I wouldn't care for the changes, but if Bethesda went bankrupt and some other company bought TES series, changing it to how they see fit, it would still be TES series. It's not as if Bethesda would have been able to make any more, so why care if another company changes future installments after buying the series? I might not like the new installments, but they did nothing to mess with my existing Elder Scrolls games and they own/define the new franchise. The series' future and official style would change, but my existing games would still be there. I wouldn't lose anything. It was never my series to begin with. The new games would be the new version of a would-be dead series. I would accept that and, despite the loss of my favorite series the way I know it, I would not yell, scream, and shout at the new company for buying a property for sale and modifying it. TES series, as it currently exists, has changed drastically over its 16 year history, and I don't mind. If a new company managed to keep me interested in the series, good. If not, it's not their fault. Bethesda would be gone, finished, and incapable of making future games. I wouldn't lose anything. No patch would come out erasing all content from the existing Elder Scrolls games. The new company didn't steal the game series from Bethesda or me, Bethesda lost it. What's the point of complaining to the new company? If I don't like the new direction, then there would be nothing more for me to do with the series. I'm not really too picky on change when I have no rights to any of the things being changed, and why should I be?

And Fallout is brilliant as a 2D isometric strategy rpg-thing and a 3D first-person explore-'em-up.

This, like everything else in this thread, is a statement of opinion. Do you see?

There no evidence or plan of Fallout 5. I would be dam piss if they skip Elder Scroll 5.


I see it more as it miss of a lighting strike for X-men. Fallout 3 is fine and I see this as a improvement in comparison to Oblivion, but the lore, their writing, and how Beth handle the game is more iffy than it should be.


Its not the buying part that matter, its how they interpret it. Currently, if someone else came in and try messing with the Elder Scroll Series, I would like to see how they handle it, just as long they do their homework and look into the history and the lore of the game itself. Sure, Beth did bring out Fallout 3, but as I say earlier on that, many things does not make any sense in the overall lore of Fallout.

Bethesda has the rights to making two more Fallout games, or so I've been told by Antibody in the speculation forum some time ago, which seems to be proof enough that Bethesda will be making a fifth one.

You take your interpretations to such extremes they cannot conceivably be considered reasonable. Simply because the format of a game changes, does not mean that it is a different game. The original Fallouts only determine what "the whole thing is based on" as far as the history and lore is concerned. You don't get to pick and choose what is and isn't Fallout, simply because you don't like it. But I suppose this conversation was pointless, as you had never actually come to discuss and this has turned into another vs thread.

I'm sorry that 12 long years of waiting has driven you mad and you aren't able to bring forth an opinion without being both pretentious and condescending. You want to clutch Fallout fandom and the notion of what Fallout "is" so closely that the only comparison I can think of is Gollum hoarding the One Ring. I guess we all can't be as refined as you. Consider me unimpressed with both your side of the debate and your attitude. I will however rest easy knowing that Bethesda will probably release Fallout 4 and you will descend into your own personal hate spiral for another 2 or 3 years while everyone else enjoys another "Fallout" game. I know I will. Probably more than I am enjoying New Vegas, which only ranks second to Fallout 3 in my list of "best Fallouts". That's what this whole thread was originally about, anybody remember?

Incoming thread lock.

Link or it did not happen, not to mention the speculation part. If anything I can think of, Online comes into mind, even if it were given to that of Interplay.

I'm messaging Antibody. There were too many TES V speculation threads to dig through, but I should find proof somewhere, unless my brain is playing tricks on me. I didn't say they were planning the game right now (as in pre-production), but I remember something about them being able to make two more Fallout games without having to renew... something related to their rights to the series.

The thing about New Vegas is once all the Quests are done you don't feel like doing them again, and since this game is more about writing story line and quests i don't see myself replaying it.. New Vegas is good game in its own way.. people are having a hard time trying to ridicule someone else's opinion.. From what i have heard fallout 3 fans are not that impressed with fallout New vegas..

