Amen to that, Dead Space is by far the best horror game I have encountered 1st hand.
They have still carried the game though, I agree they svcked because of the loss of zombies and killer experiments - Nemesis etc - and replaced the T-Virus with this bacteria thing that makes the Uroboros. The setting of Res 5 made it impossible to implement any horror aspects, like really who is afraid of a sunny town in Africa somewhere, even with crazy savage locals.

Well, you could mod Fallout 3 to bring it closer to New Vegas' design.
Perhaps not quest-wise, character-wise or dialogue-wise but the other aspects probably have mods for them.


Papafern, That they did. I think it's sad whenever a franchise decides to take a sharp 90 degree turn to another direction and as the people who are new to the franchise to that latest installment outweighs the numbers of those fans of the previous titles it continues to derail down a different path.
Really though, did they actually have to make REvil 4 and 5 REvil games? I mean, couldn't they just have tweaked the story a bit and renamed the characters and called it: Fight For The Master Race? (No no no, not cause they're spanish and african, cause they're monsters! )
I just find it ridiculous yknow, if they're gonna take a franchise which haven't had a game for like 4 years and release a new one then stay on the damn track.
Cause instead of doing a 90 degree turn they could've just made a completely new franchise.

Like Fallout, how many of the new fanbase actually knew what Fallout was?
It could have been named Apocalyptic Americana and still sold extremely well.

At least with Operation : Racoon City they will be returning to the time of Res2 and it will be playing alongside that games story lines, I say lines because you could be Leon or Jill, though it will imply that heavily kitted out Umbrella soldier dudes were working within the city for whatever reasons and how their story links with that of Leon and Jills time in Racoon City when we were playing as a different charcter for a time.

Since the day I got Fallout 3 I always wondered where the originals were, looked everywhere for them on playstation 1 and 2 but never found anything on them until I joined this forum and realised just how old they were, and how different.

I'm an old fan and I'm not expecting a turn based or isometric game, I am however hoping that Bethesda hired Obsidian to do New Vegas in order to see how people who have a history with the franchise build a successor in their format, and that they'll build off of what Obsidian did. There are more than a few legitimate criticisms from old fans directed at Fallout 3 that have nothing to do with the camera angle or real time combat, and most of them were addressed in New Vegas. Combining the old with the new, what New Vegas did, is an ideal compromise. New Vegas may have had the same camera angle and combat system as TES and Fallout 3, but it felt a lot more like Fallout in many ways.

If Fallout 4 ends up being another "TES with Guns" like Fallout 3, I will be disappointed.


I like action and hack and slash games just fine, in fact that's exactly why I didn't like Brotherhood of Steel. However this isn't the place to discuss one's opinion of BoS.

Ever played Outbreak and Outbreak File #2?
Great REvil spin-offs. They have the same game design as the originals but you play in groups of three and can play online in F#2 with 4 player maximum.
And I don't remember everything from them but I remember a lot of Umbrella connections.
They might be non-canon though seeing as how they're sort of spin-offs. :/

Atmosphere, art design, and the superb (though anachronistic) landscape is what does it for me; (but I don't mean the 50's anachronisms).

I don't believe that it has anything to do with whim or personal preference... IMO its more like a case of stawberry jams labeled Vegemite; for two reasons. The first is that most won't have tried it, but when they do, they find it familiar and pleasing to their taste. The second, is that those that liked it [Vegemite in this case], would be excited (possibly desperate) to buy some again ~and though probably quite disapointed (or livid)... they tolerate it because its still a good jar of strawberry jam.

No apology needed ; despite the quotes, I only intended it to mean fans of the prior games (that are not all middle age ~some are still in their late teens).

I like the transition too; I think FO3/NV are excellent ~just not excellently named. My only [single] issue with FO3 is it's name, and that is because IMO its out of place being the official third game instead of a really awesome first person spin-off. ~There can be only one official third game; and all new ones will follow its design as the official 4th & 5th.


I was. It was inconceivable to me that a franchise would be exhumed and replaced with a different game dressed as the original; even though its a good game.
I bought the Oblivion CE as soon as I'd heard of Bethesda (which was not before I saw they'd licensed it). I immediately saw how such an impressive game engine as they used for Oblivion could be adapted to a modern 3d/Iso tactical game like Tactics ~and Tactics written as an RPG like Fallout would be the closest appropriate sequel IMO; and something I would have dearly loved to buy.
* Incidentally; two of the last three (recent/modern) games that I've bought shipped in 2010/11, and were 3D/Iso turn based tactical RPGs. The other one was Witcher 2 (and IRRC, it was cheaper).

Grand Theft Auto got so much better with its transition.

What transition? (I've only played GTA: Vice City, but I know that the original was topdown isometric... but what's changed in the core gameplay?)

I discovered Fallout when Fallout 3 was approaching launch.

I was pretty young, maybe 11 or 12, and this was the first time I had heard of Fallout. Anyway, after being the twong that I am I finished Fallout 3 in a mere day, and then went onto youtube to find some Fallout original videos. They all stood out to me as being darn good games, and I don't know why I didn't download them there and then.

Anyway, now that I do have them I feel slightly ashamed of being part of the Fallout evolution, but I have to admit, Fallout 3 was an amazing game too.

Yes, Fallout 3 is an amazing game despite it's flaws.
I just don't think it's even an adequate 'Fallout' game.

That's the difference for me.
It's a good game, no doubt, just not a good 'Fallout' game. (/imo)

I see what you mean, but what if this game had been named differently? Then I wouldn't of been able to play the original Fallouts D:

I was going to add something witty and intelligent here to back-up why Fallout 3 should be considered as a fallout game, but I can't think of one. Oh the irony.

Lol well it's the thought that counts right?

I was too at the time of Fallout 3's announcement -- and even at the announcement of New Vegas -- before it was made known that it would be an FPS game in the vein of TES 4 (3 I would've actually been much more comfortable with, though obviously not fully content). Largely for the same reasons you were. The FPS info honestly came out of the blue for me (for Fallout 3, for NV not so much more than an "i should've guessed" disappointment).

But I was saying I don't believe anyone has any "realistic" expectations of that sort anymore (hoping still, yes - Obsidian and their Onyx engine).

It changed from GTA 2 to GTA 3, coincidentally.

It changed from a top-down perspective meaning pretty much like driving an RC car to a third/first person perspective which made you feel like you were driving an actual car. It also gave more meaning to the story when it changed perspectives.

Note: I am in no way implying the same thing with the Fallout series.

They had a top down camera angle option for GTA3, but you hardly could see what you were doing with it since it was so zoomed in.

Can't these fallout 3 v fallout 1 n 2 stop? Arn't people bored of writing stuff about it ?
Fallout 3 is a great gane because fallout 3 is a reboot wich many people forget about it not some game that came out shortly after fo2 and as everyone knows beth made it not interplay so it's not gonna be similar to the older ones in ways and bethesda played to there strenght and I hate this tes with guns bullcrap "ohh has same engine as tes must be tes rabble rabble" makes no sense they differ hugely but the dino gang can't beat a a catchphrase...

It's not a reboot. It's a sequel. A reboot is when you start over from the beginning again, which is not what Bethesda did.

Silent93 is right. Fallout 3 isn't a damn reboot of the Fallout series. It was Bethesda's first attempt at a Fallout Game.

When I personally say "TES with Guns" I'm not simply referring to the fact that it's first person and uses the same engine as Oblivion. Fallout 3 placed a great emphasis on aimless dungeon crawling and general combat at the expense of things that are far more important in a Fallout game. There weren't many in depth quests that could be solved without shooting things or blowing things up, most of Fallout 3's quests were unimaginative dungeon crawls (and this includes the main story where the only quest that didn't involve gunning down a legion of enemies was Tranquility Lane) that only played out in one way, sometimes two if there was a moral decision to make at the end; this is what TES is known for, not Fallout, Fallout has a history of branching quests with multiple solutions for various character types.

There's other things as well, but this isn't really the time or place to go into further detail on this particular matter. I just wanted to make it clear that there's more to "TES with Guns" than the fact that it shares the same engine as a TES game.

System shock 2! its a first person shooter RPG survival horror immersive sim set in space. everyone and their dog should play!
also dead space was meant to be system shock 3, but it never came to be, which im glad of, cos dead space is nowhere near as good as SS2. oh well still fantastic though.

This is agreeable, but what about new vegas. good fallout game in your opinion?

Yeah, the problem is pretty simple. Fallout 1-2 are pure RPGs. Fallout 3 and NV are FPRPGS. Its obvious that in this situation the RPG element will not be as important. So I assume people like fallout 1-2 more because the better writing and RPG style.

I found F3 and NV easier to role-play on than F1 & F2.

Right, because games like GTA 4 are reboots arent they? It basically said 'Remember Salvatore Leone? Remember the layout in GTA3 and LCS? Well, that one never existed, this one does.' Fallout 3 is a game that takes place on the other side of the country with a whole different experience, while simply not mentioning most past canon that involves the West Coast.

NV is easier to roleplay on than Fallout 3, because you are a courier, and they don't really give you a back-story, (except for Lonesome Road).

On Fallout 3, bethesda gives you your lore.

But nevertheless, I love both games.