still, that doesn't change the fact that oblivion=mainstream and fallout3=maintream
besides i bet many people that bougth fallout were CONSOLE OBLIVION PLAYERS,and thats a fact proven by console sales.
i rest my case.

Having most people knowing a newer game doesn't define it has the definitive game of that series, you are tring to compare the game sales in two compleatly diferent "eons" of the game market, specialy of the PC Games..

I remember in the mid 1990s that in my country (im from Brasil) only around ~200.000 people in a country with ~170.000.000 having Internet, and a computer was such a rare thing to have at home (not only on my countr, and remenber that this is compared to the LARGE MASSES that use computer nowadays) that in my school, that was a preaty expensive one in fact, i could almost count in my finger who had Computers, and Internet was even more rare. Now, i was one of those 200.000 home users of internet during that time, and i was barely 11 years old, i player Fallout 2 and 1 in the late 90s, almost before the internet "populational boom" (witch started to occur in the late 2000, beggining of 2001) and i may tell you, that a game, even more a PC GAME, that could sould "hundres of thousands" of copyes at that time surely wasnt a "low-budget" product at that time, it was neither a "cult and almost unknown game", in fact it was a big hit.

Now, what makes a game THE definitive game of the series is the introduction on new elements to the series, elements that make it unique and not just another copy of the good games that exist. If you take that into accout Fallout 1 IS the definitive game of Fallout, it introduced us to the world of Fallout, it gave us the looks of theyr technology and showed us an amazing and almost limitless (for that time) gameplay. Fallout 2 was a sort of a sequel, a preaty dam good one, and i actualy liked it more then 1, but it didn't gave us anything many new things to think about, the only realy new element it introduced it was that the Vaults was never ment to save anyone, but just to make some social experimentations on development of society in close-enviroments with diferent variables taking place. So tell me, what doest Fallout 3 bringed of new to the series that made it THE definitive game of the series? What big changes or new elements have been introduced? O graphict may be a nice thing, and can give a nice rating to a game but they aren't "new elements", even wy they just got the old "2d graphics" and turned them into a modeled 3d enviroment.

The only new things that the Fallout 3 gaves us isn't exactly inovative, but preaty much made older fans get mad. Comeone what are those BoS in this game? They lost compleatly theyr way, they only didnt got worse cause they created the Outcast (that looks much more like the TRUE BoS) and made it clear in the conversations and documents you find about the BoS in the Citatel that they lot most of theyr support from the true BoS and they just didnt demoted Lyons because they respect it, and besides it would be a costy campaing to send an small army to the other side of the US just to hunt a man that is actualy doing his job, even if not in the way he was suposed to do, so they just let him there to die (eventualy) so they could get anything he finds out for free and wen the time comes they only need to send a new elder to replace the older. Other thing the "introduced" is that Power Armor arent has powerfull ahs they are suposed to be. Play Fallout 1/2 and you will see WHAT a powerarmor is ment to be. It turns a man a freaking walking tank, and they let it preaty much explicit in the lore of those games by saing that a SINGLE BoS (or in most a VERY SMALL detachment composed of, at most, 3 pearsons) in a Power Armors could wipe out a raider base all by him/themselfs... In fallout 3 this looks a litle faulty, has the "Standard" PA its about only sligthly better then the Rangers Combat Armor... O and there are the Enclave... they were introduced at Fallout 2 has some [censored] fellows that would try to kill you just because you spent a few days exposed to background radiation... O and most of the time they actualy WOULD KILL YOU, at least wen you first start to meet them, and even at higher levels they would do it in some ocasions. In Fallout 3 they are wortless, i dont even like to mention them. they are so puny weak that they only realy poses some treath wen they bring one Deathclaw with them... O and F3 also introduced this stupid levelcap, cmon it is a USELESS feature, they should just make like F1&2, just try to reach any level past the 20 in there and you will see, leveling becomes ALMOST impossible but they use a compleatly diferent, and more open-ended, sistem to "limit" the character level...

This all is just to say that there were no inovative elements in Fallout 3 to make it the "definitive" game of the series.

So basically your case is elitist console-snobbery? Your post comes across as so arrogant.



That is not a fact that is an opinion.

Dude your the first person I have seen refrence Wasteland.

Snake Vargas approves of your post.

No Fallout 3 is not the defenative Fallout game, heck that would have to be Fallout 1. The best in the series though IMHO was Wasteland followed by Fallout 2.

Wasteland is not really part of the series (at least not officially, and it's not set in the same universe).

"Gender is masculine, feminine or neutral"

Gotta love made up words don't ya?


six. That's what it's called. Male or female six. Gender is masculine, feminine or neutral, and the only thing it changes is some pronouns and a tiny number of nouns (like actor/actress).

Skuespiller is skuespiller, it really depends on the language, a few languages actually lack gender in speak so its complicated.
Nihongen as an example lack the word you in the manner it can and is used in most european languages.
An gender as we view it is a bad illusion, the real difference is that women can give birth and men do not. The minimal difference is the exact difference such as anatomy and smaller things. Heck, the worst things are just bad myths(men being better than women in math, never to a day seen this).
Stuff such as women having a higher survival chance in all aspects is however true.

when what's his name said fallout was gta before gta was i decided i will never play one or two. if this is true please let me know so i don't ever play them. gta is for retards. and you all see the point of this post. and as much as you may love one or two if they're even thought of by anyone besides the hardcoe fans that have always played them it will be because bethesda brought them into the spotlight with fallout 3 which i think is a great game. for people who say it's oblivion revamped it's nowhere near as good as oblivion. and for those who are acting like the original is always better, i played morrowind before oblivion came out, and loved it, but oblivion is better. if fallout 1 and 2 can evoke all this passion they must be pretty good though. i'm just tired of people bashing 3 because it's not the same game. get over it. don't play it if you don't like it.

well, i kinda agree, i mean the former fallout games where all well and good, but i guess if they did fallout 3 in the same way, then it would just be the same game but with better graphics, i think its still falliut, just in a different style. i think its the spirit of the games that make them all fallout.

who said that was probably jsut tring to say that even BEFORE GTA came with its preaty much open world Fallout already did had an open world to explore, and there was never the need to make the MQ of the fallouts unless you wanted to finish it fast. But Fallout isn't like GTA in any other single aspect.... As a matter of fact in Fallout BAD ACTIONS HAD (yes HAD, this lacks in FO3) many time permanent effects on your character. And also the way you play both is compleatly diferent, just give FO1&2 a small check and see by yourself.

I think your anology is a bit off. While you are correct that Fallout 3 will be seen as the definitive fallout by newer fans, I think that comparing it to Manhunt and Silence of the Lambs is a bit off.

A better anology would be Star Trek: The Original Series and Star Trek: The Next Generation. Unlike Manhunt, who many Silence of the Lambs fans will have never heard of (myself included), titling the game Fallout 3 and not something like "Fallout: DC" is a deliberate move toward evoking and reminding people of the original games. Part of the reason Bethesda picked up the IP and decided to continue the franchise was because of the built in fan base - the same reason paramount decided do a new Star Trek series. Longtime fans would gravitate to the new series because it has the same name as the old one; people who had never played the games but had heard of them would be drawn to the new game because they had always heard "those fallout games are really good;" and new fans would be drawn to it because of the updated visuals and it's "blockbuster game" status. Staying that Fallout 3 is the "definitive" Fallout denies the fact that the series has alot of name recognition, and the fact that many new players / people who picked it up because they had heard of the franschise but not played the original games will go out and try the originals because they played the new one first - and may even end up deciding they like the originals more. This is why the Star Trek metaphor is so apt - for example, I started watching Star Trek because of the newer series, but then got interested in the older one and went back and watched it. While I started with the newer series, the original series is the definitive one to me - it's the essence of what the series really is.

Saying that the original Fallout games were niche games or for hardcoe RPGers is a bit misleading too- while the first two games were by no means the blockbuster games of their time, they certainly weren't unknown indie games either. I remember buying both of them in electronics stores back when they game out - I didn't have to go hunt them down somewhere or buy them off the internet. Hell, I've occasionally found copies of them sitting around the cheap computer games sections of places like Best Buy or Office Depot years after the games came out. They aren't incredibly obscure games by any means. They are Top 100 lists and things like that all the time - they are considered classic RPGs by many people, and are memorable for that reason alone (just like someone who has never played the Baldur's Gate games probably recognizes the name because it won so many awards)

I do think that many people will consider the new games to be the "definitive" Fallout. But I think you overestimate how definitive that status will be - I think that because of the Fallout series' legacy, Fallout 3 is never going to be "the" Fallout for the overwhelming majority of gamers. Maybe for many, but not for most - just like there is not an overwhelming majority of fans who favor the new Star Treks over the Original series.

note: before I get labeled as some NMA fanatic I do have to say - Fallout 3 is awesome

Nice post, bombsonengland.
And if they want to link the sales. Let's put it that way. The number of PCs on a household, when the initial Fo1+2 came out was signigicantly smaller than it is now. The internet still was pioneering things like ADSL and the broadband was really expensive. Comparing the sales through the view of today's customers it's not okay. Look at how the things were back then and you might see that even the mighty EA was happy when sales were reaching 1million copies. Yes, you read well.
Fallout 3 has some nice things and i hope that a Fallout 4 will lose any link to Oblivion and become a game on its own. I regret the fact that the main quest it's short and you can't play after finishing the game, but I liked the environments. Weapon degradation was a nice touch, but that was happening too fast. There are many inconsitencies, like the fact that you could find food in supermarkets that were bombed 200 years before your visit. The tents with technology that wasn't affected by the passing of time, the ammo and the power armors who were practically everywhere, despite the fact that the only two factions capable on fabricating armor, weapons and ammo, weren't exactly willing to share them. How those things escaped to the beta test, it's a mistery. But there were some good things going on too: despite Oblivion heritage, Fo3 it is more orientated towards dialogs, quests can be solved peacefully (quite a good amount of them), the skill checks were available in many places(though I'd rather see a simple skill check instead of lockpicking and hacking mini-games). I still have to decide if I like it or not, though a few well made mods might make the game very good and convince me to play it longer.

I don't get why people are always dissing Oblivion and somehow making it seem like a bad thing to be similar to it. In the end it and Fallout 3 are two very different games. Comparing to two can only lead to two very frustrated people. So lets all end the bickering and focus on what makes each game unique. :hugs:

No, Fallout 3 will never be seen as the definitive Fallout game, because it really isn't a Fallout game at all. It's Oblivion with different graphics.

Fallout is the definitive Fallout game, and will be remembered long after the mediocrity of FO3 is forgotten.

I agree and disagree.

I agree that this game will never be the definitive Fallout game, and I agree that 3 is hardly like the originals besides its settings and a few combat aspects; however, I disagree with many people saying it is simply Oblivion with different graphics. While the annoying level scaling is still here, it works definitely in leveling up, combat, etc. Even the way dialogue is different. The only thing I truly find offensive about FO3 though is the lack of... humour. There is an occasional giggle, but Fallout 1/2 were made so much more charming and memorable by their bizarre contrasts between the bleak and terrifying after affects of war, to the oddly hysterical consequences if your character happens to have nothing spent in his intelligence stat or the wide array of funny and memorable characters. I was kinda excited when I saw Harold in FO3 and hoped he would be funny again, instead... he was depressing. HOW THE HELL DO YOU MAKE HAROLD DEPRESSING? :sadvaultboy: The rest of the game, has kinda grown on me though. It still won't ever touch the originals, but I feel Bethesda did an 80% good job on moving Fallout into 3D. Next time guys, tone down the depression a bit and even it out a bit more. Then I'll say it comes at least 10% closer to living on forever in my heart like the first two. Still won't be there though, I doubt anything could meet my expectations.

