More the latter than the former. As it is a fact that, if they wanted, Beth could create content that would be considered legit by the old fans that now feel displeased.

I do not understand why you feel so strongly about the opinion of these people in GD. Frankly, you make pretty much the same argument as a lot of Elder Scrolls veterans on the other forum make about Oblivion.

At the very least, luckily people like Bethesda still show their interest and appreciation, or this FO:NV would never even have been made.

Riiiiight, assuming there no other taker, which is very unlikely. Another company would have bought the rights if Bethesda were to come late at the auction site.

Can i add a little something?

Imagine if FNV was done using the same technology and graphics of 1 & 2.

Now imagine if FO3 was done using the same graphics and technology.

I'm enjoying this FO3 vs FNV argument IMMENSELY. We elitists finally have the upper hand, because unlike Oblivion vs Morrowind debates, FO3 has virtually nothing to defend itself with over FNV, save for "Feel of the wasteland" and "It's my opinion is all" arguments.

Though I agree with that last sentiment, I'm a bit at loss at what you're looking after with first 2 comparisons. While I think I would've enjoyed a Fallout New Vegas somewhat more had it been made with the old technology (gameplay mechanics) and graphics (not so much with this, but nearly anyway), I'm pretty sure everyone (apart from some very, very minor perpetrators) would've wanted a game without any "next gen" tweaks and some improvements to the gameplay.

I was saying that FO3 would be nothing without the shiny graphics. Edit: A harsh statement i know, but well placed skeletons wouldn't cut it as a game premise with the old technology.

FNV on the other hand would still be awesome if done with outdated technology. Edit: I might go as far as saying it would be a BETTER game with the old technology.

Oh, now I get it - and agree.

I have no frustration about you being right, because you aren't. Maybe in your own mind you are and you can be anything you like there, but not out here. Making fallacious arguments and then backing them up with statements that basically say "Nope, I'm right. You're wrong. DUUUUUUUR" isn't gaining you any ground with anybody. The majority of the arguments you have are either won through attrition (the poster ceasing to care because talking to you is like talking to a brick wall) or by getting the thread locked because you goaded another group of people into an F1/F2 debate.



It's old because it makes sense. By your logic, the following titles/shows are not actually what they claim to be:

- World of Warcraft isn't Warcraft, because it isn't like Warcraft 1-3, despite the fact it is based on the history and lore of the RTS series and the canon changes will carry forward to any future releases.
- Chronocross isn't a sequel to Chronotrigger, because it isn't like Chronotrigger
- Star Trek TNG is nothing like Star Trek original, despite it being the same universe and seeing crossovers in the canon

Actually, we could make quite the list of things that are of similar age to Fallout and then talk about how they aren't like their originals. Here's a fun idea, let's talk about how Fallout 2 isn't Fallout because it isn't like Fallout 1. Here are a few of my favourites:

- Spirit visions
- A ghost
- Talking plant
- Chess playing scorpion
- Dialogue options that say, "Can I have some experience for this?"
- Any other weird "for the hell of it" addition that had to be retconned later

That is just off the top of my head, you also have:

- Starring in a porm film
- [censored] a woman
- Being [censored] by a super mutant

Complete change in atmosphere and humour. I felt more like I was playing a 13 year old's diary fantasy than a game. I'm sure you will give those a pass though. It's all in the eye of the beholder. Frankly, I might have appreciated playing it more if I had played it when I was 15 and not 27. Back when immature things such as the above may have interested me.



I won't have any of your brittle strawman arguments. This example would be valid if on release day instead of shipping an actual game for a pre-order, you received a box with an abacus and a picture of a red shoe. If you want an anology that actually makes sense:

Let's say I own a restaurant. I call the restaurant Fallout. The restaurant looks a certain way, we have certain songs on the jukebox and we have a specific menu. People like to eat at Fallout. I update the store, it's still Fallout. Except now we're hosting kids parties all the time and some of the paintings on the wall have changed from pictures of fruit to topless women. Some people don't like the new restaurant. The menu is mostly the same, we've changed some of the items and added a few combos. Juke box is playing the same old music. I sell the store, the new owner renovates and tiles the floor. The wallpaper is changed. They take down the pictures of topless women and put up pictures of boats. The menu is still mostly the same, but again some items are adjusted, added and removed. There is a new chef. The Jukebox plays a completely new set of music. People complain because they don't like the look of the new restaurant. People complain because their favourite dish is no longer on the menu. To them, it isn't Fallout anymore. More new customers are acquired than have left because of the changes. Random individual on forum claims the restaurant is no longer Fallout. Fallout owner chuckles and wipes his brow with a 100 dollar bill.

