Fallout 3's story was also more focused on the character instead of the Capital wastland and was *cough* poorly written in some spots *cough* and the fate of the wasteland is a trademark part of the fallout series.

Don't know that I would agree necessarily. The game didn't allow for much in the way of choice. Without choice, I don't feel like you are defining a "character" for yourself. On the otherhand, I felt like the wasteland was absolutely the main character, as I found myself wandering for hours, just to find something else I'd never seen before.

I like the originals (though FO2 was not as good as FO1, IMO. replayed 1 several times, FO2 I could never finish. I did get to the oil platform though...before dying repeatedly), but I like NV better. FO3 was good as a follow-up to like Oblivion, but when I played the first 2 afterwards I was like "dude, where's the depth?" in FO3. In NV, I really fell the depth.

Off Topic but I was wondering why you died a bunch of times on the oil rig before you gave up finishing? Did you take off your Advanced Power Armour? Did you pick a fight? Or chould not get past Frank Horrigan?

On topic I agree with your statement.

Change itself can be good or bad.

For instance, the change from FO1/2 -> FO3 was pretty bad, given how the really important stuff - namely the writing, the choices, and the consequences - were lost.

Meanwhile, the change from FO3 -> NV was almost completely good, as we got the witty writing, the choices, and the consequences back.



Yes. I remember back in the day, when we were all arguing about FO3 ditching the mechanics of FO1 and 2. I remember saying "Well... It'd be okay if they preserve the really important stuff. You know, the intelligent dialog, the varied quests and options to complete those quests... And the ending narration that sums up the results of your actions."

The joke was on me.

I really liked Fallout 2, personally. They were both amazing. Fallout 3 was bleh, but New Vegas was amazing.

I hear that a lot from people who are trying to use that as a excuse to why the "haters" did not liked it.

"They did not liked it because it was turned base".

That was never the issue, the issue was as FO3 was a cut above Oblivion it still fell short, a example as in FO1-2 they pretty much leave your character as open as possible in FO3 we had "Father" were the notion the player could not give a rats *** about him seem to have never crossed the developers mind. Something that in FO1-2 you could do since both the GECK and the Water Chip were red herrings.

Even Bioware in BG2 given some excuse to go after Irenicus besides rescue to Imoen, as flimsy as it was.

You know what my biggest problem with Fallout 3 is?

That Bethesda were afraid to take risks so we got the Brotherhood of Steel that did not needed to be there and we got the Enclave that also did not needed to be there and then the Super Mutants were they were afraid of people calling the "Orcs" that they made them yellow instead of green that certainly did not needed to be there. We even got VATS as a attempt to say "here, its real time with pause so it can be turned based" that I am not even going there.

Besides some new enemies they expanded almost nothing, were they SHOULD have taken risks they played safe.

When i said that people refused to change, i mean that they cant stand that they changed the style of the game (From Turn Based RPG, to FPS RPG), some fans hate that change at the point of bashing Bethesda only because the mechanics was different, not for the game engine neither for the story

I would love Fallout New Vegas way more than fallout 3 actually if the map was more open like in Fallout 3 with random encounters and Enemies with guns instead of the Cazador which is almost the equivilent of the raiders from fallout 3. But New Vegas's choices, the new crafting system, ironsights, and the ability to be more types of characters make this game just slightly better than fallout 3.

Do you really think game mechanics have no place in a discussion about why someone didn't enjoy a game or why a game might not be a very good sequel?

To put it bluntly if you had asked me after Fallout 2 was released what form the next game in the Fallout series should take a first person perspective action-RPG with shooter elements in a sandbox world with an intense focus on random exploration could not have been further from my mind.

Bitter and biased much..? You went into a game pretty much hating it before you even played it because it wasn't made by the team of devs you wanted it to be. You're surprised you didn't like a game you decided to not enjoy why..?

I, on the other hand had to wait to get FO3. Money doesn't fall into my lap for free so I had to be patient and pay some bills/real life expenses before I could afford FO3. When I finally got it (like 5 months after it came out) I thoroughly enjoyed every minute. Why? Because I let myself enjoy the game.

I went on into greater detail explaining my point of view...but then I deleted it. Why? Because I'm pretty darn sure you LOOOOOVE New Vegas...and I'm tired of responding to these kind of posts -_-; NV is identical to FO3 in gameplay... only the fluff aspects of the game are different.

Gameplay good/bad = fun/notfun

Fun gameplay = what matters most in a video game.

Carry on nitpicking details and story elements. /laff

Gameplay is always fun, but the elements of story is always a matter of discuss,

Bethesda is great at world building, but has notoriously bad writing. People love it because of the plot and the characters, the wit and the humor, the setting and the factions.

P.S.: I like my game like I like my books/ movies, with a storyline and characters I care about, if not I don't care about the game, gameplay is great, but I wouldn't be able to stand horrible writing and bad voice acting

The developer's goal with Fo3 was to design a game where 1950's TV/movie sci-fi shows come to life. That is why you see all of the outrageous quests like Them!, the whole cantebury commons thing and whatnot. They wanted to make it feel like you were living in one of those absurd shows and still retain some of the original Fallout brand serious tones and gritty atmosphere. They achieved their goal and it was a pleasant diversion... but I could never finish the game more than once, because it was all about experiencing the gimmicks.... after seeing them they lose the shock value. Like I said though, it was GREAT fun the first time through. FO NV I put in tons of time already and on other characters things feel, different.... I never did anything with the powder gangers or their base of operations the first time and I missed a lot of stuff that added depth to things I felt were shallow my first run through. Fo3 there was no extra layer of depth, but that is just my opinion.