I have an Idea Play FO1 and FO2 for yourself. Instead of jumping at the idea Bethesda is doing good for the franchise.

Edit: I thank Bethesda for letting Obsidian make New Vegas, I hope they learn from it and can make FO4 awesome for all.

Remember folks, it is about respecting each other here, flame wars and drama do not solve anything.

That being said, all of the Fallout games are about rebuilding civilization, Canon sources are about how things are rebuilding after how things were screwed up during the Resource Wars, how the US Government was playing God with the F.E.V., and how we almost exterminated each other on October 23, 2077. Being so, it is not the Graphics, or the Games themselves, it is the writing, and the creative minds behind the games that is the true start to Fallout, the games and materials that have been added after, Canon or not, are there to add to the experience. Where would the NCR, or the Brotherhood of Steel, or Caesar's Legion be without the creative minds of the people who write the material. Without them, we would never have gotten the tale of the Vault Dweller, who kicked the ass of a madman who was forcing peace onto others through forced evolution, or the Chosen One, who ended the machinations of a corrupt government in hiding, or the Lone Wanderer who was willing to die in order to bring hope and water to those who had none, or the Courier who started as a corpse, and ended up making a difference to a region for decades to come because of his actions at Hoover Dam.

It is the Stories and the Writers that make the wasteland or the country, and in all of the games, it could be said the West( or the East) could be a Post Nuclear America, or a third world country, it depends on the perspective of the viewer in the end to make that judgement, myself, i think FO is post nuclear due to the era it was in, FO2 was a mix, as was FO3, but because of Mr House, IMHO, F:NV is more Third world due to the fact that he was able to save the majority of the Mojave from the Bombs and Warheads that was suppost to hit there, and compared to the rest of America, while there is some areas that is Radioactive in the Mojave, it is mostly just dry desert conditions and clean water, and that to me says it is more third world and livable than post nuclear. That is my Two cents on the topic at least....

In closing, remember, play nice, respect each other, and without rich deep stories and writing, and Canon sources from the creators, these games would not have gotten to be as popular as they have been.

I actually think the differences in the setting between FO3 and NV are a good thing. FO3 was more of a sandbox shooter with a (little bit of a) story, more of a gritty setting, and more action, while NV, IMO, is more of a plot-driven RPG with deeper writing, a more believable world, more of a focus on stats and RPG systems, dialog, etc. It's nice that you don't just get the same game from each one, and it's nice that the settings are so different. The problem I had with FO3's setting was how ridiculously unbelievable it was. If Bethesda wanted to advance the time-line 200 years I think they should have put more thought into the how's and why's of the setting instead of just re-using a ton of concepts from Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 without much explanation. It's been 200 years since the war and we're to believe that people are still living on leftovers from before the war? Why do people seem to be unaware of things that are going on and other people living less than a mile from where they live? If they wanted to continue the "dying world" atmosphere then why did they tell Obsidian that they had to set New Vegas after the events of Fallout 3? Given what was going on at the end of Fallout 2 Obsidian had no choice but to do what they did if they wanted to maintain canon from the first two games.

I also don't mind the political stuff, though. Even in the ravaged world of Fallout 3 there wasn't enough of it. People wouldn't have been sitting around in bombed-out buildings like that. They would have tried to move forward...it's what people do. Then again, I like more mature themes in stories, so that's my opinion. I'm the kind of guy that much prefers, say, A Song of Ice and Fire to Harry Potter, for example. Realism and human drama tend to grab me over the pulp comic book style of storytelling.

Yeah the Death Claws and Plasma Rifles just scream "Tombstone". :rofl:

Fail.

I think each one follows the rebuilding of society but F:NV pushes it to limit of where you're no longer in a post-apocalyptic world but that which has formed a new civilization.

Hopefully, the next game will return to FO3 in the sense that everything is completely desolate and dead and society is in small fragments but with the best aspects of F:NV incorporated into it.

The reason I find F3 more scary is just how empty the world is: walking through old, deserted towns and places knowing that there is no form of society anywhere around. I would have preferred the games to not feature any mutant creatures (which is ridiculous) and instead focus on the human threat: raiders and desperate people - this I find much more scary. It would be great, to me, if there was even less society than in FO3: that communities would not reach the size of Megaton or Rivet City but there would be a few people hiding out in old, deserted buildings together.

In short, I would like the games to instead of going further and further into the future: to instead explore a period much closer after the atomic blast. Mutations haven't had time to appear, ghouls only just appearing, no forms of communities and people just trying to get by the best they can.

Well put! I agree with all this, and I couldn't have phrased it better.

