And I'm in full agreement there.

Maybe Obsidian, though they are using Beth's engine, may reimplement some of the mechanics Beth either removed or broke and make F:NV a good step in the right direction.

I'm definitely hoping for at least traits to return. They're already supported by the engine easily.

Exactly, they could have used Oblivions birth signs system.

Remember: FO3 is Bethesda's first foray into Fallout Territory. This was more of an experement than anything else.

Did Bethesda make mistakes? Yes, of course. Mistakes will always be made, especially when a popular series is bought out by another company. Hopefully, Bethesda has been mining the Forums for all they're worth regarding Fallout 3 (look at how many forum sections are dedicated to Fallout 3 compared to the TES games) and will address these concerns/problems when New Vegas comes out. They'd be idiotic not to.

This thread is a recepie for disaster. Here are gonna come all the Pro-Beth screamers and the Interplay radicals to state this is better for this reason and that is better for that reason. The point of the matter is that none of the games are better in and of themselves for doing this or doing that. The reality is that one game is better to one person because it did this and to another because it did that, what most people around here seem to fail to realize is that they are not right, nor are they wrong. What is going on here is simply a redundant argument over personal taste and preferences, and no one is an authority over what is or isn't the better thing overall because no one can speak for anyone other than themselves.

Personally I love Fallout 3 and just last night I finished the original and guess what: I loved that one too! Oh my God hell has frozen over because someone actually sided with both games!!!! :ahhh:

I haven't played F2 nor Tactics but I will be beginning F2 tonight and I'm very much looking forward to it. That said, both F1 and F3 have strengths and weaknesses and it is ridiculous to even try to compare them in equal footing because they are completely different games set in the same world. Do I think F3 is a worthy successor to F1, absolutely imo! Would I ever make the mistake of thinking them the same type of game? No, they aren't even the same type of RPG, so this futile back and forth about one or the other is a completely moot point.

There are things I loved about F1 that aren't present in F3 and vice versa. For example: In F1 I loved how just about every settlement and town had an area for crops and a pen for Brahmin, I loved how the Hub felt like a true major merchant city, I loved Vault Dweller's smart@ss remarks, I love the .223 gun, just to name a few. In F3 I am much more immersed into the game due to its perspective, I enjoy the combat mechanics much more, the inventory system and interface is more to my liking, and the locations were more unique in appearance and structure. This isn't also to say there were things about the games that I hated about both which neither complemented the other with, and that there weren't things both games shared that I enjoy immensely.

@Talonfire: I have to disagree about the BoS; this is a topic often stated and here's my possible interpretations. The first option is to believe Lyons seceded from the West Coast BoS because of a conflict in ideologies; it is a very real and believable scenario that there would be conflicting ideologies as time passes and that these disagreements would lead to separatist movements and maybe even a civil war, if not outcasting them outright. I think that the storyline developed for Lyons gives this BoS great character depth as opposed to simply being a cardboard cutout of the BoS from F1. Additionally, the Outcasts are there in all their tech stealing/hoarding glory for those that want to see the Old School BoS, so where is the real complaint? That Beth decided to try something new with the BoS and or is it that since they are "Good guys" now it rubs you the wrong way because you like all factions a shade of grey?

Furthermore the BoS in F1 which I interacted with heavily last night isn't half the xenophobic borderline grey isolationists many people have given the impression of, in fact they were really nice and polite. Yeah they sent me into a suicide mission into the Glow as a test of will and commitment, to prove my worth, but then just about every quest giver in the game sends you to a mission you aren't inherently expected to survive from, even your own Overseer sends you looking for the chip without any explanations, why me? Why not someone older and with actual defense training or scholared to the wasteland/pre-war world? Why not groups of people and teams in different directions? Because they might want to stay up in the wastes...bad reasoning by my viewpoint, I of course realize it was the only game mechaninc available to drive the player out the door, but still poorly conceived.

The BoS in F1 actually views itself as the saviors of humanity, indeed they say they are stockpiling the technology to then one day incorporate it back into the world and make life for all better. Lyons' ideals are already present amongst F1 BoS members and take center stage during the positive BoS ending of the game where they use their technology to help build the NCR. They maintain a distance from politics and from incorporating themselves fully into new wasteland society but they actually do the goody two shoes things Lyons is also basing his principles in. Which leads me to option 2:

The BoS in F3 is a natural extension and progression of the ideals that F1's BoS was conceiving and preparin for. Lyons is in fact a descendant of the doctrines created by Rhombus once he assumes leadership of the BoS and begins to help wasteland society, he is the evolution of that initiative 100 or so years later.

