, with Fallout New Vegas there was that nostalgia factor from the first two games along with an enhanced combat and survival system. I prefer Fallout 3 more because there were more abandoned areas and useless junk around that made it feel wasteland-ish. I remember leaving the vault and seeing this town below where off in the distance I can see the Washington Monument. It had that epic feel and alot more scavengering was needed ( assuming that you wouldn't amass an arsenal of weapons).

Fallout New Vegas was empty in a way even though it had a more superior story. There were areas that were down to the detail to areas that seemed to need more clutter.

» Mon Mar 14, 2011 11:53 pm

Funnily enough, FNV has restored some of my faith in Bethesda. It doesn't seem like a compromise (it might be though), more like Bethesda showing us that they are also fans of the original spirit of fallout, and allowed Obsidian to attempt to make a spiritual successor (they succeeded IMO).

FNV is the most brilliant marketing ploy in the history of video games. Bethesda didn't want to dish out more DLCs for FO3 and also didn't want to reveal anything about FO4 or TESV already... hence they reached out to a company known for taking up sequels to already established franchises.

And now they are reaping the benefits, while they are keeping gamers' interest in Fallout overall, so that Fallout 4 will be even more succesful.