Gade, I just have to say that having women as only slaves and passing them around as six toys is not "good" That is bad......

Anytime people are forced to do thinga against their will to that extent is bad.

Anyway, the worst bit of New Vegas I would say is the move in having development of civilisation, if following sequels continued that development then the post-nuclear apocalyptic scenario would eventually vanish ... and where would we go for a post-nuclear apocalyptic game then. No, New Vegas lost the plot in that respect.

... but they did say New Vegas is a spin-off ... Fallout 3 is the genuine Fallout.

Too bad the qualities are exactly opposite. :shrug:

Calling NV not apocalyptic enough is... questionable too.
Hell, It's still a postapo game, wheter you like it or not.


Well, the "post nucelar apocalyptics scenario" is quite a mess when it comes to F3. Bethesda, the famed lore-creators are for some reason omitting even the simpliest explanation of how East Coast looks like [censored] as opposed to West Coast that fared simply well with basicly same conditions?

If *that* is the platform for "exploring the ethics"... then, urm, I'll take the "Humanity" of yours, any fethin' day. Less plotholes, and logic fallacies too. IMHO.


But hey. We both live in our little worlds thinking that game XY is superior to game YY, right?

*grin*

No, Fallout 2 is the greatest of all the time :spotted owl:



But it happens after the bombs, so IS Post Apocalyptic, you dont need ruins and a big warzone to make it plus the big green tint in the atmosphere





The Giant Rat has nothing to do with the Main Plot, or the Enclave to a mayor extent

As for Enclave and Legion, both have noble missions, but in a twisted way

Enclave just want to restore the old glory of USA, destroying the impure

Legion wants to bring civilization to the wasteland

Maybe you have a Black and White morality, but I dont even see the EBOS as the good people, I mean, they shoot ghouls on sight, and NOT only Feral Ghouls if you know what I mean

Fallout was always grayer, with the exception of FO3 main plot who is Good guys (BOS) VS the Bad guy (Enclave)

I loved FO3's world and gameplay and made me get in to the older games which were fantastic (though im not fond of turn based stuff) though the writing and choice, while FO3 had some good choices namely the Tenpenny tower quest with the ghouls (loved the peaceful option has one group backstab the other) or the pitt. But did have some really terrible choices like blowing up megaton(though not really the choice its self more the terrible motivation (none). I did find most cities in FO3 alot more creative then FO1 and 2 without going over the top but lacked the depth of the classics (really rivet city is the main city of FO3 and only has the population of like 15-20 people)



When New vegas came along it blew my mind it pretty for me combines the writing of the classics with the gameplay of 3 and improves on things like more bittersweat endings (I know some of the endings of FO1 were censored because of that though namely with Junktown). or how not forced to side with any one faction in the main plot also not many DLCS can support a 5th main ending to the game.
While the towns were not as creative for me they did hold a fair bit more depth to them and does make me go back to them more.

Though NVs main problem was just bland and lack of interesting dungeons but does have the odd gem here and there but again most were more quest orintated.
It could of also had alot more detail to the 4 main endings on what happens on the whole.

I much prefer NV over FO3...I even have trouble geting back in to FO3 now

F3
PROS
- my first fallout experience
- awesome exploration
- great atmosphere: Arlington cemetary anyone?
- even though the writing was mostly bad i have to say they did a better job of giving motivation to continue following the main quest than Obsidian.
- GREAT level design: just went back to replay it on the PC, examples like: Evergreen mills, The mall, old-olney etc.
- fresh take on the fallout franchise which revitalized the series.
CONS
- Few weapons
- boring companions
- poor writing (dialouge and story to some degree)
- mediocre voice acting mostly
9
FNV
PROS
- Great story mostly
- Great character development
- Good dialouge and voice acting
- Alot of quests
- Interesting factions
- new gameplay elements (ironsights etc.)
CONS
- re-using SO MANY assets from F3
- boring level design: battle of Hoover Dam...
- Less motivated main quest (after you find Benny)
- really dated graphics which showed no improvement (not a huge deal)
- repetative and un-interesting dungeons which limited my interest in exploration (still visited all the map-markers)
- Less nostalgic pre-war 1950's vibe (which i thought really set fallout apart from other post apocalyptic media)
- Felt rushed.
7.5

If you're gonna focus on one part only then yeah Legion are oh so evulz.
Please.
Legion might do some bad things but they are far better than any of the others.

And we don't know if every female is enslaved.
Some are made citizens, might as well be female citizens for all we know.

[edit]

But this isn't the thread to discuss Legion vs NCR vs BOS vs House vs Yes Man vs Enclave vs Snuffles.

Except few weapons in the fo3 cons section it's pretty much all true somewhat sadly.Hey i actually liked the companions .

I know i hate it when people make out that it's the white nights v the dastardly devils .Because Frank Horrigan was ultra Grey.

Mole rat supremacy!

Well I guess I viewed the Master as someone who was meant to be an explicit Nazi EXPY. "Give birth to the Master Race RACE! RAAAACE!" and all. He struck me as something of a card carrying villain with his big Lovecraftian Bio-Organic Cathedral and only the fact that the Super Mutants (who were pretty much the Orks of Fallout 1) were so damn funny made his efforts less frightening.

He was damn cool, though. COOL! COOOOL!



No, that was baseless fan speculation. I'm going to start a thread on it. It would explain a lot.



To each their own.



It was five a.m. Brain was shutting down. As for Caesar's Legion, I wanted very much to like them but they seemed to go out of their way to portray them as senseless jerks. I actually would have loved a GENUINE Neo-Roman Empire in fallout as opposed to Caesar's "Huns in Roman garb."



http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Brain



The Legion basically is creating a highly misogynist raider culture that pretty much exists solely to kill, destroy, and plunder in ever greater widening amounts. When they finally do kill the NCR then they've pretty much going to just have nothing built or reconstructed but a massive amount of bloodthirsty soldiers.

The Nazi Enclave (vs. Autumn's "Fascist Enclave") wants to eliminate all of the dangerous Wasteland monsters and start reseeding the Earth with non-mutated monsters that aren't trying to kill you every second.

It's probably WORSE but it strikes me as less CRAZY.



Yes. I took Brain to be important though because he helped me put Vault City back on track.



I believe there's room for both, personally. After all, it's not like we can't just have some OTHER disasters occur in the future or play other portions of the timeline. At some point, Fallout would become ridiculous if it was like 1,000 or so after the War.

200 years is stretching it anyway.

Fallout 3 is the canon game, New Vegas is not.

QUOTE Tim Cain who was basically, the creator of Fallout:-
"My idea is to explore more of the world and more of the ethics of a post-nuclear world"
END QUOTE

So there you have it! Canon is the "Post-nuclear world scenario and the ethics in that scenario", the ethics of what people will do to survive and live.

Fallout 3 presents you with that immediate post-nuclear scenario canon to the Fallout creator, Tim Cain.

The post-nuclear world scenario is one of survival as the Fallout 3 box sums up.
"World where every minute is a fight for survival."

New Vegas presents a far later civilised developed scenario, far too much to be canon, and is a spin-off as Bethesda said.

The New Vegas scenario is not even close to scenarios of the early Fallouts 1 and 2, or of the Fallout creator, Tim Cain, and nowhere near close to being canon. Fallout 3 is canon to the early Fallouts 1 and 2 scenarios, and to the Fallout creator, Tim Cain.

Room for both but with the loss of that unique to Fallout. The post-nuclear-example scenario of "it ended up like this" could be different and of anywhere/anytime. There is even a topic asking where we want it to be. Bethesda didn't get the Fallout 'rights' only to end up turning Fallout into just another game like any other.

Both are canon according to Bethesda.



Notice he didn't say he wanted to explore the ethics of a fight for survival. No real discussion of ethics involved in shooting a crazy guy with no personality who attacks you for no reason in the face.



You keep using that word canon. I don't think it means what you think it means.



The post nuclear world of Fallout 1 and 2 seemed to lack that every minute being a fight for survival vibe.



The world of New Vegas is actually far less civilized than that presented in Fallout 2 and even parts of F1. New Vegas has nothing on the Hub unless you think being surrounded by a junk wall is highly civilized. Odd that I would have to explain that to a diehard fan of the originals such as yourself.



Tim Cain on Fallout 3:

"There were a lot of surprises. Some of them pleasant."

"I thought they did a good job understanding what the universe was like and then setting a different kind of game in it."

"Fallout 3 fits with Oblivion in their line of products where I don't think Fallout 1 and 2 would've fit with their product line as well."

"I would've come up with something completely different."

"I think Fallout Vegas is an interesting idea because it's close enough to the New California Republic that you can do a lot of fun stuff with that and that makes sense because it's right next door to where Fallout 1 and 2 took place."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4XVW6qcuzM

Tim Cain seems to disagree with you.

My God, my God, my God, that is so [censored] wrong I could write a [censored] ten page essay on why.

1. Fallout 1, AND 2 were NOT IMMEDIATE post apocalpytic.

2. Fallout 1, created BY TIM CAIN, was not minute by minute survival. It was about the ethics and and post war scenario. Fallout 3 had almost no ethics besides the black and white [censored]. Fallout 1 was grey, grey, GREY. Most quests had many grey ways to complete them.

3. Fallout 1 was set 80 years after the war. Is that immediate post war scenario?

4. Bethesda has said that FNV is canon, so, go take your bias toward Bethesda elsewhere.

5. Fallout 3 is actually LESS civilized than FO1 and 2. Its actually too NOT rebuilt to be canon.

6. Fallout 3 broke canon on so many levels, so how can it be called canon besides Bethesda saying it is?

The ethics of what people do and how they behave in the post-nuclear scenario is what Tim wanted and that what Fallout 3 gives and does.

The word canon has gets thrown about without stating what exactly is the canon of Fallout. What Tim said "My idea is to explore more of the world and more of the ethics of a post-nuclear world", that seemed to fit with what would be canon, as he was said to be the Fallout creator ... Fallout 3 fits in with that canon and also that of the early Fallouts 1 and 2, whereas New Vegas doesn't, but you say Bethesda says New Vegas is canon, in what respect I would have to say.

Tim.
"I thought they did a good job understanding what the universe was like and then setting a different kind of game in it."
"I would've come up with something completely different."
........ ..... ....

That's sad to hear, Fallout 3 is an outstanding Fallout and a huge improvement on Fallouts 1 and 2. Perhaps Tim would have stuck to the old Fallout 1/2 format, oh dear!

Tim.
"Fallout 3 fits with Oblivion in their line of products where I don't think Fallout 1 and 2 would've fit with their product line as well."
........ ..... ....

Not another Fallout is Oblivion with guns type!

Actually Fallouts 1 and 2 were the founders of the open play of Fallout. Bethesda being experts in the type of open-play that the early Fallouts had were best placed to make Fallout 3, and in the process Bethesda made Fallout a fully role-playing game, gone were the turn-play combat of the old Fallouts. Maybe Tim would have kept that turn-play.

The early Fallouts 1 and 2 were way past their sell-by date in their formats and needed bringing up to date.

The outcome of what Bethesda did was to produce a vastly improved Fallout but I totally disagree with Tim that Fallout 3 is a different kind of game, updated yes, and when playing Fallout 3 I do totally get that "Fallout" feel in the play of the game, and I'm so grateful that Bethesda did Fallout 3 .. and nobody else.

As for New Vegas (canon or not), I don't see it as anything like the Fallout scenarios of Fallout 1 and 2, apart from the wasteland which is just as barren and in that respect it is canon

So mass death and the revival of the human race is bad but the Master's forced castration or mutation is better? He did it for a stupid reason, humanity is inherently evil because of the Great War? Here's a thought he didn't think of with his Unity; wasn't the idea of going for Vault Dwellers because they would be intelligent human beings with memories? So what is the motivation for the captured Vault Dwellers to then do what he says, the Master goes in and pastes a lot of them to the walls, abducts the rest and forcably turns them into monsters. Hours later they wake up and what, sign their loyatly over to the Master?

Could be brainwashed.
Could be convinced.

1 The point was that Fallout 3 was more immediate than New Vegas and closer to the uncivilised ethics.

2 Yes the ethics in the scenario which Fallout had masses of.

3 See 1.

4 See above post, not much, perhaps you would like to try to itemise what is and what isn't ... and good luck. Canon is "the general principle". Yes Bethesda made a great improvement to the Fallout game-play.

5 That doesn't seem to hold true, whatever.

6 Read 4 and you can't say Fallout 3 broke canon ... or itemise the details.

And ... yet you quote Bethesda as saying FNV is canon, a canon barren wasteland yes.

Super Mutants in Fallout Tactics were tying to find a cure for their sterility but the Midwestern Brotherhood captured or destroyed their research. :shifty:

Didn't Bethesda go against Canon by saying Super mutants don't have genitalia? I know East Coast ones are different. New Vegas does not make it really clear on that issue.

If Bethesda decides to change canon then I'd suggest you just ignore them.
They're asixual in appearance though, but their junk should still be intact.
Maybe they have 6 balls. :blush:

Well, I think he's probably referring to the fact Fallout 3 is about shooting people in the face with speech options vs. a game about wandering around and talking to people. I, for one, prefer the shooting people in the face bit.



Given the Master didn't even bother to TEST the breeding productivity of his mutants despite being a scientist - I'm quite sure the guy was completely nuts at that point. Not a hard thing to imagine given his situation.

If they tried to change the canon of west coast super mutants I would be upset. Fallout says they still have their "junk" and Tactics says they still have their "junk."

I agree they still have their junk lol.

Oh god... What a perverted place Junktown must be. O_o

Post limit.