Surely it would remain multiplatform even with a different travelsystem.

I'd even go so far as to say that us PC crowd has more worries on that account (if not completely excluded, at least having to play consoleports).

Why would you say that? with how many users enjoy mods, I'm willing to risk the assumption PC is their highest selling platform for F3 and F:NV. Why they'd cut others out I surely don't know. Then again, Microsoft did cut PC and PS3 uses out due to their E,E,E bit. So it isn't to farfetched to imagine them attempting 360 supremacy.

But STALKER is an FPS, isn't it?

This.

S.T.A.L.K.E.R.-games, Metro 2033, L4D1/2, Killing Floor, Half Life 2 are better for a feeling of a post-apocalypse like Fallout 3's but that actually makes sense. I mean, think if L4D took place 200 years after the outbreak?

Nothing different, both of them would have dirty streets. HONESTLY! *Huffs and picks up a broom*

But why is it wrong for us to want Fallout 3's atmosphere in the Fallout series? Why does that option carry less merit than a "rebuilding" atmosphere? Why do we need to leave the series to fufill our want for an atmosphere like Fallout 3?

I'm just saying that its a matter of taste really. Nothing more nothing less.

Can you kill all the zombies in 200 years? You can't.

It'd be dirtier after 200 years, don'tcha think? And nature would have been taking back alot, it's not a nuclear desert like in Fallout.


I want both. Fallout 3 (minus the green tint) + rebuilding of civilization, or atleast settlements making sense in the way of supporting themselves with farming and cattle and hunting, and not living in rusty shacks but actually build houses.


Yes, you can. Because they are just Infected, so they will die from starvation eventually. And if they are living dead, then they are corpses and will decay in the same pace as a corpse does which is NOT 200 years. Infection would not remain after 200 years, and probably not much of humanity either. And then nature will take back cities and everything, and it will most likely be cities overgrown with vegetation and full of wildlife, and things of metal, such as cars, would have rusted away since long, and buildings would be in bad shape.

And then plants will rule the world!

I will storm the Capital Wasteland with an army of 500 Mr. Handys.

-Feral Ghoul comes charging-
Mr.Handy: STOP RIGHT THERE YOU RAGAMUFFIN!!! Where is your shirt, and look at those finger nails. You're grounded until you properly clean yourself up young man.
-Feral hangs it's head and sulks to it's room-

Imagine how the Metros would look like after those 500 Mr. Handys...... hundreds of well-dressed, well-mannered feral ghouls. "Ticket, sir?" "Kzaaaaaakh! Here you go..." "Thank you, sir. Move along, please."

The new slogan of the Post-war D.C. subway- 'D.C. Metro Systems, We're the Ultra-Luxe of Washington D.C.'

:laugh:

No, it doesn't.



Technically yes, though Bethesda wasn't the only company that wanted the franchise, they just happened to win the bidding. Bioware would have likely done a much better job.



Yes, it deserves to be mocked for legitimate problems. The writing in Fallout 3 is a massive flaw that can't just be ignored.

As for feeling connected to your parents in Fallout 3, that isn't a connection based on character development, it's based on what they are. It would be the same if they gave you a wife without letting you get to know her, and then they kill her. The 'connection' and feeling of loss from severing the connection is merely a byproduct of obvious, ham-handed audience manipulation. You wouldn't have developed a bond with the 'wife' forced onto your character, and the same applies to James in Fallout 3. You don't get to know him as a character, he's just a plot device meant to force the reaction Bethesda wanted when he dies.

I don't think Bioware could do justice to Fallout.

Because 200 years is too long for a population to live on old TV dinners and sit around doing nothing. The environment just can't be taken seriously unless they go back in time. If the Capital is so uninhabitable that getting water is something you have to BREAK A G.E.C.K. for, the solution is pretty obvious: LEAVE. That one thought ("..why don't these morons leave?") is the death knell to taking the setting seriously. D.C. is the area that would have been hit with the most nukes, so it stands to reason that there are other areas that one could go that aren't -as- bad. Take that magical McGuffin and find somewhere better to live.



It's a matter of a realistic setting versus a setting that can't be taken remotely seriously. It's hard to get the 'broken world' feeling when the world is so obviously implausible even within its own context. Little Lamplight can't be seen seriously, Megaton can't be believed as a settlement, the entire idea behind Tenpenny Tower collapses the second you apply thought, and Rivet City- okay, Rivet City is fine. Still, the civilization as a whole is just a joke, and that only works if you want the game to be seen as a joke. But they obviously wanted you to empathize with the 'people' stuck in these settlements who were forced to live an awful existence of... doing nothing but sitting around and drinking Nuka-Cola.

Unless you're saying the game should be a joke and not take itself seriously (which is a matter of taste), this isn't a question of preference, but good setting design.

lol now thats a metro man. win for the Mr. handys

We'll never know for sure, but the evidence suggests they would do a good job. The main strength Bioware has is good writing, and that's what Fallout needs. Compare the characters in Dragon Age to the "characters" in Fallout 3. Night and day difference. The problem that would arise is that Bioware isn't good at open worlds.

