An indie team has been working on VB for a while now.

A debate team would response to the arguments, all of which you ignored. Good luck with your writing career, get an editor.

Nope, the only JRPG I've ever played is FF8 and I didn't get too far.

Dragon shouts is a clever feature? Seriously mate? It's just another type of magic. Literally. There is nothing special about them other than the way you learn them.

I'm sorry mate, I can't take anything you say seriously after that bomb. This is one of those things one could read only on gamesas forums or on /r/fallout. Not that the rest of what you say made much more sense.

As for the "nostalgia glasses", I replay F2 every year or two, so please...

Its not that they aren't enough they just are not made by the original team anymore. I do like the building mechanics in F-4 that is new.

If BGS made F3 look and play like F1 and F2 (isometric, wait your turn so you can hit the rat, etc...) I wouldn't be a customer. So I'm glad F3 is what it is and F4 seems to go the same direction.

See, like I said. Everyone has their own opinions and definitions. Bethesda makes RPG's. whats hard about that to grasp? Experience is not a valid place to go off up because its a simple brand. Each game is different from the last. Mass Effect = RPG. Fallout = RPG. Are there differences? Freakin huge ones! That doesn't change what they are, taht doesn't change their nature. This game will have much more developed story and mechanics, as you imply, but its still and RPG. I have no experience whatsoever with older Fallout, so I have no real 'nostalgia' over it. Me like many others, started with 3. I know the whole think with JRPG's but they are still JRPG's because their Japanese made. Again, a label. I try not to go off labels but labels are here to stay. Fallout 4 is an RPG, but more importantly its something I want to play. You see what I mean?

(you know what I did, I just thought you were that other guy. My bad haha. Yes I agree with you, sorry. I didn't pay enough attention. I think I'm going blind)

Call it what you will, Fallout will be fun.

THERE YOUR DOING IT AGAIN! Shut up for gods sakes! Slander is annoying and non useful. No one likes a debby downer.

Yes F-4 is the premier post-apocalyptic game for now

Not including F4 because obviously its not out yet, I found Fallout 3 "Fallout". And this is coming from one of those old time hard core fans of the first two games.

Indeed. Most characters in FO1 and 2 were, like most characters in New Vegas, human beings with more believable personalities and dialogue. If one is looking for something like Fallout 3 where characters tended to be two dimensional goofballs with exaggerated personality traits and quirky dialogue then they're going to be disappointed.

Fallout 3 was a good game, just not a very good Fallout game.

Some of the best things and defining features about the first two were(at least for me) the dark humor, characters, writing and the lore behind it all. Fallout 3 didn't do any of these particularly well instead giving a world that was fun to explore but with not much depth to it. I was initially hooked by the by the whole looking for your father who left the vault storyline but as it went on it was filled with plot holes and that ending that guilts you for doing the smart thing of sending a companion into the purifier to turn it on and easily survive as opposed to being "an hero" and killing yourself when you don't even have to. The most ridiculous part about that is that the companions whole schtick when you first meet him is you make him go through a highly irradiated area to pickup the GECK, yet he can't do it now? Inconsistencies like that made me somewhat dislike FO3 but I still had fun exploring the world that had some interesting, albeit empty, places.

NV however did a much better job a struck a nice balance between the old and new , I felt like I was playing a sequel to 1&2 and was what I feel like FO3 should have been. This quote pretty much encapsulates what the older games were about for me and what made them so great.

"My idea is explore more of the world and more of the ethics of a postnuclear world, not to make a better plasma gun." ~ Tim Cain

Okay, first I like to say that I played all of the games besides BOS. In regards to the old fans of the series the main problem isn't the isometric view it's the way Bethesda handled some of the lore and some of the gameplay mechanics with Fallout 3. It wasn't mainly about the viewpoint then they would of hailed BOS, but no it became the game no fan of Fallout likes to talk about if you want to know why here's one of the reasons: https://youtu.be/N-Xs1tm-9-U that and that the previous license holders of the series ( New Interplay ) cancelled the orginal FO3: Van Buren because it wasn't the thing that would of make them money and thought that consoles were the future; so they scraqed Van Buren in favor of the game I showed above. Even Tactics was more well received as a Fallout game ( Not completly mind you ) and game in general ( Sold more copies to if I'm not mistaken ). BOS tried to pander to the younger and " cool " demographic at the time, it ended up not only getting bad sales, bad reviews, but completly alienating the fans of the series. So you can see why older fans of the series are upset when it strays from the formula that they are used to, the game that they were waiting for ( Not all of them ) was cancelled in favor for a top down shooter that was trying to be " edgy " and " cool ". Alot of the fans actually did like NV because it followed the story / game more then the new FO3, so it's not mostly the turnbase style or viewpoint. It's the story / game mechanics of the orginals. The main problem with Beth's FO3 is how they presented it, an example would be the Super Mutant's and F.E.V in Fallout 1 / 2 it was stated that Mariposa was the only place that produced the stuff, now suddenly there's a second place that produced it and made a new type of Super Mutant that has no inbtelligence what so ever besides reproducing and killing ( Fawkes being the rare case ) when the classic ones weren't completly stupid and can actually form somewhat articulate responses, an example of this:

