Yes, we are doing it just to bad mouth Bethesda. We've all conspired against them and the people who like their games. But you sir have found us out. Bravo :clap:

Than the people who don't care about 1 and 2, don't really want a Fallout game. They want a PA-Oblivion.
As for being stuck in the past; laud us for having a memory span that allows us to want things in games older than 2 years, rather than not seeing past the latest CoD [subtitle goes here].

So the new fans are stuck in the past with fallout 3? :blink:

The people that dont care about 1 and 2 dont want a fallout game?? LMAO fallout 3 and NV are fallout games! maybe there not in the minds of a select few. But to the majority of people they are. as will fallout 4 , 5 , 6 and so on. The series has moved on. Who even mentioned COD? Ive played 1 and 2 (and still own them) and liked them in there day. But i wasnt blown away while playing them like i was for fallout 3. As for people hating it because its 200 years after the war and not 'believable', what is believable in fallout?? So if someone modded the game to change the word 200 to 20 in the game it would become a good game?

Lots of crap are believable in Fallout 1 and 2, because THEY ARE EXPLAINED!!!!

The Hub for instance, how does it survive? Farming, Trade. Shady Sands, Farming. Junktown, Farming, Trade. Adytum, Trade.

How does Megaton survive? I don't know. Arefu? No clue. Tenpenny Tower? How in the [censored] do those people become rich anyways? Rivet City? DC is crawling with mutant mayhem! How does food get there?

Now for New Vegas. How are the cities believable?

The Strip: Farming, Brahmin Barons, Gambling, Trade. Freeside: The Kings, Trade, gambling. Goodsprings: Trade, Bighorners, Jacobstown: Big horners. Novac: Trade with a mix of scavenging. Primm? I have no clue really.

In short, that is why many places in FO3 have no logic.

Primm has prospectors and the Mojave Express

Also,

Liberty Prime

RobCo never finished its construction

Yet the BOS constructed it, how, I dont know

Fallout 3 have PlotHoles everywhere, how does those people survive and how does those people trade with all the Mutants, slavers and raider??

Well, according to the Wiki, it was some sort of Power source you steal from Rivet City, or rather, it was, but it was cut from the game. Also, do to Dr. Li's work with fission or fusion (I always confuse those two), it's something about portable energy or something, I KNOW I read it somewhere, Styles asked me for source on that before, but I can't remember where I read it.

Optimus Prime makes not sense in FO3. If there was an explanation it was cut from the game. Pre-War Military and House could not get it to work and yet BoS could. If Pre-War government did get it to work then why was it not in China kicking butt? Enclave turn it to scrap with Space Lazer and they say they can fix it with flash bulbs and sensor modules :banghead:

BoS arn't fully explained as to why they went to DC, which way they took. Outcase don't give a reason why they stay in DC. They hate Lyons for staying and yet they stay :blink:

Enclave: Nothing given as to how they got so many troops so many Vertibirds, so many weapons after they were nearly destroyed as a faction in FO2. President Eden makes no sense. Why are they not making Advanced PA? They are making that crap armour. Broken Steel adds more Enclave and space weapon that they did not use to stop BoS before final battle. Did not use it in FO2. Why were they even on the Oil Rig if they had all this stuff back in DC? Why did they not just try their plan from FO2 again?

Why are there no trees or plants?

Just some plot holes in FO3.

People turned on Tactics for less then this.

The series has exchanged hands. If they're going to leave the stuff of 1 and 2 in the past you do a reboot and don't call it Fallout 3. They did and that at least means they have to try harder on lore.


I was under the impression that you hadn't played them. My fault. The point was that games (and gamers) are quite often filled with things that were hot in a recent game, but if you start about something older all of a sudden you are not with the times?
I was young when I first played them. I liked them, but didn't truly understand what was going on. Atmospherically and by going FP I found the visuals of Fallout 3 very impressive the first time through. But I can't say it holds a candle in terms of gameplay, choices and dialogue (at least in my opinion) to the earlier games. That's what tickles me more than just shooting stuff in a pretty place.
Call me old fashioned, but I like it when my character building forces me to choose some matters above others, that I can't do everything in one run. I like it when you have to put some thought into how you complete the game/mission. I like it when my Intelligence response don't make my character sound dumb.


They could mod it that way, but it would be too much to take on. You'd have to rewrite certain factions and towns (while others would suddenly make sense). That would involve changing important dialogue. Also few of us are calling Fallout 3 a bad game.

Also Fallout 1, 2 and NV have a measure of believability. Towns have agriculture, trade and/or other professions that explain why they exist. Eighty years after the war most of the radiation is gone.
Believability is a measure of internal consistency, it makes the game give you an answer to an obvious question and not say 'A wizard did it' (unless it's a fantasy game and a wizard really did it).

I don't get the F1 & F2 "hardcoe fanzzz"

F1 and F2 were way way more broken than F:NV.

Do you "super hardcoe fallout fans" REALLY LIKE THE NCR THE WAY IT IS PORTRAYED IN F:NV?

Why does there have to be continuation?
Look at CoD 1, 2, 3, and WaW. They ALL took place within a 3-4 year time span. There's a possibility to have almost innumerable stories without going 200 years into the future. Even MORE SO with the Fallout universe. You can have EVERY SINGLE fallout game set within 100 years after. 200 years is just going too friggen far. What is the point of this?


And the biggest mistake made in F3 was to place it 200 years after. It feels like it should be less than 100 atlesat, maybe 50.

How are FO1 and FO2 broken? FO3 is broken.

Blame Bethesda for setting the Game 200 years after the Great War. They don't want the timeline to go back. Its not Obsidians fault.

Yes I love the way NCR is in New Vegas. After 200 years of progress you will be that advanced.

Why do I sense that this is a negative input?


F1 became kinda lolcat after getting the power armor and Fallout 2 is really buggy and it's difficulty curve is brutal at best.
Other than that I can't think of much else that was problematic.


Again, why does it feel like you're trying to call us something else?
Yeah I actually do like how NCR is portrayed, it shows that them trying to do what the old world did in this new land will be the end of them. (My perspective; opinion.)
It shows that a faction I loved one minute I hate the next, I loved them under Aradesh and Tandi's rule, but under Kimball's? Ugh..


I don't see the point in just moving forward either, but continuation is more about staying true to the lore rather than just moving forward in the timeline.


Si.

That's the point isn't it.
It's not us who set it 200 years after the war. It's not us that take the moving forward stance.
Bethesda wanted the Brotherhood of Steel and the Enclave in DC and therefore had to set it after Fallout 2. They were the ones who placed it 200 years after the war.

We just want it to be consistent with previous titles. For the place to make sense with the lore and to make a bit of common sense.

@Gabrieldan

I was talking about the brokeness of the game universe, not the game engine.

Yeah, I'm making this thread because I don't want to see F4 go into the future anymore. In fact I want it to go back in time, to a point when the world was more post-apocalyptic. You can call it "hollywood sterotype" if that makes you feel better, but there's a certain expectation about what the world would be like after nukes fall that I don't get from F:NV so much. Be it from hollywood, intuition, books, or other post-apoc games.

How are FO1 and FO2 broken universe wise?

If you are that worried go to the FO4 sugggestion threads and stop taking your frustration out on New Vegas.

You don't get the point of FO1 and FO2 and New Vegas. Progress. Take it up with Beth about wanting the timeline to go back.

Actually S.T.A.L.K.E.R 2 is coming shortly and the previous S.T.A.L.K.E.R games have that great sort of post-apocalyptic feel so if I wanted to play a game that's set around anarchy and complete and total destruction then I'd play those.

I wouldn't mind a Fallout game set in 2095 for example, but I'd still not want what Fallout 3 was with raiders and hostile mutants around every damn corner and no production going on at all.
I want that sort of half-anarchy going on.
That places are "civilized" in their own way but are nowhere near the kind of civilization that NCR or House got going on.
But yeah, it has to make sense, so if it's set in 2095 then I could understand there being a lot of raiders and chaos going on.
But the places which "are" civilized should also depict that.

How are Fallout 1 and 2 broken game-universe wise?

And on the second point, I agree.
I'd like to return to a Fallout 1 like setting. A new place which can last a while and where we can see new things arise.

Fallout 3 should have been at least at the level of Fallout One. :foodndrink:

I also like to know why he thinks Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 are broken universe wise.

Rare type of Fallout "fan" that hates FO1, FO2 and New Vegas but loves FO3.

FO3 was my first game. I've never played the first two. Yet I consider FONV to be superior to FO3 in every category that matters (I don't consider rubble, exploring and loot to be top priority in an RPG).

Nice try.

i don't think new vegas is superior in every area or else it would of had a rating more like 9 or 10 instead of 7.5, fallout 3 and oblivion both are rated around 9, so that does say something, this is how i match em up

New Vegas>>> on the plus side new vegas does have a good story, lots of factions, more npcs, more weapons, mods, more quests, better skill, perk, special system on the negative side, there aren't really any good structures to battle in or explore, exploration is weak compared to FO3 and good battlezones are hard to find in new vegas. and the human type enemies are too poorly armed most of the time, and the deal with some of em using hatchets and macheties and varmit riflles past level 20 has to be dealt with. also no random encounters in new vegas the map is too predictable and easy to figure out once you play through it once or twice.

FO3>>>fallout 3 had lots of good battlezones, la enfant plaza, the capitol building inside and out, the entire downtown area really, red racer factory, chryslus building, the northwest part of the map area was very difficult until maybe really high levels, with lots of enclave outposts, there were lots more building to go inside and explore, and complex buildings, lob enterprises, the metro tunnels, the roosovelt academy, the national guard armory was fun to fight the robots in, their dialogue was classic, and there was more of an unpredictablitiy factor on the map which makes future play throughs better, on the bad side fallout 3 did give us too many skill points, too many perks, not a lot of npcs, not as much dialogue or quests, thats how i see the games.

Game Abilities =/= Website ratings

Thats your opinion. i think we can safely say more people enjoyed FO 3 over NV. Thats me going by personal experience and from friends and people i know, also checking out a lot of the fallout forums will show this. The game critics also are in agreement that FO 3 was better. NV was ok, but pretty boring at times. completing it more than once is a chore!

Wow so you and your friends represent the fallout community? There are alot of people out there that love both. Only a few are like you which hate every fallout but FO3.

1) How in the Bloody heck FO1 and 2 are broken???

2) Good reviews, GOTY, Awards, thats doesnt means NOTHING, Fallout 3 got GOTY and everyone is rejoiced,

NV got GOTY, everyones complains, HOW IS THAT LOGIC!!!???? :brokencomputer: :brokencomputer: :brokencomputer:



Cool story bro

I didnt JUST say me and my friends tho. Plus i said NV was OK. Also in an earlier post i said FO 1 and 2 were decent games in there day. So you've decided to just make that up?

Sorry, but you do support another person that hates every fallout but FO3 so I was confused again sorry.

Still many people agree both games are great and can see that both have their place. No one is saying the East should be as advanced as New Vegas but at least as advanced as FO1 was.

few internet polls and your friends don't represent the fallout community.