you got a point...well I just hope they won't make the game so unbalanced you couldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole, just like a sad joke in the ex:
-a Guns, Energy Weapons, and Melee players walked in a bar and asked "wheres the counter?"
-A pure Explosive character armed with the Fatman turns and points to the door before saying "gtfo"

I just hope they'll make the game balanced to the point where each skill is awesome to be in, but not god-like towards others, which will be difficult to do.

Well it's an MMORPG so it has to be balanced, I doubt at release date, but during the subsequent weeks and months balancing patches will be implemented to make things better.
I doubt we can discuss Fallout: Online any further though as it's a no-no subject on these forums.

Sorry for the late respond, but I wanted to read what almost everyone said which is about the same thing. To me, Fallout New Vegas was just a small improvement from Fallout 3. Obsidian, basically expanded upon what Bethesda did. For example, you could craft your own weapons in Fallout 3, so Obsidian allowed us to make our own ammo. The thing with New Vegas, I got bored very easily and it felt like a challenge to remain interested. I just hope Obsidian doesn't make the new Fallout.

You should read this http://prophetsofthefinalarmaggedon.blogspot.com/2011/12/my-name-for-those-of-you-who-care-is.html. New Vegas is meant to be enjoyed in a completely different way than Fallout 3. Might that be the problem?

-Nukeknockout

Lol'ed hard. So true.

It takes place in Vegas!

Cheers

Fallout New Vegas is a better game, more memories came from my Fallout 3 characters.

Fallout New Vegas Pros:
The guns (lead spitting ones, not energy) are actually good
The DLC's are all way better (Except for Honest Hearts)
Mr. House
Yes Man
The fact that your playthrough isn't black and white. (In Fallout 3 you HAD to choose the brotherhood of steel, in New Vegas you have four options for main factions, and infinite possibilities for the ending)
The dialogue is more sincere
Vegas
This list could go on forever

Fallout New Vegas Cons:
Vegas is too small

My one true conscern is the writing and characters. I've never played an rpg with such well written characters or a such a well written complex sci-fi plotline...

As much as I love Behesda rpgs... the Elderscrolls series is un parralleled in my eyes...I dont want to see Fallout go backwards in terms of writing... as great as the TES games are the characters are rather shallow.

I dont want to lose the depth of the game... only to be left with manipulating game mechanics and exploration.

Which I think is unavoidable if the next Fallout is developed by Bethesda

Without 3, there wouldn't have been a New Vegas. Beth laid down a framework for Obsidian to expand on and realize the full potential of. Unfortunately, I don't think Beth has learned a damn thing from Obsidian's examples, as Skyrim fails to live up to New Vegas. This is because Bethesda's writers are terrible, and their gameplay ideas primarily consist of 'what can we cut from previous games?' People who complain are put down as whiners, but few of us have the knowledge or money to make our visions a reality, nor do we have the ability to change that situation. That's why we complain - we see great potential being squandered for no good reason. And we don't all agree on what should be changed, but a general consensus can usually be determined.

I wouldnt say their writing is terrible... I recently finished the Thieves Guild main quest line and thoroughly enjoyed it... and felt it was very well written...

I think, for me at least, its more a matter of lack of depth and scope.

When you meet a character in a Bethesda game its " this is my name, this is what I do, " and mabey " this is where I'm from and this is what I think about that"... and thats usually the extent of the depth of the character... its servicable... not necessarily bad... but after playing New Vegas and meeting well rounded, deep, characters ,you feel, even if only during the conversation, that your in a world populated by " real " people.

Thats a higher level of RPG in my opinion...

Thats what Fallout became thanks to Obsidian

And as much as I love the Elderscrols series...and Skyrim... and have no problem what so ever with them continuing to their thing...

I dont want to see Fallout de-volve back into a larky, painted-over TES game.

The Original Fallouts (F1 and F2) were like that too.

Its what Obsidian brought back to Fallout.