New owner opens up a chain and I become a licensee of the second location. Second store looks the same as the first one with the matching renovations. I put on the old music I use to have at my old store. I try to add as many old things as I can within the restrictions of my licensee agreement. I even put some of the old items back on the menu. I get old customers and I get new customers, but not all from both. I get enough business that my store is comparable to the first store. Both locations have a Fallout sign out front.



It's the model that all future releases can be judged by, it is not the model that determines whether Fallout 3 is Fallout or not. You can judge it all day and I'm sure you could also post a 20 page essay on why one is better than the other or what the differences are. That doesn't make it not Fallout, that is blind fan boyism. It is only not fallout in your mind. If in the next 5 years Bethesda sells the rights to... I don't know, EA. EA makes an MMO or they decide to take a stab at F5 and end up making something closer to Dragon Age. Will that not be Fallout? Of course it will be, even if I hate it.

These kind of debates are like those of religion and sports teams. People who have nothing to do with the actual creation of the material being criticized, positively or negatively, somehow feel that THEY are a part of that material or it is a part of THEM. This results in the chaotic fan forums where people can not discuss a product without feeling that the debate is also about a part of themselves. It is primitive, but it is human nature. FO3 never felt very "falloutish" to me, but it was still an enjoyable game. It did a great job telling stories through visual cues and level design. It was incredibly easy, and shallow in the actual mechanics of playing a "role".

I think too many people nowadays think of role-playing games as building up stats until you hit max and then you win the game. Traditionally it was about picking a play style and gradually expanding upon it and refining the experience so that by the end you had a unique adventure through the world. This could be done through dialogue and/or combat. Think of D&D games like Baldur's Gate v. the Final Fantasy franchise.

First take combat in consideration:
In FO3 your character starts with a role, but can also do EVERYTHING else at an almost competent level. Upon reaching the end of the game your character most likely can do EVERYTHING possible and thus does not fill a role.
Next think about the dialogue and interaction with NPCs:
Your character can make good or bad choices that can restrict possible event outcomes early on. By the end of the game each area has independent perceptions of you regardless if you commit genocide in another town or save them and everyone you encounter can react in the same way with certain karma perks. There is no refinement here that takes your character on a unique journey.... nothing you do has any real consequence on future interactions.

In FO NV there is a return to the more traditional style of role-playing where you start a character with certain traits that promote a particular play-style and you can refine that style. Trying to do everything will make your character "gimped" in any specific style of combat, but you can still form strategies to utilize skills in concert to achieve the desired goals. The character dialogue and interaction is much the same way. Early on you can choose a certain methodology for dealing with these interactions and as you progress through the game they can be somewhat redirected or you can establish the definitive culmination of your original choices. How you decide to interact will make alter how other areas interact with you and there is no possibility of having all of the NPCs respond favorably upon encountering them.

There are shades of gray to this of course, but these are the fundamental differences which I feel construct the core of the debate. How people feel about them is not particularly relevant. They are just purely different styles for games and FO3 tends to appeal to a greater fan base because it is easier to jump into and complete. The experience can be more enjoyable because you do not have to imagine a character model and try to make it a reality. The game is a "sandbox" in every way and has all of the charms that come with it. FO NV is in ways more restrictive in how you can proceed through the game based on your decisions in character model and interactions, but it allows the players to pick an approach to the game and flesh it out so that by the end your character is a representation of specialization in that play style. You can make a generalist character of course, but that limits capabilities and opportunities as well.

I know I can only speak bad English and my vocabulary svcks, but never-the-less this concludes my 2 caps on the issue.

Now everyone sit back, relax, crack open an ice cold Nuka-Cola and enjoy the games!


*EDIT* I was wrong, everyone is not debating the core of the game but rather the map lay-outs and plot details.... my bad.