It is in my opinion difficult to swallow that the BoS would not be doing what Lyons is doing given F1's ending for the BoS, or at least splintering into groups that are following these ideals that Vree spoke off when we pvssyd in the library.

I think they respected the original world quite a fair bit, though not entirely. Raiders were all practically maniacal scumbags in F1 and if you encountered them in the Wastes, they would always attack which is how they appear in F3 as there isn't a Vipers or Khans camp here. Feral Ghouls are vicious, those in Underworld, the Tenpenny Ghouls and other named Ghoul npcs aren't specifically enemies to the player, although Roy is a sonofa... which is in fact character development not recognized; he is a character that can be a ally for the player, a victim of society and a devious murdering scumbag all rolled into one, I'd say that's pretty good character right there. And unlike Harold he actually has a chance to display these characteristics ingame with the Tenpenny Ghouls questline. And I seem to recall many of Necropolis' Ghouls attacking me right when entering the map, the only true pacifist Ghouls were the ones in the sewers; Set and his goons were hostile or not depending on your interaction with them. I think it's unfair to trivialize with so few examples of Ghouls in F1 whether too many were Feral in F3 or not.

About the whole action RPG, you are absolutely correct, F3 is a different monster in terms of gameplay and design. But that is something occuring with games more and more as time continues to go by; genres are being merged to provide more elements than what was originally available when genres were so completely different. I ask you to recall the old school shooters like Doom or Wolfenstein, these games were FPS with no attention to narrative or elements outside of run through level and gun everything down. Now take a look at Borthers in Arms; it has a superior narrative, great character development and a tactical operations setting to coordinate orders to your 2 teams like a RTS. Is BiA any less a shooter than Wolfenstein because it incorporated things that shooters didn't have before and traits from other genres? Even Doom 3, which actually is a remake of Doom, has narrative and additional things outside run and gun, is that then no longer an FPS? Is F3 then no longer an RPG because it placed first person perspective and real time combat? Is Vampire: Bloodlines also not an RPG because of this definition? Is Mass Effect and Dragon Age and NWN not an RPG also, despite their differences to BG2 and Planescape Torment. What about King's Quest and side scrolling RPGs or Might and Magic which are even older than isometric 2D RPGs, since F1 isn't like these older RPGs wouldn't F1 then be a fake RPG also because it didn't follow the old text RPGs adventures design?

I understand it's a matter of taste and you probably didn't want FPP and real time in Fallout, but that doesn't mean it is any less an RPG than F1 because it had a different gameplay design. I don't think Beth spit on anything, they just made a different kind of RPG than to what had been done with the series before.

Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with everything you say. I wish F3 had more variety in solving quests, the witty dialogue responses of the Vault Dweller, and more attention to detaail like Brahmin pens and crop farms. As well as bigger and more populated cities which were a pain since Oblivion's Imperial City. Then again, some of these would then require me to use Skynet in order to be able to play them because I get lag when I'm downtown in a firefight, I can't imagine a full sprawling open world Hub in first person.

@Ausir: I have to also disagree with you, albeit it slightly, about if Obsidian had obtained Fallout's license on their own. I do not agree it would be Van Beuren reincarnated or anywhere too closely resembling that. The game would not be turn based, not isometric 2D, or anything like that. It would be more likely like all of the games Obsidian has delivered since its inception which is 3rd person perspective RPGs with real time combat like KotOR 2, Alpha Protocol, NWN 2, and the cancelled Aliens RPG. I do however agree there would have been some greater similarities to the originals in other areas such as the witty dialogue and a closer setting to the original games in the West Coast, however I do not believe it would have taken Van Beuren's plot as its focus either, instead making something of their own.

My two bottlecaps...

Of course much would depend on the publisher. But given that Obsidian was founded by the maker of Van Buren immediately after the game's cancelation, it would be much closer to Van Buren than Bethesda's FO3.

Obsidian's 2 games so far were sequels to BioWare's games and thus they followed BioWare's formula. Alpha Protocol is a new IP with no sequel expectations attached. I'm pretty sure they would try to make their own Fallout game more faithful to the original Fallout games they had a hand in creating, as well as their freshly (then) canceled project.



