Fallout 4 should be like Fallout 4 and not like New Vegas. It can look at things that New Vegas has done as well as the other games in the Fallout Universe.

-No F3,FNV and probably F4

-I understand

-I don't consider F3 as a FPS, Operation Anchorage was an FPS and a prety bad one,but F3 is a open world rpg with FPS elements in it.

-No i haven't.

I enjoyed fallout 3 way more than new Vegas, even though NV did some things a lot better the dessert and exploration side of it was lack luster.

- Probably, but that's what the discussion's about.

-

- It's more closer to an FPS than a proper RPG. That's what I want fixed; though not by turning things inside out and upside down like was done in 2008.

- You should try a few. With time; to understand what it is about. At least before condemning the whole thing off hand.

Agree with everything, now i understand you.

It wasn't just about being shot in the head in FNV it was the mystery behind the Chip. Why would a someone in with Benny's power and influence go through all the trouble of hiring some Great Khan just to take a poker chip from a no name like you. It wasn't just about revenge. You could have made it all about revenge but you could also just want answers about the chip or want in on his scheme(as talking with Manny could suggest) . In FO3 it's just "Dad went missing and I was kicked out of the vault. Well time to go find dad for answers". Which is fine but there is no revenge option to take on Dad for ruining your life. They force you to work with him and the BoS. What if you want to give him the middle finger for screwing up a potential thing relationship with Amata and join the Enclave? We couldn't give both the Enclave and BoS the middle finger and form your own "faction"

As for locations I rather have it like New Vegas to. FO3 had more sure but a lot were bland and generic just like in Skyrim. I rather have fewer locations but they are interesting over many but a lot are just meh.

That's what I said.

It's because new Vegas went the more RPG route with the player character, whereas fallout 3 went the more cinematic game-ey route.

I personally like having a character with a more ambiguous back story, you have more freedom to roleplay their ambitions and personality.

With fallout 3 you are restricted, your character is a 19 year old vault dweller, end of story. There's no reason as to Why you'd be a good wasteland survivalist, can shoot weapons, or be a bad guy for any reason (which is also one of the reasons Why playing a bad guy in fallout 3 makes no sense,blow up megaton for no reason what so ever besides cool factor).

In new Vegas I have a courier that's a 40 some year old grizzled old cowboy with tons of experience, or my super smart chinese scientist courier who spent years studying science, or my tribal raider warrior who believes in survival of the fittest, or my punk ncr teenager that went to Vegas to make a name and a living for himself, or my ex gangster on the run from new Reno, and so on and so forth.

I find much more replay value in new Vegas than 3, the story plays out the same every time in 3, and you HAVE to join the brotherhood and fight the enclave.

In new Vegas my character can join the legion, or the ncr, or Mr house, or endorse anarchy and cut all their throats.

Fallout 3 as I said was cinematic, it might be good for a movie, but for a role playing game, you don't get much wiggle room as to what your role is. It's a fun game, fallout 3, but new Vegas is a much better RPG and that's a fact (whether it's a better game in general is opinion and can go either way, but as an RPG fallout 3 just doesn't hold a candle to new vegas).

That's funny given that the radiant quest system was straight from Daggerfall and Arena.

I guess Bethesda thinks you can look back to older games for inspiration.

I doubt anyone here is claiming that Fallout 4 has to return to being an isometric turnbased rpg. When people say that Fallout should return to its roots they generally mean that it should offer good story and dialogue, morally interesting choices and a true post apocalyptic world to explore. I like the fact that Bethesda have made Fallout a real-time third person game, but I also miss the Fallout feel from the original games. Fallout New Vegas knew how to touch that string, Bethesda just put in some swear words and hulks with miniguns, that's not what made people fall in love with the original games!

It's good that Bethesda has brought Fallout to a wider audience and new generations, it's good how they've streamlined its gameplay. But somewhere along the line they went too far and lost track of what made Fallout what it was. FO3 didn't make me feel like I was strugling to survive in a harsh nuked world with dangerous mutants running around. Instead it gave into my every whim and in the middle of the game I was blasting every single enemy with ease. That's what they need to fix.

Actually it already went the way of FO3 in popular opinion when NV sold fewer copies, garnered 0 goty awards and wasn't even nominated for the pinnicle prize(GDC goty) which FO3 took two years earlier.

Good as it's elements may have been to some, NV was just a total conversion mod for FO3.

Obsidian also had about a year and a half to work on the main game while Bethesda had what 4? Not to mention when Fallout 3 came out it was completely new the last Fallout we got was 7 years earlier and a completely different styled game that a lot of people hadn't even known about (me included).

I'm not against this although Fallout 3 had way better world design and Atmosphere. I'm hoping for a best of both games with a touch of Skyrim.

Obsidian is always getting shafted with time constraints. Kotor 2 and FNV. Now give them the proper time, they'll turn out a masterpiece like Pillars of Eternity.

Sorry but regardless of how well received FO3 is over NV it's a inferior and there is no debate imo. Everything you hear people accuse NV of like being bland, lack depth and choices describe FO3 perfectly. Not saying FO3 is a bad game but this notion it's better than NV is just absurd imo. As others said Bethedsa had 4 years with FO3 well Obsidian had 1.5 years and yet they managed to make a better game in less than half the time.

• Innovation for sake of becoming something else entirely... is mutation. Radical mutation is generally bad. Innovation should build on a foundation that extends and improves the initial design... Like improving the claw on a hammer... Not innovating a hammer into a hack-saw that cannot sink nails.
• True, so long as they own it.
• Not true. Turn Based combat followed realtime FPP, not the other way around. It's not out dated, it's a method; and it's only boring to those that cannot appreciate or enjoy it. (If they can appreciate and enjoy it ~would they call it boring?)
  If the series architects had reacquired the Fallout license, it is almost certain that Fallout 3 would have had turn based combat as an option; and probably the default, if not the only option. Just look at Wasteland 2... That's about as close to a Fallout game as you can get while being a different IP. (...and they know it. )
• Sadly so.

And a comprehensive character system that makes an actual difference in the gameplay - combat and otherwise - like it originally used to do, and then some.

Mcdonalds is the most popular restaurant in the entire world. Therefore (with your logic) it is the best restaurant in the entire world.

I agree with what the OP said about NV, and I would add survival mode and iron sights to that list BUT please do not give me an experience as linear as NV, I felt very boxed in by the world, the invisible walls freaking everywhere preventing you from jumping up a 2-foot high rock and keeping you "on track." Also don't give us a pre-determined character who has a job and prior relationships. The vault system is perfect for the clean-slate feel.

Do not sacrifice freedom for narrative as Obsidian did please.

Exactly. Even though New Vegas was technically 'better' than Fallout 3, New Vegas was a bore to explore.

Another thing I did not like about New Vegas was not exactly knowing how to trigger companion quests. You shouldn't have to google how to start a hidden line of quests you may not even be aware of.

Companions should be more forthcoming about what, want or they're looking for or the types of places they would like to visit.

I'd argue it's an odd wasteland/desert if it's teeming with life and excitement at every turn. New Vegas relied more on questing and the quest- and narrative-induced exploration rather finding all those random "dungeons".

I loved the iron sights & secondary ammo, not to mention the moral grey writing

Didn't take long for the FO3/FNV thread.

Whatever you want, you are going to get a Bethesda game, not an Obsidian game, and that's fine with me.

At first my answer to the thread title was "I replay FO3 more than I do FONV." I looked at my game files the other day on my 360 and it seems I haven't touched NV since 2013, but 3 has been played as recently as last month. So I think I will replay NV and give it another go.

I do recall some of the things that annoyed me about NV were just the way I played. I tend to get head strong and frustrated when I can't go in a particular direction because cazadores or deathclaws are blocking the path. To me this feels like they are artificially channeling me the way they want me to go and takes away the freedom I feel when I play 3.

We'll see. Let you all know my true opinion in a few days.

Hmmm, no. That application of "my" logic doesn't work. No group of people anywhere have ever voted Mcdonanlds has the best food let alone all it's competitors getting together and voting it the best. More than just sales at play here so...idk, try again to make your point through some other abstract anology that fits better.