Its probably for the best Charlemagne, these topics tend to just create bad blood and end up being flame wars anyway. I don't think I have seen a vs. thread that hasn't had at least a couple people duking it out.

Besides, its a topic thats been talked to death anyway. We always go back to the same old arguments.



Europe always throws the best festivals and holiday celebrations. Its a fact.

.......you know what.....we should invade them. :shifty:

Well there's Victoria Day... :shrug:

So yeah, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9EhvDAMjWc is this entire thread in a nutshell.

Talon Company.

Semper.....................FIIIIIIIIIIIII!

OOHRAH!

-Gunny out.

De Oppresso Liber, Hooah!

Maybe... :spotted owl:

Yeah op one of these went 199 posts that you continued. Its just the same people saying the same [censored]. At least wait another week. Plus some kid will start an "I m officially bored" thread, and they then a real vs thread will erupt.

Its way better when they are spontaneous.

Well I think that the Full Metal Jacket is a pretty cool guy, eh shouts at the privates and doesnt afraid of anything.

Ah Victoria Day, affectionately known across Canada as May 2-4 weekend. Pretty much where we all get drunk and blow stuff up with fireworks. Well at least I do :celebration:

Fallout3 evolved in that it did away with the game-drag flaw that happened on becoming adept, amongst other flaws in 1 and 2 play. Another flaw was the sheer emptiness of the wasteland similar to that in New Vegas. Total quest size and content were a huge evolution in play in Fallout 3, delivering a letter evolved into a vast game in itself. Taking Moira's Wasteland quest became quests within a quest, and you haven't even started the main quest yet. Games within games.

Bethesda came up "trumps", ironing out in the process the "need-for-improvements" of Fallouts 1 and 2, producing a Fallout3 sequel with all the essences of the early ones. New Vegas is a Fallout spin-off as Bethesda has said, it's an ok game but just a spin-off. Makers of New Vegas who also had those that made the board-game-combat for Fallouts 1, 2, chose not to implement it in Fallout New Vegas, so New Vegas will unlikely be popular with fans of the early Fallouts, but maybe not, New Vegas at least does have an equally empty barren wasteland of Fallouts 1 and 2 that those fans loved. {smile}

Fallout 3 is also a spin-for it has nothing to do with Fallout or Fallout 2. It does not continue the story Fallout 2. Does not matter if the game is just a spin off its still canon. As a fan of the original Fallout I love New Vegas and I don't care that it is not isometric and turn based. Yeah Bethesda updated Fallout by giving it a modern game engine and graphics. Does not make it a better Fallout Game. It is not even that great of an RPG for that matter. Very limited in the number of options given to you and it rail roads you into siding with the "Good Guys."

Just bugs me to no end that people think latest graphics = good :facepalm:

Tim Cain: "Fallout 3 fits with Oblivion in their line of products where I don't think Fallout 1 and 2 would've fit with their product line as well."

Somehow I think Tim Cain might have a better grasp on the "essences" of Fallout 1 and 2 than you Sitruc.

Indeed. :thumbs up:

Tim Cain: "Fallout 3 fits with Oblivion in their line of products where I don't think Fallout 1 and 2 would've fit with their product line as well."

Fallout 3 fits in with Bethesda's line of products very well since Bethesda are experts in the open-play style that the early Fallouts adopted, so who better than Bethesda to sequel the early Fallouts.

Tin Cain might be being a bit churlish that Bethesda did not adopt the early Fallout formats of turn-base combat, which has no place in the role-play exploration of the ethics of a post-nuclear world.

Tim Cain was after the exploration of the ethics of a post-nuclear world. Fallout 3 gave that, more than the early Fallouts did. The early Fallouts, most of the time was taken up with taking turns, rather than the role-play objective of the exploration of the ethics, Tim failed in his own objective, and by overlooking the essences.

New Vegas is less canon for being less post-nuclear than Fallout 3's exploration of the ethics of a post-nuclear world. New Vegas's exploration was of a civilised post-nuclear world, not canon.

Fallout 3 continues the story of a post-nuclear world such as Fallout 2 was, but in real-time true RPG and with more options of game-play, a great RPG that won awards from respected reviewers who had earned their respect, over time, for giving accurate reviews.

No not really.
Tim Cain: "Fallout 3 fits with Oblivion in their line of products where I don't think Fallout 1 and 2 would've fit with their product line as well."

Fallout 3 fits in with Bethesda's line of products very well since Bethesda are experts in the open-play style that the early Fallouts adopted, so who better than Bethesda to sequel the early Fallouts.

Tin Cain might be being a bit churlish that Bethesda did not adopt the early Fallout formats of turn-base combat, which has no place in the role-play exploration of the ethics of a post-nuclear world.