I got back to playing fallout 3 and i could instantly feel the freedom to go anywhere you wanted and a huge map but i also felt the lack of factions and game atmosphere in relation to towns and people living in it.. (thought mods could always fix that)

There's only one reason for that, it's riding off of the poularity of FO3 and don't try to deny this at all. It's not opinion, it's fact

One could claim the same about Fallout 3 riding the success of Fallout 2. Or about any popular sequel. You were wrong and now you are trying to justify that fact.




You have it completely backwards. Story, dialogue, voice acting.. those are things that require a studio and skilled programming, writing, and voice acting. Making more random locations to explore for that extra Nuka-Cola, or a named machine gun, that's something a modder could do just as well (or better) than Bethesda/Obsidian.

No you are wrong plain and simple, a lot of people new to the series started playing FO2 and FO1 because they had played FO3, I haven't seen many threads 'Gosh i've played FO2 I think i'll give FO3 a try' have you? I myself Played FO1 and FO2 only because I had played FO3. I had no clue what fallout was I thought Fallout 3 looked cheesy with Vault Boy on the front until my friend told me about it. I went out on a whim and gave it a shot. Needless to say I loved it and wanted to get a better grasp of the lore and hence that is the only reason I bought the collection, which mysteriously came out at the peak of FO3's popularity, coincidence I think not

edit: and I don't know when I was wrong and what fact I was trying to justify before hand, please enlighten me all knowing one.

Your frustration with my being right in this instance doesn't disclude me from being right. What I had posted which you quoted is essentially where you come from and where you stand. The argument about "you don't get to pick and choose!" is a very old one which I've seen many, many times but it couldn't be any more impotent. Let me paint you a picture:

Let's say I invent something (with the help of some friends) called "The Flundingsberg Wand", ok? I release it to the public to much critical success, respect and gain an dedicated consumer base for it. Then, some other people come into the picture and some of my friends leave. We create "The Flundingsberg Wand pt2" again to much critical success, respect and split (though not incredibly drastically) our dedicated consumer base because we made this version a little too lulzy. 10 years go by and the dedicated consumer base eventually hold both versions of my Flundingsberg Wand in high esteem, they have gained infamous cult status and my wands are known as some of the best (if not THE best) wands ever made. Then the company who employs me folds. Another company buys my idea for the wand, but does not employ me. They, in turn, create "The Flundingsberg Wand pt.3" but it doesn't even look like a wand. It's in the shape of a box. Many people are confused. "Why call it a wand if its obviously a box?" The consumer base who loved my invention are sitting there angrily shouting "This is NOT what the Flundingsberg Wand is, or ever was!" Meanwhile, thanks to thousands of dollars from an over-inflated marketing department this new company has convinced the rest of the world that they really need The Flundingsberg Wand pt.3" and people indeed do buy it. They are not aware of what the original wand was, how it work, or why anybody would think what they just bought isn't the real deal. Meanwhile, myself and my dedicated consumer base know that this new wand isn't what I had ever intended for the Flundingsberg series of wands, and we hang our heads in embarrassment and shame decrying model #3 as having betrayed the original models.

I'm sorry, but the original creation or intention always determines how any subsequent versions are judged. It is the model with which all others are judged by.



Sure, but now we get back to just how objective or subjective opinions can be. Most fans and critics consider the album "Dylan" to be Mr. Zimmerman's worst hour. :shrug:

Like I told Seti, Bethesda can make as many Fallout games as they want now, as they own the series. But when they made their original deal with Interplay, before buying the series, they were only allowed to make three Fallout games- Fallout 3, 4 and 5. They obviously aren't planning Fallout 5 before they even make 4, but they do, or at least did, have plans to make Fallout 5 at some point.

I can't wait for Fallout 4 and 5, myself. I love Elder Scrolls, but would certainly prefer a new Fallout game... maybe they'll let Obsidian continue making parallel games to keep them coming out at a steady pace? I think Obsidian does a fantastic job working with an existing engine (like with KOTOR, and now New Vegas). Though they seem fairly weak at making games from scratch, so it's a perfect fit.

