Believe it or not but Fallout 3 was a big step up from Oblivion. It's nowhere near Morrowind's level but there are many things in Fallout 3 that show Bethesda is on the right track again, after going so far off it with Oblivion.

I personally felt new vegas had a lot more buildings you could enter.

Believe it or not, Fallout: New Vegas was a big step up from Fallout 3. It's nowhere near Fallout 2's level but there are many things in Fallout: New Vegas that show the series is on the right track again, after going so far off it with Fallout 3.

I'll leave your anolyzing abilities, reflection of your own preferences, the word "opinion", and the following counter-argument (which makes me wonder what you're even talking about) to you:

Fallout 3 takes the complaints about Oblivion and puts what they are directed at on steroids. Fallout 3 lacks joinable factions, lore, armor slots, moral ambiguity, content, and skills to a greater degree than Oblivion ever did. The fast-travel system is the same as the one certain fans complained about in Oblivion, the class distinctions are non-existant, and the story really couldn't get more hollow. At least Oblivion's had some lore behind it.

i actually hope that the next TES game is a ways away. next gen consoles arent coming out anytime soon and i dont want a game that im going to be playing for the next 5 years looking like a crappy ps3 or 360 port.

Here, here!

This man makes sense!

I'm afraid I'll have to shock you and agree with you, to an extent. If I adopt the viewpoint of an original Fallout purist for a second, then yes, this is true. It's a better RPG than Fallout 3 was, and almost everything in New Vegas is improved. The only thing it didn't improve, and ultimately made worse, was the world it gave you to explore, which was a big step down from Fallout 3.

My love of Fallout 3 doesn't stop me from being able to see it's flaws, Seti, and I'm not afraid to point them out. But I've never seen you point out Oblivion's flaws while not at the same time pointing out the things you consider flaws in other Bethesda games.



Unlike Oblivion, not only does Fallout 3 have a more interesting world with many many more unique locations and fewer copy-pasted dungeons, as well as much more culture, but it has more interesting and in-depth quests, despite the number of quests being quite fewer. Fallout 3 showed me that Bethesda still knows how to make a interesting and compelling world like they did in Morrowind and did not do nearly as well in Oblivion.

Bethesda helped on the side for the tech stuff

Meh, I just hope bethesda use a new engine for Fallout 4.

Imagine a heaaaaaaaaaaaavily modified dunia engine. It would be amazing. Too bad only far cry 2 uses it.

Bethesda Game Studios is currently in full production on an announced game. However, they stated they are sticking with Gamebryo, but heavily revamping it. They also have a game in pre-production, which is, more than likely, going to be using this game engine.

They also stated that their announced game looks like it belongs on a new generation of consoles, but they must have revamped a lot.

It is speculated that game in full production is TESV while the game in pre-production is Fallout 4.

Nor have I seen you point out the flaws of Fallout 3 without pointing out the flaws of something else, and why should either of us have to point out flaws when arguing against hordes of "the previous game of the series was much better, and that is a fact" and accusations of being "casual", "mindless", or of mainstream mentality?

I'd agree with you on the unique locations thing, but Oblivion did the same thing with quests following Morrowind. It's been a progression from Arena to Fallout 3 in quest depth. Also, must I point out Arena and Daggerfall? What is the right track? How does Oblivion fail to be a good Bethesda game (Remember a certain "Oblivion is a bad Elder Scrolls game" remark from yourself?) when it surpasses most of the others in its series when it comes to an interesting and compelling world? I'd also like to hear of this culture you're referring to, because I still point to the lore. You've got locations as a pure bonus for Fallout 3 (although you really should explore a bit more of Oblivion if you believe that "all locations are the same" myth) , but the quest number vs. quality is a trade-off that each Bethesda game has handled differently, following a trend. Where is Morrowind different from Oblivion in regard to unique locations? Name an interesting place in Morrowind, and I'll give you one back from Oblivion (I'm serious, perhaps over PM?) . Strangely enough, I find Oblivion's world to be very compelling, and it's funny how perception of "flaws" work.

Lastly, you still haven't addressed my main point of opinion. Fallout 3 is a step up from Oblivion, according to you, and yet we're ignoring the things that weren't a step up from Oblivion, and pretending opinions of the opposite are just downright false? Or perhaps that's just how I perceive things after constantly being told "this game is better" and "how can you like that game more" and constantly using the phrase "in my opinion". I'm not trying to argue that Oblivion is a better game. I'm trying to argue that it's an equal game to which I am entitled to prefer over others, and I take the "this game is better" type of comments as an adamant statement, not somone trying to post their opinion, although that may just be a failure of miscommunication on my part. You tell me. IS Fallout 3 a step up from Oblivion, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, AFTER OBLIVION GOES SO FAR OFF THE TRACK OF RIGHT or DO YOU BELIEVE Fallout 3 is a step up from Oblivion?

