This is your opinion, mine is that the story was brilliant and deserves more credit then it has been given. The quests are, in my opinion, brilliant. Almost every single one of them give multiple choices for you to complete them depending on how you play your character.

Fallout 3 was Bethesda's attempt at making a Fallout game by grabbing many of the things they found in the first two and smooshing them and rearranging them for the Capital Wasteland. New Vegas was made by Obsidian which actually include some of the original creators of the series, so they actually managed to blend new stories(Mr. House, Caesar's Legion) with the old(NCR, Brotherhood). There used to be a lot of bugs in New Vegas, but of course you can blame this on Bethesda since Obsidian was using their engine. The map was far more believable then the CW's theme park arrangement.

If you think the Courier's story is all about revenge then you've only been playing him/her one way. Someone pointed this out a while ago(probably Colonel Martyr) and it makes sense. The reason why the Courier feels the need to go after Benny is because he is a Courier who was payed a lot of caps to deliver a package to a very powerful and rich man. This man, if he doesn't get the package, will assume that something bad has happened to it and thus send out mercenaries to retrieve it by whatever means they can. This puts the Courier's life directly at risk, so s/he thinks that the best possible way to stay alive and avoid the wrath of a man like Mr. House would be to get the chip back and deliver it to him. This is just one of many ways to look at why the Courier goes after Benny, the reason you choose depends entirely on the character you make.

That and Bethesda was in charge of the games quality control.

On a personal note, my copy of Fallout New Vegas had very little bugs and those bugs got fixed early on. So maybe it has something to do with Xbox and Playstation, not just the game companies. Seeing as how most of the "Games buggy as hell" rants come from console players, not PC players.

I'm on PC as well and when I first played the game(which was the day it was out) it was incredibly buggy. Now with all of the patches that have been released its running beautifully and even the occasional bug I get can easily be fixed by use of the console.

I had the same thing with my copy of Fallout 3, I had very few problems with it. Though with the pc I'm sure most of them just fix it themselves, or download the unofficial fixes.

This forum is neato.

Everybody taking the piss constantly and nobody getting it.

I second this because my copy is nearly 100% fine - only issue is a few crashes but they're rare and random, which isn't something worth wasting resources on. The most rants that come from people though are the minority and I'd suspect the vast majority's games are fine.

I play it on PS3, XBOX360, and PC, and all of them are 100% fine, PS3 being 99% fine.

It didn't use to be like this, though. There were actual discussions at some point (can you imagine?). There isn't much left to discuss anymore though, just the same old stories that have been on the table for years now. It's all going in circles -- and I'd think this will go on for as long as something new is announced.

The same old stories won't go away though, they will be bigger than ever once the next Fallout is announced and a huge wave of new members joins. But yeah there will be new things to talk about to add flavour.

Anyone else want to see a prequel? Maybe see the deviation of Lyons BoS. Possibly the uprising of the Legion?

You realize there were 2 games which came before Fallout 3 and New Vegas, yes? Hundreds of years before those games take place. A prequel would be pre-Fallout (the first one).

Oh my! This totally turns my thoughts upside down! I figured the #3 was just for good luck.

There are huge gaps in time between the games. Maybe "prequel" isn't the best description, I just mean maybe not see a chronological sequence if the the game won't be #4.

On another note I'd rather abandon the numbering of the games. Once the number gets high enough it just seems like a company is crapping out games like a college professor updating a textbook every year.

Bethesda said they would not go back in the timeline at all.

I don't want to go back in the past, I wont to continue treading through the future. I really want to see some more civilizations appearing and less and less 'radioactively created monsters', of course with the exception of some monsters here and there.

Really? That is kind of limiting.



Civilization? I have no desire to see rebuilt cities on a large scale. That seems to defeat the purpose of playing the game, ya know - the struggle for control by factions. Plus it seems to take away from the "scavenging" type of fun. I like the idea that when I walk into the ruins of some god awful place that it hasn't already been discovered by 100 other people.

Ok, so basically you don't want the game to go anywhere, and just continue playing in a completely destroyed area?

The game needs to come to an end sometime, we all (should) know this. We (the players) are playing through each and every game, going into the future, fixing some civilizations, and creating a generally better world for everybody to live in and survive. I'm obviously not saying to take away *ALL* the scavenging and things of this nature, just in reality, the world will end up getting better and better, and we need to accept this.

I myself would actually like to get the world back on track. The people need us to help, and not to continue living in a crap place.

Not really, maybe if it were a series about survival but its a series about rebuilding.


So you find it fun to enter random building nunber 407 where there are a few molerats and some ammo boxes in a random bathroom? That's what you want for the series?

Its about humanity rebuilding, has been since the beginning (except F3).

the premise of rebuilding and progress is correct, but...

...it is limiting from the storytelling perspective in a way that they leave huge gaps in the timeline unexplored and thus force for ever higher degrees of progress (well, if they want things to stay plausible, that is -- not if they like to make things like they did with Fallout 3).

All that unused time could well be used to tell other stories in other parts of US, telling how these other people and places managed. For example, the set up of Fallout 3 would've worked fine if they removed all the storyreferences to the earlier games (BOS, Enclave, supermutants) and replaced them with new concepts. That game clearly set out to depict ripe destruction and early stages of rebuilding (not that it did it particularly well, though), yet was set so far in timeline (and forced reuse of already used storyelements) that none of it made any sense.

Well they could always just place a game in an area that is just populated with powerful factions and have another game set a year or two later in a land of tribals if they want to make it more survival-like.

I don't really see it as limiting, I would rather get references from past games and continue in the timeline over jumping far backwards to tell a tale of survival. But that's just my opinion.

Oh I agree, and I'm not too partial of making the series even more lootdriven survival sim and have it get repetitive by using the same gamespecific themes over and over again. But like I said, there's loads and loads of potential stories set out in the rest of the US and the 200 nigh unused years of time. By pushing forward they limit their [plausible] possibilities of storytelling which is as much in the core of Fallout as is the theme of rebuilding. If there is a good story to be told more near the orginals in the timeline, I think it should be done (New Vegas - for example - was originally set out to be done that way, earlier in the timeline, if I'm not mistaken, but Beth wanted it to move forward in time so they placed it few years after Fallout 3).

Yes, thats exactly what I want.

The fun is not knowing what is in random building number 407. MOST buildings aren't random, and have something to do with some quest.

There just seems to be a lot of blank canvas yet to use. The re-emergence of Fallout is due to the mixture of survival in the classic fallout-faction driven setting. If there isn't a struggle to survive the game would be boring.

For once I agree with undecafindeed.

I see what you mean, I still am not sure about jumping back and forth throughout the timeline but if it deliver awesome stories I guess I'm all for it.


If this is true than you don't agree with Undecafinated.


How is that fun? Its probably not much different from the 406 buildings before it. And not many quests were linked to buildings in F3 (which was the only game in the series that relied heavily on scavenging so I am assuming you're talking about that one).

There wasn't much of a struggle for survival in the oirignals and they were the definition of not being bored. Sure there were hard enemies but there wasn't scavenging countless buildings and nothing but little pockets of civilization.

I just hope Bethesda over looks most of the comments on these threads, not that there isn't good ideas, just I want to see the story move on, and many members want to continue living in destruction.

I'd be ok with going back in time, or having a game or two that takes place in the time gaps between games, IF....
It were a "spinoff". Maybe keeping the Fallout title, just adding some spinoff name to the end of it.
That way, it wouldn't have to be considered canon while still being able to use Fallout tm items.

Ok, since being facitious is lost via text I'll outline it completely.

The further along the timeline gets the more progressed the country should be. The idea is how humanity survives/ interacts (in groups as well) after a nuclear FALLOUT. 200 years after the FALLOUT the country should be pretty well recouped. I don't want to play that game. The fun part of FO3 was seeing a destroyed territory for the most part frozen in 1950's sci-fi culture. There is a very good reason why the game is popular, exploring destroyed areas that seem untouched for the most part and struggling to survive is adventurous. Seeing bloated powers battle for territory is not interesting to me. I don't want to play that game. Regardless of the original intent of the Fallout series the "survival" part of the game is what makes it unique. You aren't surviving in a jungle, or in a warzone, or a zombie apacalypse; it's surviving a nuclear FALLOUT. This is why I would like to see a "spinoff" (check the title of the forum) not set in chronological order. Let's see what happened in those gaps. Keep the fallout in Fallout. Once everything is rebuilt it's vanilla, watered down, bland. Why would anyone make a video game based on a conflict point that is already resolved?