I can understand your feelings that NV is closer to the originals in spirit, but I don't think that stating certain people aren't real fallout fans is a good means of engaging the new gamers in the series. You, and all people who played the games in order of publishing, are the emissaries (whether you like being so or not) of the original games to the rest of the fandom. As such, your actions directly impact people's willingness to listen to arguements based in any way, shape, or form on the older games. I feel that the approach that some of the people in this thread have made to arguing in favor of NV have left F3 fans feeling belittled. Due to this, they are being hardened against things which are like F1 and F2, because, simply put, people like to commit the fallacy of guilt by association. As fans of the original games, I think you'd have a better chance of winning people over if there was a greater focus on getting people to play the originals, rather than saying that the game they love, F3, appeals to the lowest common denominator, or that their preference for it makes them something other than a fallout fan.

In short, I think that in this thread, the fans of the originals have their strategies a wee bit confuzzled.



I can understand this point as well, but when it comes to the fans of FO3, you need to show them why the originals were better (preferably by getting them to play 'em) rather than let that disrespect show. Unfortunately, a bad experience iwith the fans does impact whether or not people will tolerate arguements that rely on the original games in some way.

I don't think you can really show anyone why something else is better; ultimately it's all a matter of opinion. Even if a Fallout 3 fan played Fallout 1/2 there's no guarantee that they'd like them more than Fallout 3; in fact I'd wager that they wouldn't simply because Fallout 3 was their first Fallout game. There are exceptions to this of course, but they're rare; just as Fallout 1/2 fans who prefer Fallout 3 are rare.

To give a personal example, I've played all of the Fallout games extensively, and for the life of me I can't figure out why Fallout 3 is held in higher esteem than any of the other titles by the mainstream. Really, I'd rank it as my least favorite Fallout RPG (though I'd rank it higher than Tactics and BoS among the Fallout games as a whole). This is not to say it was a bad game, I liked it well enough, and the only Fallout game that was actually bad in my opinion was Brotherhood of Steel. No Fallout 3 fan however is going to convince me to see the light, and it's not because I'm just being unreasonable. If I've played all of the games extensively I've already formed my own educated opinion, and you're not going to present some revelation that will open my eyes. I played the exact same game as the rest of you, and I probably had largely the same experiences within the game world. I met the same characters, I did the same quests, went through the same optional "dungeons", and I experienced the same storyline.

Frankly I have no desire to show Fallout 3 fans why the originals and New Vegas are better because they're only better in my opinion, and I'm under no delusion that by playing the first two games Fallout 3 fans will suddenly "see the light" so to speak. This is one of the reasons that I've been staying out of this argument since I learned from the Fallout1/2 and Fallout 3 debate that it goes in unproductive circles. If a Fallout 3 fan decides to go back and play 1/2 and likes them, great, but I'm not going to try and convince them to play them, or that they're better games. That's just my two cents.

These are both true, but attempting to share the experience will produce better results than say, belittlement. Or at least that's my view.


Fair enough, but my point is that when we're talking about fans who haven't played the originals, their not going to give them a chance (and thus, give the oppositions viewpoint a chance) if they get belittled or feel excluded by the fans of the originals.


Fair enough. In my case, I actually prefer F3 and F:NV over F1 and F2, if only because Isometric and turn-based are both gameplay aspects I don't like in games in general. My view on the matter is not that they'll magically see the light if they play the originals, but that we can't expect them to even so much as try the original games if their constantly belittled for liking games in bethesda's style. (and since their basically being belittled for their ignorance of the first two games, this becomes counter-productive) and since so much of this arguement is tied with the "spirit of the originals," we should at least encourage people to personally experience this and evaluate it for themselves. Whether they decide F1 and F2 are worthless [censored] that should be retconned away or the greatest thing since life, They will have played all of the games extensively and formed an educated opinion, in the same way you have.

True, but people will do whatever they want regardless of what we think. I can encourage someone to give them a chance, but ultimately whether or not they do so will be up to them and it's a decision they'd probably have made regardless of whether or not I gave them my personal input; at least that's what I think, maybe I'm just being pessimistic. :shrug:



Oh I know, I was also aiming my post at the thread topic in general.

