FO3 as a bethesda game is and was a huge success, not everyone cares about FO1 or FO2, i only care about bethesda made games, and how they're made, a bethesda fan is generally gonna be really happy with FO3 or any game bethesda makes pretty much, including the ES, so its not really about FO1 or FO2, those games are irrelevant and if FO1 and 2 are like new vegas, i wouldn't of liked em anyway, since i don't like static gameworlds, i prefer bethesdas open/dynamic worlds.new vegas as an open world game, FAILS...not one random event or encounter, the same exact enemies spawn in the same exact spots, and most of the map is boring and nothing is happening, so openworld/sandbox style gameplayers don't like new vegas that much, but people who use fast travel and don't like cruisng around a map world exploring prefer new vegas. so really the split is between people who like open world games and people who don't. cause new vegas isn't about exploration, supposedly its about the story but the story isn't all the great so to me thats not much of a selling point.

one persons game rating doens't mean much, but yeah gamespot and the other major game companies usually have players ratings and the reviewers ratings, so its not like someone pays em to make the rating high, i find game ratings and reviews from gamespot or IGN etc to be pretty accurate. and the fact is FO3 is rated at 9, and new vegas is rated at like 7.5, thats a big difference in a game, from average to above average.

"Hears the sound of two Fat Man Launching two Mini Nukes, and yells" Brace for Impact, find cover!!! :nuke:

Fallout: New Vegas Pros-Cons

I loved Fallout New Vegas because it brought back memories of Fallout 1 and Fallout 2. I had been to Las Vegas alot in the past, i liked the Goodsprings start, and all those towns that are really there (Primm, Cottonwood Cove, Boulder City, Henderson, Nelson, Nipton). It had the great RPG touch with the paths. Its FPS element was better than Fallout 3s, as this one you probably have ammo. But the cons are there: Bugs, freezing, crashing, barely any patching, corrupted saves. There is also the AI mess up constantly, im friendly with NCR and they attack me like shunned.
----------------------
My Results

Fallout 3: 3/10

Fallout: New Vegas: 5/10
------------------------
[/quote]

you just named half of fallout new vegas towns and actual places to explore

Even if you don't beleive that reviews are bought (i don't either ), you have to consider that simply the names "Obsidian" and "Bethesda" may influence the reviewer. They are only people, and reviews are only opinions.

On topic, they both svck! (In their own special ways.) That's why i buy these games for PC :hehe:

This is rated in two scores, the first being the Fallout game score, the second being the game score. These are all in my opinion.

Fallout 1: 10, 10

Fallout 2: 10, 10

Fallout Tactics: Erm, 7, 6?

Fallout (Can't mention it.) 0, 0

Fallout 3: Maybe a 1, 8.5

FNV: 9, 8.75.

Westoftherockies, we know you like Fallout 3 more, but reviews mean nothing. They can be bought. And Bethesda always scores high, because they're well known. Fallout: New Vegas=Better Fallout Game
Fallout 3=Better Exploration (Bethesda) Game.

There are some random events, though those are the assassination squads (from whomever you happen to anger) coming after you wherever you are. Sometimes the factions your friendly with will protect you against them if they arrive at the right time.

Yes, and not everybody cares about FO3 or Oblivion.

I don't see anything wrong with an open world. Open dynamic world, heavy RPG mechanics and good writing are not mutually exclusive. So it's not really about "open versus not-so-open world". An average Bethesda fan like you is, in the end, happy with everythign Bethesda puts out, Fallout fanbase is a bit more demanding. I don't see why Beth shouldn't try to cater it too while catering to its "own", you may not care what they do as long as they do "X", but neglecting an existing fanbase of a franchise is just losing money in the end.

Ah, come one man, we've already been over this one?
Just because "A" says it's good does not mean it's a common fact. This kind of logic is called "Argument from authority".

Also, you seem to have a bad habit of thinking that you "speak for the majority" which you don't in fact. Just sayin'

Allright, let's stick to the topic:

Fallout 1

PROS: Story, atmosphere, subtle black humour, characters like the Master or Lou, nice and fitting weapons, stylish 2D animations and l33Tzors death scenes
CONS: Sometimes bugs, non-pushable companions, time-limit, could be hard for a newcomer

Fallout 2

PROS: Pretty much everything from above, just 3x more bigger, even better and diverse companions(you can push 'em away now, weeeeeeeee), M72 Gauss Rifle
CONS: Sometimes the humour goes a bit over the top where it seems like the whole game is a one big Monthy Python show, also sometimes buggy as heck

Fallout Tactics

PROS: My first introduction to the series, Jagged-Alliance like strategy game, story is kinda interesting with the new BoS faction, playable in both realtime or TB, M72 Gauss Rifle and the Gauss Minigun, yummy
CONS: Could be a bit lore breaking with the real life weapons and vehicles, it's kinda linear.

Fallout 3

PROS: Even if Troika or Bioware would do it better, it was a ressurection of the series, VERY well done exploration aspect and gameworld crafting, mods, Liam Neeson
CONS: Crap stereotype good n' evil story that seems to be there just for the sake of.... well, having a story, plotholes, VATS is a god mode, cardboard and comic book one-dimensional characters, crappy writing and dialogue with even more hillarous skill responses, linear as [censored] with this "You gotta join BoS and fight the Dr. Eeeeeeevil Enclave", anti-climatic ending with cheap effects, no proper Fallout epilogue where you see the outcome of your actions (all you get is a karma judgement from R.Pearlman, that is all.), broken karma system where you can butcher an entire city and become a Jesus again by giving a beggar some water, butchered RPG aspects where the SPECIAL is a joke, the [censored] DC and it's inhabitants don't make a lick of sense in the end if you start digging a bit deep in its logic or consistency, some later patch broke the mods support so I am still not sure if it's already fixed

Fallout New Vegas

PROS: Return to the original roots(well, mostly. It's not perfect but it's a start.), good non-black and white story which some deem as 'linear' when in fact it's pretty much 666x times diverse, unique and better than the F3 railroaded train wreck. Also, the main thing: You have a choice, show me F3 having this. Next is superior dialogue and writing, much better world consistency where every faction or place has some logical explanation(Goodsprings, hell it's even in the name), GREAT characters and companions with their unique personalities and personal quests, karma actually seems to be less broken now, different factions, more weapons where even some of the old stuff makes a comeback, better gameplay mechanics (VATS is no longer a god mode, you also can't stack the Stimpacks, damage threhold is back so until level 25 you will still get torn to pieces by Deathclaws if you aren't equipped enough) and RPG aspects, hardcoe mode, Iron Sights, mods.
CONS: No random encounters, sandbox feel is gone, boarded-up buildings, Obsidian buggy, the whole game seems to be too NCR biased,

Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel (whops, I said it :touched: )

PROS: Errm.... that chick on the artwork has a nice rack?
CONS: .................



I agree with ya(pleasing both fanbases wouldn't be that hard if Todd and Emil wanted to :shrug: ). A toast to that! :celebration:

Agrees with the above post.

*Tazes Smert with super cattle prod for mentioning the burned game*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj9REaCzfFM&feature=player_detailpage#t=9s

Ouch man, was that really necessary? :bonk:

You haven't been in Skyrim section, i take it? :lmao:

But those "fans" are demanding too much











TOO MUCH

Maybe, but my point stands. Old school TES fans are just as, if not more demanding as old-school Fallout fans.

And (very few of) you people demanding isometric view and turn-based combat from a developer that has never done either is not unreasonable?

I just demand less shooter quest and balanced factions

Theres plenty of good books out there

What are you implying?

I want in the next Fallout game:

1.Realistic Towns.

2. Human progress.

3. Realistic Factions like NCR and CL

4. Less combat, more peaceful solutions.

5. Better SPECIAL system.

6. Multiple endings like FNV.

Are these really that hard to put in?

But you can't influence their storyline.

I have, and I know what it's like. There's still a line in between. TES fans generally want the same thing - and openworld sandbox RPG with heavy emphasis on exploration - while there's a drastic contrast between what originals fans and new fans of Fallout want (wherein the new fans consist mostly of fans of Beth style in general, and the old fans the fans of the original style). And as we're in the Fallout section, I'd say the HC TES fans aren't really around, and I did say "average" when I referred to fans. That's my point.

It does seem HC TES fans aren't too interested in Fallout :shrug: I would qualify as a average fan (came for Fallout 3, later got Oblivion), but i certainly don't view any of them flawless. All of them (Morrowind, Oblivion, Fallout 3, New Vegas) svck in their own ways :hehe:

I like your Finnish attitude.

No, we are demanding isometric view and turn-based combat from a developer who bought a game series that has always had isometric view and turn-based combat, is that so unreasonable?

The funny thing is, is that very few of us are really demanding it. We would like it, but it's not as high as a priority to making the game a separate franchise instead of eating the scraps of TES's plate.