Except the LW did none of that, it was the BoS paladins who fought 99% of the Enclave's forces at Adams.

The LW just pressed a button in a base that was largely empty because of the BoS's assault.

Sorry but Van Buren, what we got to see of it, was.. well, I'm glad Bethesda bought the IP, put it that way. We wouldn't have a forum where we were discussing this game so passionately otherwise, Fallout would have died a death long ago (imo)

You're probably right, after all no one particularly liked the Fallout series before Bethesda picked it up. Not like it was critically acclaimed or anything, and not like there's any market for isometric RPGs these days.

Oh....oh that's right.

Agreed whole heartedly.

Because some people like Bethesda's take and it sells like gangbusters?

Oh and the original creator of Fallout wanted to make WASTELAND again.

LOL, What would you expect them to say? For one it's bad practice to piss in the pool and talk crap about your peers in the industry, and for another much more important reason: do you think Bethesda would be like "Yes please make a Fallout game now that you've publicly shamed us!"

If you don't think that the West Coast of the U.S. isn't a primary target for nuclear obliteration, than you really should reevaluate how that part of the country contributes to the rest. In Fallout Universe, and in real life, California is one of the most important states to the country economically, technologically, scientifically, agriculturally, and culturally.

Yes, if nuclear war were to ever happen...California is getting bombed into the Pacific.

Well, the fact New Vegas is damned near identical to Fallout 3 kind of backs that up.

It's the same game save with some lore changes and a different story.

What? The only thing it has in common is that it exists in the same crappy game engine with the same crappy assets. It's not like Obsidian had a choice in that matter.

The same crappy game engine and assets pretty much defines everything about the game but the story.

And the story is still the same, "Group needs help. Do you Kill/Charge/Save them?"

Now you are mistaking gameplay for what is lore. If the LW doesn't do his raid, fighting Enclave basically single handed after Liberty Prime is destroyed, and "push that button" the BoS raid would have failed. It was also the LW who took out all the SM at Vault 87, who got the GECK, who blew up Raven Rock. No BoS Paladin did that. It was the LW. The BoS would not have the man power to take on the Enclave in a full fledged attack, IF it wasn't for the LW and his/her actions and a giant Robot.

Fact is, at least so far in my FO 4 adventures, BGS has dropped the ball big time on lore from FO 3. I mean, wow, shocker, it was the "good" ending of FO 3. That isn't much confirmation on any lore, especially when comparing the continuation of lore from 1-2-NV.

You do realize they were tasked with completing the game in about one year's time, right? It's not like they had any choice in what engine to use. You can't build an entire system from the ground up AND develop the game in a year's time. Not to mention I'm sure Bethesda approached them with that as a requirement.

And it was awesome just the way it was because Fallout 3 was one of the funnest games I've ever played in my life.

Then again, I *LOVE* the Elder Scrolls games.

So adding guns and Fallout perks=Awesome.

Think you lost the thread here, partner. I don't see this as an argument against my first post you just quoted. Like, I'm glad you like stuff but that changes nothing.

It was a practical choice. Sawyer (the project lead of NV) said at some point that they couldn't have pulled off the sort of game they wanted to with the time they were given if they were to build it from scratch on another engine.

And a developer can't lose grip of the success it had? Between Tactics, Brotherhood of Steel, and Interplay's professed desire for a Fallout MMO... if Van Buren got completed but didn't live up to expectations, would the series have really continued on with such popularity? Or would it be another case of "the first two were great, but the series went down hill after that".

Given the attitude of some of the people here, I suspect some people would have preferred BoS 2 over Fallout 3.

Sure it could happen Huleed, but that's not much of an argument.

Bethesda's next game could be a complete abysmal failure that bankrupts the company. Given the success they've had thus far I find that unlikely, just as given the success Black Isle and Obsidian have had I find it unlikely that had Van Buren made it through to production it would have been the failure the poster before me assumed it would be. I'm referring to,

"Sorry but Van Buren, what we got to see of it, was.. well, I'm glad Bethesda bought the IP, put it that way. We wouldn't have a forum where we were discussing this game so passionately otherwise, Fallout would have died a death long ago (imo)"

Particularly comical given that New Vegas borrowed heavily from the design documents of Van Buren.

Possum, not sure why I bother to reply to you, but I'd just like to point out that that is a particularly vacuous remark. Brotherhood of Steel has been derided by the bulk of the community, a bad action game wearing a thin veneer of Fallout branding often referred to as PoS....but don't let reality get in the way of your witty reparte.

Fallout 3 fits the bill already.

Feargus Urquhart and Scott Campbell too, I opine.

Again, Black Isle is not to blame for Interplay's and Herve Caen's mismanagement. Black Isle had nothing to do with Tactics or P.O.S.

And VanBuren would have been great. I nearly died when that got cut.