I hope Fallout 4 will follow the desolate postnuclear atmosphere of Fallout 3, with the addition of the thicker dialogues and plot of New Vegas.

Some people need to understand: we're not discussing "the game that's more true to the Fallout series". We're actually discussing which atmosphere we like better between these two games, Fallout 3 and New Vegas.

Yes and the "atmosphere" of FO3 IE everything blasted to hell, no farming, green sky, no trees or plants anywhere but in Oasis and later Point Lookout after 200 years is wrong for Fallout.

I doubt most people are "misunderstanding" what you mean. Some of us just have a less narrow view as to what constitutes "post apocolyptic" thus are not buying what you are selling/disagree with your premise.

Yes, but we are discussing that said atmosphere is also dependent on the internal logic of the series.

Ok, I give up, I see it's useless to discuss against fanboyism. :/

Please proceed, go on shouting about how "FALLOUT 3 IS NOT LIKE FALLOUT 1 OR 2 BECAUSE IT'S NOT THE SAME AUTHORS THEREFORE IT'S NOT ALLOWED TO BE A GOOD VIDEOGAME IN ITSELF!!!" and how "NEW VEGAS IS BETTER BECAUSE SOME GUYS WHO WORKED ON FALLOUT 1 AND 2 ALSO HELPED WITH IT SO EVERYTHING ELSE ABOUT THE GAME DOESN'T MATTER!!"...

Just one thing: New Vegas is not a post-apocalyptic videogame. I already wrote it: if I want to make a story about the Victorian era, I don't set it in the 20th century. And if I want to make a videogame about the fall-out, I don't set it 200 years after the nukes.

Fallout 3 is post-apocalyptic. New Vegas instead uses the nukes as a narrative device to invent its own setting, which is not a post-nuclear setting anymore.

Sure, it's actually Bethesda's own mistake to claim that Fallout 3 is set 200 years after the bombs, and yet make it a post-apocalyptic videogame. But this is such an irrelevant detail, that had the prologue said the bombs fell twenty years ago instead, nothing else in the game needed changing.

Just because you hate FO1 and FO2, does not mean that they never happened. You have to stay true to them, as they were the birth of Fallout.

Yeah go figure. FONV fans on a FONV board. People that prefer much about FONV to FO3 on the FONV board.

What a crazy world we live in.

You don't understand. I have nothing against FO1 and FO2, those poor good ol'rpg.

What I hate is blind fanboyism. Liking and disliking a game not for itself, but only on a matter of principle. "Stay true to them"?? So even if New Vegas was a crap game (which it definitely isn't, mind you), I should still like it better only because it's "true to FO1 and FO2"?

I like Fallout 3 and New Vegas FOR THEMSELVES. I don't care at all which one is more like the original Fallout 1 and 2. All I care is that they're both good games. Even if Fallout 3 had absolutely nothing in common with Fallout 1 and 2, it would still be an awesome game, because it's a good game in itself. Let's stop thinking about the title, and for once, let's think about the game.






I love New Vegas! I like Fallout 3 a bit more, but I'm enjoying New Vegas a lot, otherwise why would I be in this forum?
I'm just angry at people who like New Vegas only because it's made by some guys from the Fallout 1 and 2 development team. That is stupid, and an offense to the quality of Fallout 3 and of New Vegas itself.

:celebration:

I've never played ANY Fallout game other than FO3 and FONV. I'm a total fan of the new games and the idea of turn based combat makes me want to throw up.

That said, long time fans of the SERIES that prefer the game be true to the original lore do not need to be labled "fan boy" by new jacks like us simply because they do not agree with you.

That's every bit as snobby as what you're accusing them of.

I haven't read the thread but I don't think most of us here like New Vegas over Fallout 3 cause it's made by former Black Isle employees.
It's cause of tons of other things.

Anyway, we had this kinda talk in the Series forum and again:
I love Fallout 3 on it's own merits.
But as a Fallout game I hate it.
Fallout 3 was an awesome game when one ignores the fact that it's a Fallout game and just play Oblivion With Guns: Apocalypse Version then it's perfectly fine.
But as an old Fallout fan I just can't ignore a lot of key elements that "make" Fallout "Fallout".
So this is not that it's made by Black Isle V2, it's that it's much more of a Fallout game than FO3 was. (But it's still not even 20% of what a "real" Fallout game should be.../opinion I guess)
If it's a better game is completely up to opinion.

But I think this is rather offtopic so I'll stop here.

Anyway, again, I think it's post-apocalyptica through and through.
Post means that it's "after" something right?
And apocalypse means end of the world right?
Well during the Great War it was the end of the world.
And the game takes place "after" the end of the world.
By definition, isn't it correct?
I mean, if we go 1000 years into the future and it's back to todays state of things then it's "still" post-apocalyptic.
Because the game "still" take place "after" the apocalypse.
But I know very little of definition and crap so I should probably shut up about it.
Anyway, I still feel it's very post-apocalyptic.
Just cause House has created some pretty town and NCR is a raider faction in diplomatic clothing I don't see how it should be any less post-apocalyptic.
It's still pretty crazy, and when NCR falls (which is just a matter of time) then it'll all be back to goody ol' square one with raiders, warlords and wasteland justice again. :rolleyes:

^post-apocalyptic means 'after the end of civilization'

yet in F:NV we have civilization (NCR, Caesar's Legion) so I'd say it's a post-post-apocalyptic

http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2010/05/04/fallout-new-vegas-designer-on-post-post-apocalyptic-society/

Exactly. Bethesda should change the "Post Nuclear Simulation" to "Post-Post Nuclear Simulation." There, everyone's happy.

I thought the exact same as you did on turn based combat.

But, when I began to play, it irked me at first, but time began to fly. I did not even notice it was turned base! Its so immersive and incredible IMO.

On you're second point: :celebration:

I don't mind them, in fact, i'm one of them. I used to HATE original players, I thought that they were fan-boys etc. But, I began to research FO1, and after a while, I decided to buy it. With $10 in my pocket, I went to my local Bestbuy and purchased a copy.

Best single purchase of my life

It's not about the people who worked on it and few people have claimed that Fallout 3 wasn't a good videogame. I thought it was.
What many are saying is that New Vegas is, when looking at the titles before Fallout 3, in line with that idea of post-apocalyptic. And there's a few other detractors that we feel Fallout 3 lacks in comparison, but this thread is not about that.
To me the question becomes could I see the atmosphere of Fallout 3 working in NV and then I'd say it couldn't.


Except certain factions and story elements hinge on it and would have to be rewritten. But indeed the game would have made a lot more sense, twenty or thirty years after the bombs.


I'd say you are right, but almost every Fallout game is a post-post-apocalyptic game in that sense and many post-apocalyptic stories would follow that same vein.

I just don't get the people who think that putting the series 200 years after the bombs fell was a good idea.
Why do you want that? Really, do you REALLY want a "post nuclear" game to be set so far after the nukes dropped?
I mean honestly ask yourself that question.

Are we really "rebuilding civilization" anymore? I mean look at the NCR It's pretty much a rebuilt civilization (soldiers with uniforms, printed money, presidents/elections etc... I hate the NCR btw. It ruins the freedom found in previous fallout titles - instead of just running into one "tribe" or "faction" territory, the NCR basically has some sort of say on the overwhelming majority of the map. Kinda pisses me off.

Why does the F:NV style NCR fit in a Fallout based game? The [censored] keep harping on "rebuilding civilization" but c'mon, no one is rebuilding anymore - We've got a WORKING PRE WAR CITY, I repeat WORKING PRE WAR CITY (Vegas) and a full-fledged NCR democracy, and a distant Caesar's Legion EMPIRE. There were working cities/towns in previous titles but they were REBUILT out of scrap and other junk and the occasional undamaged pre-war building.

wtf.

The more posts I read - especially from the [censored] - just makes me more certain that this game has deviated from the true path Fallout was intended to be on.

I'm tired of the focus of how F:NV "continued" the "story" of F1-F2.... You're all forgetting that it's leaving out the most IMPORTANT element - the post-nuclear, broken, destroyed world atmosphere with SURVIVORS. Ya there is SUPPOSED to be rebuilding, but not REBUILT. Certainly, the civilization in F:NV is constantly rebuilding, but in a not-so different way that our real world is constantly rebuilding.

Vegas is a functioning city? Funny, I thought only The Strip was fully functioning.

Seriously, stop having that ridiculously Hollywood image of 'Post-Apocalypse'. Fallout's 'true path' as you put it, has always been about surviving and thriving. Vegas in itself is a special case, seeing as House saved Vegas from the bombs.

The game universe has to age or it'll grow stale and rot. You might want to open your mind a bit to change.

Noone says that the NCR can't blow up and cause California to revert to primitive tribes again though.

@Colonel Martyr
Yeah, except no1 ever debated the post-nuclearness of F1, F2, and F3. So yeah, bud, it HAS deviated from its true path. And yeah, while there were thriving or working elements in other fallout games, it was always on a relatively small or isolated scale. Information was limited. Now, the NCR president in California has atelast some idea of whats happening in Arizona.

And now you have Manu-fukking-factured uniforms, and motherfrakking printed money.