Man.. GTA is not GTA enough either! Back in my day we had to answer cell phones in a 2D top-down world with no save game options! That was REAL GTA.. Not this first person shooter crap that we get today... Or damn, Arena was WAY different to TESV! What gives!?

The entire world of gaming is constantly changing. Developers are constantly being challenged to create art that they are proud of while also accepted by the (m)asses. With the popularity of the franchise and the industry as a whole, I am sure that certain aspects will be re-designed to cater to the growing number of fans. It's sad, but most gamers these days are for instant gratification and will skip the dialogue if it is too long. It's also sad but most people consider Fallout 3 to be Fallout 1. There a millions of new hands holding up $60, waving it at game developers. There are only a few veterans that remember the origins.

Bottom line: This will be an epic gaming experience. I have faith in Todd and his team.

This

This video explains the problem with the story and world of FO3: https://youtu.be/wvwlt4FqmS0

Fallout 3 is okay, but it isn't great in my book because its world-building is ruined by one question: "What do they eat?"* I'm not an elitist, I just want fictional worlds to make sense on a basic level. For all the fun to be had in FO3, it's not a game that invites close scrutiny.

*And now I have to watch "The Shandification of Fallout" again.

Edit: okay, that was a tad eerie to see that V.O.S linked to the same video I referenced ... Great minds?

I was talking about the game's tone compared to 1 as a whole that puts me off. Myron is just one example.

I agree, it's a decent game and it's fun to play the problem is is not old school players being elitist it's 3's world and story just really svck.

And Wasteland 2 and Shadowrun. The latter is getting a new expansion soon, an elf chick shooting basilisks with a sniper rifle. If it gets better than that, i don't want to know about it

On topic, New Vegas and classics are like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8Q2WlVuaqs
Fallout 3 is like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I02HNRTXM-g


Sure both can be fun, but in quite different ways.

Agreed lol. It's a great reference for making a beliveable world and story, especially with FO4 trying to be more " story drivin " with a voiced protagonist with a attached family / pre-war backround.

Fallout 1 is a fine game in its own right with a decent story.

Fallout 2 is a phenomenal game in its own right, but suffers as a Fallout game. It's moved from the survival oriented communities to a more Wild West setting, complete with a "pleasure town", advlt film industry, stand up comedy, and popular culture references that are glaring to anyone who lived through those years.

In short, great game - atrocious story.

Fallout 3 had a pretty bare bone story, even including the DLC. What it did was give the Fallout universe a "depth" that was previously missing. Rather then a generic and completely desolate world map, we had places to explore. Places that told their own stories and generally were a delight to wander through and explore.

New Vegas was a love letter from the former Black Isle developers to the community, and it's a great game. But its world is terrible and lacks the personality of the Capital Wasteland. It feels very much like a game, rather then a world where people live.

In short - Outside the first game (Which is the first game), every entry into the franchise has been marked by problems...and had their good points. Fallout 4 will be no different, and I'm excited to see what it adds to the franchise.

As heresy as it is to say, I've yet to play a bad Fallout game. (Yeah, that includes Brotherhood of Steel)

Get yourself a moderator's badge and then you can talk all you want about who does and doesn't belong on these forums. Until then, stuff it.

Its funny people keep asking then question when Fo3 shows more brahmin being raised for food then NV does.

That's fighting words right there, friend (kidding)


But what do the brahmin eat? Farmers and herders grow their own pasture to feed their cattle or get fodder. Sure the case was that it use to be herding a herd down to a pasture but that requires a pasture in the first place. As for New Vegas they weren't just growing brahmin but crops and big horners not to mention more brahmin caravans delivering food from California.

No you're right there isnt because the combat svcks. A bit like Dark Souls. But hey, you wanna carry on looking through those rose tinted nostalgia goggles, who am I to stop you?

You do realize that just because someone likes something older doesn't mean they're "wearing nostalgia goggles" right? My first Fallout game was 3 and after playing 1, 2, tactics and New Vegas I'd say those four are on a superior level then three. Got literally nothing to do with "nostalgia"

I have played since the beginning, and I remember back when they where making It wit the first person option, (I liked it though alot of people were against it). All in all I like to approach and Im just glad that the series did die, Waiting for Van buren was a heart breaker. I personally just wish they didn't hold my hand. I want to be able to fail if I ignore the main objective.

Fallout 2 doesn't suffer as a fallout game. Its the rightful progression of a world after 80 years from the first game. Instead of rehashing the originals run down Road Warrior type world...progress has been made.

New Vegas lacks the personality of Capital wasteland? Excuse me. At least everything connects in New Vegas's world unlike Fallout 3, where random crap happens for no good reason. And get outside DC and Capital wastelands a bore.

And Fallout 3 was a BAD Fallout game.

Hmm that's probably one of the few things I'll hold against the old games, I'm not a big fan of time limits but hey, they made sense.

I never played any Fallout game before 2010 and I played Fallout 3 before New Vegas and Fallout 2. I must be afflicted with a very unusual kind of nostalgia...

I won't say that.

It still provides an unique experience.

There is no other game i can think of, that has so much work put into the world and story.

It's not just another "COD Black ops 65" it's just diffrent.

You can play Fallout games over and over without getting bored.(like you do in other big games)

Another positive thing is that the series has grown from a unknown and little game with a couple of 100.000 players,to a mega game with millions of fans all over the world.

Yes the game and gameplay has changed but i think it's for the better.

Fallout 2's humor can be off putting, I agree, and one of my biggest criticisms towards it is how they took the humor too far. On the other hand even amongst all of the bad jokes and references the vast majority of characters still talked and behaved like human beings, including Myron. The problem with Fallout 3 was that this wasn't the case - it had all the camp of Fallout 2, plus a legion of two dimensional caricatures with zany personalities and dialogue. I find it hard to swallow that characters like Moira Brown exist in the same world as characters like The Master, House, Joshua Graham, etc. Most Fallout 3 characters seem like they'd feel more at home in a franchise like Borderlands.

Fallout 3 was a great game don't get me wrong, but I don't think the overly cartoonish characterization was appropriate for a Fallout game.

At this point, it's unlikely to ever see another Fallout game that played like Fallout and Fallout 2 as an isometric turn-based RPG, as unfortunate as that is. But it's a reality all fans of the classic Fallout games have to face. The only thing that can be done now is recreating that experience as best as possible with what Bethesda established after Fallout 3. I personally think New Vegas is just that.

Obviously it isn't exactly like the originals, as it plays exactly like Fallout 3 as a FPS and what not. However, I feel it captures the same quality of writing, quest, and characters that the originals had that Fallout 3 lacked. Not to mention, come on, we were back on the west coast again and got that same atmosphere of Fallout 2 again. That in and of itself is awesome.

No doubt Fallout 3 is a good game in it's own right as a Bethesda RPG, but I thought it was lacking quite a bit as a Fallout game. Sadly, it looks like that may continue with Fallout 4, but with the addition of being less of a RPG perhaps. But hey, we've barely seen the game and haven't even played it. I'll wait before I come to any real conclusions. But in my opinion, if Bethesda would simply learn from New Vegas considerably and make a Fallout game based on it, that would be right by me for a Fallout game in this day and age.

The grass that's everywhere in the C.W.

Fo3 also has

-Hunters in the wasteland hunting mirelurks, yao guai, mole rats, and wild dogs for meat to sell.

-Wastelanders getting the various kinds of mutfruit to eat.

-Rivet City growing food in its labs to trade for scrap metal to do repairs on their ship.

-People hunting the iguanas and squirrels in the wastes for stew, and to jam them on sticks to eat them that way. Admittedly we dont see anyone actually doing this, because the animals in question aren't actually in the game, but that's been a problem since Fallout 1.

-Tobar the ferryman and the smugglers bringing in punga from Point Lookout in such large numbers every major food merchant in the wastes can keep supplied on them with some frequency.

-We also know from dialogue and NPC inventories that people eat radroaches, though its generally unappealing and doesn't happen very often.

Hell, the anchorage memorial had a massive mirelurk farm in it, with a large production facility for mirelurks cakes. Though it seems some competitors recently released the mirelruks, thus resulting in the staff's deaths.

I just gave a since of urgency, imo I had to make important choice, and that's what i like. I only have 20 days, is that enough time to go to the glow for the BoS? I do however think it shouldn't have remained threw the whole game but that's okay. With that said I like how Bethesda has handled the franchise so far, and FO4 look promising.

And I know some of the older players are kinda iffy about the settlement building, but in FO2 I would kill everyone in the "New Reno Arms" and pretend I had a shop there so I think it fits lol.

i played 2 and 1 when 2 came out, and i found them ok, but there were titles of the same genre (game genre, not setting) i liked better at the time, i found the gameplay pretty redundant and the graphics, well, rather below their times' standards (and i certainly wasn't alone with that opinion). what kept it in the good-zone was the story alone for my parts.

it was beth's fo3 that made me a fan, and i sure am glad they revived the series.

(and van buren, c'mon... 10y too late...)

hey, i played that (#1)! no cheats! )

Nice observation, yet I would say nearly all of the old school fans, while they may prefer TB, are willing to play in FPP/TPP so long as it remains true to the series. The doesn't have to necessarily be turn-based or isometric to be a good RPG or to be a Fallout game.

You're forgetting a lot of old school fans were pleased with New Vegas. I'm sure if Obsidian had more time to work with, the game would have been even better.

I have noticed that a great deal of your posts are merely to criticize said old schoolers though.

I grew up on FPS games and never even heard of Fallout until Fallout 3. I'd never really played any turn-based games (Pokemon as a kid doesn't count) or isometric aside from GTA2 or gameboy games. Yet your statement proves very false considering I found Fallout 1, 2 and Tactics to be phenomenal games and I can certainly sympathize with those that started with them. I really don't feel as though Bethesda did a service to the IP with Fallout 3 (note that I had a tremendous amount of fun though).

You have examples of very successful games with similar mechanics released just recently though (Wasteland 2?).

That really isn't for you to decide whether or not someone belongs on the forums. I've seen many people who that fit said description but love the series. They have even purchased and player Fallout 3 and New Vegas because they love the series. People making suggestions, speculations about Fallout and discussing the IP seem to fit in with the point of the forums just fine.

Yeah I'm sure your opinion is an objective fact of the combat. You mentioned the only way you can play it is with cheats or mods, so that's very telling right there that you don't like games that are difficult.

Your definition of rosy retrospection is quite odd. I played a bit of Fallout 3, New Vegas and Fallout 2 just this month, yet I found New Vegas and Fallout 2 to be quite superior in terms of.. everything.

Another thing I have to agree with, Bethesda had better characterization when they did Morrowind and it imporved somewhat from FO3 to Skyrim.

It's hard to really connect with any RPG or game in general if the characters and world have no character.