I think this whole argument is just the usual trend of old players getting angry at a new game. It happens with every other series out there. The world isn't perfect so expecting a game to be is just setting yourself up for disappointment.

Hey bombsonengland, I liked your post, it was probably the first to disagree with me who tried to argue any logic. I don't personally see the anology with Star Trek though. I think you are massively over estimating the popularity (in terms of numbers of fans) of the original Fallout games if you think it compares to Star Trek. Virtually every person in the Western world over the age of 10 will have heard of Mr Spock and Captain Kirk the original Star Trek series rivals Star Wars as THE most definitive space series ever. Phrases like 'Beam me up Scottie', and 'It's highly illogical Captain' have entered the English language and if you said either phrase to virtually any advlt in America or the UK they would immediately associate it with the original Star Trek.

Now if Fallout 3 had never been released and you went out on the streets and asked people what Fallout was I guarantee that 99 out of a 100 people would not have had a clue.

You say that most people have never heard of Manhunt well I can gaurantee with 100% certainty that more people will have watched the film Manhunt than will have played Fallout 1, 2 and any expansions combined. In fact more people will have watched the film Manhunt on the first weekend of its cinema release than will have ever have played Fallout 1 and 2 combined.

The pc computer industry especially 10 years ago was simply a niche market, so a game like Fallout would have been as well known to the world at large as some obscure hardcoe goth indie band who have never had a chart hit that tragic emo's are into these days.

That's why Fallout 3 IS the definitive game. It may not be anywhere near as good as the first two, but it doesn't matter. It's the only Fallout game that the public have heard of. The MTV generation, the SPIKE TV generation, all the kids with their consoles, the news media, the magazines (I'm talking general not computer mags here) They make this the definiitive game.

You seem to think it's just about gamers but its not. Something becomes definitive and enters the consciousness when even people who have never played or watched it are aware of it. There are millions of people who bought Fallout 3, probably hundreds of thousands more who downloaded it illegally also.

But they do not make up the sum total of people who know about Fallout 3. Now the world at large knows about it, it gets advertised at sports events on banners, there are posters for it on buses,it's in non gaming magazine, it's advertised on the telly, parent's teenage kids want it for Christmas or right now, it's big business, now people have heard of it, millions of people.

The original Fallout games were known to a few hundred thousand people, and were played over a decade ago, Their impact on the public at large (outside it's comparatively tiny fanbase) is virtually nil.

It's the same with the Elder Scrolls series. That series burst into life with Oblivion. Actually Morrowind made it onto the Xbox as well so was probably played by a few million people so you could argue it began there but if you went on the streets and asked people what game came before Morrowind how many do you think would be able to give you the answer? 1 out 1000?


So as I said before I completely disagree with your comparing Fallout to Star Trek it's not even a fraction of one percent as well known or as popular as Star Trek. Comparing it to Manhunt is in all honesty being slightly generous as I'm damn sure far more people (if you did a street poll) have heard of Manhunt than would have heard of the original Fallout games.

I think people on this site grossly overestimate the wide appeal of the original games, they may have been relatively popular pc games 10 years ago but the pc games market was tiny back then (in world population terms) and the hardcoe rpg market even smaller.

None of this means the Fallout games wern't great. They may be superb, the best games ever made.

But it doesn't change the fact that if you polled 1000 on the street and asked them if they had heard of Fallout of the ones who had probably 95 percent of them would be meaning Fallout 3.

It IS Fallout from hencethorth on.

No. The complaint is not that Fallout 3 isn't perfect, it's that Fallout 3 is inferior to its predecessors in every way that counts. Even the graphics don't hold up - the retro-futuristic art style of Fallout is much better realized in the originals than Bethesda's half-hearted imitation.

Ah well at least Bethesda managed to delight the 95% of players who weren't fanatical Fallout 1 fans.

Perhaps you're too bearded to really enjoy it?

Nope, Fallout 3 is just redundant on account of the superior originals. I'm sure there are 3D action fans who will say the move to 3D real-time is a step forward, but then, I wouldn't pay much attention to someone who thinks Citizen Cane or Casablanca would've been better as action movies either.