Regardless, what they have to remember is that the folks who are belittling them are just a very vocal minority. There's a lot of classic Fallout fans here who don't belittle the Fallout 3 fans, I don't, I'm pretty sure Gizmo, nu_clear_day and Softnerd don't either, and there's quite a few others I believe. Letting a few bad apples spoil things for you would be cheating yourself of an experience you may very well enjoy; even if you don't enjoy the classics as much as you enjoy Fallout 3.



I would agree with this if Fallout 1/2 were more like Fallout 3/New Vegas in gameplay. The fact of the matter is that Fallout 1/2 and Fallout 3/New Vegas are two completely different breeds of gameplay (which you are well aware), and some people just can't stomach isometric and turn based stuff. I wouldn't want to force someone to sit through something they wouldn't like just so they can form a more educated opinion. I'm fortunate enough to be able to like both styles, but not everyone can enjoy both types of games. If some folks want to learn about the "spirit" of the originals they might be better off watching some YouTube Let's Plays even though watching a Let's Play isn't quite as enjoyable as experiencing the game for yourself.

agreed, but the guilt by association fallacy is still in play.


Nor would I want to force a person to suffer gameplay they don't like, but in relation to the conduct of users, I feel that encouraging people to expose themselves to the originals is better conduct then what I've observed so far in this thread.

Was messaging with Seti earlier on this, my saying is that Beth got the rights, but it is not in official that Fallout 5 exist until it comes out of Bethesda Representative's mouth. For all we know, they could continue licensing the franchise out like they did with New Vega rather than making more game for themselves. This stack with the other project they should have their mind set in (Elder Scroll 5 and Fallout 4 comes into mind).

First, I'd just like it on record that I think your intentions very noble and generally polite. I apologize if I have not come off similarly, though my intentions are not those of strategic intervention as you seem to be suggesting.

Secondly, I'd also like it on record that I consider myself pretty tame in comparison to some of the posters of old. I am now more than ever saying to myself with each new FO3 fan's posts regarding FO:NV, "Oh how I long for the days of Rosh" and then it occurs to me that 98% percent of the members here won't even know what that means, which makes my longing that much more intense.

Now having said that, I want to say this: I am not purposefully attempting to belittle anybody. If I tell those who prefer FO3 over 1 & 2, those who've never played 1 & 2, or those who prefer FO3 to FO:NV that they are less a "Fallout" fan and more aptly described as a fan of "Bethesda's re-interpretation of Fallout" what I am doing is laying out factual information. FO:NV is more of a spiritual successor to FO2 (and the previously established pre-Bethesda series) in every way but game engine. Same goes when I say "Look, I'm not going to go out and say objectively speaking that FO:NV is better than FO3 as a game even if I do believe that to be true" but what I can say objectively is that FO:NV is much closer to what Fallout had been pre-Bethesda and a much, much better RPG. Those are both also pretty much incontestable facts which can be detailed and explained - which is what I am attempting to do in the threads which I post in. One of the major problems, though, is that too many of the people involved in comparing the games don't have a very deep understanding of the franchise (if an understanding of the franchise at all). It is not my concern if they do end up gaining this deeper understanding; I simply want to let them know the earth isn't flat. Yes, FO:NV is weaker, arguably, in sandbox-open world-exploration. Why? Well, because this isn't its main focus as it was with FO3, its focus is on being an RPG which is what the original games were. "This game has too much dialogue and not enough action." Sure, that's true. Why? Because that's what the series was built upon. "There aren't enough dungeons in FO:NV!" Yes, and thank christ, since that had been something which Bethesda brought to the series which was never a part of the series before and took development time away from other much more important areas like story and necessary proper implementations of Fallout's already established RPG mechanics (how SPECIAL and skills *should* work). And so forth.

Personally, I wish the FO:NV GD forum wasn't filled with all of these FO3 fans trying to compare and berate FO:NV for not being like FO3, since in the minds of most fans of the originals who've been there from the beginning - it shouldn't be like FO3. In that sense, FO3 shouldn't be like FO3 for that matter! FO3, imo, should have been the spin-off since it is the odd man out in the series, and it has fans introduced to the series by it completely confused about what the heck the series is even really all about. Heck, I wish I never felt the need to point these things out to people. I wish people did their background-checking and we were all constructively praising or criticizing FO:NV on the GD forum in order to show our interest, appreciation and hope for another outing from people who know the series better than most companies still "in the game".

