Well your comparing in game days in fallout 1 v real time in fallout the fair thing woud be to count time inbetween encounters in fallout 3's game days system aswell.

If that were how it was in the game originally then I bet that they would have complained about all the meaning less wasteland that's there between the towns which takes all these game days to cross

That doesn't make the problem any better, not only does the time scale make little difference (you can scarcely go two in-game hours in Fallout 3 without running into anything, let alone days) but the compression of time and landscape doesn't really make Fallout 3 and New Vegas' "wastelands" seem any more like wastelands. As I said several times already a wasteland is a vast expanse of nothing, and neither Fallout 3 or New Vegas convey this at all because you can't convey this in a full open world game and make it interesting for the player.

Fallout and Fallout 2 did convey a proper wasteland through their world map travel system, they gave a sense of scale and time passage while only highlighting the bullet points for the player, and really a world map is the only way to give off the impression of a huge, barren world without boring the player to tears. I certainly wouldn't want to travel across an actual wasteland in a Fallout 3 and New Vegas styled open world.

I'm not knocking Fallout 3 and New Vegas' worlds mind you, I'm simply pointing out that they don't feel like, and aren't really wastelands.

Fallout 3 doesn't have multiple endings. Not like the originals. We don't learn what happens to the people and places based on our actions. Thanks to Broken Steel, what little info we did learn was removed. So the only endings we got were "Destroy the BoS and Enclave" or "Destroy the Enclave."

@Gizmo. I agree Dad in Fallout 3 is like the Waterchip and the Geck as in he's out there, and we go out to find them. What I am getting at is the game tells us, we have a father and he is a do-gooder scientist.

Really svcks that John Henry Eden had to make this into a Fallout 3 vs All other Fallouts debate.

I've been playing RPGs since they were merely text based Basic coded green letters on Apple 2e computers in public librarys. I have nearly all of them and I have played all of them from Pool of Radiance in the late 1980s to Skyrim that I will be getting once I see here in the forums that most of the initial problems with the game have been solved. The dream of game designers and players alike back then was what we are now seeing with the newest generation of RPGs like Fallout 3 where the character can take the stage or the player can take it. More or less control as the player sees fit. Gamers have always wanted more eye candy as well and now that we are getting a ton of it I see some players complaining about it. This confuses me except in the cases where the eye candy takes away from what can be done, how many places you can go to, and how good and complex the story is.

When Fallout came out on the RPG scene it was one of the scarce few that broke away from the sword and sorcery D&D mold that most of the genre were stuck in. It was a time when RPGs were some of the best selling games and the popularity and power of the newest breed of PCs (Sorry Mac peeps) made this all possible. The graphics were not the best but what you could do in a game and where you could go took a huge leap and Fallout was the first to take full advantage of all this. Yeah I feel nostalgic toward Fallout 1 and 2 but I am also excited about how the seres has evolved in Fallout 3 and NV. I don't really think that Fallout 1 and 2 are necessarily better than 3 and NV or vice-versa; they are from very different eras and all have merits and demerits. A move to first/third person perspective is a step toward better graphics and more player control and I welcome it. The player control when they want it has always been a dream and that you need to expand upon. What you can do, where you can go, and story depth in an RPG game are the first three pillars of the genre however and are far more important than graphics and should never ever take a back seat to them. Some do argue just exactly that has happened in Fallout's latest installments and I do agree slightly but I also can see that a high degree of attention was payed to this balance and that is a good thing.

I am dissapointed that there had to be a fight for the Fallout IP but now that it's over I am looking forward to ONE version of the Fallout story line to continue instead of two.

I don't see how the perspective is related to graphical quality. The playercontrol part is true (as it is inherent with FPP perspective), but I don't see too much playercontrol as a step to the right direction. As it all comes (as proven by the recent 2 games) at the cost of lesser gameplaymechanical depth and lesser character drivenness.

In 1st you can see the world as the character would see it (and how you would see it if you were there) and as a result far more detailed than a 3/4 or top down (god/satelite view) which compresses everything in order to put the characters into the proper perspective within that world. Very simple really. A more detailed perspective requires a more detailed graphical world.

It's far more intuitive to look left while in a doorway for hidden treasures rather than walk into that corner in order for the wall to magically dissapear so you can see what is behind it.

Here's something to chew that's slightly off this topic:
I don't particularly like the sandbox concept as current computer power doesn't lend it the huge world feeling that the old world maps and seperate areas do. It should be shelved until such time that PCs become powerful enough to make a sandbox seem as huge as the old game worlds were. Most games today sport vehicle travel of some sort and the old Fallouts were moving in that direction before anyone else. The sandboxes of F3 and NV are way too small to support vehicle travel.

But who's to say the "camera" needs to be locked in one position and distance?

Agreed about current Fallout maps being too small for vehicles.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure graphics have nothing to do with determining whether an RPG is good or not. As for Fallout 1's wasteland, it's not just pretty graphics that make a game's environment great, it's also the music, (in Fallout 1's case) the emptiness, the descriptions of the environment (you see _______) et cetera.

Fallout 3's wasteland was great too, and while it was too theme-parkish for me, it was still captured a real "wasteland" feel.

Same. The game assets can be identical in FPP as TPP;(or even [3D]Isometric).

One can't pick their parents... My only issue is being forced to care (regardless of the PC personality). Though it was the same with the FO1 overseer.

Why would I want to see the world from the PC's perspective? This hits directly on the topic too; a major reason that I personally like the earlier games was that they were not done in first person. FPP view impacts the overall game design, and is the chief reason that most of the changes and omissions (that I really liked in Fallout, and that are now gone from the series) were taken out.