Van Buren was 3D, not 2D. NWN2 has a pseudo-isometric camera, just like Van Buren.

Depending on the publisher, they might have had to make the real-time mode the default one, like in Fallout Tactics, but keep in mind that Van Buren was going to let you choose between real time or turn based, so I think turn based would have stayed, even if not as the default option.

The issue of it being an RPG is player skill being divorced from character skill, not the perspective.

I didn't see the BoS and nice and polite, well before I managed to do the impossible and make it back from the Glow. The mere fact that they send you to die as some no name schmuck that just wandered up is proof enough that they're not too keen on outsiders. Th Outcasts in Fallout 3 are on the right track, even if Bethesda had to make them incredibly unlikeable and not really take them anywhere.

I liked both. :shrug:



Neither the Outcasts nor Lyons' splinter group were anything like the West Coast Brotherhood. The West Coast Brotherhood balanced between "hoarding tech" and "saving the world", they weren't purely xenophobic (if they were, they wouldn't have let the Vault Dweller join their jolly little group). The Outcasts and Lyons' Brotherhood were two extremes, one was more obsessed with gathering tech, the other was more obsessed with saving the world. Neither are good representations of the West Coast Brotherhood.



The Raiders in Fallout and Fallout 2 had actual organization, and they weren't mindless psychopaths like the ones in Fallout 3. Bethesda wanted a common human enemy, so they shoved the Raiders into the role because they wanted to turn Fallout into an action RPG. Yeah there were hostile raiders in Fallout and Fallout 2, but not as many, and they certainly as hell weren't mindless psychopaths. A lot of them were just people trying to survive, and being forced into taking by force. I was sympathetic towards some Fallout raiders, but in Fallout 3 they're little more than a sadistic generic human enemy.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with the Harold/Roy comparison. I liked Harold a heck of a lot more than Roy personally.

Sure some Ghouls are hostile in the original, but they're not mindless psychopaths like the ones in Fallout 3... they're just racist towards normals. In Fallout 3 95% of Ghouls are hostile. There's a massive overpopulation of Feral Ghouls in Fallout 3 because they wanted a generic enemy. Notice a pattern here?



You missed my point. My point was that Fallout 3 is a lousy sequel, but as a spinoff I'd have been less harsh towards it. Whether or not Fallout 3 is an RPG is not touched upon in any of my arguments in this particular thread.



It's not the FPP and real time aspect that bothers me, it's the way that Fallout 3 focuses primarily on combat leaving everything else as an afterthought. Compare this to Fallout where you could actually finish the game without firing off a shot, and you'll see what I'm getting at. Isometric and turn based would have been nice, but that's not all there is to Fallout's gameplay. The fact that the SPECIAL system in Fallout 3 has been dumbed down to the point where it's not even worth paying attention to doesn't help anything, either.

To be honest, Fallout has become a victim of the remake fad which has become prevalent in Hollywood in the last 10 or so years. Also when it comes to quality, a product like Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines, felt more like a spiritual successor to Fallout 2 than Fallout 3 ever did. In all honesty, had Fallout 3, just been relabeled as Fallout D.C., it would have solved a lot of problems.

@Ausir: I get your point, you're right it would have possibly been close to Van Bueren's style in that case. I don't know why I thought that VB was 2D isometric, I saw some pics of it and it looked like the old perspective of F1-2 just with more detailed graphics.

Still I think Alpha Protocol is being done in a fashion that Obsidian finds proven and true, not to mention they have experience in, which is why they went with 3rd person perspective just like their previous games instead of trying something new for their fresh IP. Had I had already been told by you that F: NV was being done in the same fashion as F3, I would have expected the game to be exactly the same as those previous titles.

Choice is a beautiful thing, I would certainly be glad if they had both real time and turn based for those that prefer that style. The same with 1st/3rd person perspectives. Just have to wait and see how NV turns out, I don't have any doubt I'll enjoy it immensely in any case.

@Malcador: Perhaps we were playing 2 different games then. When I arrived at the Brotherhood Cabbot was all welcome and good morning, all apologetic when he wasn't allowed to tell me info, and very welcoming as well as the other guard who couldn't answer much either but was very inviting that I talk to Cabbot about joining the Brotherhood.

Sorry I disagree with you, every member of the Brotherhood was extremely welcoming to me when I became an initiate as well: no prejudice from being an outsider, no belittling or refusal to answer questions because of my lineage (With dialogue driven npcs), they even trained me for free and gave me power armor by just getting a crap motivator from a locker without (Unrealistically)me needing training to operate it and as I already explained more than showing the core beliefs of what is later represented as Lyons' doctrines in 3.

I haven't played 2 yet or Tactics so maybe the BoS will somehow turn jerks there, but as far as every indication is given with my conversations at the base, the BoS is stockpiling technology to then help the wasteland rebuild and see themselves as the only ones that can save the future for all; Vree said as much. And the good ending all but confirms this as they use their tech to build and fortify NCR's new society; they choose to remain separate from NCR because of their militaristic roots, but it's clear they are indeed beginning to help the wasteland rebuild under Rhombus.

@Talonfire: LOL I put the I loved both because some people here seem to think that one must have to choose one Fallout over another as if only one can define what Falloutn is or what a good RPG is. My explanation about RPG mechanics was mistakingly placed in your response but not directed to you, but in general whenever F3's authenticity as an RPG is questioned; I simply meant to elaborate that RPG is not just a single game design type anymore.

My point about the BoS goes towards your anolysis of F3's BoS as do-gooder's ruining their persona. Your right in F1 they weren't adhered to saving the world, they were balancing their collecting of tech and goals of helping. My point was that F3's BoS can be interpreted as an evolution of what the West Coast BoS was doing/planning for 100 years earlier. Lyons' group may very well be on the mission that Rhombus' crew was preaparing/cllecting tech for. The ideology of saving the world with their collected tech was clearly there in F1, it just hadn't gone into implementation. Lyons is several generations removed from Rhombus so those ideals might actually be placed into larger actions by 2277. My statement is that F3's BoS can actually fit as an evolution of F1's BoS given the time difference and the stated goals of the ancestors, as well as the given end of F1 where it shows the BoS begin to get more involved. I feel Beth's BoS actually can be a valid representation of where the BoS went after F1.

The Outcasts are there simply for nostalgic reasons I think. I believe Beth figured that should they keep the BoS strictly in their new format many old school players would complain (And they would have been more than right given current views on the BoS), so they needlessly put the Outcasts in so there's a throwback to the pre-action BoS. And you're right they are too extreme in their hoarding tech but it's nice to interact with them nonetheless. I see them as a more twisted version of the old school BoS that thinks technology should be for them and them only, as they believe themselves superiors to wasteland scum.

The raiders in F3 are virtually random world encounters, the same as the ones that would stop you on your tracks on your way to a given location and attack you. You are correct, they are disorganized and hostile, they gather in specific camps and have no "leaders" like the Khans from F1. I agree that I wish to have seen raider gangs like that in F3, but when you look at their implementation it is exactly like those special encounters with raiders across the wastes like the original game and those never were organized nor were they interested in talking. F3 does have the type of raider you are looking for in The Pitt, an entire raider city with quests and a raider leader; perhaps you didn't like their story or it wasn't enough for you, but they are a close approximation to the raiders of Khan/Viper qualities.

My intended point about Ghouls was to observe that F1 had many hostile Ghouls, more than even neutra/friendly, just like F3 does. The Ghouls in F1 encountered in the wastes were hostile, a good number of the ones above Necropolis also. It was my counterpoint to you specifying F3 ruined Ghouls by having so many of them be hostile, I suggest F1 had more hostile Ghouls than not also; but I could be wrong. The Harold/Roy comparison skewed out because I had in my mind another common argument how little storyline/shades of grey there is in F3 and I wanted to point out at least one specific point I thought did it rather well, disregard it as part of your comments however, too much noise up in the old noggin'. :hehe:

I agree about the SPECIAL system and the more choices for completing quests. My point was that just because F3 isn't exactly like F1 in those aspects, I don't feel it makes it any less worthy a sequel to the first 2 or less of an RPG. But this is just subjective to both our tastes, I hoped to expose my point of view as a counterpoint for discussion not as an argument or trying to change your mind at all if that's how you perceived it.

In any case I loved both F1 and F3, hopefully F2 will be great also cause I heard some real funky stuff about that game; even so much as some purists stating there is no Fallout after the first aya ay! And Tactics...I hope in the least it's entertaining. I'm sure I'll like it to some degree :tops:

@RAmerica: We'll agree to disagree as well :hehe:

It's actually not their IP, the IP belongs to Sega. They probably went with what they could get published.



Problem is not about them being hostile. The Necropolis ghouls were hostile, but they were not mindless. They were just members of a gang that hated smoothskins (similarly to the Chinese ghouls in FO3, not to the feral ghouls).

Cute, but we're playing the same game. Sure they didn't adopt the "I hate the world" stance, but the fact of the mission they send you on should at least indicate that they really don't care that much about you. I guess the Brotherhood comes to you, not the other way around. Once you become an initiate, though, I was shocked to find out they weren't spitting on me and not aiding me at all, really. The BoS is to help humanity on its terms not be the white knights battling the encroaching darkness. For the Outcasts, well I guess Beth doesn't know how to do grey. Frankly, I'd have preferred to -not- see any BoS in FO3, already seen them so many times.

After I played the Van Buren demo I was kind of glad it got canceled, I know it was in the early stages of development, but I can't be the only one that thought it was pretty weak, it didn't look like it was going to live up to the originals or even Fallout 3, I think it would have been a good example of how you need a little bit of both Fallout 3 and Fallouts 1 and 2, you can't have a good RPG formula without good gameplay mechanics as well, played like a cheap NWN 2 with guns

I don't know what RPGs some of you guys have been playing in the last 5-10 years, I just get the impression that some people believe there is some RPG made in the last five years that was what Fallout 3 should have been like, Bloodlines? Arcanum? TOEE? KOTOR? To me, there hasn't been a good example of what an RPG should be today, ten years after the few good ones were made

Fallout 3 wasn't ideal, but compared to other RPGs being made today, it was about as good as it was going to get, judging by Bloodlines and Van Buren, it was a better sequel than what was going to be made by any of the original developers.

The thing about the BoS is that you were never supposed to come back from the Glow. The Brotherhood was certain that you'd die there, which to me doesn't sound too friendly.

I agree and disagree, I've been playing the fallout series for years now on my pc. But thats about all my pc can handle these days, I was fortunate to have it come out on x box and gave me a chance to enjoy it. Yes it is a great computer game, but it's nice to have it on consoles for people like me who can't afford or have the know how to build a gaming computer.

The gameplay in VB was going to be more similar to FO1 and 2, with many combat elements from Fallout Tactics. The combat in the demo had nothing to do with how it would work in the final version, and was just a leftover from the canceled Baldur's Gate 3.

All I know is what I played, and there was nothing good about that demo, maybe the character creation, no one can really say how it would have turned out unless they played a beta, but if the Van Buren demo was any indication, it would not have been a good sequel in my opinion.

As I said, the gameplay was not the intended gameplay for VB, it was a leftover system from BG3. This was a very early tech demo.



We can say for sure what the system was intended to be. The combat system was going to be similar to the one in Fallout Tactics.

There was never a single game design for RPGs. For Fallout there was a single game design though, and that design is part of what made Fallout... well... Fallout. Fallout 3 should have at least remained somewhat faithful to the style of its predecessors, but it didn't, it didn't even try. My argument is and always has been, that I think Fallout 3 would have made a great spin off... but it makes a poor sequel.

In a way, I believe that Bethesda sold out the Fallout fans in favor of generating more sales by putting Fallout on Nintendo, the Playstation 5 and whatever other game systems it did.

Having never owned a Nintendo, or any of the other video game machines, I feel that PC owners are tending to get the shaft.

Ifall into the camp of "Better as a spinoff", "not a good sequel", and such. To me it just seems gamesas was just lazy and couldn't be bothered to implement SPECIAL so just modified there Oblivion system. It comes of very much a TES sequel than anything else.

Yeah, like Ausir said - what you played was a tech demo. It was meant to show how the engine worked, a proof of concept. The combat system in the tech demo had no bearing on what they were actually planning on doing with it, and was thrown in to provide a way to show what the animations were going to look like. The only thing you can really "judge" from that is the relative quality of the engine itself - it's rendering properties, how it deals with light and shadows and the like. Possibly to some extent what the models would eventually look like, but even that wasn't in the final stages. It's like playing around with the Paper Airplane tech demo they showed back when the Wii was coming out.

Maybe you wouldn't have liked what Van Buren was going to end up being. That's all subjective anyway. I'm not saying you're "wrong" in feeling how you do or anything. But I do think it's pretty clear (to me, at least) that it was going to play a lot closer to the originals than Fallout 3 does. As in, a linear progression of the existing mechanics and not a complete re-imagining with little in common besides the setting.

:) So the argument is that since no one has been trying for the past ten years to make a quality RPG, that we should just accept anything that falls in-line with the current trend as a good thing? I might not think anyone's done very many good videogame movies, but I don't think that means I should be happy every time Uwe Bolle gets his grubby mitts on another one. Or even if one comes out that's incrementally better than House of the Dead, it doesn't mean that I'm going to hail that as a good videogame movie.

I quite like Fallout 3 for what it is, but I'm not going to be happy just because it's "as good as we were going to get."

That's something that gets overlooked sometimes, I think. For at least some of us, I should think, there's more to the "game" than just the setting. The actual mechanics and how it played were just as important as anything else. If I like playing Battleship, it's because I enjoy how the game is played - it's rules; and not necessarily because I have a thing for Naval Battles. If they put out a Battleship 2, but it was a collectible card game - I might like that game, but not for any of the reasons that I enjoyed the original one.

Part of the "fun" to be found in the original games was actually how that game worked. (At least for some of us - I'm certainly not going to try and say everyone enjoyed all the mechanics of those games.) Fallout 3 doesn't play at all like those games. So I agree: viewed as a spin-off, it's a very good game. As a sequel, I have trouble making sense of it. I'm not one of those who is losing any sleep over a matter of semantics, but still - it doesn't make much sense as a direct sequel.

Imagine if Bethesda had called their game "Fallout 3D" similar to "Duke Nukem 3D" after Duke Nukem 1 & 2 that were two DOS platforms.

Then, would the "niche" crowd really have bashed the game less with a different name? Look at FO: BOS. They still would've whined & griped about it being against the "lore" & "canon", not to mention picking apart the gameplay.

Well, we'd see be seeing a lot less "This game is a sequel/ No it isn't" debates.

But actually, yeah - I think a lot of the people on this forum would have been more forgiving. Naming it Fallout "3" means that going forward, this what the Fallout games are going to be like. It means that there's pretty much no chance of a Fallout game that combines current-gen technology with the ruleset and game mechanics that we liked. Were it a spin-off, I'd be able to say "okay, well it's quite a bit different than the other Fallout games, but it's something to tide me over until the Fallout 3 I'm expecting."

Not to mention that terming it a sequel inherently brings about comparisons to how the previous titles play. I didn't like Brotherhood of Steel on it's own merits, but one of the many criticisms I could leverage against distinctly is not that it's a completely different gameplay mechanic and ruleset. Because it was a spin-off, and by virtue of that small bit of semantics, it's allowed to explore other avenues of presenting the franchise.

I've said before that I'd play a Fallout spin-off with any imaginable gameplay and presentation so long as it held true to the defining characteristics of the franchise and paid respect to the Lore. (Fallout: Wasteland Chef, Fallout: Fantasy Football League, SimFallout: Farming, etc...) I still stand by that. If instead of Fallout 3, this game was called Fallout: The East Coast Chronicles - I wouldn't even be able to compare the gameplay mechanics and ruleset; and hold it up to the original games as any sort of measuring stick. So long what rules and mechanics the game did have stood on it's own merits (which, detaching from the "sequel" aspect, I don't feel quite do justice to the type of game they're trying to make) I wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

I mean, for the sake of argument say I really like Halo. (I'm no good at shooters, but it seems to be a quality game.) Now, if Halo Wars was called Halo 4 instead - I'd have a right to complain. It wouldn't have pretty much any of the features that I enjoyed about the previous 3 Halo games, even though it nominally shares the same setting. Regardless of whether or not that game was "good." But, because it's called Halo Wars instead - there's no problem. It's allowed to be it's own thing, and the main series is free to continue on unimpeded.

We don't have that benefit with Fallout 3. For better or worse, this is what we're stuck with from now on. (Barring, ironically, a turn-based traditional RPG spin-off...)

Strangely enough, after Elder Scrolls 2: Daggerfall, gamesas didn't call "Redguard" (a 3D action/adventure) Elder Scrolls 3 but made it a spin-off "Elder Scrolls: Adventures"... same goes for Battlespire.

Maybe somebody just forgot to print the "D" after the "3"?