And before anybody jumps in with another one of those "Well, tough luck. Bethesda owns the franchise now and they can retcon the heck out of your beloved franchise to oblivion (see what I did there?) and there's nothing you can do about it!" let me just say that I am well aware of this fact. That doesn't, however, either excuse it or make it right - nor is it going to make the faithful old-schoolers happy. So prepare yourselves for the same continued scrutiny for the duration of Bethesda's ownership of Fallout. They bought it, and they brought this on themselves.

Oh Rosh, where are you when we need you most?

To quote Vince D. Weller:

I suppose it'd be more accurate to say I'm suggesting that strategic intervention would be a better tactic when dealing with the new fans to the series.


Yes, you are more tame than some of the other posters. I quoted you since your posts were recent.


You have a point in that New Vegas is more in line with what you'd expect from the originals, and gamesas certainly approaches the series differently (and I think there approach is good in it's own way), but I think that saying they are less a fallout fan creates an hostility which is in turn translated to the original games through the guilt by association fallacy. Also, the structure of your point may strike some as being in a similar vein to the no true Scotsman fallacy, and the act of separating the fandom into fans of beth and fans of the original style necessarily creates feelings of being labeled inferior or lower on a hierarchical structure. While I don't think it's your intention to instill such feelings, I do think that it's a likely result of some of the rhetoric that has been used in this thread. See post #130 in this thread for the guilt by association fallacy in action. My concern is with avoiding things like that, and I think taking a different approach to individuals who haven't played 1 & 2 yet will result in aftermaths that avoid that outcome, and perhaps produce new players for the original games.


And it's fine that you want to establish your position, inform them of it, and produce supporting evidence, but the rhetoric that has been used in this thread (not necessarily by yourself) discourages people from wanting to gain a complete understanding. It may not be your personal concern if they do end up with a deeper understanding, but let's not heckle the horses while their being tread out to the water. I think that people on your side of this issue would be better served by a greater reliance on the originals for evidence in these arguments, and by encouraging people to play the originals for themselves, than such statements as "F3 was marketed to the lowest common denominator." (After all, being called the lowest common denominator is a good way to make a person become antagonistic to the speaker)


Honestly, I don't read the gd forum. no comment.


Your touching on a completely different can of worms there. I don't think this needs to be a canon debate.

It's not just a different can of worms - it's a complete different bait & tackle store! Unfortunately, it seems to be the recourse of many FO3 fans who cannot be bothered to care about the previous games or the series in general. Oftentimes when those who agree with or come from my position are stating our case we are then faced with the aforementioned detour of an argument. Which was the only reason I brought it up at all. As for the rest of your post, you bring up many salient points. And I'd be interested in seeing just how many of the members posting on the GD board would actually "listen" since it is my experience thus far that the FO:NV GD boards are exactly the sort of thing which happens when you market a game to everybody. :shrug:

ARRRGHHH!!! I NEED A DELETE BUTTON!!

I think I know why. Basically, Beth's fans don't like it when they read things like "fallout 3 should have been the spinoff, F:NV should be F3." They also don't like the idea of the legitimacy of Beth as a creator of canon being questioned. Finally, Beth fans may think that fans of the original are using the completely opposite point, or, the Beth fan could be making a statement on their view on canon, as some of us are of the opinion that "Current IP owner=trumps everyone else" and would apply that principle to every fictional work (I plead guilty to this being the principle I use to evaluate canon, owning the IP is what I consider the most important thing canon-wise). Based on one of these factors, they bring up canon in order to defend Bethesda as a legitimate creator of Fallout content. The whole reason it's ever brought up is because the beth fans believe that Bethesda's legitimacy is being attacked.

Honestly, the entire "canon" issue is really about the legitimacy of bethesda as creator of Fallout materials and the legitimacy of the content Bethesda has created.