I can easily point out Oblivion's flaws, following my opinion, and I have before. They are level-scaling and the leveling system inherited from Morrowind (attribute multipliers make me cringe). Other than that, I find Oblivion to be great. In comparison to Fallout 3, I like Fallout 3's exploration, level-scaling, and quest depth better, although I consider that being exceptional on Fallout 3's part, not flawed on Oblivion's part. The same goes for my preferences from Morrowind, although I personally believe Fallout 3 has both Morrowind and Oblivion beat when it comes to exploration and I actually prefer exploration in Oblivion to exploration in Morrowind (fast-travel system, running speed, lack of map markers, difficult to cross terrain, and very little that has impressed me so far). In comparison to all three, I prefer what Obsidian has done with New Vegas' dialogue, story, item variety, and game mechanics.

I would really prefer to just continue this whole thing over PM, but only if you wish to continue it. If you choose to respond, and I'm referring to anyone, please don't do it here. I'm just going to end up forgetting about the thread or taking it completely off-topic.






On the specific question of Bethesda and Obsidian working together, I'd rather have Bethesda work on TES V.

Seti, we've had this same argument more times than I can remember. We could continue arguing, but it will only resolve this particular argument. When the next one comes up, and I'm sure it will, we'll just start the argument all over again.

I vastly prefer Morrowind and Fallout 3, as you know. You know I don't like Oblivion nearly as much, and no number of mods has been able to change that for me. My opinion on Oblivion isn't going to change, just like your opinion wont change. But just like I don't respond to every single post bashing Fallout 3 in this forum (which would take an infinitely long amount of time), you don't need to respond to all of the posts you see bashing Oblivion. I already know why original Fallout purists bash Fallout 3, and you already know why I put down Oblivion. Just like I've gotten used to the Fallout bashing, I'd like it if you, at the very least, got used to my Oblivion bashing. Even if it's only my bashing you get used to. Because I'm tired of having the same exact argument in slightly different contexts with you over and over again every few months. I perfectly understand why you want to defend Oblivion, but I'd like you to understand arguing with me is never going to change the way I feel about it. These arguments only serve to waste both your time and mine.

I did not know that, thanks for the info.

If they can really modify the gamebyro engine and make it to it's full potential, then I'm okay.

Agreed, unless Bethesda are working on TESV. Which they should be.
Bethesda are simply way better at creating massive worlds full of detail and life. Obsidian, on the other hand, are probably better writers (I wouldnt know?) and better at understanding the Fallout atmosphere and history. Since they created it.

I think the engine only needs a few adjustments. All they really need to do is make it less prone to bugs and make character animations and movements less stiff and awkward.
That, and an improvement in the graphics apartment would be great.
Although, when I look at Oblivion, its graphics look 10x better than Fallout 3's, and could pass for modern standards IMO.

EDIT: Perhaps the physics could do with an improvement, too.

If they fix the 64 hertz issue and make it much more friendly towards AI processing to where 7 NPCs don't make your game a slideshow, then I'll be happy.

As for animations, they just need a better animator. They even know this themselves and are actually currently looking to hire one.

And for better graphics, they said that their current project almost looks next-gen, so that might be happening. Not to mention that since they have the programming genius that is John Carmack on their side, how could their engine not be improved in that aspect as well as others?

Then again, there's also the factor of the 5 year old hardware on current generation consoles dragging everything down. :shrug:

i think bethesda is probably better at world building and layout. obsidian is better with quests and dialogue. overall im more impressed with new vegas than fallout 3 but i do prefer fallout 3 world space for some reason. new vegas itself was a bit underwhelming but at least it had some great quests. maybe i had my sites to high but i was thinking new vegas was going to be something on the scale of imperial city in oblivion or maybe a bit smaller. when i finally got there it was all of about 4 cells. freeside seemed bigger than new vegas. i noticed alot of people complaining about invisible walls, FO3 had these all over as well but they hid them better with debris piles and big fences or walls, obsidian just left it blank and it kind of breaks immersion.

in order of best games i would put morrowind at the top, then new vegas, then fallout 3 (with mods) and finally oblivion (with mods). sorry about not including the first fallout games but i couldnt stand the combat style and had to stop playing after an hour or so.

What I want to know is where the great story tellers at Bethesda went. Daggerfall and Morrowind were great stories and the lore was very rich but now.......

Best. Post. Ever. :mohawk: