First, friendo, don't tell me what I'm doing. Things get a bit dodgy when people start assuming things about other people. I could well assume your taste in literature and sense of humor is a bit crap, based on your previous posts...but I won't and I don't, because I've never seen your bookshelf nor told you a joke over a shot of bourbon. Curious though, leaving Planescape:Torment out of the conversation, what is clever writing in your mind? Are you a Pynchon guy, are you a Beckett guy or are you...I don't know...a Grisham kind of guy?

Second, no. I'm seeing the games for what they are, period. Funny thing about me (since we're getting to know each other and everything), I see things for what they are. And I call things out for being what they are. In fact, there aren't many people this side of Killap who do know those games for what they are better than yours truly. You'll just have to trust me on that. And so as not to sell myself out as a hypocrite, I'll make no assumptions about your ability to trust others.

What was the fellows name you first met in Reno? Jules? He was great.

Yeah, the dialogue in Fallout 1 and 2 was dark, twisted, wonky, comical, and overall just quality.

I'm not telling you what you're doing, I'm stating what you're doing. Those are two different things.

And what is clever writing? J.R.R. Tolkien, Geoffry Chaucer, Alexander Dumas/Auguste Maquet, Fyodor Dostoyvsky, Edgar Allen Poe... I go for the classics. Oh, and as far as humor goes, my favorite is the late George Carlin.

And no, you're stating an opinion, not "what they are." And sorry, but I was taught to never trust a stranger.

Agreed, I played through all of the Fallout RPGs fairly recently and there's a significant, and noticeable drop in writing quality when going from Fallout 2 to Fallout 3.

Yeah, there's a third thing you're doing but I'm too polite to say it out loud. Thing is, you can state things about what you think other people are doing until you're blue in the face but it sure doesn't do a lick of good in making you right. Heck, that's just politics, friend.

The drop is so severe I remember feeling shock ontop of crippling disappointment which then turned to a burning fever of hatred for Bethesda and Fallout 3 both.

Polite? Polite isn't starting an argument. Polite isn't taking what people say out of context. Polite isn't declaring only you 'truly' understand and know about a game like you're the only one who has ever played it. Polite isn't making pathetic personal attacks at a person while pretending they are 'above' doing.

I've just stated the facts, the original Fallout's stories are bland and cliched, very predictable where most of the situations were going to wind up based on your choices. Most of their named characters don't have much depth or personality either. Even a lot of the talking heads don't have that much personality, and the voice acting wasn't that great either. But a game is much more than the story or characters, just look at games like the original DOOM and Wolfenstein. Fallout 1 and 2 are fun to play even today, but that doesn't mean their stories are any better.

Also, the severe drop in writing happened in Fallout Tactics, and continued into Brotherhood of Steel. Fallout 3 compared to those games, is leagues beyond them story and character wise. And BoS was so bad, it's to date, the only game I have returned to a game store.

1. I didn't say I was polite, per se. I said I was too polite to say a thing I maybe woulda said if we were out pallin' about (i.e. I'm not looking for moderator attention if reading between the lines isn't your forte).
2. No, you've stated opinions. Your opinions, for what it's worth (and that much is yet to be determined).

Here's more opinions dressed up all pretty like facts: There's a lot of clever and witty dialog in those games. Tactics was good for what it was but it hardly matters in this discussion. BOS doesn't matter in any discussion about anything, ever.

Well, 3 and 4 are real fallout games to me. Besides what makes fallout fallout is a subjective opinion.

What facts? You're giving your opinions, and while that's fine there's absolutely nothing objectively true about what you've said here.

That's not an inconsistency.

Maybe everyone in the B.O.S. is busy (remember that's only a fraction of the B.O.S. as a whole, plus I'm pretty sure they are there for tech) and also it's been around 10 years since the events of fallout 3 and since that branch recruits locals and has a strong stance in dc, it's not surprising that they have filled their ranks and have an airship.

It's amusing how when you say something is good/bad, it's a matter of fact. But when others do that contradicts your "fact", it's opinion. Sorry, but that's not how things work. However, what I've said, is fact. Fallout add's a unique spin on the very old "Hero is sent out to save the kingdom by getting x" plot with it's nuclear post apocalyptic vision, but the overall story was very bland and predictable.

If your not polite at all, you're not too polite to say anything, as long as you can get away with it.

And yes, there is some dialog that is clever and witty, it's just that it's actually a very small amount of it.

Also, Tactics and BOS are both Fallout games, so they actually do matter in this discussion, as we're speaking of past Fallout games.

Ummm... no, it's not an opinion. As I've repeatedly pointed out, the story is the "Hero is sent out to save the kingdom by getting x" plot line. The setting; building your character how you want it; freedom to move about the map with no restrictions; your actions have consequences; that you could be good, evil or neutral; and that the "bad guy" wasn't really "bad" per say, but was trying to help everyone in his own twisted way is what set it apart from other RPG's of the time.

However, all these things don't hide the fact that the story was bland and cliched, or that a lot of characters, even the talking heads, were flat and boring.

LIke someone mentioned earlier, I'm pretty sure that you are the only one that could save the wasteland in 1 and 2, and (Imo) the world did sort of revolve around you in those games as well.

How are 3 and 4 the worst fallout games? Did you forget about Fallout: brotherhood of steel (and to a lesser extent tactics) by interplay?

And how is it a bad fallout sequel, It seemed like a great sequel to 3 to me.

My two cents, for what its worth, is that Fallout 3 really was a rather bland game, story wise. I can rattle off characters from Fallout, Fallout 2, New Vegas, and Fallout 4 who left impressions, but for Fallout 3 that list is confined completely to the DLC. But that's okay, because Bethesda was a new company taking the reins of a established franchise. It's understandable they'd go for a subdued, watered down tale out of the gate.

What Fallout 3 did have going for it, though, was a gorgeous fully realized Wasteland for us to explore. My impressions of Fallout 3 aren't in the characters or story...it's the setting. Case in point, my poorly made tribute video for Fallout 3 when New Vegas released is nothing but Screenshots of the setting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlmwIf4EqSM

Look, this is all opinion. You can argue until you're blue in the face that you're right and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong, but that doesn't actually make it so. I didn't find anything bland about Fallout 1 and 2's stories, nor did I find the characters "flat and boring." The first two Fallouts were certainly not Shakespeare, but they weren't trying to be.

Disagree all you want, that's fine by me, but you're just wasting your time trying to convince others that your opinion is more right than theirs.

1. I didn't state anything as fact. I said the opposite while mocking you for doing it: "Here's more opinions dressed up all pretty like facts" which means "These are my opinions which I'm presenting to you as facts" i.e. what you have been doing in this thread. I was, for all intents and purposes, playing the "taste of your own medicine game" and tossing it up in the air.
2. It is. That's what opinions are, bruh. ˉ\_(ツ)_/ˉ

Lol, this has been very fun for me.

1. Actually, you should perhaps go to all your responses where you've ranted and raved about how Fallout 3 and 4 are not true Fallout's and are horrible, and than compare them to how great Fallout 1 & 2 were (notice how you never mention Tactics and BOS). You certainly seem to be doing the "These are my opinions which I'm presenting to you as facts" in well, every thread I've seen you talk about Fallout 3 and 4. You never present your arguments as opinion, but as fact, and than dismiss everyone who disagrees with you, because it's opinion.

2. Than take your own advice, and stop presenting your opinion as facts. You seem to be capable of comprehending the difference. Just sad that you can't actually apply that to yourself.

1. Yeah? Should I? Something tells me I'm well aware of what I'm doing (being provocative to hopefully start a well-mannered debate).
2. But this is between you, me and everybody else in THIS thread, homeslice. See, once you start engaging beyond the "drive-by" level of posting it's time to up your game a little (i.e. step out of the sandbox, brush off the sand and say "Ok, seriously though. For real this time). Just sad that you can't actually apply that to yourself.

**I have noticed that. Um, why would anybody feel the need to talk about them unless under the dual topics of "Yeah it was good for what it was but a crap FO game" and, respectively, "This quick money-grab was a total failure by all acounts."