I can understand Bethesda wanting to hook new fans into the Fallout Universe by using classic factions and at the sametime trying to make the original fans happy. Still to me and alot of fans they failed to make the original fans happy. Mostly do to their total lack of WHY and HOW these factions got to the the East Coast. I am pissed off with what they did to Harold. I don't like how Fallout 3 is so black and white and forces you to be good. Still once I looked past all the plot holes and poor writing it was a great game.

I know many new fans to Fallout that started with Fallout 3. They got hooked into Fallout and started researching Fallout and even played the Originals and after they did they came to see that Fallout 3 fails as a Fallout Game, yet is still a great game for what it is. A game trying to be Fallout.

New Vegas still has many of the same flaws as Fallout 3 when it come to game machanics and character creation but over all New Vegas has many improvements and has way better writing and the references to the Originals make the fans happy and still hook people into Fallout.

Also when people say things like "Bethesda saved Fallout." That is total crap. Bethesda was not the only company trying to buy the rights to Fallout. Now if Bethedsa was the only one then it would be true.

Liam Nesson is a awesome actor.

He was also in Star wars to so dont forget that and taken..

Only the terrible, childhood-memory-destroying prequel films though. Definitely not the high point of his career. But then perhaps I'm showing my age, and maybe the youngsters thought the prequel trilogy was great.

Anyway, I'm always slightly intrigued by this distinction that's sometimes drawn between Fo3 being a good game and it not being a good Fallout game (a similar charge was sometimes levelled at Resident Evil 4 by die-hard fans of the series as a whole). I'll be honest, I'm more a fan of good games generally than I am of the Fallout series in particular, so the nuances of this position are somewhat lost on me. If it's not too much to ask, could someone explain this in a bit more detail? Surely it's the 'good game' bit that's most important?

Both great games THE END!!!

I know that many people are more for New Vegas, but I started off playing Fallout 3, as did many other people. I can still go back to Fallout 3 and find something I did not see before, I've spent over a year exploring the Universe of Fallout 3 but I feel like I'm totally done with Fallout New Vegas after only a few months. I know that in the promos the developers stated that the map was bigger, well yeah, but mountains and unexplorable places take up most of the map. There's also no "wow factor" at least I didn't think so. Don't get me wrong, I still get goose bumps from this game at the beginning, but I get that with all Fallout games. Personally, I was very let down by Fallout New Vegas, it's still kind of fun, but for me it pales in comparison to Fallout 3.

Though there are many faults with Fallout New Vegas, there is a great amount of character development, especially with followers, but I just don't think it replaces the emotional feeling I got from Fallout 3. I CRIED! And I still get a little pang in my heart when I replay the ending of the game over in my head, which is everytime I die in Fallout New Vegas. :cryvaultboy:

You're right, the prequels ruined the whole series, nobody likes them but the big dorks like my brother :sadvaultboy:

My problem with that is once you start picking and choosing which awards (or nominations) are vaild and which are not, whats the point in the award? You can't give out something as a recognition of accomplishment and then say that "oh no that was stupid, yeah the award commitee really screwed up there" but at the same time recount that "oh but look here, they did awesome here, totally deserved!" That complely undermines the system and invalidates the award for everybody.

When dealing with this situation, you are left with two choices, either Fallout 3's writing is not as bad as everyone is so eager to agree on (personally I don't think its bad, its just not spectactular), or the writers guild nomination means diddly squat because they are inconsistant and therefore invalidated (which means New Vegas's award cannot be flaunted). So which is it?

Awards can be given to people who perhaps don't deserve it, true, and some awards are perhaps more deserved to some than others, but another problem here lies with who makes that call? Who has the authority to say which awards are and aren't deserved? To me, that would only be the people who award it (provided they are not corrupt or misinformed, which I assume noone is accusing the WGA of being).

I personally thought fo3 writing was ok not holy shizzle sticks what a paragraph but it done the job.

New Vegas had a better story

Fallout 3 had better story telling

I respectfully disagree good sir.

I haven`t touched Vegas due to Steam. That`s it really.

I do not see why we should be forced to use Steam for an OFFLINE game. We should have a choice like with the Witcher 2.

I don`t need Steam at all, find it intrusive and unnescessary. It`s not God`s gift to the world like everyone seems to think. In fact it takes away our game freedom.

This is the oNLY reason I haven`t bought Vegas. Their loss.

Explain why it true isn't then.

Sitruc quote.
Canon "The general principle".
End


What I said was correct, canon is the "general principle" by which something is judged ... just for the record. There are more lengthy versions containing the "general principle".

Fallout 3 is canon to the early Fallouts ...

... and as such is a good Fallout game.

... vastly improved in every respect from the early "prequels" Fallouts 1 and 2.

I have a love/hate relationship with steam.

I love the fact that I don't need to hunt down updates and figure out how to install them myself (which I used to do with older games) but I hate the fact that I don't have a say as to when I want to install them, and it won't let me play the game unless I install the updates, which I think is stupid. We should have a "choose which updates to install" button.

I also don't like that its required for games that are meant to be played offline. I suppose its for updates and to keep track of achievements, still though, its not a decision that I am especially fond of.

That is funny. Explain how Fallout 3 tells it's story better.

This statement is completely false. Maybe on these forums but not anywhere from what i seen. IMO

First off, the dynamics and pacing is terrible. It's railroaded and doesn't offer any choice at all. Seen them once, seen them all, it completely destroys any replay value.
Now add a cliché melodrama-filled trainwreck with bad dialogue.

Again, that's only my opinion.

What are you talking about?

This isn't a bible study or an expedition in living a pious life in Christ. :laugh:
You've got your canons mixed up.

I'm actually a bit confused about what you are talking about here. Sitruc is not using the definition of canon which is associated with religious studies, eg. "Code of Canon Law" or "a regulation of dogma as decreed by a church". As far as I can infer from his post, he is using the correct definition of canon in the sense of what it means for the Fallout series.

Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/canon
Canon:

4. a. an accepted principle or rule
b. a criterion or standard of judgement
c. a body of prinicples, rules, standard, or norms

Granted Sitruc is more often than not, overly biased towards Fallout 3 and often makes statements which are either wrong or one-sided. But in this case:



He is spot on correct. Fallout 3 is canon to the Fallout series. It is "canon to the early Fallouts". I'm confused as to what part of his statement is incorrect or makes you believe he is refering to religious studies. :shrug:



This part of his statement is ridiculously biased and a simple stating of his opinon however.

No that is canons. Not canon. It has to be plural or it makes no sense particularly when fictional canon, which is always singular is what is always involved when people are talking about things like this.



See you can say Fallout 3 is canon if you want to refer to whether it is accepted material. Or you can say it holds true to the canons of Fallout if you want to talk about general principles but you cannot say it is canon to the early Fallouts because that makes no sense.

I just picked up FO3 today. After months away from it. I own and have spent 25 hours this least week playing it. NV has more weapons, more armor. But NV is more structured. The storyline is the focus. FO3 is exploring based. But I got to say, I shared your feelings for Morrowind and Oblivion. I logged more than 600 hours on Morrowind and maybe 100 on Oblivion. I like the gritty feel of Oblivion as opposed to the fairytale feel for Oblivion. FO3 Is gritty and dark and more Post-AP feeling. NV is more upbeat, things are more established.


The major points for me would be:

FO3:
Random Event Generator
With Broken Steel you can continue playing after you finish the storyline.
More little adventures to go on.

FONV:
More Weapons
More Armor

... and as such is a good (valid) Fallout game.
... vastly improved in every respect from the early "prequels" Fallouts 1 and 2.
You don't agree on that bit, ok.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/canon?rskey=U25Xcb&result=1#m_en_gb0120370

Oxford English Dictionary 2010 Oxford University Press.

1 a general law, rule, principle, or criterion by which something is judged:


There's more.... but that's enough I think. Laughs.

Yes, because Fallout 3 has crap writing and New Vegas has good writing, I don't see how this is difficult for you to grasp.

What I find "difficult to grasp", as you so eloquently put it, is how people can hold up New Vegas's "WGA Nomination" as proof of its superiority to Fallout 3 when Fallout 3 recieved the same distinction. In other words, my point is find something else to prove the superiority of its writing, make a decent arguement (not to me because I already believe that New Vegas has better writing, I just don't believe that it absolutely "stomped Fallout 3's") and stop with the hypocrisy and foolishness of arguing that while the WGA can be perfectly spot on when it nominates New Vegas, when it "dares" to nominate Fallout 3, you brush it aside with "LOL that was stupid". Based on what you've argued, I can apparently no longer trust the WGA because it nominates games that have no buisiness being nominated, which means that its nomination of New Vegas is a farce. See the problem there? No? Then I give up.

I reiterate my previous point:



I agree that Fallout 3's writing is not as good as New Vegas's, I can level with you there. However I certainly don't think that it is "crap", there are a few points that I have issue with (Liberty Prime at the end) but overall I felt Fallout 3's writing was decent, not particularly spectacular but "good enough" as it were. Suffice to say, the WGA agrees with me. You can shout all you want about how you think Fallout 3's writing is a piece of horse-crap, but by the standards of the WGA, it is not, its at least good enough to be nominated (and I believe awarded) a prize for good writing. So now who do I trust for a reliable judgement on the writing content of a game? You or the WGA?

WIKI quote.
Fallout 3.
At the 2009 Game Developer's Choice Awards, it won overall Game of the Year along with Best Writing.
End.

Can something that has been awarded "Best writing", suddenly become "crap writing" according to KyleM.