1) Fallout 2 is a fine game. But as a sequel to Fallout it is sorely lacking in, well...Post-Apocalyptia. I get that society moves on, but things got a might too civilized too quickly. New Reno springs immediately to mind in that regard. As for rehashing the original....it pretty much recycled the premise of the first game. Shadowy menace from out of the Wasteland needs non-irradiated Humans for Reasons.

2) New Vegas is a boring desert (Thematically appropriate for the setting). But its true crime is that 90% of the buildings you do come across in the Mojave are boarded up. They're not small buildings either - there's an entire apartment complex by the REPCONN Headquarters that is just eating up real estate with no intrinsic value. New Vegas commits the ultimate sin in this regard. In addition to barely giving anything to sate one's wanderlust...it teases and taunts the player of locals of interest that are completely sealed off.

3) Fallout 3 was the successor of Fallout 1, in much the same way New Vegas is the successor to Fallout 2. As I prefer Fallout 1 to Fallout 2, it stands to reason I hold Fallout 3 in higher regard then you do, given your preference for Fallout 2 and New Vegas.

The best thing about that?

There's room enough for everybody in this franchise. You personally don't have to enjoy the same things I do in the Fallout games. There's plenty enough for everyone.

Todd Howard needs to look at games like Deus Ex Human Revolution and XCOM Enemy Unknown, games that captured the spirit of the originals with new teams and developers.

He is going the Thi4f direction instead.

GTA is not the best example to use in a snide remark like that (even though I'm sure there are some who might want the top down perspective back). The core experience and intent of the game is still the same (meaning, the experience that it strives towards is independent of the perspective). This would work with Fallout too if the core mechanics worked towards the same goal (which they don't, since the intended gameplay experience is totally different).

I don't know that it does. What's there really that would distinguish it from Skyrim, or FarCry, or even GTA on a core level of the experience (aside from the difference in the setting)? They all go towards the same goal now; sandbox firstperson shooting with a ton of sideline distractions to take part in.

I see that more as a problem. It's the mainstreaming of the series that killed its flare. It was always a niche title that intended to appease a focused group of gamers, not a series that wanted it all through the majority (and at the expense of the niche).

It certainly looks that it has improved on a surface level from the more recent past; but the argument is that has the improvement gone towards the right direction. In my mind it has not. Title by title it's gone further away from what made it so special in the first place. It's not famous anymore so much because its Fallout specifically, but because it's another Bethesda game made in the one and only way Bethesda does its games.

How did they get "civilized" too quickly when F2 takes place 80 years after the first game? Its a false argument that you are arguing. Fallout 2 is fine in having a more developed society.

And Fallout 3 didn't do the same?

And how the hell is Fallout 3 so dead after 200 years after the war? Game looks like the bombs just hit, not something that happens 200 years later. It should have been a prequel to 1, judging by its atmosphere.

When you make "room" for everybody, the quality goes down. Than you try to please everybody instead of making a focused game.

All that Bethesda is making is Fallout enough, since they own the franchise.

One should simply accept it, whether you like it or not.

I know people who are saying Fallout 2 is not Fallout enough and in some ways i agree with them, but one should simply learn to move own.

What boggles me is the belief that some seem to have (thats implied) that they don't like Fallout 3 because it distances itself from the roots of Fallout. Did they think it was going to remain west coast forever? Its impossible, really. Only so many games can stay west coast. This allows the story to branch out more. Beisdes, the east coast has more history. It presents more options to tell a story. Not saying west coast doesn't, but you know...

-It's hard to describe but it doesn't feel the same (for me) i think the atmosphere or the rich lore and the gameplay is the thing.

-I don't know man i played F2 first but when i heard there was a sequel comming up i was very happy, lets be realistic i think 90 % of the guys here on the forum have played F3 first and then the older games,it's also that the company is making lots of money

with these new games and they have the possibility to include more content in them this way.

-That's just personnal i don't really liked the combat in F2 i played it for it's good story.

1) Fallout 2's society was a lot more developed then the societies seen in Fallout 1. It's not a false argument, it's just me saying the Old West feeling of Fallout 2 was not one I particularly enjoyed for the setting as it was.

2) Yeah, Fallout 3 really ought to have been a prequel. You won't find me disagree with that - and some dialogue in the game itself almost hints that it was meant to be. The only explanation I can come up with is the Capital Wasteland was hit by so many bombs it only recently became habitable again.

3) So your true objection is that Fallout has become a successful brand and no longer a niche game with a cult following?

I remember Fallout 1 and 2 in the 90's, i never played them, i didn't like the isometric view and still don't, it wasn't new back then either compared to Voodoo 3d accelerated games or top down RTS that dominated back then, i did however play Daggerfall and loved open world games,

So when Fallout 3 was announced and then released, i never took much notice really, as i knew nothing about it apart from the name, even though i was playing Oblivion on mass, i was waiting for GTA 4 on pc at the time, which came out just after and bought Fallout 3 at the same time in Dec, and spent more time playing GTA 4 at first then played it and loved the game, so if it wasn't for Bethesda i still wouldn't be a fan now,

i hope they continue to do it their way personally, i don't think the original games should influence future Fallout's much, as if they were that good Interplay wouldn't have gone out of business in the first place, they are there for the old fans who don't like Beth's take on Fallout to enjoy.

You realize your gripe with the classics are the fact that they were isometric.. No one is insisting it be isometric, not even the older fans.

So then they should never have purchased the IP. Why purchase an IP when you aren't going to even use it?

You're also incredibly misinformed as to why Interplay went out of business. The original Fallout games were highly rated and won awards for best RPG. If they were bad they wouldn't have scored so highly, nor would they have won awards.

Interplay went out of business because of poor management. Namely they cancelled a game that was nearly finished (Fallout 3) in favor of the console market (BoS) and the game flopped. They also got rid of Black Isle who made their Fallout games. They also made other horrible financial decisions. It ain't Black Isle, nor was it Fallout.

They still wern't massive sellers back in the 90's, and Interplay has gone regardless of reason's, and Beth should continue to do the franchise their way in my opnion. if they went back, like a lot of original fan's seem to want, then i would just stop playing them. and a lot of others would too i'd imagine.

New Vegas was more of a Fallout game than 3. There's just no denying that. I think what it comes down to is what you want out of Fallout game. Do you want a more classic take on Fallout? New Vegas can accommodate you. Or do you want a game that is less of a RPG and focuses more on exploration? Fallout 3 is certainly that game.

I like both for different reasons. But if I have to choose one I would go with New Vegas. It just feels more like Fallout to me.

So you're saying New Vegas was a bad game? Don't forget New Vegas was made in 18 months vs. 3 or 4 years of Fallout 3. Cuz Obsidian is made up of a lot of the Black Isle crew.. It's also regarded as a closer to Fallout than Fallout 3.

Hell a lot of New Vegas' bad ratings came from Bethesda's QA testing.

New Vegas is a great game, ive got over 600 hours on it, only Skyrim i've played more, but's it's still open world, not like the original's, it's not that different to Fallout 3, the stories are better, but it's a Beth engine game.

>Implying Bethesda had anything to do with it when KOTOR2, NWN2, AP, and DS3 were just as buggy of games.

Even Obsidian has admitted its no ones fault but their own that their games are buggy beyond reason.

How is having to reload a save 100 times to kill a target superior? How is trudging through a boring desert superior? I suggest you go and look up the word nostalgia before telling me what it isnt.

From what I've learned on forums lately, Brotherhood of Steel was actually not a bad game at all. We just feared change.

Why would you even reload unless you die (which is what you do now too)? You don't have to. Even if you are free to do so, it is not the gameplay intent that you savescum every possible mishap.

So the game designed by the people that designed Fallout 2 is great? Okay then.

Seems to me a lot of older fans want a game similar to New Vegas. I haven't seen many people demanding it be a clone of Fallout 1 or 2, only that it respects and resembles the series as New Vegas did.

@Awesome, that wasn't implied and you know it. And you cannot deny that Bethesda's games are buggy as all hell too and that New Vegas was built using Bethesda's buggy as all hell engine. You also cannot deny the fact that Bethesda did the QA and released New Vegas in its buggy state.

Because when the game tells me I have a 90% chance to hit and I miss. Why wouldnt I reload? Like I said go watch any XCOM (original or remake) video and you will see what I mean. Turn based combat needs to die. Let's be clear, if I'm playing permanent death, my lack of skill should kill me, not a buggy archaic game mechanic.

I don't deny Bethesda' games aren't buggy, but so is GTA, and every MMORPG ever made.

That is just the natural result of releasing a large open world game with mountains of code in it. It's no one's fault beyond the natural result of the dev's choice to make a game that large. No amount of QA is going to fix that. Which is why, even years after release, every major MMO has a bug list longer then the combined dialog of every NPC in NV.

1. That was the problem with FBOS' original vision, "this is popular, we're doing that now!" It doesn't help that they aren't giving us any details to other things like lore, factions, storyline, writing, choice and consequence or more details on how the character progression system will work like. All I've seen is them throwing a bunch of things together because it's popular and well... I find it hard to stay optimistic.

2. If one were to compare Fallout 4 to just Fallout 3 then it doesn't seem as bad, I think. But to anyone who compares Fallout 4 that way; You need to at least try to compare Fallout 4 to the older games and ask yourself "how different is this exactly?"

3. Skyrim sold more than NV though. Way more. Like, more than twice as much.

But Bethesda is extremely bad at bugs, more so than other studios. Daggerfall was the poster child for bugs. Obsidian is really bad too, but a lot of times they have publishers rush their games.

GTA games are pretty polished, with no real bad bugs. RDR has some funny bugs but not bad ones. Rockstar is great at not releasing buggy products. Do not lump them in with Skyrim. Bioware and CDPR may have bugs, but no where near Bethesda's league.

What's your point about Fallout 2, yeah NV is a great game imo, doesn't have any bearing on another game no matter who makes it, ID Software and Rage comes to mind,

I think some older fan's are using NV more as an excuse to want the original games as NV is not that different to Fallout 3 apart from the story telling and sticking closer to the lore they made, but i bet they introduced new stuff that got some complaint's from OF fans.

I never said Bethesda games wern't buggy, i didn't finish Daggerfall back in the day because it was, but that's just an attack from you on Bethesda, they make massive open world games and yes every one has had bugs, and there is always mods to fix them, alot of games released now are just as buggy, a lot smaller and don't get mods to fix them!.

I find Fallout 3 to be enough Fallout for me. Do i prefer New Vegas? No, i find them more or less equal. There are a couple of factors that make it so. The DC wasteland is way more atmospheric and feels more exciting because you emerge from the vault, you don't know anything about it, which is true for both you the player and the pc. New Vegas makes it hard for me to roleplay the Courier, because he/she has been places, so why wouldn't the map be explored?. I don't like the amnesia/got shot in the head copout, that is just me. I feel like Fallout 3 is true enough to the lore at the same time as they can use the East Coast to establish something new, yes there are a few kinks in the writing, i won't deny that. Where New Vegas has the advantage is the story, it is well written and it keeps you interested, but at the same time it is to preachy for me. Yes there is alot of gray, which i like, but i don't like the philosophy behind the choices. Playing the gray hero is not possible, and i feel like Bethesda and Bioware are the only ones that can pull that off. Just a personal preference.

I get why people don't like FO3, i really do and they are certainly allowed to not like it compared to the old games. It has nothing to do with Nostalgia glasses or anything like that. I think it is important to accept the fact that Bethesda owns the ip and they are gonna make their type of Fallout games, that is what they do. We kick and scream abit to much, like we want Obsidian or Black Isle to get the Ip back. Yeah it won't happen, its over. With Fallout 3, Bethesda played on their strengths and brought this series to a new audience. Many that cared enough after playing FO3 has gone back and taken a look at the old games and actually played them (like me).