World of Xeen was great. As for the unofficial expansion pack, "Swords of Xeen," well...no comment.

The only downside to World of Xeen, though, is that ever since Darkside of Xeen came out, neither that nor Clouds feels like a complete game unless they've been merged.

Well, i've never played a Fallout game in my life and I am definetly satisfied. The idea of hardcoe mode is fantastic, and something tells me I wouldn't like FO3 as much.

"Fallout fans are like this! But Fallout3 fans are like that!"

:cue laugh track

Don't put me in a box, baby!

I don't care what anybody says, I love Fallout!!! May it live on and on. I wish it had online Multiplayer though.. it would be so cool to have a friend or 2 help out with the main quests.

:blink:

Why?
Why do people want to ruin a single player RPG with multiplayer? FFS we introverts need some games too.

I started as a fan of Bethesda since Morrowind. I am satisfied with FNV, only encountered a handful of bugs and they were all minor, the last bug i encountered was more the 20 hours of gameplay ago.

I can only speak from my experience since I only started with 3. But based on the responses I got from my deathclaw thread... which was unjustifiably locked by some [Insert insult, curse, and disatisfactory remarks here] moderator. I'd have to say Original fallout players are the happiest with New Vegas while those that found the series at Fallout 3 like I did have the most problems. Not that New Vegas is bad, it just has minor differences that have a big impact on game play between the two.

Been to Novac yet? Met Festus? Visited Utobitha? Obviously not. I didn't find anything in Fallout 3 funny except for the crazy Nuka-Cola lady, and occasionally some of the horribly written dialogue.

Whole heartedly agree!

Get Borderlands. Up to 4 player online/split screen co op.

The forums seem to indicated Fallout 1 and 2 fans are the most satisfied, and Fallout 3 fans are the least satisfied. I'm a big FO3 fan, and have never played FO1 or FO2, and I think FO:NV is on a completely different plane than FO3 (as in far better). The glitches and crashes are a pain, but the story lines are better written, the voice acting is better, the quests are more logical, and the MQ didn't leave me wanting to never play the MQ again because it was filled with cereal box morality and kindergarten level logic.

Since Fallout 2 is still my favorite game ever, I'd say fans of the original Fallouts were most satisfied.

I don't think FO3 fans and Beth fans are dissatisfied, but they might not appreciate or understand some of the changes or decisions made the way fans of Fallout 1 and 2 were.

Bethesda Fan, not Fo3 generation.

Coincidence that this poll should appear right now.

My first char was around level 16 when she and Roni first made it to Freeside. My new char did the run a couple of hours ago and arrived there at level 1, lost 100 caps in the Wrangler and slept rough that night. Up and about early morning the local Freesiders were still sleeping on their make-shift bedding, I was thinking that was for the best as the muggers could possibly pose a threat. Wandering around searching in bins for something to sell I started singing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPPBAIjq2lk to myself. 'Well done Obsidian', I thought, the feel at level 1 was certainly different compared to level 16 yet there was still enough to keep my occupied, although I was aware the possibility of ugliness and danger existed around every corner.

This got me thinking, the strangeness and uncertainty of visiting a new town comes down to a lot more than disorientation. How nice it would be, I mused, if a game could realise more fully that disoriented, uncomfortable, uncertain strangeness. Then I remembered Morrowind and laughed.

So, yes, FoNV, the best and arguably only RPG since Morrowind to carry Bethesda branding. Smaller world, lacks the 13 clothing slots, is not quite so 'go anywhere if you dare' and levitation would certainly solve all the invisible wall issues but it ties the factions together nicely, the number of possible options to solve many quests is very impressive and it has spears, lol, in-joke. Head and shoulders over Fo3? For me it certainly has a lot more replay value but I do have a soft spot for Fo3, the changes it carried compared to Oblivion had me giddy with delight.

Yes, yes, and yes (I enjoy mutant radio quite a lot). Even it its funnier moments it doesn't have the more comical vibe running through it FO3 did for me (emphasis on "me"....obviously).

My introduction to the Fallout series was Fallout 3, though I later played 1 and 2. Still, I was very satisfied with New Vegas. In fact, I'd say it's the best Fallout game I've played yet.

