they were _good_ games, but concerning graphics, they were pretty much behind their days standards to say the truth.

like, "entomorph - plague of the darkfall" (a game comparable in style i personally liked a lot just for a random example) 2y older than fo1, looked WAY better.

not even speaking of fo2 that basically looked exactly the same...

and gta1 was a pretty cool game of the days too btw (the best along san andreas, if you ask me) ,-)

not sure about fo2 anymore, but fo1 definitely not.

rpg genre in total had been considered dead in the days, having one in a post nuke environment was widely considered totally off, and it was the days of the early 3d craze. pretty much everything 2d went down the drain without any regards to quality. it was about like selling steam engines in a nuke craze

Because your people are dying. You were hired to find a water chip to prevent your people's extinction.

In doing so, you've found a threat of Super Mutants. You're now forced to destroy them to avoid your destruction.

The GECK and the Enclave are the worst things in FO3. The GECK is not really the wonder device it's implied to be. And what would a device that has a bunch of agriculture stuff have to do with a water purifier? Project Purity is unchanged when you deploy the GECK there, and it's never implied anywhere that the GECK purges radiation.

The Enclave were destroyed in the Oil Rig. The remnants in Navarro - wiped out by the NCR. There should be no survivors EXCEPT small groups like the ones in Fallout: NV. Not a huge faction who god knows where they came from. The Enclave in FO3 are encountered in HUGE numbers. I dare to say they are encountered in bigger numbers than FO2 ffs.

Now, about your F1 concerns:

Water thief - Well, nothing really. It's just that there's now enough water for everyone, instead of too few.

About Gizmo, originally this was planned to be a "grey area" in which the evil choice was good, and the good was evil, but this was changed. However the difference is, with Gizmo, it turns out to be a crime sin city like area. While with the Sheriff, it turns out to be nice calm city where people can live.

Nothing happens if you join the BoS. Agree with this one. But going into the Glow does give you nice info imo.

About locations:

Fallout 2 had:

President of the Enclave, who actually was realistic and could be talked to.

GECK.

Vault City.

New Reno.

Sierra Army Depot.

and many more.

Fallout 1 had fewer things.

About being attached? Well, if I am not attached to these people, why should I not nuke them? If they considered you to be one of their own, I can understand. But they don't. You're always a stranger and the people there are weirdos.

People are too obsessed with pretty 3D eye candy these days. Back in the old days of RPGs, you know those simple 2D games, the story and gameplay was the most important thing in the game. As it should be. Game companies have a budget, where do you want them to stick their budget at, in development in story and game play, or pretty top of the line in technology eyecandy? I'm sure it can't be both because that would cost the company a lot of money. I have an uber system with two ATI cards in Crossfire and I enjoy some eyecandy but I don't make it a top priority in a game. A good story and decent character development is what I care the most about.

Actually, a lot of the old RPGs were 3D. Fallout 1/2 was actually 3D.

I'm I the only person who really like FNV story? I haven't finished FO1 and haven't started on 2 so I can't judge them.

FNV had a good story, better than F3.

I do. But I hate Bethesda for forcing unhuman deadlines on Obsidian. That's why the Legion is cut.

Much better.

Yeah its terrible Unreal 4 is still the same bad engine as the first Unreal.

Yeah and even Obsidian taking that deal with Bethesda how could they, knowing that they won't have enough time you should really hate them too.

@op Bethesda just svcks. They focuse on making cool looking landscapes with a clunky engine, so no time spent on things that matter. The fact that level design is really boring doesn't help (pretty much every dungeon in skyrim was just a corridor).

Hey, dont diss gamebryo bro.

Gamebryo is fine, beth's version of it is not.

Beths version of Gamebryo is a bug happy POS. I hope they aren't using it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clakekAHQx0

Uh-huh.

You didn't get it? Correct?

The constant believe that Bethesda is using the same engine over the years and it isnt updated is so crazy that you have to make such a comparison so maybe, but only maybe someone gets it. But it seems even that doesn't help.

A game where you look down at the world from way up in the sky is not exactly a 3D game.

The models (if you can call them that) were 3D though.

Nope.

They didn't know about the deadline I think and didn't know about the horrors of using the Gamebryo.

And if I′m not mistaken, it′s actually wrong. IIRC those were sprites and prerendered environments that were used, which make the engine 2D. The later cancelled FO3 ( The Black Isle one ) was to be fully 3D.

Yea, I'm thinking prerendered 3D. Otherwise, the computer I had back then would have melted.

I liked it, but I thought it needed more of that Fallout flavor. The political struggle was interesting, as were the factions, and characters, but the presentation felt dry, and lacking in that over the top Fallout charm. It was a huge step up from Fallout 3 in most respects, but even Fallout 3 had the aforementioned over the top charm of Fallout that New Vegas was lacking out of the box.

The overarching story of the DLC added the flavor I was looking for to the political struggle in the Mojave, not to mention some of the best characters in the Fallout lore, but there's no reason the base game couldn't have had it.

I agree with you to a point, but bethesda is not really good at making good stories or gameplay. A big chunck of F3 was forgetable, compared to F1 and F2 which I remember fondly. My issue with bethesda is many, but the lack of interesting NPC's and dialog is a big one. In F1 and F2 you met some really interesting characters, got to know them and interact with them through long dialog choices that made you feel like you were actually talking to someone and it stuck with you. In F3, everybody talks in quick one liners and and very limited dialog choices, felt like a generation raised on twitter and just as forgetable.

Part of the difference is that for the most part in F1 and F2 you are looking at NPC's from a distance and reading text-only conversations. This adds a level of abstraction to those games. The dev's can get away with NPC's that barely move and have no facial expressions because the player can imagine all of that. In a 3D game you are confronted with staring a 3D character model in the face and dealing with any awkward gestures, facial expressions, or lack thereof that may occur.

Dem ghoulie animations were pretty slick tho.

Thanks for this really. I can't play Bethesda games because of these things. And i feel like no one want to talk about it. I can add and bad camera. And bad bad bad combat system. They obviously don't have a skills to create something new. Did you play Blade of Darkness??? If answer is yes then you know how some ppl can create something NEW and absolutely innovative. Melee combat need something new. but with Fallout 3, Skyrim 3rd perspective camera and animations this is impossible.

yea i think those are things all fans universally were aware of ..... the story and the fact that its a wasteland apocalypse to explore is so fun that many people overlook those problems. I guess its like reading a book from an author thats really good but has too many spelling mistakes in all his books. You get a headache reading it but you just have to know what happens!

As I've said before.
If there were other companies making games the way Bethesda does, maybe there would be a benchmark for comparison.
As It stands, there aren't really a lot of games that take on the size and scope of Bethesda games- whether that's your cup of tea or not is another matter entirely and ultimately lies with your preferences in a game as opposed to Bethesda being able to "do it right".

To me, for games of their ambition, they definitely have things that they need to work on. I don't know of a game that is "perfect", though. They are still more than competent in what they do.