i got attacked on the roads plenty in oblivion, so not sure how you're saying you're safe traveling along the roads in oblivion, the oblivion game world was way more dynamic and unpredictable, don't compare obsidian and bethesda, their games aren't the same, there's nothing to explore or fight in new vegas, new vegas is a barren desert with hardly anything in it, all the spawns are static, the same enemies spawn in the same locations, most locations don't have anything happening ever in new vegas,for you to try to compare new vegas to oblivion is hilarious.

Yeah, you comparing this to fallout 3 is hillarious.

:facepalm:

bethesda did succeed at fallout, FO3 was a blockbuster smash hit, and its game rating is always 9.0 or better, new vegas wasn't a blockbuster hit, it was an ok game, slightly above avereage, rated at around 7.5 to maybe an 8.5 max, FO3 won tons of awards and new vegas hasn't won tons of awards, so according to you they didn't succeed but according to bethesda fans they succeded fine.

http://img2.moonbuggy.org/imgstore/empathy-bear-feels-your-pain.jpg

Have you made any calculations on how many times have you posted that exact same thing with different wrods within the passing month? Frankly, I'm tired of arguing against a wall so this [censored] is what you're getting from now on, enjoy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q5fQlk3YaY

:P

I agree Bethesda created a Block Buster game but not a great Fallout game. Its a great game but does not stack up to the Originals IMO. I don't care about Ratings. Rating are crap anyways just based on the lasted graphics and since New Vages used "dated and old" graphics it lost marks right there and Beth did a crap job doing QA which cost it some marks. Rating should not be the end all to be all when it comes to games. "Cult Classic" is a term I guess you know nothing about. Fallout and Fallout 2 were very popular which is way Bethesda bought the rights in the first place. Bethesda Successed in creating a TES with Fallout style setting IMO.

"According to Bethesda fans" I wish you would stop speaking as if you were the representative spokesman for "Bethesda Fans" because you sure as heck are not. I am on here all the time on a Bethesda forum and only know one person that thinks the way you do and that is you. Many Bethesda fans on this forum love both New Vegas and Fallout 3.

But what? You wrote this:



You started to compare it, thats why I answered you...

And I know you got attacked on the roads, but the roads were safe, no question about that ( thats why the guards in Oblivion says " if youre going to travel, stay on the roads" ). Sure, it was some bandits but you can compare them with the fiends or the powder gangers.
If you didnt go venturing in the wilderness and stuck to the roads, you should be safe.

:thumbsup:

Here's a post I made yesterday highlighting some of both stduios faults. You bud are slightly right but mostly wrong. here(Sorry for bad spacing, typed this all from a touchscreen): In that same vein I'm displeased they took the time to leave DLC hooks. DLC was inevitable but I'm not exactly psyched about it, along with the fact Ulysses was ripped out. Clearly now he can have a bigger more fleshed out role, but not glad nonetheless. Also, seeing as I found Fallout 2 to not be up to par with the legendary expectations to produce a sequel to one of, if not the best, games created in Fallout 1 Obsidian's effort was pathetic. Now if I grade them in terms of Bethesda who was getting to terms with the franchise and making FO 3 their second fully voiced game and comming to grips with how to make a script not too wordy for the VOs and dealing with their reduction of quality from Morrowind with Howard's objectives to make each game different in story and gameplay even at the cost of having a much simpler story than previous efforts, compared to Obsidian who has some FO 1 minor people, a dash of people who helped on FO 2, and a handful of people working upfront on Van Buren who already knew the franchise and had people like Feargus and Avellone. Well. New Vegas doesn't meet that. But it did expand on Bethesda's effort and reintroduce some Fallout elements missing in the third while giving up a bit more personal story FO 3 had(Barring the lack of player options and say in the MQ) and being the buggiest Fallout ever made both due to the engine and Obsidian's programmers along with the misteps of Beth's own programmers. So yeah New Vegas is good. But no Fallout has measured up to par with the first outting. Bethesda got a free card for 3. If they don't pull out all the stops on 4(And the world doesn't end. And then doesn't end the second time because for all we know Fallout 4 comes out in 2021.) no sympathy from the old Black Isle fans will be left for them.

Without wishing to be drawn into the NV argument going on here, I found the wilderness in Oblivion to be safer to traverse than the roads, particularly when Ogres, Minotaur Lords and Goblin Warlords started showing up. Maybe I was just un/lucky, but I'd always run into more fights if I stuck to the main roads, and found the Legion advice to be thoroughly misleading.

Ok no. You cant just throw away a perfectly good argument what he just said. Its all true that he said F3 won the awards...F3 got the better rating...and FNV didnt. So i dont see why you have to throw that kind of stuff to the side to not see that hes throwing out evidence to back up his reasons. Its just ignorance.

Yes i also love FNV and F3 but you cant keep insulting it like you dont want it all or have nothing to deal with it. You also got to give it some respect. Because bethesda owns this franchise and they make and suprovise the fallout games. SO its gonna be in there eyes and how they want it.

I can when it's the hundredth time I see the same argument. I've said my piece multiple times and got answered with almost a quotation of the same thing or no answer at all. But you're right in giving an idea that maybe I shouldn't have posted at all.

Fallout 3 having awards and good ratings doesn't really tell anything to me. New Vegas sold better, does that counter those award claims?

NV has good ratings too (and if looked in relation to when the game came out and with what tech and in what state and considering how long it was in developement, I'd say it managed at least as well as FO3 if not even better).

First criticism is not insulting. I have something like a 1000 hours with Fallout 3. I like the game, I just don't feel its a great fallout game as I have played all the fallouts and know them well. Yes Fallout 3 won awards, Fallout New Vegas has also won awards and has been nominated for writing awards. New Vegas also sold better. I am glad you love New Vegas and Fallout 3, you have proven my point for not every Bethesda fan Hates Fallout New Vegas like he does or for that matter the Originals.

Yes NV has gotten good ratings also. But that is HIGHLY debatable whether or not that FNV surpassed or merely equaled F3.

Yes it is debateable, we are on a forum. When someone says that Fallout 3 does not match up to the originals and gives valid reasons. They should not have their reasons thrown back in their face with childish comebacks like "You just hate Bethesda" "You are just elitist" "FO3 got better ratings" "The originals svck and don't count," Which is all we get. We don't insult Fallout 3 just not everyone thinks the writing was very good, in pretty much every way. I have played countless hours with Fallout 3, I would not have wasted my time if it was crap.

I love Tactics and for years people called it non-canon and treated it like "The Burned Game." Its only now getting some respect.

Again criticism is not insulting

"Relatively speaking", I was meaning to add at the end of the post. Anyways, it is debatable, but looking just at the numbers and taking the developementcycle and circumstances into account, I just can't see NV as a mere equal. (But of course, I don't evaluate games like that - that's just a hypothetical situation since you - and west before you - brought the ratings as "evidence" about something).

Yes i know this is debatable i was stating that. I usually dont care about ratings. Just like i hate movie ratings becuase you need to SEE the movie to actually get a feel for it yoursef.

They did and its one of the things that ruin the game for me.


Yeah and they took half the game world with it too.

IMO just because they were to too damn lazy to put in the effort to create new areas, zones and events,
Obsidian Fail IMHO! If the next Fallout is any thing like this one its the last I will ever buy.
I know a lot of you guys will not like what im putting here and my intent is not to insult or offend
and for that I im sorry if I do but im so sick of shoddy made and half finished games that have half there
content removed just so the Dev. Houses can meet there Christmas/spring break/Easter/summer deadlines so they can cash in on the times when people have the most cash that they are in a position to spend on
games or buy for there kids.

Just for info I never played Fallout 1 & 2 never will i guess.
I though Fallout 3 Rocked! despite its problems which where nothing compaired to
thoughts in FONV. Guess I expected a better product from the people
that worked on the originals, my mistake, guess I fail their.

There, Rant Over! Again Sorry.

I agree with you. All I am saying and I believe UnDeCafIndeed is saying is so what about the ratings. It does not mean New Vegas is bad. Does not mean the Originals svck and it does not mean Fallout 3 is the best. Some people that bash Fallout New Vegas have not even played the originals. Which goes back to having some people say "the originals don't count and they svck because they are old." They don't seem to notice the big 3 besided Fallout. Looking at all five fallouts is better then just looking at it from the last two fallouts.

Styles summed it up pretty nicely.
I should've bolded the "is" in "it is debatable", as it was meant as an agreement.

Anyways, still a bit about the ratings. I think more important than the number is to look at how the reviewer writes, and what he holds as high and low points - and then compare those your own preferences, if they match at all.

I dont really think it matters if some one has played all the Fallouts, they were good games in there
times and a different style of game. I cant really see how they can be compared to FO3 or FONV.
I mean, correct me if im wrong but FO1/2 were they not 'top down' games and a lot more RPG. Thats not
even the same style of game, seems to me like trying to compare sonic with half-life, there just to
different to be able to draw a decent comparison or to find a middle ground to start a comparison.

The other thing is that FO3 was a lot more of a sandbox where FONV is a lot more linier, certainly
more than I expected it to be, considering I thought I was going to be buying a sandbox game to
extent of FO3.

It matters when you are debating the Canon of Fallout. It matters when debating the writing of the Fallout series, the settings, the factions, events and so on. Graphics is not the issue, the Engines are not the issue.

When debating the fallout series to me it is importaint to have an understanding of the originals. No you don't need to play them but respect them don't pretend then never happened and don't bash those that try looking at Fallout as a whole. Not everything is about New Vegas vs Fallout 3, there are three other Fallout games. Fallout, Fallout 2 and Tactics.

Im sorry, My bad, I think maybe I should have read a few more post before adding to this thread.
as I was thinking this was a discussion about FO3 vs FONV, did not realize you was discussing canon.

Yes if a person is going to discuss a thing then it is important to have an understanding about the
subject at hand, go's with out saying.

[quote]No you don't need to play them but respect them don't pretend then never happened and don't bash
those that try looking at Fallout as a whole{/quote]
I was not bashing, I was just stating I had not played them and left it at that because I had no personal
opinion on them, only what I had be told/read over the years, and going by that info I can only assume that
they are good games due to the size of the following after all a game must be good in the first place if the
original followers are still defending it to day, espeshly considering the quality of some of the games that
are getting released in the past few years. An other good example of a games of the same (assumed!) quality
would be Elder Scrolls.

Im going to stop here because I dont know enough about FO1/2 to continue, but the only reason I have never played
them is becaue im not a great fan of RPG gaming, my self, (like a lot of others), came to fallout due to the FPS
aspect, and because of the FPS aspect of the game may be the reason a lot of people like the originals, is because
they are RPG fans and the other half are FPS fans.

Sorry Samiel, my last post, it was not directed at you. I was just talking in general.

I respect the Orginals to its just the matter of buying them.