I am not a fan of FO3 but I am glad Bethesda did not reboot the series as in their fallout will be the first fallout and the originals would be no more. New Vegas feels like Fallout to me. Its alot better then FO3 imo. I am hoping New Vegas is a sign Beth will learn from it and make FO4 alot like it ie alot like the originals.

Yes the game is Fallout but does that means there has to be radiation everywhere? Because like you said in another post not even FO1 did not have radiation all over. I just wish Beth put more thought into the setting of FO3 and just added some farms and made the sky blue, have some more signs of progress oh and a better story and writing.

If people really want a fallout were it feels like the war just happened, people should start bugging beth about going back in the timeline insted of always going forward.

I couldnt say, as I've never played Warhammer or Diablo, and I havent played CoD since it's WWII days, so I'm out of touch with alot of things that arent Fallout :laugh:

You're mostly right I over simplified one point in a post about rules not making a role playing game exclusively..

Perception affected FO's more due to the table top view and targeting system needing a reliable way of handling range, good for the first games.
In FO3 only so much could be done, have spread ramped up, have V.A.T.s harder at range, this was handled by optimal gun range and barrel type instead, potato, potato.

The multipule skills from what I understand if VB had gone ahead would be streamlined any way, good or bad not a huge difference.

Player skill only matered to Aiming and hacking / lock picking, aiming I like it for hack / lockpicking I don't, even then skill still matered to accuracy.
Everything else was left in, but unfortunatly in the open no hidden checks and over simplefied.

Every table top game I've played, every roleplaying game both table and computer, most table top board games, most non rpg computer games change the rules.
Some for the better others the worse....

However
Yes it is, complain that FO3 and NV were lacking in depth and option to story which actually means something.
Complaining about minutia of charts and figures is just about wanting a clone of something old without any fresh ideas to make it easier for newer gamers to get interested.
You can bet with some certainty that FO3 / NV despite the supposed mass changes brought in more fresh fans to FO1 and 2, than a decade of loyalists debating VB in its current state.

Please don't hurt me for saying this:

I could not care less about Fallout 1 and 2, they svck now, they svcked when they came out and always will. War never changes, but video games and life does. Get out of this Fallout 1 and 2 prison guys, it may appeal to the older generation and early comers to the fallout series, but if fallout 4 stays stuck in a fallout 1 and 2 vibe it wont sell. It may sell to YOU, but every modern gamer I know hates New Vegas, but loves/loved Fallout 3.

My Uncle owns a video game shop in town and he said that New Vegas hardly sold at all and 70% of the people who bought it traded it back in! He's had to put it on sale for 15 pound, to get rid of stock.

Fallout 3 was more fun than New Vegas, maybe New Vegas is more like the originals, true to home, close to its roots whatever - but that doesn't make it a better fallout, or a better game. The more fun game is the better game.

For the record my dad bought me Fallout 1 and 2 pretty much the day they came out. I hated them, I bought Fallout 3 because I liked the post apocalyptic world, not Fallout 1 and 2.

Im going to get some power armour and hide for a bit, I might get a lot of angry conflicting opinions on this

You are entitled to your opinion.

Others may disagree. You will be missed.

Damn straight I am! But most people in this thread are shoving their opinion down each others throats! Why will i be missed?........................im not going anywhere.

Change doesn't mean better.

While I wouldn't go so far as to say Fallout 1 and 2 svck I would have to say that even though we may bicker and disagree with each other on these forums and debate over whether Fallout 3 is a "true" fallout game and if New Vegas is better and whether or not the settings make sense (and on and on and on), the truth is that the majority of the gamers out there who buy Fallout 3/New Vegas could care less about the very things the we have such strong opinons about.

Case in point: I have a good friend who bought New Vegas not too long ago, he had played Fallout 3 before and liked it so he decided to go ahead and try out New Vegas. Well when I asked him what he though of it and whether or not he liked the better storyline or the different atmosphere, this was his response "umm..it was exactly like Fallout 3." I then tried to explain to him why New Vegas's storyline was better and how it was technically closer to the originals and all he said was "the storyline didn't seem that much different to me, fight over the purifer, fight over the dam kinda the same thing, I liked the new guns though, the machine grenade launcher is awesome." In response to which all I could do was :facepalm:

Now Im not saying that everyone who buys these games thinks the same way as him (and I would be hesitant to call "his" people "Fallout fans") but the truth is that there is a good percentage of the Fallout buyers out there who don't look as hard as we do into the games and may play the games (or one game over the other) because Fallout 3 is "easier" or New Vegas "has some new cool guns" or "dude I can totally just blow peoples head off and it looks awesome."


so moral of the story...we should all ban together and stop the infighting, and as true Fallout Fans ,hunt down these degenerates... :toughninja:

... We can still have a civil war right? :woot:

I think Fallout 3's more destroyed atmosphere compared to the other games is acceptable, partially because the gameworld is smaller than previous fallout games, and only takes place in what was an urban environment and a major target. Places in Fallout and Fallout 2 were still all blown to hell the way D.C. is. For example Necropolis, The Boneyard, etc. D.C. has it worse because it was hit harder, and having big hulking Super Mutants with no one to stop them yet kind of impedes the progress of civilization back into the city. The Master had only been around for a few years during Fallout, in Fallout 3 they may have been dealing with the Mutants for well over a century.

What I think is strange in both FO3 and NV are the shells of houses around, especially in FO3. That's quite a bit of wood to be scavenged and reused after 200 years. Seems to me that could be useful for a species/society trying to rebuild. Then again, I laugh whenever I find a "great score" that hasn't been scavenged yet. There are also hammers EVERYWHERE!

:facepalm:

Ok...just a small one though, prehaps we could fight it with....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3waZ00RYAM! :dance:

Okay, let's do this :bunny:

You talk about "shoving something down the throat" yet here you are painting the F1 and F2 fan crowd with the "LOL OLD COOT NOSTALGIA DINOSAUR" color. Pretty hypocrite eh? Please stop assuming that "modern gamer" can't read or can't appreciate the dialogue depth and immersion of New Vegas or F1,2.

And yes, since NV is closer to the originals, it IS a better Fallout game(see the name? It's called FALLOUT. A racing spinoff from the series with better graphics does not make it a better game as compared to the originals) Read Gizmo's message here and you will get the point.

*Loads M72 Gauss Rifle being backed up with 120% skill in guns*

Allright, any last questions? :flamethrower:

I don't really see how FO3 can be a better game. Not just a fallout game, but a better game in general. Except for random encounters, it was inferior in most departments. Please elaborate on where FO3 was better than F:NV (I can concede certain points). As for your opinion on FO1/2, it doesn't make a difference in this argument.

FO3 is Shaft while FO NV is Jackie Brown. People who like action and machismo would be woefully disappointed by the latter. People who like depth of characters and genuine emotion like the latter. Both are inspired by the 70's Blacksploitation (can't remember the movie slang for it) productions. The style is different and they are marketed toward different demographics. Trying to compare them is like trying to compare apples to oranges because both are round, have a skin, and a sweet juicy flesh and yet they still very, very different. I guess that is why there are people who prefer one over the other because they satisfy different hungers. No amount of debate will change that.

One last question.Lets just say you bought a new house, it didn't look like your old house so it must be a worse house? NO.

I don't get it.

Just because it's not familiar / the same, does not make it worse.

I.E I like my old house but I have no room to expand, so I buy a new one it's not perfect but my new family all can fit within.

At least that's what I think he meant.

Just because Fallout 3 doesn't necessary look or feel like the originals doesn't make it a worse fallout or worse game.

Ah, makes more sense now.

Well, I don't know about you guys, but I would want to go closer to my roots rather than away. (as in moving closer to my old house.)

EDIT: Fallout 3 was'nt bad because it was'nt near the original's settings, It was bad because the story was ripped off, the companions were silly, the Vault was silly, you becoming a god was silly and etc.
Fallout 3 may be a good game to some people, but it is NOT a good Fallout game, infact it was more of a horrible.. horrible Fallout.. Like BoS, except canon.

You'd rather have the mansion than the old rotting family cottage. Not saying New Vegas is starting to rot, but its getting there and will be there if Fallout 4 is too akin to the originals.

I live in an old family home mind you, I don't mind having it close to the originals, but I would want it to involve the east (Not the lubi-dubi-Carebears in the CW, but Caesar's legion.)

1) I preferred Fallouts 3's story it was way more meaningful and immesive than New Vegas. If your trying to say it was corny, well you cant - since this is fallout and is very cliché and screwed up already, on purpose,

2) I preferred the companions they weren't all good guys neither. Especially Dogmeat he was much better than Cogmeat,

3) The vault was one of my favourite game beginnings in history, thinking about it - it is my favourite start to a game ever,

4) You become a god on New Vegas you fool, no single man can do what the character does in New Vegas; not even rambo or chuck norris... not even them.

1. While more "impressive," it was linear and cliche to me. "Omigosh, here is a crazy robot that we somehow got to work just in time, now kill the evil dark hellish knight Enclave demons who want to kill us all!"

2. True, but the companions in New Vegas felt MUCH MUCH MUCH more dear to me. At least I reloaded a save when one died.

3. It was good the first time, but I hated how the game forced a backstory on you.

4. You become a demi-god. Even at level 30, with a gauss rifle, I cannot kill a deathclaw in one shot. I have 100 energy weapons.

Eve though you become a demi-god in FNV, it is not nearly the level of "godliness" that the Lone Wanderer had.