Not all us newcomers are that horrible... Really.

I don't believe many people think the players who came from F3 are idiots, just that they want something that isn't Fallout.

Agreed however I have also seen this in new vegas and there it actually stood out to me. If you've been to jacobstown and met marcus then you'll problaby know what I mean. Why didn't they do more with that? I love the new super mutants ( or 'old' for that matter ) because they are not all WRAAAAH DUPID HUMMIES!. And they can actually talk, then I find a super mutant TOWN. And after 2 hours the quests are done and I've spoken with everyone woot? I was quite dissapointed in jacobstown. And I take it as an example for ( some ) other places.

I cant answer because I’m all of those things

Fallout 3 was just absurdly easy. From what I'm hearing New Vegas is more like the originals. 1 and 2. Apparently these games were harder than 3 because people that played 1and2seem to think New Vegas is perfect difficulty wise. So people that started the series at 3, like me, were just pampered and it takes some adjusting.

You know, the more I play the more I think that New Vegas wasn't actually made any more difficult really. They removed level scaling, I think that's just about the extent of it. I used to be terrified of cazadores, now I can kill them with two shots. Same can be said for deathclaws, radscorps, or any other wasteland critter out there. Used to be I had to plan my assault on a room full of human enemies, because if I was caught in the open I was dead, now though I can run in fully exposed wielding my fully modded out hunting shotgun and leave just bloodstained walls and corpses behind me, somewhat upset that I have to go pay a few hundred caps to get my armor repaired next time I find myself neir mojave outpost...

huh? I'm fallout 3 generation and I'm ubersatisfied with the game, guess there must be exceptions lol.

I've been addicted to Fallout since the originals, but I'm also a big fan of Bethesda's glitchy yet incredibly open sandbox worlds (from the original TES:Arena to FO3). So I picked both. I'm fairly satisfied with FNV. I'm only disappointed in the numerous bugs, but haven't been the victim of anything game breaking. I feel that it's the FO3 crowd that might be the most disappointed, as this game definitely has a different style,. I actually think I like FO3 slightly better, just for the richness of the exploration. FNV has better features and storyline. It feels like a true sequel to the originals, whereas FO3 was sort of a spinoff. I'm guessing that many might consider FNV as FO3.5.

That has a ring of truth to it. Which is interesting, since the games are, by general design, practically the same (which has also been the wish of many of them for the whole developement cycle).

I'd speculate that the general gameplay design does not hold water anymore as well as it (for some) did with Fallout 3 and Oblivion before it, and go even as far as saying that even if the game had a bigger emphasis on random exploration, it would've still be criticised for not being enough like Fallout 3.

Neither FO3 nor F:NV is a sequel to the original two

FO3 is not a sequel, it never claimed to be (I could be wrong as I came late to it so please link me if it has) in fact on the back of the box it says , it is its own branch of Fallout, it's starting all again (not literally) on a new coast. I can only imagine what the fans of the first two would have been like if it had been set in the west coast. Beth wanted to add their own flavour to it and good on em'.

F:NV is not a sequel just because it makes a few references to Junk Town/Klamath/ The Hub etc. It is more closure for the fans of the originals saying "here you go guys take it for one last spin" sorta thing

According to the dictionary a sequel is



Now if you had been playing a story that was connected to FO2 in some way in F:NV then yes I would consider it a sequel.

Back on topic, i'm a FO3 fan Who also loves the originals) I was in no way unsatisfied with F:NV I loved every minute of the STORY sure the exploration wasn't what I expected but it sufficed. It was a great game one I can see me playing again no doubt, but not right now.

*prepares for flame*

Well done to Obsidian, they've made a better Fallout then Bethesda did! I know, it seemed impossiable knowing the fact that they had two years with a READY made engine < Sarcasm.

If Bethesda did NV with the updated F3 engine, it would BLOW AWAY the current NV. I'm not saying its bad, but I'd rather have Fallout 4 made by BGS then NV right now.


EDIT: Another thought:

Fallout 1 and 2 are the Fallout series.

Fallout 3 and NV are the New Fallout series.

They have nothing to do with each other apart from the Post-Apocalyptic setting and some of the lore. Therefore I treat them as two different series and not completely different, but different.