I actually made counter points on page three in response to the OP but it was quickly buried by this F1/F2 debate. We could discuss things like how Caesar's Legion is shallow and under-developed. Hell, we could talk about how Caesar's Legion doesn't make sense at all. We could also discuss how the myriad of quests that are available, the introduction of factions and having three times the dialogue has lead to a buggy mess of:

- Quests that simply do not work
- Quests that were laid out in the most awkward/repetitive way imaginable
- Dialogue that doesn't make any sense, has spelling errors or is worded like it came out of a 7 year old's show and tell project.

You can't preclude an argument for F3 against NV because people have mentioned that it's "in their opinion". Even if I laid out every single frustrating, tedious and underwhelming experience from NV in a post, if you liked NV you will either flat out disagree or say "Yeah, but..." and tell me why you enjoy the game. It will be your opinion. Actually, I could probably bag on either version if I wanted to and just post a big list of flaws. At the end, what matters is whether I enjoyed it, which is where an opinion comes in.

It seemed like the original point of this thread was to discuss why some people liked Fallout 3 over NV, but it quickly turned into an e-peen waving contest. I think I've seen enough peen for today.

Just to make a general, non-contentious statement: any Fallout fan who entered the series with 3 or New Vegas should absolutely go back and play the first two to see what the fuss is about. Not only are they interesting games (I'm not a fan of 2 myself, but some will absolutely love it), but to do so will help put this debate in a bit of context, and will help you see why FO3 is the black sheep of the series to the old-school fans. Personally, I like the black sheep of the family best, but that's just me, I'm not making any claims to objective truth here. And even those who consider 3 an abomination would surely concede that in encouraging more people to go back and check out the originals it has done more good than harm for the series.

An excellent point! You get +1 internets.

I'll concede Caesars legion is a bit shallow, but it's still more fleshed out than say, Talon Company!

The bugs, while annoying as hell, don't hide the fantastic game hidden beneath them. Come back a year from now when a lot of these bugs are patched and we'll have another argument against FNV mooted.

A couple of spelling errors aren't so bad, Shakespeare's manuscripts had spelling mistakes in them.

I don't know what dialogue your reading, because i'm loving the dialogue i'm presented with. Edit: Do you mean what responses the player is optioned with? Or what the NPC's have to say?

The NV equivalent of Talon Company is the fiends. I couldn't tell you a damn thing about the fiends, other than they like chems and Moto-runner has horns on his head. Maybe I'm crazy and if you're evil there is a lot more depth there, but I couldn't find it. Talon Company was also kind of a "filler" enemy and that's something I can also concede. But Caesar's legion was suppose to be an important faction. The powder gangers also seemed shallow, but I have a feeling there might be more there if you sided with them.

There is plenty of really good dialogue in NV. There's plenty of 'great' dialogue too. I wouldn't argue that it's worse than Fallout 3 and that hasn't ever been a point I've tried to push. But after having played 70 hours in the game (I am a side quest nut), I can safely say that some of the "off the beaten path" quests were not QA'd very well or were just sloppily constructed. The most recent quest I can think of took place at Camp McCarran, where I had to investigate who was leaking information to Caesar's Legion. Aside from the quest itself being broken (you couldn't disarm the bomb on the monorail, even if you disarmed it, the monorail still exploded) I encountered dialogue like the below:

"See if you can discover his identity. Report back and I'll have him arrested. Report back when you've got it and I'll have him arrested."

This must have happened to me at least a dozen times, where the wording was just... weird. Awkward. Sometimes they would repeat the same word three times in two sentences. The writing and dialogue is often quite lauded. I whole heartedly agree that things like the main plot and a lot of the important quests are fantastically written (compared to Fallout 3), but I can find all kinds of side quests that just seem terrible... and there is like, double the quests?



I understand what you're saying and in the same way I could list all kinds of ridiculous Fallout 3 bugs... but that for me, didn't hide what I found to be a fantastic game. If the history of Fallout 3 is any indication, these quest bugs aren't likely to see a lot of fixes though. New Vegas, because it tried to implement so much quest/dialogue/faction wise, has many, many more bugs than Fallout 3. There is no way they will ever address all of these. In many instances, even addressing them will lead to other problems as many quests are linked to both the overall plot and other factions.

I want to mention again that I don't hate Fallout: New Vegas. The whole point of this thread was discussion on why one might like Fallout 3 more. I actually like Fallout: New Vegas. It is my second favourite, very close to Fallout 3. We're on all kinds of tangents here.

I don't mind that the fiends don't have a story, it bothers me a little that they have such expensive hardware for desperate drug addicts. Like you said though, evil characters might get a better understanding.

I finished that Camp McCarran quest

I'm trying to meet you halfway and say something good about FO3, i HONESTLY can't think of many redeeming qualities, outside of the "Feel" at certain points in the game (leaving the vault for the first time and seeing that abandoned town was pretty good), it's level of detail and it's addictiveness.

The thing that bothers me is the elitists who try to justify their opinion by calling it "objective" and saying anything else is "subjective" and ridicule whatever disagrees with them, when the fact of the matter is it's a matter of preference either way.

I prefer Bethesda's game design, and Fallout 3, to that of games like the OG Fallout games because of what I look for in an RPG. An RPG to me isn't about stats and skills and dice rolls, an RPG is about -role playing-, and as an actor and a writer, playing a role has nothing to do with dice rolls and everything to do with character development, and making decisions. Bethesda's game design allows me to do that better than any other game design I've seen because you are a person in a new world, and you exist in that world in whatever way you see fit. I build a concept for a character, enter the world, and react to the world the way my character would. Whether that is how I interact with an NPC via dialogue, or how I react to a group of baddies and my combat methods of taking them out, it's all about ME reacting to the world, and making decisions.

I'll be honest, I'm not interested in playing Fallout or Fallout 2, because they are not designed with a gaming style that I want to play. I want open world, not linear. I don't get into linear games very often. The most "linear" type of game that I play are BioWare games, because at least then you're still given choices via character interactions.

Sure, Bethesda's game design isn't flawless, there are certain things that I'd like to see be improved upon, but the fact remains that Bethesda's way of making games (the Morrowind / Oblivion / Fallout 3 mold) is how I want my RPG's to be made, and I certainly don't appreciate being ridiculed, called the "lowest common denominator", my opinion belittled, or otherwise insulted simply for the fact that I prefer one version of Fallout over another.

Look, man, you can do this ad nauseum. And it's kind of awesome that you have the desire to continue defending your love of a game which is basically the inbred stepchild of the series, but it doesn't change anything. Fallout 3 just isn't Fallout. It's Bethesda's attempt at serving Fallout flavor to a broad audience. Fallout 3 is a flavor packet in a Ramen soup of misinterpretation. The argument really never gets deeper than this, no matter how hard you attempt to make it so. I don't have the patience which Rosh or many of the old line had to pick your posts apart. I don't want to. I don't care about that part of this whole thing. But saying that Fallout 3 is a valid Fallout game is hilarious to me**. Consider me the perpetual giggle to the embarrassingly maudlin drama you're screening at your house. Sorry, but I just can't take FO3 fans seriously.

**I mean, can you honestly read this and come up with valid arguments against it? http://www.nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=47347

That is the bug... you can disarm the bomb in the air vents and it will even pop up a message that says, "Tell Corporal Hsu that you've disarmed the bomb" and the monorail will explode anyway. The only way around it is to pick pocket the Captain in question, tell Hsu and then disarm the bomb. I couldn't do that, as there was no way for me to do so. Once I entered the tower (even hidden) he would immediately turn to me and initiate dialogue, which forced me to kill him. But that's neither here nor there probably, it's just one bug on top of a stack of bugs.

It's ok, you don't have to even meet me half way... I shouldn't even be posting. This thread was originally about why people might like Fallout 3 more than NV. There is a lot more to it than which title has better story/dialogue than the other. There's more to be factored in than that. And it's ok that somebody likes one more than the other. The only reason I end up in these discussions is because of this "Fallout 3 players are stupid" idea that seems so prevalent, especially amongst old school fans. The condescending notion that because an individual could possibly have enjoyed Fallout 3 and considered it better than Fallout 1/2, they are an idiot, is bothersome. It is easy to seem like you are in the wrong, when you are on the defensive end of an attack. It is also easy to seem like you are right, if you are surrounded by people who agree with you (NMA). I honestly don't care that much which Fallout a person prefers, only when that preference must be presented with an attitude of pretentious superiority.

Yay, more of the ridiculous condescension and jealous elitism that's rendering any attempt at a meaningful discussion utterly futile.

Everyone's talking at cross-purposes, no-one's actually engaging with one another's arguments, the positions are entrenched, neither side is listening to what the other is saying, this whole conversation is a circular argument leading nowhere. Completely pointless.



