Joe Piler quote:-
"RPG is not boardgame related!"
End

Quite so.

And that is why having board-game play in the early Fallouts diminishes the RPG role-play, the ability to play the role true to the role that you are playing.

Bethesda creatively constructed a sequel relating to the early sequels scenarios to produce a superb RPG and the best written RPG, the most imaginative. What more could you ask.

IGN -- Game of the Year 2008
-- Best RPG
-- Best Use of Sound

GameSpot -- Best PC Game
-- Best RPG

Golden Joystick -- Award Ultimate Game of the Year 2009
-- Award PC Game of the Year 2009

At the 2009 Game Developer's Choice Awards, it won overall Game of the Year along with Best Writing.

10th Annual Game Developers Choice Awards -- Game of the Year 2008
-- Best Writing

Had nothing to do with the previous entries with "perhaps" the exception of Enclave (which made no sense anyway.) and it fails to be a superb RPG since it actually dumbs down and removes earlier RPG elements from the series.
It doesn't even have good writing, some examples of it: Tenpenny Tower, Arefu, Megaton, Canterbury Commons and Republic of Dave.
At all those "towns" they failed to make them logical.
Finally, most imaginative, how so? They ripped off the other games and changed BOS to white knights and Enclave to "teh evulz!" They had "some" creative ideas but hardly the most imaginative RPG out there let alone the most imaginative Fallout game.

Oh, another argument from authority. It's like with Call of Duty now.

I am pretty sure Modern Warfare 2 also got the Best FPS award from GameTrailers, Best Game Overall from GameSpy, Best XboX Game from Metacritic and Best Multiplayer from Spike.
Objectively speaking(and as a fan of MW1), the game's actually crap and not innovative in any way, shape or form. Basing my opinions solely on reviews is just... I don't know, stupid.

@Gabriel
Just leave it at that. It's like trying to convince a cat to go swimming for 3 hours non-stop. If you catch my drift *snicker*

While all that may be true, do understand that critical praise isn't going to count much as "proof" for someone with reservations about the game. For example, I could go see and movie and come out of the theater not liking it at all. That Roger Ebert had highly recommended it isn't going to make me like something I'd already decided I didn't. As well, there's plenty of movies that I've gone to see and thoroughly enjoyed, even though my favorite movie critics had said it was a bad movie.

Yep, I am so like that.
No one likes the movies I like, and people complain when I don't like movies that everyone else like

Resident Evil 5 got praised by the reviewers, guess how the Capcom fanbase think about that?

I hate getting to these things last but if you want fallout 1 and 2 they cost a good bit alone.
if you want a good price go to ebay and look up
FALLOUT COLLECTION (Original, Tactics, Fallout 2) NEW!
its only 8 dollars and its Fallout 1 2 and tactics in one box. this just shows how buying one is a waste of money buying all 3 in this will save you some.
Buy it then come back and tell us what you think
if you hated it wait for fallout 4 to come out and sell it for 13 dollars. then you'll get your money back and gain some at the same time.

Pretty much how alot of us wasted money on Fallout 3?

Yeah, I thought so.

Critical praise from respected reviewers that have passed the test-of-time showing that they give valid reviews, unlike, the nonsense by some that I read on here trashing the game with no valid reason. I don't mind others having their own preferences, but those reviews that I quote are much more valid.

Do you understand that those reviewers, their livelihoods rely on giving true accounts of what they review, the magazines that they write for would go out of business if those reading them found that were just reading garbage, and would get rid of those bad reviewers.

No the reviews are valid, you may have a different preference to the majority and those reviews, and that you are entitled to.

I loved the early Fallouts ..... at that time way back.
I now love Fallout 3 that showed how the early Fallout should have been done.

Yes those reviewers agree with me, they gave balanced and accurate reviews, the same as my rational view.

Proof? Yes proof enough of getting a good balanced accurate review. I have always found reviews such as those to be a very good guide to what I m getting, but there will always be the odd tiny few that have a different preference and will try to trash such reviews ... and I certainly wouldn't take regard of those that trash on here, nu_clear_day.

(Some view Fallout 3 as Oblivion with guns and they are among those that trash on here) laughter, so I'll not take regard of those reviews, but I'll take regard of those that I have quoted as being a more valid proof of a good valid and accurate review... It's more for those without prejudice.

But some will just not see it ... or try to deny the praise and awards ... ludicrous, shrug and laughter.

And personally I don’t care if they don’t see it, I’m just giving the facts.

How many of these "awesome great no question asked" reviewers do you think actually played FO1/2?
How many of them do think are graphic focused?
How many of them think that a good game is game with cool weapons?


I don't think that the reviews were balanced.
If they were there'd be a lot of rage from the reviewing community about how "Fallout" Fallout 3 really is.


I don't think that if a reviewer has played the earlier titles that they should be allowed to do a review on the sequel.
That "proof" you got is proof that Fallout 3 is a good game on it's own merits, not that it's a good Fallout game.
And since when did it go against the rules to oppose a review?


Now this on the other hand is against the rules.
So a good review is a positive review?
A good review is a review from some dude who powerplayed the game for a week to give his 2 cents on the game?
A good review is a review from someone who might not even know jack [censored] about the rest of the titles in the series?


You continuously deny and/or ignore the arguments we give you about how the older games are vastly superior to FO3. :shrug:


Reviews and awards are facts?

[edit]
* Damnit why'd I have to do this quote...
* People, we're offtopic again, better get back on track.

Some people in this forums (and to a mayor extent the whole internet and the world) dont care about reviews and awards, also, not all reviews are accurate and share the same opinion, guess how good was the reviews of Alpha Protocol in Europe compared to the reviews in the US

You always are ignoring the fact that we giving you valid points of why we think that the olders Fallout are supperior to the new ones, but you are just ignoring us praising Fallout 3, not because you like it, thats not a bad thing, but just because you believe that reviews and awards are valid points to prove that it is supperior, when some other people always have an objection or more to believe that those reviews are wrong in some points or because the game doesnt deserve an award

There's so many strawman in your arguments dear Curtis it's not even funny. No one is denying F3 its awards, we are just questioning it's credibility.
But of course, we oughta get labelled as denial and trashing haters anyway. Nice attitude, all that arrogance has to come from somewhere I guess. :disguise:

Fact being, that Fallout 3 is a very poor Fallout game with its crippled RPG aspects, and not even a mention in the Guiness World Records book is going to change that.

Not biased, just objectively speaking.

/laughter

Closed for off topic discussion and now some flaming going on. :sadvaultboy: