dinosaur

Mammal

Really? I think First person is what is really killing RPG's today. Primarily because when you add in First Person you start to become action adventure games instead of RPG. the main reason being you have player skill taking over from character skill. Then you start to have non-sensical mechanics to compensate for it. IE if you have leet FPS skill you can get more hits it doesn't matter how good or bad your character is at his guns skill. Speaking of guns skill my bullets are suddenly weaker or stronger if fired from the same gun depending on skill. It really should be if I actually hit them or not and where.

So yeah the FPS is killing the classical RPG and replacing it with action adventure games with shallow story and mechanics and replacing it with FPS action oriented combat and eyecandy. Look at Fallout 3 rarely did you have to do much thinking on anything, pretty much 100% of the quest you did was combat it tried to go for pure "EPIC Battle" instead of doing a multiple ending, branching quest, shades of gray plot. With this trend of less character more eyecandy less substance is it really that hard to see why we like the originals better? Just look, take a good look at skyrim's quest and story and can you really say they are deep or as branching as Fallout 1+2's?

I like 1 and 2 better than 3 because (imo) they have better dialogue, story, RPG elements, and NPCs.

It's as simple as that. Fallout 3 had awful dialogue for the most part, the story had huge holes in it, and it didn't really matter how you created your character at the beginning of the game.

New Vegas+DLCs is still my personal favorite of any game in the Fallout series, as I don't care so much about the difference between turn-based combat and FPS combat, they're both pretty fun imo. New Vegas didn't go overboard with the references to stuff like Fallout 2 did, and it had a lot of memorable NPCs, factions, and locations. It didn't capture the true "wasteland" feel that the originals did, but then again New Vegas was supposed to be "post post apocalyptic," and I actually liked that about the game.

For me its because Fallout and Fallout 2 are far better RPGs and Fallout 3 doesn't even come close to being a good RPG. The writing in them are also better Fallout 3.

There are "improvements" in that New Vegas and Fallout 3 are modern games with modern graphics but I don't give a crap about graphics. RPG and writing are important to me. I like that Fallout and Fallout 2 don't hold my hand and guide me to where things are. I like that there is a true wasteland feel because locations are many game days aparts.

Fallout 3 isn't a good rpg your right it's a great rpg .And fallout 1's wasteland had a better feel because you where a red dot representing you telling you how many game days had passed as apposed to actualle BEING IN the wastland with sand in your face (fallout 3 and fallout new vegas ) ? http://www.google.co.uk/m/search?site=images&gl=uk&client=ms-android-sonyericsson&source=mog&hl=en&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g6-k0d0t0&fkt=26&fsdt=9527&cqt=&rst=&htf=&his=&maction=&q=rose+tinted+glasses#i=15

Myth fallout 3 and fallout new vegas arn't player skill combat is still dependent on character's stats.
OT I went and completed fallout 1 and I really enjoyed it but fallout 3 was my first and I won't forget it.

so pretty graphics = BEST RPG EVAR! huh? So things like superior characters, story, dialogue brabching quests and choice and concepqunses don't matter at all?
ASeems to me it you with the rose tinited glasses about FO3's qualities.i


not a myth, I just gave examples that are factual proving it.

Where did I state graphical differences I stated an evolution between a representation and actual presentation of the wastland in gaming technology not pixel density or polygons .
2 Care to explain kind sir?
And I said the story was full of holes jeez louise you might need those rose tinted glasses after all.

Fallout 3 isn't a good rpg your right it's a great rpg .And fallout 1's wasteland had a better feel because you where a red dot representing you telling you how many game days had passed as apposed to actualle BEING IN the wastland with sand in your face

you are infering that Fallout 1 is an inferior RPG because it doesn't provide a FP experiance. FO3 doesn't really provide an RPG experiance at all it's just an action adventure game for the most part.

Where did I mention or imply fp experience?And i'm not saying fo1 is inferior because of that just that fast traveling can't compare to actually being there in the wasteland now stop twisting my words.
2Another bold claim with nothing backing it up.

Fallout 3 isn't a good rpg your right it's a great rpg .And fallout 1's wasteland had a better feel because you where a red dot representing you telling you how many game days had passed as apposed to actualle BEING IN the wastland with sand in your face (fallout 3 and fallout new vegas ) ? http://www.google.co.uk/m/search?site=images&gl=uk&client=ms-android-sonyericsson&source=mog&hl=en&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g6-k0d0t0&fkt=26&fsdt=9527&cqt=&rst=&htf=&his=&maction=&q=rose+tinted+glasses#i=15

The game give you your age. The only Fallout to do that.

For me, having the game say "you are a 19 years old" really limits the role playing of the game. That and the game will not let you join any of the "bad guys." So that limits playing as a "bad guy." Sure you can go around killing people, but that's a psychopath character.

The topic is why we older fans like the older games over the new games. I gave my reasons. So I don't see why it needs to turn into Old vs New Fallout debate that John Henry Eden is making it out to be. We get it John, you love Fallout 3 alot and will blindly defend it, but this isn't a Fallout 3 vs every other Fallout debate. I also say that New Vegas has some of the flaws of Fallout 3. I don't ever think Fallout New Vegas is better then the orginals.

For me... It limits the role, but does not limit playing the role at all.

I haven't read all of the new posts yet. I should. No it should not be an old vs new; I don't see it that way.
*Its a matter of personal taste though, and I do see it as anchovy vs strawberry.

Edit: If you think about it Fallout tells us that A ) you are 19 years old. B ) You have a father and you must find him. C ) You come from a Vault. No other Fallout gives us that amount of info and it is limiting for an RPG imo.

Fallout 3 isn't an RPG. It is an action FPS game with some minor RPG elements. Fallout 3 is good vs evil game and you are forced to join the good guys and can't join the bad guys. The game give you your age. The only Fallout to do that. Compaired to Fallout, Fallout 2 and New Vegas.. Fallout 3 is total crap as an RPG. Calling Fallout 3 an RPG would be like saying Fallout Tactics is an RPG.Funny thing about that is at least Fallout Tactics has multiple endings.

As for the wasteland feel. Having locations several miles apart and many game days apart gives a much better wasteland feel. You have to travel through the wasteland and can run into many encounters. Fallout 3 and New Vegas, there is a damn location over every hill. Towns that are in reality several miles apart and would take days to walk to, were within visual range of each other.

I'm not twisting your words I quoted you exactly. Speaking about "bold claims" care to take a stab at why FO3 is better? Hmmm?

Its true that FO1 & 2 were designed as really good sandbox games ~that pre-date the term sandbox.

When you think about it though... the PC's age in FO1 (up to 35) is insignificant ~they would not have sent a teenager, they would not have sent an older citizen ~and they had no veterans with experience; so that one does not matter much. The Waterchip to my mind is like the dad... it was there, then it wasn't ~go find it. Even where you ultimately find it is the essentially same, and then you have to deal with the origin of supermutants.

So game days=good wastland feel huh? Well pointlookout takes an ingame month to get the there must have the best wasteland ever huh? Nice logic.ohh nice to see I woke the dino cave.