I said that aside from those things, there is not much difference. The only obvious unavoidable "supernatural phenonmenon" is the flashback, and to me the degree to which that is truly supernatural is debatable.

Besides, this is not the first time that Fallout has had some "ghostly" phenonmenon associated with it (Fallout 2 with an actual ghost, Anna Winslow).



I would disagree on this, I find the Obelisk to be hidden well-enough to be considered an easter egg. I completely missed it the first time I went through dunwich myself. If the Obelisk was sat smack dab in the center of the building with all the ghouls worshipping around it, then yes, it would be too obvious for me.




Again, I have to disagree. I thought Dunwich fit the wasteland setting well enough. Aside from the supernatural elements, it also has a very atmospheric backstory concerning its orginal function as a office building which denotes its post-apocalyptic setting. You apparently feel differently, but I suppose thats the difference between someone who likes Fallout 3 and dislikes it. However I would like you to recognize that saying "it doesn't fit the game at all" is a matter of opinon, one mans trash is another man's treasure so to speak.



A bleak wasteland that is reminisicent of the idea of "paradise lost" is exactly what characterizes the game for me. I'm afraid that all that "goofy content" did not stand out to me. It may bother you to no end, but I have never found a game in which I was moved by the setting as much as Fallout 3. Take that as you will.

Fallout 2 also had many "goofy inconsistent aspects" as well.

Edit: Also just for the record, Okie and Sitruc, the arguments you are presenting have been brought up multiple times before, with no clear resolution. Its a matter of preference in my opinion, if you like Fallout 3 and think it has a good place in the Fallout series, great, if you don't, then thats fine too. I've found that there is no chance of changing the others mind if they are a steadfast supporter of one side of the other, so I think it would be best to just holster your guns and walk away.

Meh, I guess new vegas is a little more refined, but Fallout 3 is an overall better game, you could do a thousand playthroughs in F3, while you could do only one in NV, and experience nearly everything. The DLC for F3 is also a little better in my opinion, but hey, to each his own, I place The amount of fun I will have over how well developed the story is...

You can't exactly experience ALL the endings, or the choices and consequences of NV in 1 playthrough.
In F3? Seen 'em once, seen 'em all.

In my opinion, NV stomps all over F3 as a Fallout game.
However, who cares. As long as you have fun, it's all that matters.



Brilliant argument. I also think the whole forced melodrama(which is praised to heavens by some people) is damn overrated.
I cared more about the temporary sidekick Dog/God than Dad. Sorry Liam Neeson.

Actually the only reason I was sad when he died was because James was voiced by Liam Neeson. :tongue:

James: "Run! Run!" *dies*

Me: Liam NO! You were such a good actor! Your performance in Schindler's List was awesome and I really liked you in Kingdom of Heaven! Why Neeson WHY!??? Damn you Autumn DAMN YOU!

*Li whispers in ear*

Me: Oh wait you mean he's supposed to be my dad? Oh yeah....uh..nooo dad don't go...

I'll admit that the storyline of Fallout 3 had a bit to be desired (still though i don't think its below average for a video game, it was just sorta average in my view, and there were a few parts of it I really liked) but I always look at it as Bethesda's style. They don't make a setting to fit a story, they make a story to fit a setting.

True enough. Maybe I am just too hard on the game. I'll just pretend it's not a Black Isle game and enjoy it like I did before. :fallout:

Personally if you want something fun and will keep you playing for hours on end. Then buy fallout 3. Sure i'll admit that new vegas does have more side quest but most are boring fetch quest that just require you to talk to somebody or obtain a item or something. Fallout 3 quest all have varity and take long time to complete which. Also on top of that the exploration will get you hooked to the game trust me on that. New vegas could have a million quest but that still wouldn't make up for its lack of atmosphere and exploration.

I know you think your trying to make me look dumb but you aren't, Fallout 3 is canon because Bethesda says so, but IMO it is NOTHING like Fallout at all.

I'm just trying to point out that far from being contained to some hard to discover basemant the Dunwich building has multiple supernatural phenomenon that occur throughout the building.



Right and Fallout 2 is roundly and rightfully criticized for it's silliness by most fans myself included. You won't find many people claim that Fallout 2's great strength is it's perfect atmosphere. Yet this claim is regularly advanced in defense of Fallout 3.



Well it's all a matter of perspective but given Bethesda's focus on exploration I hardly think it's reasonable to insist they just wanted the Obelisk to be a little easter egg for the dedicated explorers rather than the central point of the building.




It's not opinion to say that black magic doesn't fit the game at all if your game is striving to be maintain the feeling of a post-apocalyptic wasteland. It is opinion as to whether or not this rises to a certain level of silliness that ruins the feeling of the game.



Can't argue with opinion. All I want is a little perspective when people complain about the silliness of New Vegas (not accusing you of this) and contrast it with the awesomeness that is the Fallout 3 settings. Both games can be pretty dark depending on your perspective and New Vegas is not the odd man out in silly crap that clashes with the rest of the game.



Agreed and it is criticized for those things. Fallout 3 rarely is.

And you are correct. However my point is that the phenomenon that are not contained within the basemant are fairly easy to miss, and don't necessarily shout "Haunted!" right in your face.

All I'm suggesting is that the supernatural aspects of Dunwich are hardly overpowering or "ruin" the post-apocalyptic feeling of the building (in my view).




Yes I fully agree with you here. New Vegas certainly is not the "odd man out" in any way whatsoever. Its all a matter of how you look at it when it comes to how "dark" you feel a game is. Personally I thought Fallout 3 and New Vegas were dark and atmospheric in their own ways. I simply prefer the "feeling" (if you will) of Fallout 3 to New Vegas, as I liked Fallout 3's perchance towards desolation rather than rebuilding (and I'm not particularly keen on the desert setting and cowboy themes of New Vegas, personal taste though ).



I wouldn't go so far as to say that Fallout 3 is rarely criticized for its setting. In fact, the arguement against its atmosphere (200 years after the war) is the most vocal attack that I've heard lobbed against it by Fallout 3 critics. You will rarely hear it mentioned by Fallout 3 supporters true, but there are obvious reasons why they would not speak out against something they like.

New Vegas has more quests marked and unmarked then Fallout 3. The two DLC so far for New Vegas are pretty great. Two of the DLC for Fallout 3 that come with GOTY svck, (Mothership Zeta and Broken Steel).

One only has to look at the forum. 28,601 topics and 338,792 replies for New Vegas and Fallout 3 only has 8,342 topics and 110,319 replies. So which one has more intrest and gives more to talk about?

Fallout New Vegas is not linear like some people say. Fallout 3 forces you to be good and you can't join any of the bad guys. The game is black and white and again the only option in the end is "good guy." You are forced to join the BoS.

New Vegas you can help or join pretty much every faction in the game. More dialogue options. Can talk you way out of killing for pretty much every quest. Can finish the game four different ways and best of all the game isn't "Good vs Evil" like Fallout 3 :foodndrink:

Fallout 3 has so many plot holes that give me headaches trying to explain. It is canon so don't think I am saying it is not. It is just the writing in that game is so damn bad, in every way. New Vegas was up for a writers award.

I agree with ya, but we are beating a dead brahmin here. :wink_smile:

Not to split hairs with you Styles but I feel the need to address you on a few things.



Thats kind of a matter of opinion, I've heard praises and detractions for all the DLC's (yes including MZ which I agree is a pretty bad DLC in my own view). I've heard quite a bit of negative reaction from Dead Money.



Hmm. I believe that those numbers are a bit misleading. If I am thinking this correctly, then I would assume that the reason Fallout 3 has such a low number compared to New Vegas is because a large portion of its posts have been deleted since it came out (the forum is quite old). I cannot seriously believe that the New Vegas forum in the relatively short time NV has been out has already surpased the total number of posts made in the Fallout 3 forums since the forum was created. It just wouldn't make sense logically. The Fallout 3 forum should be larger and have more posts (certainly not because Fallout 3 offers more to talk about, I'm not trying to argue that) but simply because the game has been out for a few years now.



By the same token though, I would also not argue that Fallout 3 as a game isn't linear either. I think that there is (to a degree) certain linear aspects in both games.



Well that in and of itself does not say a whole lot, Fallout 3 was up for the same award back in the day.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1073664/awards

True about the DLC. It is a matter of opinion but I did not say it was a fact they svck. I don't need to put IMO next to everything I say now do I?

I was not aware that the mods would go around removing posts from Fallout 3. It seems it was always that low of a number. Then again I need a mod to prove they did.

Fallout 3 is linear because it forces you to join the BoS. You can't join any of the "bad guys." That there are only "Good and Evil" shows how linear it is (few exceptions). Even if you do help the bad guys they still attack you and don't care if you help. In the end the only option is "good." No ending does not always = non-linear. Fallout 3 did end but the ending was so piss poor they made broken steel. It made no sence that I could not send in my mutant or ghoul or even robot companion into the radioactive room.

Fallout 3 was up for a writing award :facepalm: Must have been a joke or a booby prize :thumbsup:

It won best writing in 2008, it was a ****ing joke, any game award show where Call of Duty wins anything but Worst Game of The Year is a joke.

Also Vanilla New Vegas has more content then Vanilla Fallout 3, and once all the DLC's are out it will have more Content then Fallout 3 and its DLC's, New Vegas is one of the few games that balanced out quality and quantity pretty damn well.

I understand it was a matter of opinion and I apologize. It just seemed to me that you were stating it as if it wasn't as such.




Well a quick check of the forum reveals that New Vegas general discussion goes back 358 pages, back to the point in time when NV was announced. Fallout 3 general discussion on the other hand, only goes back 49 pages, roughly back to the point in time when GOTY was coming out. So in other words, Fallout 3 should have more numbers on its post count.

Again though, not saying that Fallout 3 leaves more to talk about, I just wanted to clarify that point. :foodndrink:



I think you misunderstand me. I don't mean to say that New Vegas is linear. I agree that the Fallout 3 storyline is fairly linear, but there are other aspects which are very much not (exploration). So thats why I say that Fallout 3 as a whole is not linear. On the reverse side, I would also agrue that there are aspects of New Vegas that are linear (not its storyline).


I agree that New Vegas's storyline is better in many ways. I was just pointing out that the whole "writers guild nomination" is not a great selling point of why it is better than Fallout 3.

Anyway, I feel like I've come across a bit hostile in my post and again I apologize, It was not my intention to restart an argument that should be long gone by now. :biggrin: I love both games.



I must say something about this though. So the writers guild is spot on when it nominates New Vegas but is a "joke" when it nominates Fallout 3?

*sigh*

Interesting the the mods would delete a bunch of topics. Makes sense they would to save space. I wonder how they do it with out effecting people's rank.

Still. My original post for the op was to get both as well as the originals and I stand by that. Fallout 3 is a great game and I played several hundreds of hours. In the end when I compair it to the other four canon fallout games. Fallout 3 is at the bottom of that.

For me it goes:

1) Fallout started it all.

2) Fallout 2 very close second but Fallout gets the edge for starting it all.

3) New Vegas because it is more like the Originals and has a great story.

4) Tactics, what can I say I am a svcker for a great story.

5) Fallout 3, fun but it has bad writing and is full of plot holes.

You've clearly never played a genuinely bad game if you think CoD was the worst game of 2008. A passable, if uninspiring, shooting gallery, mediocre if you're not a fan of the genre, sure, but an actually bad game? As in, Superman 64 or ET or Rise Of The Robots or virtually any movie license bad?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_in_video_gaming You will find much, much worse than World at War in there.

I think some people have very little idea of what a truly bad game looks, sounds or plays like.

Calm down the CoD thing was just a joke, jeez.



I never called the writers guild a joke, I called it a joke that Fallout 3 was nominated for best writing when its writing was amazingly bad.

Yeah, I've never really understood the whole "COD svcks lets make fun of it!" bandwagen. I've played it and had fun with it, its not my favorite game in the world (simply because I'm not a big fan of its genre) but I certainly don't think its a "horrible" game. I dislike how people think that there is some sort of "hierarchy" of games, where if you like a game like COD you're less of a so-called gamer. :shrug:



Fair enough. Allow me to make the appropriate changes.

So the writer's guild nomination is a joke when its for Fallout 3 and spot on when its for New Vegas?

*sigh*

It's popular, so people like to rag on it I guess. Victim of its own success, and the unpopularity of Bobby Kotick's Activision. I'm utterly indifferent about the franchise myself, FPSs aren't really my thing (Half-Life excluded), but from what I've played of the series it's competent and does what it says on the tin. By no objective measure could they be called bad games though, even if they're not particularly good ones.



Fair enough.

I think Lt. Andronicus is right. I have posts that are about a year old made in the F3 sections that are no longer available. It makes sense that Fallout 3 should have so many more posts than New Vegas, given the respective ages (and success) of each game.

The whole notion of canon is somewhat confusing. Not the concept itself, but the need to agonise over it. To me, Bethesda created Fallout 3 on the east coast in order to create a new direction and not conflict with the original games. Also, let's not forget that if it were not for Bethesda and Fallout 3 there would not even be anything to discuss, let alone the awesome prospect of Fallout 4.

I think it's more beneficial to focus on the relative successes and negatives of Fallout 3 and New Vegas as games, since this is what will likely be included in Fallout 4.

Exactly. I just don't find it possible for New Vegas to overtake (by a decent magin) all the posts made about Fallout 3 (including from the time it was announced, through the release of the DLC's for it and the GOTY, up until now) in little less than a year.




I agree. I think some people are a little harsh when it comes to denouncing Fallout 3 for "destroying canon". Bethesda kept the original canon and didn't touch it at all, even though it would have been well within their rights to retconn said canon and do a reboot.

I think it needs to be realized that when a series changes hands, there is bound to be differences between what was and is. Given the circumstances and what I've seen happen to other game series which changed hands, I don't feel Bethesda were unreasonable with their handling of Fallout.

Not so unusual. I mean the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded this year to a Chinese dissident by the name of Liu Xiaobo. Pretty deserved award I would say. It's also been awarded to people like Yasser Arafat.

Just because it's been awarded to some real disgraces doesn't mean the award can't be given to people who actually deserve it. Just as Fallout New Vegas' nomination may be well earned while a previous nomination (and victory I think Fallout 3 won that year?) may be ridiculous.

First I am thankful Bethesda made Fallout 3 on the East Coast. I can only imagine how badly they would be [censored] up Fallout if they tried making one on the West Coast. I am thankful they see the originals as canon, including Tactics. Fallout 3 is a great game and I enjoyed hundreds of hours of it. Just don't think it is a great Fallout.

Problem I have with Fallout 3 is that if they wanted to make their own canon, to go in a new direction they should not have ripped off Fallout and Fallout 2. There was no need to but the Enclave in Fallout 3 or super mutants, or even the BoS. No reason to make Harold a giant mutant tree!

Plot to Fallout 3 is just Fallout and Fallout 2's plots mixed together and set in DC and you are forced to side with the BoS which were turned into white knight heroes. When in the first games you can completely avoid them!

I'm not saying Fallout 3 is perfect, it isn't. Nor am I saying that Bethesda's understanding of the series was as strong as it could have been. It's possible that Bethesda included things that related to Fallout 1&2 assuming that those fans would recognise and appreciate them, while at the same time producing a game that could still appeal to everyone. In contrast, Obsidian produced a game by Fallout fans, for Fallout fans, with endless nods to the early F1&2 games. In my view, this came at the expense of all the things that made Fallout 3 so successful.

Now, I've enjoyed both games immensely and have never been ambiguous about where my preferences lie. The forum location of this thread will give you the answer.

The way I see it, many discussions here refer to canon as if it is the benchmark of what makes a game successful. It isn't.

Canon is what the Fallout 1&2 fans want to see in future games. It isn't what will necessarily make the game successful. I'm not saying that newer games should trample over old canon, they shouldn't. But, by the same token, they should also not be bound by it and prevented from offering a different interpretation in order to advance the series.