I like both games equally. I prefer Fallout 3 but I can't really say that New Vegas is completely terrible. Some of the things that Obsidian did were good for the franchise, like Damage Threshold, Traits, Reputation.

Those are all from the originals games... XD

How can you "know something" if you have no experience with them? Can you say what something tastes like with out eating it? What something looks like without seeing it? what really gets my boat is the "newbies" that come in with no knowledge of the series, they then start demanding sweeping changes that take the series completely away from it's original goals. FO3 was bad enough with it's gutting of the entire gameplay mechanics, and stupidly simple black and white storyline ripoff. However the worst is yet to come it seems it drew in a crowd that wants to turn it into a Michael bay movie and only get "Epic explosions" and "immersion" when the things they harp on make even less sense. Like having giant explosions and heads exploding every 2 minutes some how makes it "immersive".

The original games where pretty immersive to me, they had believable characters and towns. With awesome stories, and dialogs that glue it all together.

Then you have those how yell at us for wanting to keep the games more inline with it's roots but at the same time, harp on and on about getting dead factions and characters to reappear from the originals. I hated FO3 for doing that enough, I don't want to see Faction that don't make sense popping up everywhere we go, "just because". You have people saying the BoS and Enclave are "Icons" of fallout and should stay in and having never played the originals, don't know that the BoS where a small optional faction and the Enclave wasn't even in FO1. All they want it for the game to change to the latest fad, doesn't matter if thats what the game was "meant to be" or not. they want all games to conform to one form and screw everyone else.

Do they not understand that it's different? That we want it to stay different? Also there is a point, how can you be a "fan" of something and not like it? So how can you be a "fallout fan" and hate the originals in pretty much every way that distinguished them? You can't say FO3 had really anything in common with the originals. It didn't have the same gameplay, it didn't have the same branching story with epilogue that tells you how your actions effected everyone you met. It even got the whole "50's world of tomorrow" think wrong. (They over did it way too much, why does everyone still talk and dress like pre war? It's been 200+ years after the bombs.) FO3 feels like it was before FO1 to me in the time line. That was only 84 years after the bombs. All FO3 has in common is names and some art. everything else is changed.

I would have to say that BoS is indeed an icon of Fallout 1; while there aren't really major factions in that game in any sense of the word, you're staring a BoS member in the face every time you boot up the game. Likewise, you're gazing at APA Mk II every time you open Fallout 2; that alone stands to make them pretty iconic, same way the Ranger is now iconic for New Vegas.

In Fallout 3's defense, the large majority of NPCs in that game do not dress in 50s attire; take a spin through Megaton or Rivet City and you'll see far more Wastelanders in merc outfits or rags rather than swanky suits and dresses, which seem to be reserved for individuals of some distinction (in which case it makes sense that they have an elaborate outfit).

FO3 gets the charge of being "too retro" a lot, but if you actually look through the game, again, the vast majority of NPCs are wearing post-apocalyptic clothing.

As far as "talking" too retro goes, I honestly didn't notice anything unusual about the speech mannerisms of most NPCs. Sure, there were some non-ghouls who still talked in retro terms, but in the case of one of the most notable examples (Butch) his Vault upbringing would explain that.

You have no Idea it's a BoS guy, it's just a Suit of Armor. Quite a few factions have that armor. (T-51b) I'd say that Power armor is an Icon but not the factions.

BoS are completely optional in FO1 (you never have to meet them in FO1, FO2 they are ding out.) How can something you never see be an ICON?

It's not until FO3 that they became so ICONIC. As in they play a big part in the story and gameplay.

This..

Also you can completely ignore the Bos in Fallout and in Fallout 2 there is only a couple of them and one quest and again you can avoid them completely.

Factions that have PA T-51B: Shi, Enclave and Brotherhood. Shi also sell their PA.

It's pretty clearly a BoS soldier as the BoS are the only people in that game who possess that armor (at least, the only ones I ever saw).

FO2 factions that use the armor are irrelevant because they weren't around at the release of Fallout 1.

Something doesn't have to be a huge part of the game itself to be an icon; again, look at New Vegas. The NCR Veteran Ranger is iconic for that, he was all over all of the ads, but they're a very, very small part of the game itself.

Again, you have no proof it's BoS, there no markings, not indication of the man in the suit is BoS. They Suit is the Icon, not the faction.

I'm not debating that it's not marked as BoS (note that we don't see the area where it would be marked, though), but there's no possible alternative; everything in Fallout 1 points to that being a BoS soldier, as they are the only place that armor can be found in FO1. You have to join them or break into the base even to get it; nobody else in the game world has a suit of it.

Sure, there's a remote chance that it *could* be something else, but at the end of the day that is most likely a BoS soldier. And since the suit is the icon, and the BoS are inextricably tied to that suit, they are also made iconic.

To explain my position further:
http://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/471180-fallout-new-vegas-windows-screenshot-this-is-the-menu-largely.jpgon the New Vegas main menu. Nowhere do we see any indication that this armor is being worn by an NCR trooper. However, the NCR is the sole source for this armor, and I doubt you'd find many people who'd debate that that is an NCR ranger on the main menu there.

Likewise, in Fallout 1 the Brotherhood is the sole source for T51b. The simplest and most likely explanation is that it is, in fact, a BoS soldier there on the main menu. I know that's certainly what I thought of at first sight.

Is this a BoS member?
http://images.wikia.com/fallout/images/b/bc/Flagnarmor.gif

FO3 stole the BoS, Super-Mutants, and Enclave.

(How can you steal an idea when you bought the rights to use them in the first place?

That makes no sense.....)

(hey, that was the Avie i was using.....)

Is http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/2770/mainmenui.jpg a Pre-War US Army soldier?

Could be. It's as plausible as it being a Brotherhood paladin. It could even be the Vault Dweller.

Maybe. It might also be some random wastelander who found the armor. :shrug:

They aren't though, listen, if I play one game out of a series and love it then I can call myself a fan of "that" game, not the entire series, it's misleading to say you're a fan of a series you know about 15 - 20% of.
Like, I played Red Faction Guerilla, but I have not played RF1 or RF2, so while I like RFG I wouldn't call myself a fan of the entire RF series since I have no idea what the series actually is.

So "true fan of Fallout".
I'd say one is if they have played all Fallout games, including Tactics and excluding F:BOS, and at least know what each game is about in gameplay, balance, lore, writing, quests, enemies, mechanics et cetera.
But if you have only played FO3 and NV I'd say you're a "2nd gen fan", a person who is a fan of the newest generation of Fallout games, while "1st gen fan" is one that has only played FO1/2/T and a "true Fallout fan" is one that has played every single title and even read up on the bible a bit.

I've played Oblivion but I'm not labeling myself as an Elder Scrolls fan for that, I'm an Oblivion fan.
There's a difference between them.

/IMO of course.

I see a number of posts revolving around this specific discussion, here.

So I'll be clear on our stance on this thread, and it's relevance to the Fallout Series Discussion board:

Even if this thread was only supposed to be specifically about Fallout 3 and New Vegas (which I don't believe was specifically the intent, though I digress,) last I checked - both of those games are part of the Fallout Series. I sure as heck don't know where else I'd have moved this thread had I found it in another sub-forum than this one.

We also consider to be posting in a thread for no reason other than to state your disapproval of a thread to be trolling, at best. If you don't like a thread, then that's what the report function is for. If you don't want to participate in the discussion, then absolutely I don't see how posting in it could be considered a constructive or advisable action.

Let's keep in mind that this thread is already being heavily watched, and please - everyone post accordingly. I do believe it's possible to have a difference of opinion without having to fight about it all the time...

Well....what about power armor training? :hehe:

The tribal never learned it, so the person inside the armor is actually a carcass, that T-51b is a statue with a dead man inside it.

Fallout 3 tomfoolery.

[[QUOTE Sitruc]] -----Did no one find that Fallout3 had far more tactical play that much better than the first two Fallouts, did no one find the the quests were far deeper than the first two fallouts, far bigger, many possible endings, more diverse.

Or if you haven't played many, try them out.

Did no one get bored of the emptyness of the early Fallouts 1 and 2 where I could walk for an hour and not find anything [[END QUOTE]]



{{QUOTE Okie}} -----Might want to take your own advice there and try the originals out. You could walk for an hour and not find anything?{{END QUOTE}}


{{QUOTE I Was Out Of Name Ideas}} ----Maybe nobody came to those conclusion because it's very wrong. All of that's not true.{{END QUOTE}}


TODAY.
Obviously I did play the originals as I made true comparisons between the early Fallouts and Fallout3.

I stand by what I said. Ok the one hour walking was maybe a bit of an exaggeration, it would depend on your directions of walk, a bit.

It is very true that comparatively, with Fallout3, the early Fallouts were indeed desolate. Bethesda are renowned for stuffing their games with content. New Vegas (which I wont mention), made by some of the makers who made the early Fallouts, the wasteland has the same comparative emptiness with Fallout3, but emptiness comparative with the early Fallouts 1 and 2 .... and consequentially has less to explore .... that was what was a defect of Fallout 1 and 2 ... and of New Vegas (which I didn't mention).

The quests were far deeper than the first two fallouts, far bigger, many possible endings, more diverse.

You certainly cannot with size, depth, diversity and possible endings that Fallout3 has over the early Fallouts. Possible endings, the early Fallouts came a close second, not the others though. It also felt as though Fallout3 had more side quests, but maybe that was just because Fallout3's were much bigger, more diverse.

Anyway, that's how it was and is, comparatively.

There was nothing required to use Power Armor in classics? Apart from finding one, of course. If so, i can use the "setpccanusepowerarmor 1" without feeling guilty about it

No, you dont need it



HAXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

No you didn't make a true comparison or even just a slightly exaggerated comparison. You can walk from the top of the world map in Fallout 1 all the way to the bottom in less than 1 minute of real-time. I would be staggered if it took as many as 15 minutes to explore every single square of the world map. You will also run into many random encounters along the way assuming you don't manage to stumble onto a settlement. I find it difficult to believe that anyone who had actually played the old Fallouts would say something like this.



The fact that Bethesda uses a first-person open world as opposed to a map node system doesn't make it have more content.



Thanks I needed a good laugh.

There's more involved in the quest of investigating the Wright kid's death in Fallout 2 than in any quest in Fallout 3.

Total number of quests in Fallout 3 (including tutorial quests): 31
Total number of quests in Fallout 2: 100+

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_3_quests
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_2_quests

But you keep it up with those "true comparisons" champ.

Actually, no, it can't be a pre-War soldier; note the post-apocalyptic background.

And the guy on the main menu of New Vegas could be Caesar dressed up in a suit of NCR Ranger armor for kicks. Doesn't change the fact that the most likely explanation is that that is an NCR ranger, just as the most likely explanation for FO1 is that it's a BoS member. When I see that menu, I don't think "hey, it's a wastelander in a suit of T-51b!" I think "hey, it's a Brotherhood soldier!"

Same goes for Fallout 2. That could be Myron in the armor for all we know, but the most logical and likely explanation is that it's an Enclave soldier.
We can come up with elaborate explanations as to who that is all day long, but it doesn't change the fact that by far the most likely explanation is that that is a BoS member wearing that T-51b.

Regarding power armor training; it absolutely makes sense that training would be required to operate power armor. It's nearly a vehicle in and of itself, and you don't just get into a car and start driving if you've never driven one before. In every sci-fi setting I've ever read that contains power armor, you need to have training to operate it.