Well looks like thats all changing! Bethesda's games are the true birth of fallout. This is where the fallout series really begins. Ive played fallout 1and 2, how anyone can say there better than fallout 3 or NV is beyond me! 1 and 2 are really dated poorly made games. sure they were decent in there day, but dont even compare now. So i look forward to many installments of fallout from bethesda, the true creators of fallout!

So, why Bethesda bothered to buy poorly made games????


Because you dont like it=/= Bad Games


True Creator of Fallouts


Tim Cain...... o Tim Cain, Im glad that you arent here to read this

What have you say dont have logic dude, just because they are old games doesnt means that they cant be compared, not in terms of gamplay wise, but yes in terms of plot and story,

Do you really think that Bethesda make Fallout a stelar game and thanks to then is well praised?, dude, we praised the game since 1997, Is like saying that EA made Command And Conquer and make it famous....... :facepalm:

My sarcasm detector is kinda high now but I need to make sure before going ahead, were you sarcastic or were you honest with this statement?

... You know, if this wasn't a teen forum, I would cuss you out and give you a [censored] speech about how [censored] dumb this post is, and I would [censored] kill someone's pet toad.

A TOAD.

I'm with gabriel. Either he's being sarcastic or he's what every gamer should fear.

Well the "sarcasm" quote isn here so....

You know, it kinda does sound like somehting someone here would say with an honest heart (and I think I've heard a whole bunch of these in the past).

Theres no sarcasm here. This is where fallout begins. The old fallout games are just laughable now. games you go back and play when your feeling nostalgic. Now we have the technology to make games like fallout 3 and NV the devs have almost endless options to develop a true feeling of a post nuclear america. As ive already said this is the beginning of the real fallout series

Let's just respect other people's opinions, ok, guys.
Some people prefer the post-nuclear Fallout 3 setting, others prefer the civilized New Vegas setting. This doesn't mean one side is wrong and the other is right: it just means different preferences.

Personally, I want my Fallout game to have a distinct post-apocalyptic feeling.... because, it is titled "Fallout" after all. But I also like New Vegas'atmosphere.

It's amazing how FPP and good graphics == Better game and far more advanced. :rolleyes:
Whatever man, I'm not even going to debate it with you, I disagree with you but I'll respect your opinion of it. (Oh... My... God! I didn't notice Lun-Sei Sleidee's post above me so now my post sounds really cheesy! :ahhh: )

Oh F's sake.

Old gamers stop being so blooming high and mighty.
New gamers stop picking fights you won't win.
Both just stop insisting you're right and anyone else is wrong.
Or at least put some blooming funny posts in.
To make this once original topic, now completely made into an Old vs New rant worthwile before it gets locked.
Edit, three in a row.

Just for the record im not a new gamer. my first computers were a zx spectrum and a commodore 16. So ive played LOTS of games with BAD graphics.

Interesting....I see what you did there...

Oh, I just mean it's interesting how you took your opinion, put an "elitist, bad-a, I'm so cool" attitude behind it and tried to pass if off as fact.

No it's not where Fallout begins. If you want to throw what Fallout was about out, you might as well start a new IP.
Gameplay-wise the earlier Fallouts were quite more complex. One can make an argument about simpler being better, but it'll never shake the feeling I have that my option really don't bring all that much to the table compared to them.
Take a look at the art of Fallout 1. It had a lot more in common with Fallout NV than 3, and it really wasn't all that much about the lone survivor eeking his way through a war torn area, with radiation everywhere 200 years after the bombs. But more an exploration at what had come afterwards.


I'd like Fallout to have a feeling that seems logically. For the post-apocalyptic feeling they need to go back to 2077-2150. If you're going to keep going forward in time, you can't expect radiation everywhere and civilization barely present.


Fallout 1 & 2 had great graphics. Top notch animations, good details for it's time and most importantly great art direction. It captured the feeling they were going for. I dare say it has aged better than say the earlier 3D games.
I'd say Fallout 3 and New Vegas have pretty terrible animations and in terms of graphics aren't all that grand compared to what's out there.
It's easy to look back on games who didn't have all the fancy graphical processors and who's idea of necessary disk-space was 10Mb and say they were bad. But that's not fair to the limitations of the time. You might say they were outdated and that they have been (graphically) surpassed, but bad means that they hurt your eyes looking at them.

That actually furthers what I'm getting at. I don't feel like we're really exploring a "post-nuclear world".... Yeah, logically it fits with the F1, and F2. BUT it's missing the critical anarachy, grittiness, and desperation of the previous titles. Oh and creepiness, F:NV is never creepy - ya you've got a couple of places, maybe - Vault 11? C'mon remember the hub in F1? I was creeped out by EVERYTHING there, actually - everything in F1 was creepy to some extent. F3 was even more of that - every building, vault, and even the wasteland itself was atleast somewhat creep - skulls under every box, grim office buildings, etc etc

I think too many of the original fallout players are defending F:NV because they see themselves as better understanding the series. While this may be true, all those classic gamers are forgetting what made F1-2 so good. It wasn't the NCR, it wasn't the brotherhood of steel, or any of that. It was that there was a whole different civilization/world. Fallout 1-3 were different because they were ADVENTURES in a POST-NUCLEAR world. F:NV is a game, in a whatever-mash-up world. By all regards it is the best GAME, perhaps it even follows the "story" better than F3. Yet, it has lost the thing that made Fallout, Fallout. - And that is, erm "fallout."

This argument floating around about the "realism" and "logic" behind F:NV is simply wrong. Fallout isn't great because it is "realistic" or "logical", it is great because it made something unrealistic believable. Fallout 1 and in a small way Fallout 3, are more literary than gamey. What I mean is, you're experiencing a gameworld like a novel. With each quest or exploration you opened a new chapter into a strange new world. In F:NV this isn't happening - the quests are just games, you're not participating in a Fallout world, it's a whatever-the-heck F:NV world is.

F:NV kept too much of the fluff from F1-2, but lost the core - the apocalyptic feel. When Cain is talking about the "ethics of a postnuclear world" he's not talking about the NCR, CL, FotA, BoS, Enlcave or all the others - he's talking about the intriguing scholarly/intellectual pursuit of assessing humanity in anarchy, or atleast a "resetting" of power. This has been an offshoot intellectual pursuit for quite a while... The problem is, in F:NV we've gone beyond the "resetting", now it's not too different from what was before the "resetting". One of the most critical elements to this is that there should be no central power - but look at House, CL, and NCR - they're all just too powerful to fit in the true original design of Fallout.


Fin/

TL:DR :

F:NV has everything it needs to be the sequel to F1-F2 from the development of NCR, Tribes, bos etc, but it's missing the most critical element - fallout.

fallout: the radioactive particles that settle to the ground after a nuclear explosion

I want to kill a cat. Can people really be this dumb?

-

By logic we mean a logical extrapolation of Fallout 2. If we can see agriculture and community formation in 1 and powers forming in 2, why would it be all gloom and doom in one set even later.
It's the time frame that should matter. A game more like Fallout 3 or Fallout 1 in feeling (both are very distinct in my eye) they'd actually have to go back into the time-line. Find a new place and have it be 2150.


Have you played Fallout 2. Heck even 1 didn't have much actual fallout. There's as much fallout in NV as there was in 1 and 2 (perhaps even more).

I disagree, up to a point. I never percieved Fallout so much as a depiction of the world, but the society in it. NV does a fine job in continuing that line of thought. And, in a way, Tim Cains comment can be interpreted also as "Not so much about the body, but the soul".

LONG LIVE BETHESDA! The creators of the true fallout series!

He is dissing the first two games, I don't give a [censored] about New Vegas or Fallout 3, if someone says fallout starts in a sequel that isn't even related to an older game then it has no right to be called part of that series. The game I am refering to is that of which will not be spoken of.. and Fallout 3.

Troll Obvious Troll


Back on Topic

Fallout was just the name for the serring of the Post Apocalyptic world

Troll Obvious Troll


Back on Topic

Fallout was just the name for the serring of the Post Apocalyptic world

And About the "Civilization thing"

Fallout 1 suceed to mix both Apocalyptic and rebuild stuff.


Rebuild and civilization: Shady Sands, Junktown, The Hub

Apocalyptic: Necropolis, Boneyard, The Glow

This is an huge quoting I'm making here, but I just wanted to underline: I agree with this, and again, this is precisely why I like Fallout 3 more than New Vegas.

Let's just accept that New Vegas never brings any feeling of post-apocalyptic disaster, melancholy and end-of-the-world crisis. Instead, Fallout 3 does that. This is an undeniable fact. Now, some say that Fallout games aren't meant to be about post-apocalyptic survival (but then, why would they be called "fallout"?). I don't know; perhaps. Me, I just know I personally like the atmosphere of Fallout 3 more. Of course, I didn't play Fallout 1 and 2, and my only comparation is between Fallout 3 and New Vegas. Well, between those two, for me Fallout 3 wins.

To those who prefer New Vegas'setting, I ask: apart from "it's totally how the original Fallout games were!" what other reason do you have to prefer the atmosphere of New Vegas? I'm not talking gameplay. I'm just talking the atmosphere, the setting, the story if you will.

As to what is 'post-apocalyptic' and what is not.....what do you base this off of? Obviously it would have to be based on previous settings delivered through different mediums, such as movies, book, and video games. Now, from what I have seen of post-apocolyptia (Mad Max, A Boy and his Dog, FO1/FO2, and other various portrayals) the area always looks like an arid desert (which New Vegas compliments very well). There is only one of the top of my head that reminds me of F3 (The Book of Eli).

I think both NV and F3 seem post-apocalyptic and their own respectable ways. It's two different flavors of kool-aid. Whichever you think is better is based solely on personal preference.