Actually, it does.

Since Fallout 1 IS Fallout it means that any sequel that is the closest to it is the next best Fallout game.
And Fallout 3 was nothing at all like Fallout 1.

Lol, nice one.. XD That gave a good New Year chuckle - as did those Ghoul go-go dancers

"Gimmie some sugar baby.." "Mmm, if I wasn't working now.."



I'm impressed with both and love NV (now the blasted thing is fixed) - it is more akin to the Fallout World of previous games, but they are complementary.. Have a great 2011 everyone, and remember to "Duck and Cover"!

No it doesn't, that's your opinion. Your opinion is not fact. I thought Fallout 3 was a better Fallout; im wrong nor right. A sequel is the next instalment in a series, just because you didn't like it doesn't mean its not a sequel !!!! I mean what the hell? Are you serious!?

Actually it's not opinion, Fallout 1 is Fallout. That's the fact. It's the true original which started the series to begin with. If it's the best "game" is totally debatable but if it's the best "Fallout game" most true Fallout game is not up for discussion since it is the big bang of the fallout universe.
Without it, none of the others would ever have been made.

Hmm I guess calling it the most true Fallout game would be better though...
So I revise my statement.
Fallout 3 is not the most true Fallout game.
Fallout 1 is.


Definition time!

Sequel:
1. Something that follows; a continuation.
2. A literary, dramatic, or cinematic work whose narrative continues that of a preexisting work.
3. A result or consequence. See Synonyms at effect.
*
1. anything that follows from something else; development
2. a consequence or result
3. a novel, play, etc., that continues a previously related story

Hmm, Enclave?


I love being serious.

Ok seperate the discussions into sub catagories.

1. The rules have been tweeked, D&D and GW have done this even going so far as changing completely the "game"..
However Planescape, Forgotten realms, Dark sun, Ravenloft, Warhammer, WH 40K all are still the same universe their lore has evolved not changed.
Same with every FO game.

2. The view and graphics have changed,
Many reasons why the previous title holders to FO collapsed was due to infighting and trying to implement 3d when they were unfamilliar with it ( see Torn ).
So in todays market good odds are on overhauled if not direct fps for FO given any company owning the rights.

3. The feel has changed, sic evolved is the right phrase.
FO1 a brilliant game with a strong story, but short and quite linear hampered by a time limit.
FO2 again brilliant ramped up the difficulty, made in jokes central, added more advlt content expanded on the quite often two choices you got in 1, lost focus however compared to 1.
Tactics, again brilliant, unique interface made things easier to use and perform while playing dropped some skills tweaked others, lacked in conversations.
FO3, copied the base story of the first two, stuck to a more simple two solution at best result, however made the game truely explorable and easy to use.
NV, Tweaked the FO3 game and added more story element but in away to appease both sides of purists, and got kicked in the teeth for it ( for shame ).

So saying any one game is like the the others is wrong, each is unique.

So now you want to argue wheter the older games were Fallout or not? Seems like you are kinda losing it here. :unsure2:



*High-five-pat-back-cookie-vanilla-ice-cream**

The story in NV was one that needed to be told, and I'm glad they told it. We finally got to see what happened to the NCR, BOS, etc... and some of the ideas in Van Buren finally got to see the light of day. I was actually surprised that Bethesda gave Obsidian the chance to tell it. Whether you like it or not, people who played Fallout 3 first are newcomers to the Fallout series, and aren't exactly in the best position to say what is or isn't really Fallout. They haven't done the time. Doesn't mean they don't have an opinion, but it does give their opinion a touch less gravitas, when they argue for something they really know little about.

When I heard Bethesda had bought the rights for Fallout, I was pessimistic. On the one hand, I wanted a new Fallout game, but I just knew it wouldn't be the same. So I bought Oblivion, and played it, to see what this new Fallout might be like. Over that Oblivion playthrough, I came to terms with Bethesda. I actually liked it. And my opinion began to shift away from the NMA crowd. They were determined to hate Fallout 3 almost from the beginning. Fallout 3 wasn't the same, but it was still a blast. I could see where the developers tried to stay true. I could tell they loved the series. But it was a different set of minds at work, with different senses of humor, and drama, and whatnot; there was no chance it would be the same.

Time passes, and NV comes out, and now people who have only played Fallout 3 are claiming NV doesn't feel like Fallout anymore. Go figure. When in truth, they have gone back to a story that was around before Fallout 3 ever came out, in fact, was meant to be Fallout 3, expanded on it, and merged the old games with the new, and I think they did a bang-up job on it.