I took the environment seriously. Fallout 3 gave me a sense of poetic justice that I couldn't find in New Vegas. I found New Vegas's atmosphere to be a bit gimicky. Fallout 3's atmosphere reminded me of many stirring apocalyptic poems (such as "There Will Come Soft Rains") and the thought of "what the hell happened?" lingered in my mind.

Fallout 3 had enough logic in it to make me happy. I was content with the setting that it had. You apparently weren't but you do not speak for us all.



I'm sorry but I find that a foolish argument for a reason as to why this is not a matter of preference. As I said, I and apparently many others were able to take Fallout 3's setting seriously. It was realistic enough for me that when I think of the aftermath of a nuclear war, I think of Fallout 3 (barring certain fictional elements).



Again that is you talking. I found Fallout 3's settlements to be adequate enough for my purposes of immersion, prehaps not for you though. But a game does not need to pay attention to every realistic detail possible. Likewise, people do not need to pick apart a sci-fi/fantasy movie because a settlement in it wasn't "realistic enough" that just seems to be a silly arguement to me. Sort of like arguing that someone doesn't like the Lord of the Rings' movie because Minas Tirith could not survive as a settlement/huge city because of its apparent lack of agriculture and how Sauron could never supply a huge number of troops dependent on the horrid burning landscape of Mordor (as seen in movie) for supply. Sure you can make those arguments for why you don't like it and I suppose if thats the reason you don't want to see the movie/play the game (a la Fallout 3) thats your perogative, but don't tell me that I can't enjoy it becuase its "not realistic enough". There comes a point that looking at realism needs to stop being such a huge factor. That point for me would be when I couldn't have fun because of it and tell others that they can't as well.



Yes it is. You are simply refusing to aknowledge my side of the debate and instead are insisting that it is your way or the highway. I consider myself an even tempered person and when debating and conversing with someone I think its important to aknowledge the other side. This is why I say that the matter of atmosphere is a preference. Some people like it ruined, some people like it rebuilt. Its a matter of what you like and it shouldn't matter one way or the other. What I'm saying is that Fallout 3 shouldn't automatically be considered a piece of crap because it fufills a preference that is not your own. Thats being biased and is generally frowned upon where I come from.

I prefer a setting like Fallout 3, I prefer the things you listed as "wrong with the game" that were not part of your preference. Many others do as well. But I recognize that some people might prefer the setting to be different.

I apologize for the rant but refusing to aknowledge the preferences of others seems to me to be just rude.

Hey I like that

Im BI, so, I dont mind that with everyone XD
ON TOPIC:
Fallout New Vegas

Thats all

That's debatable, the original Baldur's Gate had a pretty good open world, but I'm not sure how many of BG1's developers are still at BioWare. Some developers at BioWare aren't a fan of open worlds though; some aren't even fans of open ended gameplay period. If David Gaider had his way the games he worked on would be as linear as Final Fantasy XIII.

I do think that BioWare could have done a Fallout game justice as long as developers like David Gaider were kept far, far away from it.

i agree, some people are saying, oh new vegas is civilized and rebuilding, lol thats kinda lame, it may be good on paper but new vegas does not have the longevity and immersion FO3 does, i played FO3 for 2 years quite a bit, new vegas is kinda dull after 2 months of playing, as cool as it was, it just didn't give me that post apocalyptic feeling, things are too civilized, and there's just a whole bunch of problems with new vegas, not enough enemies to fight, map is too static, too predictable, most of the human enemies are melee fighters(how lame is that?)..no buildings to explore and fight in like FO3, all the buildings in new vegas are one room bascially, none of the complex layouts like in FO3 buildings, not even counting the metro tunnels, fallout 3 had loads and loads of places to explore and fight in. so yeah obsidian did make some improvements but its like the went two steps forward and 3 steps backwards.

i agree and FO3 is way more popular than both FO1 and 2 combined and bethesda is the reason we have a fallout franchise alive and well instead of dead, i prefer bethesda games anyway, oblivion and FO3 are right up my alley, i think they are good at game immersion, open world, sandbox style of games, they make good enemies to fight, make the environment interesting and they make good dungeons to explore and fight in.

Fallout 3 had complex layouts? I had no idea, from my experience it was all copy pasted [censored] from the start.

@the person who said we shouldn't criticize Fallout 3...I spent MY money on it, I have the right. It was a rehash of previous plots and it made no sense.

I've played both games to over 100 hours each and I really do find New Vegas the funner of the two. I think I like the characters of New Vegas better than Fallout 3, I like their back stories more. The thing I liked most about Fallout 3 was Point Lookout though, something about that map was cool to me and I loved the lucidity of it and the complexity of Desmond too.