not to argue in favor of bringing turn based back, but turn based games are not archaic, broken or dying, the genre is still going strong, they are still extremely fun and most people are willing to accept that they had bad luck if they hit the losing number. 90% still leaves enough room for failure and the random number god is not known for being generous

Care to elaborate bitmap?

"Wow, just wow" isn't much of a refutation of basic mathematics, if that's what it was meant to be. Hard to tell with three word posts.

i don't mind them taking from them but i don't want Beth to be hampered by them either as some original Fallout fan's are too rigid in what i've read on here, i really like the stories in NV, i have nothing against the story telling of the original's, you were correct i didn't play them because of the game mechanic's them selves, i knew nothing of the original lore until Fallout 3 and after, i play them because they are open world first and foremost.

but some of the complaint's are against the slightest change at times, i believe Beth should change what they think will make the game better.

But there's nothing really to gather in the Mojave.

-The city of Vegas is impossibly leveled compared to every other major metropolis area from L.A to D.C., so there's no chance of them eating the pre-war food people in D.C. sometimes eat.

-There are no remnants of old tribal farms anywhere in the game, nor does anyone mention such a thing ever existing. IIRC, the all roads comic called the tribes nomadic, which means they wouldn't have had farms, as those require you stay in one place.

-There is less edible animal life in the Mojave, you got geckos and fish.... and that's about it.

-Trying to eat the plants only would result in the problem of depletion i mentioned before.

This is the problem with NV. its a world that only works because the NCR is there during the game, but it couldn't have worked before them because nothing would be there without them except the Goodsprings farms. Everything before the NCR showed up is basically a giant plothole.

Fallout 3 may not show enough food production, but it establishes that things like trader caravans existed even 60+ years ago, just as Megaton, the first major city in the area besides maybe Underworld, was founded.

Of course F3 and F4 are not Fallout enought they aren't made by the original creators..

Well clearly the education system and basic English passes some people by. Including those at interplay. Nothing to be ashamed of.

Not personal preference...objective truth.

The Witcher saga is about the lesser evil. Geralt is an epitome of a grey hero.

Stop droning for Bethseda and Bioware, who have reputations of NOT handling grey morality well.

That's all I was trying to convey. I'm also just trying to say that Bethesda went out of their way to win a bidding war (right? maybe?) to purchase the Fallout IP. I have no issue with the game being FPP, TPP, Turn-based or whatever. It can be a sandbox, node or whatever.

I only think the game should properly reflect the series and not shoehorn everything from previous games and throw the lore to the wind. It should be an RPG, not a FPS shooter. It can be first person perspective, but it should remain an RPG in mechanics. In other words the character over the player.

That ain't all there is. People just don't bother reading or trying to understand. In fact, many of these people you and this thread refers to are pretty open-minded. They just care about the series. Think of it this way, what if TES or Bethesda's games ditched the open-world and RPG because more people happen to want CoD. Would you be opposed to change? (Extreme comparison, but just trying to make a point)

Sorry if I came off as confrontational, I'm just tired and lately people have been quoting and responding to me without bothering to read the posts. I've also seen a lot of threads and posts that outright call out the older members and fans of Fallout, yet I very rarely ever see it the other way. It's a forum and people are free to express their opinion if it follows forum rules. I just don't think people should be able to tell people "It's Bethesda's now, if you don't like it then git out!"

Geralt is the epitome of nothing more then power fantasy/Mary Sue characters.

Except it's been repeatedly proven false. Just because the odds are in your favor doesn't mean you're always going to succeed. At the end of the day they are still odds and thus subject to the basic mathematics of odds and probability.

Maybe this will help clarify:

I have a bag with 10 marbles. 9 of the marbles are orange and one is purple. You're playing a game with me where pulling out the color of marble that you dictate nets you $50. You know the odds of an orange marble are 9 in 10, so you reach into the bag after declaring "I'm going to pull an orange marble," and lo and behold you pulled a purple marble.

Congrats you unluckily had the guaranteed 1 in 10 chance of failure occur. There's nothing about it that's rigged, it's just how probability and fractions of whole numbers work. 9 out of 10 parts doesn't add up to a whole, whether it's colored marbles or a % chance to hit. 90% is 90% is 90%.

How so.....

In fact, he is not. The ending to TW3 proves it.

Never played Fallout 1 or 2 but after watching lets plays of both games I've never had the desire to anyways. Not even because of the older gameplay (I don't mind top-down or turn based at all. Was born born in 86 so I'm no stranger to older games.) but because the settings of the originals doesnt interest me. That was also my problem with NV since it went alomg the same vein of being west coast. 3 on the other hand really captivated me with its urban setting and being in one of the most important cities in old world america. I hope the world in 4 will interest me like 3 did.

So no then, nothing further to add. Good to know.

I was kinda ok with New Vegas because it's established that there wasn't much to it but an abandoned city until House reached out to the tribes (nomadic or just barely subsistence farming) and caravans were and had been a recurring thing in F1, F2, F3, and NV. Not sure about Tactics, don't recall, and I never touched BoS.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/columns/extra-punctuation/14036-A-Mary-Sue-in-Video-Games-is-Only-As-Skilled-As-the-Player

My main gripe with F3 is that the writing left something to be desired, and I felt like the west coast stuff was used more as a crutch than a callback. There's no reason why the East coast can't be its own unique setting with its own unique factions and wildlife and still maintain the fallout feel. Hopefully this gets fixed in Fallout 4. Already setting it in the institute seems promising, as it means BSG has a prime chance to actually elaborate on some of the unique factions they did introduce in F3.

Yeah, I could already tell you have not played the game at all.

Dragon Age: Inquisition is more fitting of the description

I agree i don't want COD, i like RPG elements in games immensely, i don't want just an FPS, i stopped playing COD and Battlefield, so i know what your saying and i loved NV, but having both is better and if they remade Fallout 1 and 2 as open world i would play them, instantly, it's not the RPG mechanic's i mind i wouldn't enjoy any Bethesda game if they were taken out altogether and just became an FPS,

I know Beth will change the story, they did with the Blades in Skyrim, a lot wern't happy about that, i've become used to it, you won't like some aspects of it i feel.

Yeah i get it, these debates are pretty common lately on here lol, even when there is a new TES, these argument's happen a lot, i guess they won't be over for a while yet

One quote refutes your claim.

"What do you know about saving the world, silly, you're just a witcher"

You can stop arguing with Possum. All his arguments come down to misapplied logical fallacies or something he picked up off of TV Tropes. Repeated until you just leave him be.

Geralt of Rivia

- Born to a healer witch and traveling mercenary who probably vanished right off after he knocked her up
- mother gave him away for never explained reason
- raised and trained to take up one of the [censored]tiest high risk low pay jobs under the sun
- subjected to alchemical mutation process with outrageous mortality, barely survived
- when he first time went off on the path, his first kill was not a monster, but a group of humans - humans he was made to protect from monsters
- spent ~70 years of his life powering through literal [censored], sometimes coming up to his waist, constantly risking his life for low pay while being discriminated against anywhere he went
- stupid coincidence landed him in a self destructive relationship with a moody sorceress, tied to her by a literal freaking curse
-every time he tried to do something good, he was rewarded with misfortune and suffering
- saved life of then-would-be emperor of Nilfgaard and basically started bloodiest chain of events in recorded history
- uncountable massacres and murders, plots and secret pacts, sectarian violence, witch hunts and so on and so on
- 3 world wars in which countless people perished
- catriona plague with another untold number of victims
- attempted invasion of entire world by extradimensional species

Geralt is so [censored] unlucky, only Lamenters from WH40K could hold a candle to him. He gets crapped on by so many people, and he just rolls with it. That's literally the opposite of a Gary Stu, who by definition, all the characters are supposed to love, and nothing bad is supposed to happen to them that they don't immediately solve. Meanwhile Geralt has a legitimately crappy life.

Hmm, true enough. We're probably straying too off topic here. I am out of this thread before I get baited even more by people who use only argument from authority as their logical fallacy.

I think older fans complained about FO3 because they claimed 3 to be lore breaking with the Enclave, FEV, Super mutants and a few other things, So it isnt just the writing. I don't have a problem with FO3. I love the originals and prefer to play them over 3 but I admit I've played FO3 and NV so much, just can't play them anymore.

You are always going to have people that say the old games are better. They were in 1997 ok for their time. But its just stupid saying the new games aren't as good. There are so much better in so many ways. These people are just trying to piss people off that like the new games better. I played the old games and they were ok for their time. Its ok to like the old games but crapping on the new ones is just lame.

1. True

2. I compared FO4 to 3 because it was Bethesda's last released FO game and I was trying to show what they did with FO3 compared to the orginals. Sure I can compare 4 to the orginals but we have only got pure combat at the moment with some dialogue, and crafting. I would love if they explain the reason of the exclusion of skills, lore, dialogue, and more of the " RPG " aspects.

3. I know Skyrim sold more, I was just comparing NV to 3's sales. Showing that the game sold better then their own FO game, proving that NV garnered more consumer intrest and that intrest in the orginals isn't gone.

Remember we still got Gamescom, TGS, and PAX Prime coming up to potentially see more of the game.

To someone who fails basic maths? No.

Stop droning over CDRP that was still in training wheels when Bethesda and Bioware was making fantastic RPG's. If you have a problem with those games, that is fine, but don't project your fanboyism over on me please. I know what i like.