Harry the Super Mutant: https://youtu.be/S66Ff4iF-dI

Lou the Super Mutant General:https://youtu.be/8U9T8Z_Ayhw

Marcus from Fallout 2: https://youtu.be/iZb4ACwMjEc

Case in point the fans didn't like how FO3's story / world was a mismatch of 1 and 2's. They didn't completly dispise it like they did BOS or maybe Tactics in some cases.

Me,... mines a rare case which I was already a fan of Bethesda and liked Oblivion, and the first time I heard about Fallout proper ( Saw the game earlier as kid in my local Microplay ) was in a post Shivering Isles interview with Todd Howard and that they were working on Fallout 3. So I researched it, and found out there were older games in the series, me being the person not liking playing sequels without playing the others tried to get ahold of the first two, not thinking the games wouldn't be for me I held off. Then the announcement of GOG and that it was going into beta in the summer before Fallout 3 was announced in the Fall of 08. So I signed up for the beta and bought Fallout 1 and 2, I ended up loving the game with it's story, world, and soundtrack ( And me not being a huge PC gamer at the time helped becasue I wasn't used to completly gaming on the keyboard, and using just the mouse and minimal keys was perfect enough ); so that would put in the spot where I played the orginals before 3 came out but I was a fan of Bethesda. I liked 3 but disliked how the story from 2 was copy and pasted, I was expecting something totally new. My views of the gameplay on the otherhand was different, I didn't mind the FPV and I thought the RPG mechanic wasn't too bad in regards to the Fallout ( Wasn't happy about the mechanics of the Power Armor though ) series; I was glad that targeted shots sorta came back as VATS. I thought Bethesda got the general idea of the feel of Fallout but not the story and look of the orginals. I gave them a pass because it was their first Fallout game, but now they had the license for 11 years and one game under their belt that they made, and Obsidian proved that oldschool Fallout can work with not just the newer generation but the formula Bethesda has established with FO3. So Bethesda doesn't have an excuse to make a great Fallout game this time around to not only please the people that only played FO3 / NV, but the fans of 1 / 2. But now if Bethesda considers Fallout to be shooting things to 50's then that's worrisome ( The 50's theme wasn't as prominent in the orginals anyway only the lifestyle, because the military application was more modern and futeristic then having a 50's asthetics to them, heck the P90 was in Fallout 2 and the desert eagle was in 1 ). I'll admit the success of FO3 was great for the series, get's people intrested with the series and lore, and I will say that Fallout 4 looks more like he orginals then 3 did.

I don't understand the talk about how turnbased isometric games is outdated when we got games like the new Shadowrun, new Xcom, new Divinity, Wasteland 2, and Pillars of Eternity getting good reviews and made good sales this day in age.

Longread I know, I could of went into more but I tried to keep it as short and informative as possible. Also disclaimer not trying to talk for groups, just stating from what I read and saw over the years from people new and old alike to the series.

I agree with this, and I started the series off from the begining.

Ditto that whole post. New Vegas was a solid Fallout title, and I'd gladly support the series if it had continued in that vein. Unfortunately, both Fallout 3 and (it appears) Fallout 4 completely and entirely missed the point of the series. The humor's wrong, the themes are wrong, the characterization is wrong, the whole nine yards.

Or you know, to be more of an RPG than the latest Farcry or GTA. Which until we learn more, it really doesn't seem to be.

Van Bruen would've interesting with the bomb exploding halfway through the game but yeah kinda glad it got canned.

THIS

#1 reason why Fallout New Vegas is better than Fallout 3.

Yep.

If you think turned based isometric view is outdated, say hello to XCOM 2 and Divinity Original Sin.

Well, honestly, I want Fallout to go back to what it started out as completely.

But I'm a realist, and I know that is not a feasible thing to hope for.

So instead, as someone who started with Fallout 2 back in '99, I simply want a compromise.

We saw what Fallout New Vegas could accomplish while trying to please both newcomers and old timers.

And 'that' is what Bethesda should be striving towards.

Fallout 3 was made before FNV so it could not strive towards that.

But Fallout 4 is made after it and it doesn't seem like they are taking any of it to heart.

Fallout doesn't need to go back completely to its roots to still be an adequate Fallout game.

But it has to adhere to certain design philosophies, the lore and the original vision for Fallout in order to be a proper Fallout game.

If it does not, then it is no better than FBOS. Might be more fun to play than FBOS, but it doesn't make it any more proper Fallout than FBOS.

Fallout 4, to me, is leaning far more towards FBOS and Fallout 3 than it is leaning towards any of the other titles in the series.

A true Fallout game would be like the older games.

An adequate or 'good enough' Fallout game would be one like Fallout New Vegas that tries to bridge the gap between the fanbases, to give us both something we want.

I'll settle for any good old RPG. FO3/NV were fine in that regard. There was no reason to go more in the farcry "open world action game" route.

I saw no reason for taking out skills, survival mode, weapon degrade, or criticals, so that has be stumped.

Even the voiced pc/dialogue wheel don't bother me now that I think about narrative.

As for characters in Fallout... Myron in F2 was more high brow (and low brow for that matter) than anything Beth has ever created in the Fallout universe.

I just read the OP only. But as someone who played the original Fallout as a teen when it first debuted. I have no problem with the direction Bethesda is taking the series. Maybe it's because I'm getting older but, I no longer have the patience to play turn based games, so I prefer the first person action of the newer titles. Don't get me wrong I still think the originals are classics and I own 2 copies of each one, and they were a big part of my final high school year and my college days. But I just like viewing the post apocalyptic world through my character's eyes. There were some things with FO3 I had problems with and I'm sure you've seen them mentioned several times like, 200 year old food, no progress in 200 years, poor main quest, and Little Lamplight. Those are my major problems with the game, but I still think it's a good game. The side quests were good, the scenery was superb and haunting, loved Enclave radio. I don't know about the other old timers but, I'm looking forward to the new game; it looks like Boston has progressed since the bombs fell. Plus I love post apocalyptic games.

Alot of things were high brow in 2 . One of the reasons 2 is off putting compared to 1 for me.

Only time will tell with FO4's direction being like BOS; it is worrying as it stands now if they're trying to bank it on what's " popular " with the gameplay we're seeing. The overall design atleast is improved from 3 to what Fallout looks like, unlike BOS. But I do agree with them not taking NV to heart because didn't NV sell more then 3 if I'm not mistaken, and Obsidian proved that the orginals can still work with Bethesda's formula for making a Fallout game and while still making a great game at the same time that it still received a possitive reception.

Uh, no. People criticize Fallout 3 because it's writing and world were complete crap and not in nature with the fallout world.

The story was a linear mess of plotholes and bad ideas, almost none of your choices actually matter in the game and the ones that do have an impact are really stupid like blowing up Megaton for no reason other then "it's blocking my view". Almost none of the settlements have an economy and were poorly designed.

Take Megaton, the people took shelter from dust storms around an undetonated bomb, they went to an airport literally miles away just to drag airplane parts back in order to build around the bomb.

Rivet City, a city surrounded by super mutants, feral ghouls and raiders not to mention poisonous water. No one in their right mind would settle there and no caravan would go that way because it's way to dangerous and not enough profit to be made. They have no means of getting caps, if they sent scavengers out they'd most likely end up dead.

Republic of Dave. No farming, no ruins to scavenge, the caravans don't go up there, how do they get supplies?

Tenpenny Tower. Aristocratic rich people that built their fortune...on what? There are only four caravans that work independently, none of them seem to have any mercenaries they are just rich aristocrats for the hell of it. No real thought put into how they made their fortunes.

I could go on and on, there are more reasons to hate FO3 then "Oh you're just a pre-FO3 elitist" most old fallout players don't really care about the changes in gameplay, what they do care about is the quality of writing and variety the games offer which FO3 fails at.

When people say "FO3 isn't like fallout" they mean in terms of writing and in world building. For Fallout games there are more then two endings, there are numerous endings that were all made by shaping the world through your actions and through numerous branches in quests whereas Fallout 3 is one straight line of bad writing with two possible outcomes.

http://imgur.com/w8zrulX

Take a look at this, see that branch in New vegas' side? That's just the main quest, there are quests that have numerous paths, with numerous endings that effect how the faction is shaped and what ending you get. Something three doesn't have.

It has nothing to do with the Gameplay as many old fallout players will tell you that they quite enjoyed New Vegas. Why? Because in terms of story and writing it follows what is fallout unlike three.

A scientist, for all intents and purposes, says some smart things and it puts you off? Whaa? Did you expect a chemist that just created the world's latest amphetamine to be stupid?