Kids around here just get into a car and start driving when they've never driven one before.

Nothing like trial and error.

I've even defused an Atomic Bomb.

Besides, the way the Brotherhood of Steel guard acted in the first game, it was that easy.

I remember I made him really angry the first time I met him.....he deserved it though.

?

What?

Pretty good bit of time, weeks and maybe even months.

I could do the same thing walking in a circle.


Bananas.

"True fan", somebody was accused of not being one for not having played enough Fallout games, that is a daft concept of the accuser in my opinion, and one that I was demonstrating in my post ...



Always happy to be of service…. (you're welcome).

The more open-play of the early Fallouts was probably one of the attractions that made the Fallouts 1 and 2 popular at that time, having RPG, and Board-game play which was then more popular.

Fallout3 evolved in that it did away with the game-drag flaw that happened on becoming adept, amongst other flaws in 1 and 2 play. Another flaw was the sheer emptiness of the wasteland. Total quest size and content were a huge evolution in play, delivering a letter evolved into a vast game in itself. Taking Moira's Wasteland quest became quests within a quest, and you haven't even started the main quest yet. Games within games.

Fallout 1 and 2 were popular for their more open-game-play style. Bethesda's Oblivion also has and followed that "open-game-play style" becoming experts in it and the game-structures for it. Who better then than Oblivion to make Fallout3, following on from the Fallouts 1 and 2 open-play, and adopting their essences.

Ignore the "Fallout3 is Oblivion with guns" advocates. Even fast-travel common to Oblivion and Fallout3 is adopted differently between them. Fallout3 you have to physically travel to every location before fast-travelling to it. In Oblivion a number of towns are already located and can be fast-travelled to without trekking to them, you could play just staying in towns without ever going outside, if that's what you wanted to do, completely different. Just an example.

I cannot take seriously anything they say after advocating that.

Fallout3 wasn't Bethesda saying "Let's translate what we do best into a Fallout", it was Bethesda using the open-play structural base that they were expert in, studying what the essences of Fallout 1 and 2 were, and building them into that structure, making Fallout3.

Bethesda came up "trumps", ironing out in the process the "need-for-improvements" of Fallouts 1 and 2, producing a Fallout3 sequel with all the essences of the early ones.

Some have a preferences of a more board-game-combat style of play though, and consequentially are unhappy that Bethesda made Fallout3 with no board-game-combat. Even makers of New Vegas who also made the board-game-combat for Fallouts 1, 2, chose not to implement it in Fallout New Vegas.

Ah well, there you go, that's evolution.

Can evolution be called "a step to the side" implying that it does not follow the essence of the early sequels. I see that as a distortion, it seems to me that variations of similar negative comments are usually made by those upset at changes in evolution of the Fallout sequels, but that is their opinion. Changes made in keeping with the essence of the previous... as I feel and absorb those essences when I play Fallout3.

Way to go! Bethesda.

That wasn't!... Gah, never mind I'm done with you Curtis.

Sitruc, you haven't played the orignals, you cant say what was evolution, only those who have played the originals and FO3 know exactly how far the deviation was made, because it wasnt evolution, it was deviation.

In answer to your "?" what was your question?

In answer to your "what?", what was your question?

And your "Bananas" ... You are a bit off-topic there old fruit.

What I think Bethesda did was:
1. Buy Fallout.
2. Become insecure of whether or not it would sell well.
3. Made the decision to make it a clone of their latest successful game Oblivion.
4. Turned Fallout 3 into a clone cash cow.
5. Profit. Old fans unhappy, new fans/ES fans happy with the ES clone.

<_<

(Very simplified but this is how I see it, they did not know how to do Fallout so in order to turn it into a successful game they cloned Oblivion which was successful in order to make money (Gotta make a living, I get that)(while at the same time reviving the Fallout franchise) which in turn made old fans unhappy and new/ES fans happy.)

@Red: Here you go again. Ignoring the fact the they worked exactly alike, and focusing on a minor detail that out of well over a hunred map locations 10 or so were visible (and even with a plausible reason - the same with Fallout 3 with no map markers visible at the beginning). That truly makes a universe of difference between those two systems.

As fot the "taking seriously" comment... I think the feeling has been mutual for some time now.

i responded with nonsense to your nonsense.

(OMG, can we PLEASE quit with the arguing and get back to the conversations, i don't care who owns what games, i want to discuss topics.) :facepalm:

We are arguing because he is "discussing" a topic he doesnt understand because he hasnt played the originals, but he talks down on them.

Didn't he said he has played them, for like an hour, and got so bored, and now he doesn't remember anything of them?

I dont even know, a lot of the stuff he says about them are wrong, I imagine he didnt even make it to the Hub.

My point exactly. If he just played them for an hour years ago, he couldn't have gotten far and can't remember much either... like his comment on the node travelling system, that your character turns into a huge 3D model that walks over the world map.

(I thought you and the Dinosaurs were better than that to give into that with irrational backtalk, especially if he has a short attention span. :stare: Don't give him ammunition for his Ammo Dump, be rational and explain things rationally, if he continues, he's not worth your time as a serious debater.)

Well... alot of people have tried that, and... when all else fails - FLAME!

This is how I see it and how I think the series will go from here.

1. Bethesda buys the Fallout series
2. They do become insecure of how it would sell. They know there is a fanbase for it, but are unsure of how to approach the series. They don't feel that they can make it the same as the originals but wish to try to contain the same "spririt".
3. The decision is made to make it along the same lines as the ES series. Bethesda feels that they need to go with what they know best, rather than risk a commerical failure (gaming is business after all).
4. FO3 comes out and does very well commercially. New fans are introduced to the series and come to like the "new style" of Fallout (if nothing else than because they know no other style of Fallout). Old Gaurd fans feel disappointed and let-down, they make those feelings known (although I was not around on the forums during that time, I assume it was war on the forums). Bethesda takes note.
5.New Vegas is in development and Bethesda (now feeling bit more confident in the series) decides to try out a new style with New Vegas, which puts it more in line with the originals, remnants of Black Isle (Obsidian) are contracted to make it, in order to achieve this feeling.
6. New Vegas comes out and previously furious veterans feel a bit better about the series now. Bethesda faces a new issue however, many of the new fans who had been introduced with Fallout 3 and its style come to realize that New Vegas is not quite their cup of tea. War erupts again amoung the fanbase, lines are drawn and casualties mount. Bethesda takes note.
7. (here comes my speculation) with Fallout 3 being the first test run and New Vegas being the second, Bethesda now decides to try to make a compromise between the two fanbases (new and old fans) now that they've tested the waters. Hopefully then, with Fallout 4 will come a game that can please both sides.

We have done all the things, but he doesnt let up, sticks to his broken guns. You know what, your right, going to ignore him.

@ Lt. So, gaming is a business, i remember when it was a form of art, developers made games because they liked to, it used to be "for gamers by gamers."

*grabs Flamer*

I think you're spot on.
Felt mine was oversimplified but this is pretty spot on. :goodjob:

Just to make a correction if I may Paladin John then I'm off.

I have played the originals as often said, and is how I make comparisons.

I don't know why I am .. is it slandered or libelled and is that spelled right.

Oh never mind I'm off, quite funny in a way.

Not for those trying to have intelligent discussion, but good luck.

No legal action pending either. (smile)

(That's The Talon Company i know! :thumbsup:

@Sitruc: Slanders and labels are one thing, i know, i have been done as such as well, but you got to make your opinions and arguements in a manor that makes sense and does not come off in a offensive manor, i learned that the hard way, granted i do not agree with everything that goes on, but i have learned to express myself in a way that makes sense now, so i do not come off in a bad way, otherwise, i will have people telling me as such, and flame wars on the forums look bad for us all, am i right or wrong people?)

Driving a car is really easy, it learning all the rules of the road that is hard. In a wasteland there are no rules. If you can figure out how to get PA off someone you can figure out how to put it back on.

As for the defusing an Atomic Bomb, you do realise we are asked to do that in Fallout 3 right? What does it take again 35 science or something? :thumbsup: