In my opinion, Fallout 3 wasn't a bad game, it only had really bad main story and pretty bad quests. You leave the vault to find your father, you find him, father dies, water is clear and NO ONE in the entire world even gives a damn. And you're called a [censored] kid the entire game, you have the best armor, a large gun in your hands..but you're just that 19 year old kid from the vault...which svcks. Who wants to be some kid? No one.

On the other hand, even though I hated the story and lots of quests..I still had a lot of fun with the game. If Bethesda actually hires someone who can make interesting stories and quests this game might be really nice.

Or maybe they will let Obsidian create the real Fallout game once again...oh man that would be awesome.

Welcome and I think it is just you. (wiggle eyes)

Well maybe not, but i thought they did a pretty dang good job with 3, even better with a few of the dlcs (2 in my mind heh).

But what do I know heheh

Well, I expected a good successor of Fallout 2 (in terms of story at least) but what they did was awful. I believe you haven't played original Fallout 1 and Fallout 2...otherwise you'd know they messed up big time.

I smell a sockpuppet.

Oh god is this gonna be another one of these threads? It's a different company, that bought (and saved) the franchise from dying. They did what they wanted to. It's done. Things aren't going back to the old days. The writing will likely be a lot like 3, so if that didn't do it for you, I don't think 4 will be a radical change back to the old days

Meh, I think I'm one of the few who doesn't think Bethesda's writing is inherently inferior to the writing of other developers. Maybe it's because I don't put too much emphasis on the story of the main quest (or indeed the writing) of a game.

But again, I think it's just become 'trendy' to hate on Bethesda's writers. I haven't really seen that much evidence that suggests their writing is far worse than, say, Obsidian's. I think at times people criticise it for no reason, and this is coming from someone who also loves to write.

I don't want the old days back. I want interesting characters, meaningful quests and a good story.

I've seen it mentioned elsewhere that Bethesda tells better stories through environmental interaction than direct scripting. I think that is why Fallout 3 was so much more had so much more replay value for me than New Vegas. I don't play a BGS game for the plot, I play a BGS game for the exploration. Finding the diaries, prop encounters, etc. are what makes BGS games my favorites.

I love to write as well. New Vegas had interesting factions, multiple choices, awesome New Vegas strip and a charismatic Mr. House. Fallout 3 had pretty much nothing. No factions, expect for Brotherhood of steel which was portrayed as..I dont know..good guys? Which was [censored]. Enclave? Boring..what else? only random raiders, and crazy supermutans...which was another nonsense.

Some supermutans are pretty smart. They're actually pretty awesome.

Played 1, 2, 3 new vegas, tactics and brotherhood of steel (Yes I know some people wont call it by name but it occupied my time for a spell, so ). And I have loved them (yes that sort of love ) in different ways.

But it's all personal preference? Like, what's boring to you might be awesome to 5 million people. Or what's awesome to you, might bore the [censored] outta me. So who's really to say what "good writing" is?

Well, if playing as a teenager looking for his dad is an awesome story for you....so be it Anyway hopefully they will come with something interesting this time..

Some supermutants are also dumb, and they happen to occur in the Capital Wasteland. And the Strip was crap imo.

I agree that the faction system, politics and story of FO3 was inferior to New Vegas, but I think the FO3 writers did a better job than Obsidian outside of that. Establishing a dark and depraved atmosphere, for one thing. Creating a bunch of zany, interesting (albeit small) settlements, another.

NV story wasn't really that much better. At least 3 MQ was grounded in reason.

What do you mean "outside" of that? I'd say there really isn't anything "outside" of that. Bad story, bad quests, no factions...that's pretty much all the writing

I really hate what they did to D.C as well. Cutting it into a few really confusing zones...that was awful as hell.

Courier shot in the head and injured to the point where he can't remember where anything is was a pretty flimsy basis as well. I admittedly couldn't get past an hour or two of fallout 1 because of the gameplay so I can't say much there. Being that they had a lot less to do in terms of developing the game, I'd hope the story was great since it had to really drive the game.

Outside of the story and factions? There's plenty. What about all the side questing and NPC interaction outside of that?

Also, I loved D.C. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

Outside of a bit of heroism I don't think any of the Fallouts had great stories.

Fallout 1: Find us a water chip, o crap super mutants are bad go kill them.

Fallout 2: Find us a GECK, o crap Enclave happens.

Fallout 3: Fix a water filter, o crap Enclave happens again.

New Vegas: o crap I got shot, find the guy who shot you, o crap war over a dam between myself, a Vegas tyrant, New America, and Roman Slavers.

I guess I have to give Obsidian points for doing something different.

A lot of the writing in 3 was sub-par, I usually think back tohttp://i38.tinypic.com/el8px1.jpg whenever someone brings it up. 3 had a couple lines that I enjoyed like Liberty Prime's dialogue, but besides that nothing that would have me laughing or actually taking time to read through everything like I did with the other games.

The little dialogue we have seen from 4 doesn't make me very optimistic either, but here's to hoping.

Is it just me, or are we getting folks from NMA, Duck and Cover and the like making accounts lately?

Well if you think like that, then in NV you're just a courier delivering a package. If being a delivery boy is an awesome story for you....so be it.

I've played FO1. My impression basically was, "THIS is the holy grail that gamesas supposedly mutilated?!?"

To be perfectly honest, I didn't see it so much as superior to FO3 as more of a (shorter) equal. Worst I could say is that it's too short and the gameplay was made me feel more like I was fighting the game than playing it 99% of the time.

Really, a teenager leaving a vault to find their father and saving/dooming the immediate area isn't really inferior to a vault dweller searching to save their home and saving/dooming the immediate area. Hell, the BOS were too trusting in FO1 "Go to the Glow and bring back something useful. Hey, you survived? Great! Join us! Oh, you saved an initiate? Have a free suit of Power Armor!" In FO3, you have to take on a Behemoth almost single-handedly, lead a research team to them and brief them on how they can fix the purifier, retrieve the final component through Vault 87, and maybe destroy the Enclave base before they finally say, "Ok, you've proven yourself."

Following your own father was a bit weird for me at the start. People usually doesn't wanna do something as silly as that heh! But I didn't mind it. It made sense, considering that vault people are normal, unhardened folk, compared to those outside. I remember an old RPG, Grandia, where the hero had his mom following him and killing monsters with him at the start of the game. It was something new, and didn't take me long have a change of heart and like it.

It seems you are here to pick a fight by insinuating our members have inferior tastes than you. And no matter how you slice it or dice it, that meets our definition of trolling and flamebaiting. This thread is thus closed.