This is true, but the FPP aspect is unrelated to it. One can design a more detailed isometric perpective simply for adding more detail to the scene.
I know what you meant, but games that use Iso either don't need that extra detail, or can be designed like the Witcher.

*Even FO3 could have been designed like that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Wf_2V7wLkI

LOL word twisting really? So first you say FO3 isn't a good RPG it's a GREAT one! then you go on to say FO1 was inferior to it. Hence FO3 is better then FO1.

I'd agree with the idea that Fallout 3/NV were different genres than 1/2. More to the point, Fallout 3 and New Vegas are different sub-genres, with F3 focuing on 'gameplay' and exploration while New Vegas focuses on roleplaying and character building.

I like F1/2 for a lot of reasons. Better story, non-action focused combat, bigger section of the world to uncover, your character's skill matters more than your twitch reflexes, more options, more talking, more character building options for a start.
That's not to say that the newer games don't add anything. I prefer New Vegas' compaions, for example. The crafting in New Vegas adds a lot. I like the ability to explore.
I don't really like FO3 so much... it looks like 10 years after the bombs, not 200. And the roleplaying elements are very weak. It's a great shooter for folks who want to explore, loot and shoot stuff - but as an RPG it fails in just about every way.

Personally, FO1 > FO2 > FONV > > > > > > > > > FOT > > > FO3 > > FOBS

F1 and F2 are deffinetly the past. It's time to look forward people, to new and better fallout games (I prefer NV over 3)

This has nothing to do with nostalgia for me, I only heard of Fallout in 2008, and that was Fallout 3.

All-in-all, I prefer Tactics to any of them at the moment.

This might be because It's a new experience for me, or that I just got sick of Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas.

I think I hold a grudge against Tactics because when it came out I wanted another RPG so bad.
It's a fine game for what it is. It knows what it wants to do, and it's good at it.

I agree being forced to care about Dad is annoying but I don't see the Overseer in Fallout being the samething. The Overseer is just the guy that picked you and sent you out. You are finding the waterchip, not only for him. But for everyone in Vault 13. True you are supposed to care about them, but you can come up with a vault full of reasons. There is also an option to screw them. Two options if you think about it. One, to join the master and the other telling the location of Vault 13 to the water merchants.

Fallout 3 the overseer turns on you and most of the vault tries to kill you. The only one to care about is Amata. So Fallout had a whole Vault of possible reasons to find the waterchip and options to kill everyone in the Vault. Fallout 3 has only one person to care about, maybe a couple others and they aren't even in danger. Sure there are polital problems and rad roaches at the start, but they won't run out of water.

Well when a person wich in my subjective veiw attacked a game I adore I will respond (with deadly force). But I am sorry to you styles and any others I have argued with.
I hope you see where i'm coming from tho.

Fallout 3 has a fair few problems, but personally I don't think this is one of them. I kinda liked that they defined the Lone Wanderer as much as they did - it's enough that some characters can refer to your past in a non-vague manner, but not so much that you have no leeway in determining the personality of your LW. The LW doesn't have to have daddy issues for example, since they game doesn't force you to find Dad as soon as possible. You decide how important this personal quest is to you, and play accordingly. I did find it annoying that I couldn't start as one of the wastelanders or Rivet City citizen but as I understand it that's not solely a FO3 thing.

The caveat here is that I never played the pre-Bethesda Fallout games, so I don't really have a point of comparison.

Off topic but I love your cecil avatar .

I was wondering if anyone here would know who the Avatar was. Guess I'm not the only "Dinosaur" still playing games !

I can understand where you are coming from, but the OP was simply asking our opinions on why we older fans like the Originals. So I was giving my reason why I like the originals over the new ones and this includes New Vegas. So not everything is an attack on Fallout 3.

I enjoyed Fallout 3. I played the hell out of it, spent a whole summer playing it. Bought all the DLC and played the hell out of them (well not Mothership Zeta, played it a couple times). Its just when I sit back and compair Fallout 3 to all the other Fallout games. It falls short because it has alot of plotholes and inconsistencies.

New Vegas is a great improvement but it also has flaws, that the devs tried to work on but couldn't fix. Mostly the bad game mechanics that were used in Fallout 3. By that I mean how we become super god master of all things way to fast.

Off topic...

Does it really make sense to call the PC from F3 The Lone Wanderer?

Think about it, where the hell has he wandered? From the vault to the freakn grocery store 1/4 of a mile from his vault, or the boat city conveniently parked around the block. We should rename him to the errand boy(with a big gun)

The Boned Launderer doesn't exactly sound a whole lot better.

A little note on why I like the older Fallouts more:

Strength.
8 in the older games is great as you can carry tons of stuff with you, hit real good at lower levels and handle every weapon without any major problems.
8 in Fallout 3 is pointless as all it does is increase carry weight and since drugs and ammo doesn't weigh anything...
8 in Fallout: New Vegas is better than Fallout 3 but still pretty damn pointless. The STR Req doesn't affect things as much as in the older games, the bonus close combat damage is minimal but carry weight means a little more now on hardcoe Mode.

See, why I like the older Fallout games is because the stat system SPECIAL actually defines you character to great extents.
In Fallout 3 you can create 5 characters that are basically the same despite focusing on different stats.
In New Vegas it's somewhat more improved but it's still weak in comparison to the older games.


Why I prefer the older Fallouts is because they're about what my character is good at, not what I'm good at.
They're about exploring humanity, which Fallout 3 was not.
They give a sense of scope in the gameworld with it's world map and also has a great random encounter system.
It's dialogue and jokes are generally better.
And it's combat was so lovely masochistic.

I'll turn the question on you apdenton; Why wouldn't they be better?

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you haven't played the game past Rivet City.