Tim Cain was after the exploration of the ethics of a post-nuclear world. Fallout 3 gave that, more than the early Fallouts did. The early Fallouts, most of the time was taken up with taking turns, rather than the role-play objective of the exploration of the ethics, Tim failed in his own objective, and by overlooking the essences.

New Vegas is less canon for being less post-nuclear than Fallout 3's exploration of the ethics of a post-nuclear world. New Vegas's exploration was of a civised post-nuclear world, not canon.

Fallout 3 continues the story of a post-nuclear world such as Fallout 2 was, but in real-time true RPG and with more options of game-play, a great RPG that won awards from respected reviewers who had earned their respect, over time, for giving accurate reviews.

See above.
Indeed not.

I looked at your above double post, and found, if this wasnt already expected, nothing of value.

All I see here are unfounded opinions; I personally think that Bethesda failed at implimenting any ethical impacts seeing as how Karma can be bought at churches and even blowing up towns and trying to kill everyone with a deadly virus still somehow doesn't kill off major quest providors (presumably because people would complain, so choices having consequences takes a back-burning to appaesing the fan base).



Again opinion.



So because a guy has a degree in journalism that instantly makes his opinions better than anyone elses? It's not like a real journalist, he plays a game and tells you if he liked it and why, kind of like what we are doing here; games win awards because a lot of people like them, I don't think that anyone here would argue that the Bethesda bashers outnumber people who like F3.

Just stepping in to snap at this, I hate this line through and through. Fallout and Fallout 2 are games that never needed a sequal to carry on it's contained story. Fallout as a SERIES I'd say 'Yes, Fallout 3 carried on the story of the previous Fallouts.'

You might be saying, 'Why would you say that?', well, I'll tell you. Fallout and Fallout 2 had two stories going on, one the main central plot of the game, and the central plot of the series, survival and revival. Look at Fallout 2's point of time, Thanks to The Chosen One and The Vault Dweller, humanity got a huge jumpstart again. Now, Fallout 3 however, while not set in California, it's core story of 'survival and revival' is just as present as in Fallout and Fallout 2. True, D.C. did start off in reviving way to late, but we as the play have changed this. So now the East and West and now Vegas all have chances to thrive.

Now, don't make me out as defending Curtis, I wouldn't agree with his biased opinions for anything. I just wanted to present a neutral and fair point to you.

-Ducks out of the thread-

You're actually going to dispute that Tim Cain understands Fallout 1 and 2 more than you? Hilarious. Don't think I really need to say anything more.

I agree with Colonel.

Look at Van Buren, would its story have continued what happened after Fallout 2? Not particularly. Fallout 3 did actually continue Fallout 2's storyline in some way, with the Enclave retreating to the East coast and the LW foiling their plans for a renewed offensive. It may not be the continuation that people wanted, but it is a continuation to some degree.

That said, I also agree with Styles when he says that the term "spin-off" has no reflection on a games status as canon. I really have no problem with people calling Fallout 3 a spin-off and I have no problem calling New Vegas a spin-off either. "Spin-off" doesn't mean "less of a Fallout game", it simply means, "a dramatic work derived from one or more that already exist". Fallout 3 and New Vegas fit that description, and so does Tactics. Anything thats not a direct sequel can be termed a "spin-off," in that sense, the only games that are not spin-offs are Fallout 1 and 2.

I actually think they should stop having a number after the games and just go with Fallout: (insert location here).



Hold the door Colonel.

*follows colonel out of the thread*

OHHHHH [censored] a real vs thread started.

I think Tim Cain knows more about Fallout than this guy, but I m fairly certain that Bethesda now runs the series. If nv is old fallout choices and consequences count me out. I d rather have a well written linear story with some choices than the mess that is the fo nv endings.

There are no consequences in fo nv........ You can make everybody win. Where are my consequences? I work for cl, kill countless amounts of NCR soilders get villified, and they don t even shoot me on sight unless I wear cl armour. NCR prices are higher is a consequence to killing men? What?
At least if you blew up megaton it wasn t there any more. That is a consequence.....

consequences is not making everyone win. The only consequence of these ending choices is I don t know [censored] about what happened in the mw. There is my consequence for the "well written dynamic endings"

I can side with who ever I want, and do all the work so they win. There are no consequences............

What? NV has a much better C&C than Fallout 3, in Fallout 3 i could destroy Megaton, kill everyone in Tenpenny Tower, and release FEV into the water supply, i give money to a church and i am considered a savior by everyone.

You ll have to do better than this ^^^^ to give me some answers about my above post. Fo3 basically gave you a canon ending with Broken Steel. They did not really try to be dynamic, because it backfires like nv endings do.
My question is where are my consequences if fo nv besides not know the ending of yet another fallout game?

I have to go get a car ready I ll be back to give you an example of a rpg that had a choice and a consequence that meant something and 1 ending either way. Gladius I think it was called. around 2004.