Thing is, that falls down if you don't buy into the view that Fallouts 1 and 2 are some kind of gaming nirvana.

from said review:



If you don't much care for the original games, this is pretty much the only pertinent point.

edit:



^
This.

We certainly could do it ad nauseam. And I could debate you until one of us died from starvation or boredom. Fallout 3 just isn't Fallout, to you. In 10 years time, it will still be Fallout 3. And in that sense, I never needed to have this debate at all. For all your writhing and whining about it, Fallout 3 will always be remembered as a part of the series. You can't change it, unless you're a closet Emmett Brown. And there isn't much embarrassment here, outside reading most of the posts you make on this forum about how much Fallout 3 svcks or how awesome Fallout 1/2 are. If they are that awesome, surely they do not need an emissary such as yourself.

And yes, I honestly could come up with valid arguments against that link you posted. If you read the comments, someone already made a few valid arguments.

It is easy to seem right, when you spend most of your time within a community that agrees with you. That way you can all fist bump and pat each other on the back in a self-reassurance that what you think is 'correct'. In the greater scheme of things, you are the minority. Your seniority on the Fallout series is not a license to determine what is or isn't Fallout and it also isn't a license to determine what is/isn't a good game or what can be enjoyed by another person.

Curse you roleplayers!!!

I have to concede that FO3 might work out well for some people who roleplay. Its not EMPTY and HOLLOW to some, its an open canvas for your own story.

I max out all my stats, reject any limitations (aside from good or evil) and try pry every secret from the world i can. I am not ashamed of being this type of player, i consider myself a perfectionist.

Read the link the Whiskey Rose gave to the NMA article, it mirrors my opinion of FO3 perfectly.

I think you misunderstand my point, so I'll elaborate a bit. Fallout 3, objectively, had a story that was poorly written. It was full of holes, one dimensional characters, and horrible dialogue. I can say that as a fact, disagreeing is not 'subjective', it's just wrong. That isn't to say that one cannot enjoy the story of Fallout 3, I certainly enjoyed it, but it was not 'good'. My enjoying it does not make the story any better objectively.

To use a different example: I HATE Citizen Kane. I find it to boring to the point of being almost unwatchable. That is how I, subjectively, feel about the movie. However, objectively, Citizen Kane is one of the best movies ever made, it revolutionized the way a scene could be shot and the way a story could be told. It also had what is likely the first great twist ending ever put to film. For a reversed example, I loved Spider-Man 3. Subjectively, it was a very enjoyable film for me to watch. Objectively, that film was a complete train wreck of bad acting and directing piled onto a hilariously bad screenplay... and to me, at least, all of these objectively bad parts made an entertaining whole.


Er.. you're projecting that onto Fallout 3, it isn't actually present. If you mean that since there is so much nothing you can let your imagination take over and run with it, that's fine, but it isn't a plus on the side of the game, it's a plus on the side of your imagination.

Also note that I haven't called Fallout 3 a bad game, I've just pointed out the flaws it has and proposed that New Vegas fixed them.



I actually haven't mentioned Fallout 1 or 2 once in the thread, that I'm aware of. I'm comparing Fallout 3 and New Vegas, as those are the only two entries in the series that I've played.

I couldn't because he would initiate dialogue, even with a stealth boy and 100 sneak. He'd just stand there, waiting for me to come into line of sight. I could go on about it but some of the bugs in this particular quest are already in the wiki. I'm also done the game, so it doesn't matter that much now anyway. I can overlook when quests are bugged or dialogue is bad, just it's a cumulative experience over the course of the playthrough. People had some of the same problems in Fallout 3.




Hey and that's all I want. Nobody has to change which game they like most, long as nobody is making someone else out to be an idiot for their preference. I'll buy you a pint and we can chillax and talk about how awesome things that are in New Vegas, sufficed you don't want to give me a special helmet because of which one I like more.

Er, what? What would I be jealous of? I have 4 out of 5 games in the Fallout franchise which I consider to be "Fallout" game which I love and enjoy. 1 bad egg doesn't make me jealous (I am NOT counting P.O.S.).



I never said that, nor will I ever. This just isn't the point. The point is that Fallout 3 is a bad "Fallout" game. It may be something else, as you've noted in that quote below, but it is a bad "Fallout" game.



Ha. Or to most fans of the originals, and to you yourself. I don't see why you keep denying this when you've already admitted as much. You've said in so many words that you don't like Fallout, you like Fallout 3. And that's fine. But Fallout 3 isn't "Fallout", it's Bethesda's cheap imitation of Fallout. I don't care how its remembered. At some point we're all going to die, the sun will burn out, and nothing will be left to be remembered. Right now though? All I can tell you is that Fallout 3 is nothing more than a Bethesda game with bargain-basemant "Fallout!" wrapping. I'll post this again just because it says everything about Fallout 3 in a few short words:

If Fallout 3 isn't Fallout, then I guess CastleVania: Symphony of the Night isn't CastleVania. I guess Metal Gear Solid isn't Metal Gear. I guess Super Mario 64 isn't Super Mario Bros. I guess World of WarCraft isn't WarCraft. I'm sure the list of game franchises that have drastically changed over the years can span on forever.

pandabearparade, no I didn't misinterpret your point at all. You are completely confirming what I am saying - you think that you solely are allowed to determine what is "objectively" good and bad. The fact of the matter is, whichever game has a better story between Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas (and I can't accurately assess that as I haven't played deeply enough into Fallout: New Vegas yet to judge it's story), we are talking about video games here and "objectively", neither of these games are going to have masterpieces of stories.

I would say that at least Fallout 3's story is more creative because it's a new breathe of fresh air from the completely played out "I'm out for revenge" archetype of story.

While you say that Spiderman 3 is "objectively" bad and poorly written, I would say that "objectively" it's certainly no Citizen Kane, as you compared it to, but it's certainly not the "train wreck" that you make it out to be. It's certainly no literary masterpiece, but it's not quite Mystery Science Theatre 3000 bad either.

So basically all you're doing is taking a very misguided approach to the concept of "objectivity" vs. "subjectivity" to inaccurately play the "objective" card to try to make your case seem unarguable. That is nothing more than an elitist cop out.

And Whiskey Rose, your "I just can't take Fallout 3 fans seriously" again is nothing more than a condescending, offensive, and insulting attitude. I'm sorry that Fallout 3 went in a creative direction that you don't agree with. I've watched many of my favorite video game franchises take creative turns that I hate as well. Some of them I mentioned at the top of this post: CastleVania and Metal Gear specifically. I have been a fan of these franchises since the original American releases on NES: CastleVania, CastleVania 2: Simon's Quest, and CastleVania 3: Dracula's Curse. Since then, these games have become nothing more than bastardized anime's that have lost all of the charm that I loved about the original 3. But it's a simple solution: I don't like what CastleVania has become, so instead of sitting around getting pissed off all the time about it, I have just simply left the franchise. I'm not going to be arrogant enough to believe that my vision of CastleVania is the only "correct" vision of CastleVania. That franchise has become something else now, and my vision of it has been left behind. I will always have an NES, and emulators to play the original CastleVania games if I so choose, and the people that like the new direction can play theirs. The same goes for Metal Gear, which has changed drastically since the original NES Metal Gear, which to this day remains one of my favorite games. I find some of the newer Metal Gear Solid games to be convoluted with anime garbage, but just like CastleVania I am not arrogant enough to believe that what I think Metal Gear should be is the -only- appropriate vision.

Unfortunately, you do have that arrogant attitude about yourself. I'm sorry for you that Fallout has become something completely different than what you remember with Fallout and Fallout 2, and I'm sorry that Fallout 3 was not an enjoyable Fallout game for you, to the point that you would call it a "inbred stepchild". But that doesn't give you the right to belittle people who do like Fallout 3, and you are in no position to claim as fact that one game is superior to another. With Fallout 3 being my favorite game ever, I certainly wouldn't belittle someone for preferring the Fallout / Fallout 2 style of game. I can say, however, that due to your attitude and the attitude of many other OG Fallout fans, I am beginning to resent Fallout, Fallout 2, and their fans, and I'm even beginning to resent Fallout: New Vegas to a certain extent as well.

But I won't apologize for becoming a fan of the series through Fallout 3, I will not apologize for supporting Bethesda's take on the series, as well as RPG gaming in general, and I will not tolerate someone implying that I am somehow less of a gamer, less of an RPG gamer, or that somehow my opinion means less simply because I had never even -heard of- the Fallout series before Bethesda's installment.