That's not necessarily true... I managed to try the originals and personnally I felt that neither F3 or Vegas felt like the originals... F3 was a little, tiny bit closer:

Feeling like old games:

Vegas: 5.6000003% F3: 5.60000007%

Please turn to page 421; The Master's Plan students!

:read:

Is everyone there? Good! now recite the Masters life then speak the 10 Commandmants of Fallout..

"Thou Master wast a lesser being before then, He wast but a Man, bent and broken, then thou holy FEV VATS transformed him into thy Master, Thenst hest enemy the 'Vault Dweller' hadst blownest him upth withth a nuclear weapon of thoust holy flame.." -


1. "Thou shalt not insult the holy series witheth thy exception of fallout 3.."
2. "Thou shalt have FEV Vats witheth thy exception of fallout 3's unholy imposter VATs."
3. "Thou shalt steal."
4. "Thou shalt useth thee bottlecaps, and thy coins to buyeth ye weaponry to blowest thou enemy away with thy holy gunpowdered bullets and thy crude explosives."
5. "Thou shalt killeth thine enemies."
6. "Thou shalt not insulteth Fallout, and Fallout 2."
7. "Thou shalt not ripeth off the stories of thy holy Fallout, Fallout 2."
8. "Thou shalt not wanteth play-after-endings."
9. "Thou shalt maketh thou decent DLC and Stories, and haveth good NPCs"
10. "Thou shalt maketh thy series decent again."

Those who break those rules... will be STONED!

EDIT: @Above post: How in hell does FO3 feel more like the originals when NV is made by the remnants MAKERS of the originals?

I don't feel satisfied with my earlier post.
So I'll edit it :

Well it's how RPGs have to work when you introduce significant shooter elements if you want to retain any pretensions of being an RPG. It's not how an actual RPG system should work.

I agree with the statement. Fallout 3 was a lot more depressing & it did feel like a world after Nuclear warfare. New Vegas is too happy and I really miss those dark skies from Fallout 3.

Thy use of the word "thy" is incorrect (edit: except in Commandment 4, where it actually works, but instead you use "thou" incorrectly (and on several other occasions))
(edit2: also, in the same commandment, you use "thee" incorrectly. I svck at grammatical terms, but it's what makes "she" to "her", "we" to "us" that makes "thou" to "thee". Modern english it's replaced with "you".)
:geek:

Nice commandments, though!<3
:geek:

I think I meant to use Thine.. not sure though.

I think you meant a simple "the". "Thy" and "thine" are both possessive. The sentence "then thou holy FEV VATS transformed him into thy Master", for example, would be in modern english "then you holy FEV VATS transformed him into your Master". I think. I'm no professor in middle english grammar.

Oh well, Whats done be done.

also Your master is supposed to say that.

It seems less about the games and more about the company to those that are arguing pro one or the other.

I.E "NV is better because it has some of the origanol dev's, and uses assets from VB"..
Since FO was mostly Chris Taylor's and Tim Cains baby as the progenitors of FO1, which in turn was interplay's wastleland redux.
I say theirs would be the word of Lore god not anyone elses, and as Tim Cain has mentioned in an interview he wished progress in FO not copying the old ideas.

VB has from what I've seen got only the slightest trace in NV, so by that reckoning ( which may be wrong ), even the dev's on NV wished something new than rehashing old ideas.

Against FO3.
Tim Cain as posted above felt it was more a pastiche and should have tried something new,
I reckon however old die hards still would have disowned it if not more so.
Bethesda went at that time through several processes one of which was stream lining gameplay for a more modern market, compare Morrowind and Oblivion for an example.
As we've seen over the years they're still in buisness so it worked, now they may be looking to add back the darker realism to their settings.
However we still need to see TES V for that.

Many seem more interested in looking at minor details and picking at snipits that they disagree with;
No one on the extreme ends of both sides has yet made a truely valid point.
Rather getting bogged down in one phrase or opinion within a larger post without any backing to it.
Rather like a forum of yahoos screaming at over each other.

By whose standard?

I have seen valid points from both extremes; the foremost being that if it were true to the series intents, it would not sell as well ~and it wouldn't.
*That doesn't change the fact that its still wrong.

Consider ... ah, consider the Transformers franchise brought to the big screen. The series was always about the machine agenda, and featured conflict between the mechanical protagonists and their evil counterparts. Humans were in the way, and played the stereotyped part of, "woman who twists her ankle".

Once on the big screen the style gets mangled and twisted into a boy's "growing up" story, where the main protagonist is him, and most of the film centers on humanity's reactions to the aliens. This was done to engage a casual audience. It strays miles from the original format (there was a Transformers film prior to Michael Bay's blurr-fest).

Right or wrong, Imagine a film more like the original, but with modern day computer graphics, (and a lack of Prime saying, "My Bad"); would it be valid to say that the series has profited much off the casual consumer, at the expense of the series fan (just like Fallout 3)?