Gabriel is right. Fallout 1 was the big bang for Fallout, the one all the others are based on. If TES fans can care about their lore, then so can we. Fallout 1 should be the baseline for all other Fallouts not Fallout 3. Fallout 3 was revolutionary, in that it changed the appearance and gameplay of the series, and I like the new look and feel, and it created a whole new location and it's lore, but it isn't the Fallout to end all Fallouts.

This pretty much sums up how I feel as well.

Fallout 3 is ultimately Bethesda's interpretation of the Fallout world, it's not a bad interpretation per se but it's not the take that defined the series. If you really want to argue what is or isn't Fallout then you have to have a firm grasp of the whole picture, not just a small fraction of it. Ultimately Fallout 3 alone was and still is just one small part of an already established series that had three installments prior (let's pretend that BoS never happened), and plenty of planned or in development installments such as Black Isle's Fallout 3 and Tactics 2. Fallout wasn't new when Bethesda got their hands on it, it wasn't unknown, in RPG circles the Fallout series was already well respected which is I'm sure one of the reasons Bethesda wanted to make a sequel in the first place.

Bethesda didn't do as horrible a job as some folks like to claim, but ultimately the truest Fallout game is the original... that's just the way it is. It's the installment that defined everything about the series, and it's the installment that every subsequent release has been based off of, including Fallout 3. New Vegas is, I think, the first Fallout game since the original that actually feels like it belongs in the world. NV really nailed the setting, something even Fallout 2 failed to do in my honest opinion.

High-Five.
:mohawk:

Lots of those "plot holes" werent plotholes, and NV has the same issues as lots of them.
Though fallout had plot issues, BoS, Dad, The enclclave,project purity, the vault... Tenpenny and Moriarty coming over from Europe...

Those were all plotholes from Fallout 3.

Beautifull and neutral, bravo well put, written and thought.

I know that. But crap like "exploding cars" are in fallout 3, same for the 10mm weapons. Most of the crap listed didnt go into plot holes, just crap that wasnt accurate, crap that NV suffers from too.

True, I think that they just accidently reused some old things (Like the cannibal fridges.).

......or Obsidian, like Bethesda, thinks that those additions were fine and decided to use them in their own game :rolleyes:

I really don't think they "accidently" reused them

I wouldnt say exploding cars wasnt accurate. If you leave a car with a nuclear reactor in the back without proper maintanence, you can't tell be the reactor isn't going to be unstable, well, you can say that, but then I'd have to hit you with a stick. :poke:

well, it is a desert. theres not much out there to see the collateral damage (just a couple broken houses)
and new vegas was outright completly protected from mr. house.

basically, in fallout 3 there was plenty of things to see that something blew up. (there was a whole city)
new vegas... not so much, just a couple irradiated spots, maybe a couple ruins, some mutated creatures here and there.

Riiiight. So if bethesda dose it its on purpose and wrong, obsidian is forgiven because its an accident though... The fanboyism is strong in this one.
So a fewof that list, like bullets not killing people if hit in the head, exploding cars, and people living in crappy housing are just accidents. Hmm seems obsidian overlooked quite a bit.
The vault security thing, well here you can take out securitrons with the right stuff, and the poweder gangers at a low level. You cant mix reality and gameplay, and again most of those werent even linked to the plot, they arent plotholes. Some are repeated. I wouldnt give a damn if they wer correct, and not dragging realism/gameplay into it.

I don't see any fanboyism, the cannibal fridges were probably mistakenly used seeing they are in the most random places next to normal fridges/stoves.

I never said everything that Bethesda did was automatically alright if Obsidian used it, I never said that the Cars were'nt intentional, I used the fridges as one example.
I don't recall anyone ever bringing Realism/gameplay so, I don't see your point there.

Prehaps we did misunderstand your statement Boradam but then please claify your post:



We were talking about the exploding cars here and it seemed to me that you were saying that Obsidian's inclusion of the exploding cars were not intentional and i.e. Obsidian was "okay" and it was Bethesda who had the problem.

Yeah, sorry, I meant some things were'nt intentional, but others were.

Such as the Cannibal things, they were in buildings where all the other fridges were regular, along with the stoves and just one had strange meat in it.

I don't think Obsidian is automatically making anything odd from FO3 an accident, but somethings were.

"For some reason, your skill in Small Guns make bullets more powerful. (That's not how guns work Bethesda)."

No, but it's how skill-driven RPGs work. Some funny-ish stuff, but i take Yahtzee's reviews more seriously (which i don't :hehe:).

And here we have yet another sandbox argument (Kids in a sandbox going: "My whatever is better than your whatever!"). Can't we all just get along? It's a game series, not some holy scripture! :nope:

YES! CORRECT! jeez, I know what you mean, people just need to accept the way the games are.

Blasphemy!

Don't you mean "Sacrilege!" :hehe: