I like all three, but Temple is my favorite.

Bloodlines did have a fantastic story, but the payoff of the climix was disappointing. That was what I was talking about - Fallout 3's story was bare bones and simplistic (again, even by Bethesda's standards) but it didn't leave me disappointed like Bloodline's finale did. I also hate the fact the game steamrolls you into fingering Nines early on, and the explanation for that is still rather flimsy.

Fallout 3 has one of the worst storylines when compared to games of comparable timeline. (2007 - 2008) It also suffers a major flaw and that's not getting attached to the story at all. You're left like "Why should I even care for Dad? He left me to die in some stupid Vault with a mad Overseer." And, eventually "Why should I care about the Water Purifier? It's Daddy's dream, not mine." Not to mention that most NPCs in FO3 feel like they have a mental illness of some sort. Also, the water is apparently clean, because the NPCs drink it normally and feel nothing. If the CW truly had an issue with water, there'd be NPCs with effects of this.

Both stories had their fair share of issues. The reason I found your post surprising is because Bloodlines made up for its flaws with overall fantastic writing and characterization while Fallout 3 struggled in both of these areas. Fallout 3 ended with your radiation immune companions refusing to go into the Purifier, sparing both your character and Lyons, because they didn't feel like it. The story may have been simplistic, but I didn't think it was well written by any stretch of the imagination.

From a story standpoint I thought the climix of Bloodlines was fine. It was the gameplay, the dungeon crawl heavy aspect of the climix that was disappointing. I for one thought seeing the antagonist get what was coming to him was very satisfying, so I had no problem with the payoff.

I recall your warhammer example from another thread (If they had called "Warhammer 40k: Space Marine" Dawn of War 3). I understand that perspective a lot better. Your argument is essentially "if they had called Fallout 3/4 something else, I wouldn't have a problem with the series direction."

Just as the Warhammer franchise has different genre derivatives, the Fallout genre now has its own derivative.

If i remember correctly there was a water processing plant in Megaton.

The story was primitive, it was a typical "save the day" story with no fancy things.

Yes. Comparing it to STALKER SoC (2007), Metro 2033 (2006 - 2007), etc it's meh.

Im surprised that you know Stalker.

It's pretty popular in Russia, but i didn't know it was in the west .

I agree. (But it's still using the self same series identity; and that's the same as calling Spacemarine DoW3.)

*I find it disturbing, but I do think that this example has more impact if reversed.
Imagine if Spacemarine 2 was essentially https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_TnVaH2VfQ. Fantastic game, but not at all what https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdR4AOThe68 fans likely expect (or might accept).

It's become a lot more popular over here in recent years, from what I've seen.

Are you suggesting that players that have been Fallout fans longer should have more "say" in the direction of the games Bethesda develops? The fact that you think ANY player should have some actual decision making power in the process is the "fanatical" delusion I was talking about.

Who is this "we"? If Van Buren had released instead of Fallout 3, Fallout universe would still be an obsure, nitch game that is talked about in revent hushed tones by RPGers and played very little by anyone else (like Planescape Torment). I guess that could be better for YOU, but I'm an old school FO1 & 2 player and I'm VERY glad Bethesda got their hands on the franchise and gave me the literally thousands of hours of entertainment so far.

Sure.

*BTW GoG accepts the retail box serial numbers for Stalker, as proof of ownership. If you submit your box number, they will add it to your GoG account.

https://www.gog.com/reclaim

That's what you took from it?

No... Seniority of the series.

**Which do you think is a better RPG? Fallout [1] or Planescape?
** And why?

*** Might aw well add FO3 to that. Which do you think is a better RPG? FO3 or Planescape?
*** And why?

Middle East*

I am from Egypt

Interesting. As far as I'd seen, it's reasonably well-known in the US (at least among gamers. (The random folks who buy console games at Gamestop, who knows )

Like... it's been on Steam for a good number of years, pretty prominently. I've seen articles every so often on Kotaku. It's #4 on Rock Paper Shotgun's "Top 50 FPS" list. 82/100 Metacritic score. (That's all for Stalker:SOC)

Oh yeah, every PC gamer should know Stalker. It's one of the finest games to have come out.

Planescape had a great story, great dialog, but it was a terrible RPG. I might consider FO3 better than Planescape from a gameplay perspective, at least it wasn't broken in any sense.

I know my opinion here is probably unpopular, but I did enjoy the game for sure, but Fallout is a better RPG, especially Fallout 1. However, M&M7 is better than both combined.

Nostalgia goggles work on installed games, too. not just those you abandoned years ago.

Why? [exactly?]

An easy claim to make, but I don't think it's a true one. Having the original reveals its flaws same as having the new ones reveals theirs.
But it get's interesting when you see that the originals outmatch the recent ones in several aspects... but why?

(The recent ones have the advantage of recent tech.)

I 100% agree about Planescape. Masterful game that every RPG player should experience, but not one I would want to play consistently. Fallout 1 was a great RPG experience as well and while I found Fallout 3 a bit "over the top" in memes, jokes and side humor, it was still a great RPG. However, none of these games compel me to play them again....and again....etc....

I'm kind of ashamed to admit how many hours of Fallout 3 and NV, I've played (not to mention Oblivion and Skyrim). I just find the genre Bethesda has crafted to be a masterful combination of exploration, action and RPG that I want to experience over and over. I don't think I'm alone.

I think I have just admitted that I have outgrown being an old school RPGer....I am struggling to finish Pillars of Eternity. !OO!

I don't really care if they made changes, because of course they made changes. It's a new game that needs to not only follow the previous titles, but also be able to stand on its own for all the new fans that will inevitably appears after release.

I'm just hoping they actually made the game better, which I have a lot of confidence that they did. After all, they know the Fallout universe and games better than anyone posting on this forum.

Logic like this doesn't make sense to me...

It's not the fact that we think Fallout is dead, per se, just that F3 wasn't a great Fallout game. That doesn't mean we shouldn't post or be active on the official forums. We enjoy talking about the series; the good and the bad. No matter what, almost all of us hold Fallout near and dear to our hearts, right? Whether it's the original games or the modern games. This is what makes the forum great, the diversity amongst it's fans and their views; both sides of the spectrum.

I'm fine with change but its the difference between Godzilla 1998 & Godzilla 2014 for me. both made changes in some way or added something new....but only one kept to the spirit of the character the other changed what he thought was stupid & cared little for the character & his fans. Fallout 4's changes needs to be Godzilla 2014 not 1998.

recent tech, but also recent design philosophies. improved UI for one thing.
As an old-schooler, you can navigate the original UI without thinking, for any newcomer, they feel clumsy and odd. it throws them out of the immersion.
Also, you still need to be willing to accept reading lengthy amounts of text in small windows with few lines shown as a proper way of getting immersed. Or the fact that you get zoom ins during some conversations (or any conversation window actually). For you the games are awesome and offer the most believable world, because you can accept the tools used to convey them as a valid means to get immersed. for others, the speed at which they present themselves to you is reason enough never to get immersed (it's an old debate really: film vs. book, spoken dialog (with it's nuances) vs. printed text (with it's other nuances), Real time vs turn based, 3rd person/isometric vs 1st person, in game story vs. cut scenes).

You might have realized that FO1+1 have their check-marks firmly on the least immersive of each of these bullet points.
the limits for suspension of disbelieve are different for different people. being trained in having your disbelieve suspended by one technology (reading, I'm exaggerating) is what can count as "nostalgia goggles". others might be more willing to suspend their disbelieve on more immediate forms of interaction (which are closer in speed to every day life), especially newcomers to a genre (in this case: computer games). case in point: the recent iterations attract a much larger audience. You on the other side, may not be willing to suspend your disbelieve on seeing the shortcomings of more recent tech (like the need to cut down on dialog options because voice overs are expensive, and you cannot not have them, or like not willing to accept bad lip sync). different strokes for different folks. but quite easily understandable, why people can feel that FO3 and ongoing may be much better roleplaying games than the originals for them. not because they do not lack some of the older qualities, but because the new qualities ones can far outweight the shortcomings in some ones eyes.
stating that the older ones are clearly better, because they still had ... is exactly nostalgia. it's just that our concept of nostalgia is a bit limited, and it is actually a bit more far reaching than a simple "I had fun back then, my mind is blurry, but I'm sure everything must have been better than what we have now"

So is this about something specific I missed or is this just addressing general discontent that is literally part of every franchise fanbase?

Personally I have nostalgia for the 1962 King Kong vs.Godzilla

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1lra27_king-kong-vs-godzilla-final-battle-audio-remake_shortfilms

Even if in reality it's pretty awful graphics clouded by a rosy memory.

(Pretty much the same as Fallout.... I'm looking forward to Fallout 4)