Let's face it:

Complaining..... complaining never changes.....

I understand your arguments perfectly. You say things like "Fallout is a hammer", grossly oversimplifying things, and when logic is applied to the facts of that statement "Does a hammer have lore and universe?" you dodge every possibilty of you being wrong by saying "You misunderstand me." while giving no mentions to how or why you are misunderstood, just throwing up a smokescreen with that phrase. So if we are all misunderstanding your arguments, can you inform us of exactly how we are doing that? Can you follow through on the logic of "Fallout is a functional tool with nothing else to it" to its full conclusion?

Simplification. Fallout is not a hammer, and neither have the developers ever claimed that their design of the metaphorical hammer, is better.

I understand, clearly, what Possum is arguing - as does Jaramr. Unless you would like to elaborate specifically what it is you feel we're missing, you don't help your argument. What is the apparent point that we are missing?

There are no objectively critical voices, because all the media can do is showboat, or they won't tap the hype. So, you're essentially right, but so what? Its their long hours at BGS that make the games they own.

Well, kind of. The derision against Oblivion was the worst I've seen and for reasons not entirely unfounded, mostly toward simplicity, level scaling, and worst quest-design than Morrowind.

I can remember Daggerfall and Morrowind fans arguing the same points against Oblivion. Of course, Morrowind was criticized upon release, but for somewhat different reasons, but as with all things time tells all. There are huge swaths of the fanbase that still feel Oblivion was the weakest link, just as people were saying then. The opinion hasn't grown better in hindsight, whereas Morrowind is still considered one of the greatest in the series if not the greatest. I made a poll about it recently in TES General. I'll have to find it.

I think it benefit all of us if we had a definition of what exactly is Fallout. Gameplay style is just as important as the other aspects to the game, but I don't believe it completely defines Fallout, just as I don't think your short description of what Fallout is is an entirely accurate either.

I read like 2 points in the OP and knew this would be a sh!tstorm. I don't understand why people can't jsut wait till we have more info before buying into theories and conjecture. Oh well.

A Fallout game in the sense of using the IP ~sure. There is not been contention of that. There are a dozen Warhammer games that all use the IP; but there are not a dozen "Dawn of War" games, and very few Warhammer games qualify as a 'Dawn of War' sequel.
FO:New Vegas is an IP game, but wasn't a numbered title.

How do you know?

I haven't seen any logic applied ~except to refute anologies. Who refutes anologies? Picking one apart, or finding flaws in one is meaningless ~they are not the point being discussed, they are not proving anything. anologies exist to clarify, not prove.
Taking "Fallout is a hammer" literally is very bizarre to me. Is there no one left that can correlate a literal and non-literal example without scoffing that one is impossible??

Fallout is not a hammer.
FO3 is not a Fallout in the way that a pipe wrench is not a hammer; in the way that you cannot perform the basic function of a hammer with a pipe wrench ~except you can smash stuff with one. FO3 ~like a pipe wrench, is specifically designed to do a different task, and is well suited to it ~but not suited to hammering and removing nails.
Bethesda's interpretation of the series superficially draqes the IP assets onto their TES game design; ignoring all of the core aspect of Fallout ~save one... The freely explorable world. That's enough for a spin off title, but that does not make worthy a Fallout sequel.

You too? Yes, I agree. Fallout is not a hammer. (and my post doesn't claim that it is.)

Have either of you completed either Fallout or Fallout 2? [For future context; it will help formulate answers.]

Let me just say I cant wait to play this game, even if I wish they hadnt changed some aspects of the game. Regardless of the changes Im going to play the crap out of it, because Fallout duh!

So they started building the game in full earnest after Skyrim, with initial planning etc starting after F3. Im sure potential game systems etc were planned and everything mapped out so once skyrim was done things could progress as smooth as possible. We all know this by now. Back then a few things hadnt happened yet in gaming.

Gaming, in my view, was still on a "dumbing down" road back then. Dark souls was just being released, and in my view was one of the main games that made "hard games" start to emerge as mainstream, again. Beth had planned out F4 most likely with where it assumed gaming was heading. They would want to be there ahead of the curve. I do not doubt they must have had reams of research describing Joe Schmo the gamer. What he likes and dislikes etc etc. This would have greatly influenced their initial planning of systems.

Then came the resurgence of crpgs, indie games that went back to gamings roots. Hell even the old PC is mainstream... Not too long ago people would be saying that was going to be dead! Ha!

