a lot of the stuff in new vegas is from the originals, FO3 did a lot of stuff wrong and ignored a lot of the mechanics from the original games...

bethesada improved fallout , but you have to remember, they were introducing fallout to wider audience than the previous fallout games and the fact is they made a game that was just overall more fun and more popular than the previous fallout games, FO3 has a game rating of 9.0, and bethesdas other game elder scrolls oblivion is rated at 9.6, they're both similar in lots of ways, tons of exploring, plenty to do with countelsss hours of gameplay that keeps you busy for literally years, yeah obsidian did make some improvements like the reputation system, better voice acting, more dialogue, good complex story, but they ignored a lot of areas and the fact is about 50'% of the people who played new vegas and FO3 have noticed the lack of exploration, the lack of well armed human enemies to fight, the lack of of a dynamic world, its a very static game. so static it breaks the game, after you've played new vegas a few times, there is nothing new you'll ever see, no random encounters, no random events, the same creatures in the same areas, no factions ever patrolling the map, most of the map has nothing going on and its pointless to cruise around, cause after level 15 or so there isn't anything to do except finish the quests, exploration is non exisistent in this game unfortunately, don't expect FO4 to be like new vegas.

I wish that people that have never played the original games would stop acting like they knew what Fallout is about and how it could be improved.

Man i sure do hate people that act like ass's. You dont need to play the orgininals to get the idea about fallout and to improve upon it...

Man i sure do hate people that act like ass's. You dont need to play the orgininals to get the idea about fallout and to improve upon it...

You kinda do..

You dont know what Fallout is about if you never played the originals, a lot of people have said that Fallout is about exploration, this is not true about all the Fallout games besides FO3, which diverged from a lot of Fallout values to such an extent I think of it as a spin-off.

well that's your opinion and not Fact OR LOGIC. People could argue that the Originals were terrible. I already what i need to know about the Orginals from other peoples comments and experiences about it.

Yes, but you cant say things like: Fallout 1 was about South Africa, because that is false, saying that exploration is a key aspect of the Fallout series is also false.

I've played and still own FO 1 and 2. They were decent games but bethesda have definitely improved fallout. Just because we've played the originals doesn't mean we know whats best. Bethesda clearly know whats best fo fallout, thats why its one of the best selling games. The series was dead before bethesda took it over and turned it into a huge success, attracting a larger fanbase than ever before.

It maybe be not but still exploration has helped the game experiance. Plus times are changing and the gamers want this instead of just no exploration. You can just keep on Using stuff from the Originals and think everyone will like it.

How is having a linear railroad of a storyline an improvment of the fallout series, the series that emphasises the choices you make and the impact they have. i couldnt choose anything in Fallout 3 that the game didnt already restrict of force on me.

Everything in Fallout 3 was sub-par at best. What could they possibly have improved on? Exploration? Yeah, those metro tunnels sure are exciting.

you just cant argue that F3 has improved on the Originals. Espically with that terrible looking down at the person view. Plus with more copies sold than F1 or F2. Yes things in F3 were restricted but wasnt there things in all of them that restricted you a great deal.

Double post.

Not really, Fallout and Fallout 2 gave you freedom in almost everything you did, which is what made them great, First-Person perspective isnt always superior, Fallout and Fallout 2 are older games, thats like comparing sales of a modern car to the Model-T and say that the modern car was more important in history.

There were changes, not necessarily improvements.

in some peoples opinions the modern car is more important in history or it can be the other way around.

Oh my dear loving beautiful forgiving god... WHY DO YOU KEEP MAKING STRAW-MAN ARGUMENTS!?

bethesda makes games in a particular type of way and that includes plenty of exploration, they own the franchise, they made it popular to the masses with their formula of gamemaking and FO3 was a huge success and rated at 9.0 and deservingly so, so your view is a minority, they breathed life into the fallout franchise by making an awesome game, their own version of fallout, they hit a homerun with FO3, even with the few faults and shortcomings, it was still fun to play for hundreds and hundreds of hours, they make games that make you just want to keep playing em, elder scrolls and now also fallout, who the hell wants fallout to go back to how it was made before when the game wasn't nearly as popular and the franchise died, seriously, its a good thing bethesda owns the rights or else there may not be fallout games.

I never said it wasnt a good game, it is one of my favorite games of all time, but it is my least favorite Fallout game (I have never played the Burned Game). Game ratings matter in terms of games, but I would like to see FO3's Fallout-Game rating.

yes exactly. If Bethesda didn't own this franchise it would be in the Dumps right now.

I could refute that but it is likely that someone else will.

Not hardly its practically true.

Why do you think it took so long for F3 to come out? The people that made F1 and F2 pretty much went out of business and then Bethesda bought the rights to the game.

Lets finish this topic now. You want to compare the various games then there are plenty of topics in the Series discussion forum, but then a few of you already know that.