Maybe you should re-read his post again without the hormonal rage? Console sales > PC sales, of course it's going to sell better on the console.


Oblivion was one of the most popular games for the most popular console in 2006. It was one of the best selling games for PC. Oblivion also won Game of the Year. Oblivion IS mainstream. Fallout 3 is mainstream as well because it's sales are through the roof.

wait so fallout1-2 has a cult now its time to let go of the past and


PREPARE FOR THE FURTURE

The problem this discussion has faced is there are multiple meanings to the word definitive.

*Side note on my relevant play history if anyone cares: Played Morrowind on x-box, Oblivion on PC, Fallout 3 on 360 b/c my computer isn't equal to the task and having played FO3, I picked up FO1, FO2 off of GoG.com and played them through.

You can establish definitive as meaning many things:

1) The game that established all (or most of) the crucial aspects of a world and its lore. This game defined the world as it is and subsequent games merely build upon the lore. By this definition, Fallout 1 is the winner.

2) The game that was of high quality and polish and more importantly set the standard by which following works will be measured and deemed worthy or lacking. Perhaps this is the one game, movie etc... that you consider essential for individuals should see. A good example would be Silence of the Lambs as compared to the following movies w/ Anthony Hopkins. This measure is much more open for debate. I personally prefer Fallout 2, with Fallout 3 a close second for this title. I say this because I feel that fallout 1 had several flaws that were polished into a much better gameplay experience in its Fallout 2. Fallout 3 is an excellent game, but I think that it comes up lacking in this regard because at the very least, Fallout 2 was able to go to darker places that games simply cannot go today if they want to be sold on store shelves.

3) The final definition of definitive is the game which is a common reference point when people are introducing their friends to the series 2 or 3 years from now in the next installment. And here is the definition that I feel that the OP was getting at. If 5 million+ people have played FO3 and lets say 1 million have played FO1/2 then there are 4 million people out there spreading the Fallout 'gospel' telling their friends about the Fallout universe and all they have to work with is their experience in Fallout 3.

I think that in the long run, the reality is that the vast majority of people who have been exposed to the fallout series will share fallout 3 as their starting point and in that sense it will be definitive.

The thing is, the original Fallout (And Fallout 2, to a lesser extent) is remembered as one of the best cRPGs of all time for lots of reasons. It continues to be popular over a decade after its release. It's objectively a classic that has stood the test of time.

Fallout 3 is popular because it had a massive advertising campaign. It's popular at the moment, but it's ultimately an average game that doesn't bring anything new to the franchise. It's not pushing any gameplay boundaries or touting any original features. It doesn't do anything that hasn't been done before, or done better.

Fallout 3 will be forgotten once the next shiny new thing comes out, while Fallout will still be remembered as the classic that it is.

It's clear that the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY don't believe Fallout 3 to be an average game, just like the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY believe Oblivion to not be an average game either.

If you think that Fallout 3 is merely an average game and doesn't bring anything to the genre or advance any boundries then that is your opinion, and your welcome to it. It is quite clear from the critical reception to this game however that your view is distinctly in the minority.

I would imagine that at least 85 percent of people who will buy and play Fallout 3 will not only enjoy it but also believe it to be a AAA title and worthy of 90% + scores.

It's likely to be in the running for Game of the Year, maybe even the favourite along with Little Big Planet so for the vast majority of gamers it is far better than an average game.

Oblivion and Fallout 3 are popular because they're simple, console-ized action adventure titles that had the benefit of a big advertising campaign. As for "critical reception," I wouldn't trust mainstream gaming journalists as far as I could throw them since they are paid to advertise the very games they are supposed to be objectively reviewing.

Nice statistics, by the way. Is that 85% based on anything or are you just pulling numbers out of your hat?

As for Fallout 3 advancing the genre, give me an example. When I play it all I see is an action shooter with some half-heartedly implimented Fallout themes.