Now gaming is on an uptick. More gamers want that challenge from their youth. Younger gamers want to be challenged too. Every developer isnt totally trying to simplify for the sake of it. I think Beth just wasnt able to read the cards right and here we are.

Had they developed the game by expanding upon everyone of fallout 3s systems and not cutting systems or replacing them, NO ONE would be here complaining "It looks too hard! You mean I have to put +5 points into small guns and pick a perk? I just dont get it!!"

The main complaint with F3 was the switch to 3d. That is a change that they may not have made had they developed the game a year ago. But back then, and even now, I would say it was a good choice. However much they changed the systems it was still Fallout. The biggest complaint for 4 seems to be skills. They are turning the game into a shooter with heavy rpg elements. Obviously people will be mad. In there minds it isnt change for challenge. Its change to dumb down. Simpler. The past mindset beth was on.

Instead Beth wanted to cater to everyone. They were still in the past in the "dumbing down era" where every game tried to be everything to every person. Numbers arent bad anymore. People would have loved it. People will love this game too.

I have, many times, and I still don't see anything in an of the points you are making.

It completely and utterly defies the history of media as a whole.

Yes, we know. They did this 7 years ago.

But in discussing what Fallout 4 will play like, it makes sense to compare it to the fallout game/spinoff/whatever Bethesda made last time.

I don't see the point of dragging every conversation back to the "is it really Fallout?" question.

So it's nothing like a hammer, but it is like a hammer in that it is literally supposed to be a functional tool that makes numbers move across your screen in certain gameplay scenarios, and give you the required outputs every single time?

Why should game series remain with the same gameplay forever? That is what I want answered. You say that it is "obvious" or even sometimes that its a "Universal Truth". You need to explain why it is a universal constant that things do not change, and why Fallout 3 is "wrong" and in need of "fixing" for having changes. You can argue that the changes are bad if you want, but when you argue that change is bad because of change sake, like once again "A game series implies a certain type of gameplay", you better back it up with some evidence. Give me quotes from Fallout devs that they considered their design 100% perfect, and that Fallout 3 is "wrong" and is a horrible abomination.

And yes, I have played Fallout 1 and 2. I was not that big a fan of them, but I am able to appreciate different designs for what they are, and know that they are not for me. This is why I have not given all of my money to InExile or Obsidian for their cRPGs while demanding that they should be changed to suit my tastes or else it is a cosmic wrongness.

WE ARE ALL DOOMED! DOOMED

I tell ya, if computers didnt already be known to introduce depression in people, the amount of negative FO4 posts certainly would.

This game appears to be so hated yet its not even released yet. Thankfully the forums are only a small part of what the fallout 4 community will be/ is.

Can you recount any major differences between the FO3 and either previous game ~with respect to PC limitations, and how they are treated by the game world [inhabitants] at large?

In your opinion ~for scrutinizing both, are Fallout 1 & 2, and FO3 not a mismatched set where gameplay and priorities are concerned? If you think not ~why exactly? What ~besides owner fiat, justifies FO3 a member of the set?

Simple solution, just don't use it.

Why shouldn't game series remain with the same [fundamental] gameplay, and simply devise new games? Mario Cart ~is not a numbered Super Mario Bros. game. Halo Wars ~was not Halo 4 ~The next Halo should not be a Halo Wars 2 contender.

Why is peanut Butter still made with peanuts?

*I notice that Almond Butter is not labeled Peanut Butter.

Why would anyone make an FPS of a sequel to Fallout 2? What is there about Fallout 2 that screams "forget the PC ~you play it in FPP, and get away with whatever you want!". These are games with deeply fundamental differences in their core premise; so much so, that I'd call it deceptive to name one the sequel to the other.

No one wants Fallout 2.5 for a Fallout 3 (or 4), but Bethesda's FO3 is entirely unrelated to Fallout 2 in every aspect but the fiction. When you read Super Mario Bros2/3/4, did you ever think go-cart racing? Is that what you'd respect (in a numbered sequel) instead of a bigger and better ~more challenging platformer?
If no... Why expect that of a great top down ~self described classic RPG series?

Thats not answering the question.

But the reason for games having the same name but different gameplay is so that developers are not constrained in their creative freedom. Is Resident Evil 4 a awful wrongness in the cosmic multiverse because it contains different gameplay than 1-3? Games are allowed to change.

And please, answer the question of why they are not allowed to change.

Well I know alot of people would disagree with me but I feel a role playing games main requirement is the ability to role play, everything else is secondary. I've seen rpgs with stats that are super linear to the point it is really just a movie with interaction. These games had traditional stat systems so they must be an rpg right? My personal take on it.

It's an attempt to get you to answer it.

I thought I just did.

I agree with that; and Fallout 1 & 2 had that; FO3 seemed to make that irrelevant, as it didn't really matter what your character did; the game forgets it, or lets the player off the hook for it. I expect FO4 to do the same, because wish fulfillment is more profitable than accountability.
*This is reason #1 that FO3 is so plainly polar opposite to Fallout 1 & 2. (For those that recall it ~ that's part of the hammer anology. FO3 has a great many wonderful features ~but not that one, not the core feature... Like a new hammer that does everything but sink nails.)

You'd be hard-pressed to find anybody claiming that the first two Elder Scrolls games represented the "true" identity of the franchise. I can actually understand why some people claimed that Morrowind was "dumbed down" compared to Daggerfall; there's a lot in Daggerfall that would be redeemable with some better balance and polish.

Why should Fallout 1, 2, and 3 be taken as a set and not a progression based on technology, contemporary gaming trends, and audience feedback? No one is denying that Fallout 3 is a radical departure; the question is why that's important, or a bad thing.

player had the laser musket he picked up.

You did not, and you edited in a lot of stuff after you posted. A series name is not a advertising and marketing tool. Why do you think it is? Why do you think a name means that everything with that label attached to it should be the exact same, or else it is "wrong"?

This pretty much. Especially #6. I'd find it hard to believe that there isn't a toggle option to turn hardcoe on. What's the point of adding so much immersive and interactive world content (aka settlements, crafting, useable clutter) when the most fundamental immersive game feature (aka PC needs such as SLP, FOD, H20) are absent? I'd understand Beth omitting detailed immersive needs the scale of IMCN and PN. Or PC interactivity with the environment on the scale of Skyrim's Frostfall or Wet and Cold mods. But to exclude the most fundamental PC needs with hardcoe mode? Doesn't make sense.

-Yes.

-Sure, but so are newer Final Fantasy, Metal Gear, MegaMan, and basically every other game in a series that has lasted over a decade, when compared to the older ones. What makes Fallout 3 part of the Fallout series is the same thing that makes MegaMan Zero, despite its many changes to previously core elements of the series, part of the same series as MegaMan 1, its themes, lore, and universe. Same with Metal Gear, and Final Fantasy, despite the massive changes to gameplay in those series that make them basically unlike anything close to their originals. Final Fantasy games take it a step further, and don't even share the same universe or lore between games, they just share the same themes and elements, such as crystals, many of the summonable monsters, and mechanics named Cid. That is just the natural result of progression, and changing the games to suit the ever changing desire of the market.

Even the original design doc of Fallout 1 said that they were willing to throw out and replace any aspect of GURPS, the very thing they based the entire original game's gameplay around, if they believed it would make the game more fun. The very foundation of Fallout, and indeed EVERY GAME EVER, is to make a game with gameplay that people find fun, regardless of what that may be at the time, or even if its anything like what the series was originally based on. That is true even in regards to the very first game in the series. Fallout, gameplay wise, is about nothing more then having fun gameplay, whatever that may be for the time. Which is why none of the devs have ever expressed the idea that Fo3 or NV are somehow not Fallout due to their changes in gameplay from Fallout 1 and 2.

Gameplay exists to be fun, not to be 100% copy-pastad from one game to the next. Hell, one of the biggest complaints about Fallout 2 was that it didn't change the gameplay enough from the first. No one wants to buy multiple games with the same gameplay, whats the point in spending money for something you basically already own? that is the core behind all the complaints about CoD, that it's just the same thing year after year. No one wants that, no one has ever wanted that because that is boring.

Sequel's shouldn't have the same gameplay and priorities as the thing they are a sequel too. If they did, they would just be clones, not sequels. Fallout 2 shouldn't try to be Fallout 1 gameplay wise, it should try to be Fallout 2, same with every sequel after it.

True indeed, as it is with any community nowadays. The majority of the Fallout community will be enjoying the game for what it is rather than complaining about what it's not. At least we are actually seeing what we will be playing and not being deceived like with other past, overhyped AAA games.