Ya, Obsidian was just trying to reintegrate what BGS left out. There is still a lot more than could be done, but it was very serviceable. Fallout 4 could stand to enhance the changes made in NV. Subsequent titles can keep adding a bit at a time until the mechanics have the depth of the originals. I really dig the first person perspective that BGS brought to the table and the infusion of some fast paced action.

And that's what ES lacks - depth.

Actually I think the mechanics in NV are quite good already. They provide enough depth for customization while being (mostly) transparent and self-consistent. The only things missing that I want to see from FO1/2 is to make SPECIAL more important in a couple of cases (strength should be a % bonus to unarmed/melee damage, perception should be less of a dump stat, etc), tag skills giving double benefit, and skills requiring more points to increase as you approach the cap ala FO2.

I would like to see Bethesda do the graphics engine, maybe take care of all the designs, leave everything else to Obsidian. Thinking about the two makes me think of Autolux and Year of the Rabbit, two eh meh okay bands that if they merged together could create the ultimate band (though in this case that band was already formed Fantastic Planet one of the greatest albums), okay I just like advertising the band but you get my point. But if I had a choice I'd rather all obsidian on fallout four over Bethesda.
Am I the only one who thinks that the elder scroll series has gotten progressively worse since the epic Morrowind?

Lol, I'd like to see Id do the graphics engine. Bethesda couldn't have been bothered to compile the PC version of Skyrim with optimizations turned on. What's next, they release a binary with debug symbols enabled?

Pardon my ignorance yes ID should do the graphics engine.

"Story wasn't as good as Fallout 3." Quote of the year.

New Vegas is more of a true sequel to Fallout 2 than Fallout 3 can ever be. Obsidian actually understands the Fallout world, and made some much needed changes that make the game actually consist of role playing, instead of F3 where you could max out all skills pretty easily.

Probably the thing I love most about NV would be it's setting. I LOVE old westerns and just about anything "gunslinger" or "lone wanderer" related, and NV is both those things. The small towns remind me of movies like "A Fist Full of Dollars" and "Day Late, Dollar Short". Alot of people criticize the motives you have which set up the main quest line and iv seen tons of bashing due to the fact that you start out being a shot and left for dead "currier". I love that, being just a man who is seeking revenge for a failed assassination attempt on your life. Since they start you as this basically nameless man it allows you to mold and shape your character to more your liking. In F3 I could only be a 19 ish punk who's looking for his daddy.... Lame, iv seen that movie before, I'll pass. In all of my 8 characters I'm always atleast in my mid 50s, which to me plays the lone gun who's seen it all, done it all(like a Clint Eastwood )

There is just soooo much that I could go into about what draws me to NV, all in all it's just one of those games that did very much right and very little wrong. People may poke fun at the fact that it's in a desert but I see nothing wrong with that. You can't argue the fact that NV brings memorable characters with it, which IMO skyrim aswell as F3 both lack, severly. Cmon, Cannibal Johnson, that's one of the best but there are sooo many more. I can't understand why in skyrim I could talk to 10 different people in 10 different towns and there were maybe 3 different voices between em, seriously even the jarls used the same voices as a standard npc... WTF is that??
For an RPG to really grab you there must be people that you remember, for good or bad reasons.IMO.

Even though NV is my favorite game there are still things I would have changed/ added. The biggest thing would be more interactions with small towns scattered through the Mojave, similar to the firstish mission in Goodsprings. Also I felt that the strip was lacking some key things, I would have loved to seen an old style diner and much more neon, it is Vegas guys, power issues or not.
All this being said, I would give my left nut to have a follow up to NV, I highly doubt it though seeming as how Bethesda seems to think the capitol wasteland was a more interesting setting than a desert. Oh well, maybe someone else will come along and make a lone wanderer style rpg that makes me as happy as NV did/does/ always will!!!

You guys have to remember that all this stuff you are praising that makes NV so awsome is just things the players asked for to be in fo3. Most stuff was modded, some wasn`t. I myself don`t like NV. I mean I really don`t like it. To me fo3 had a perfect game world, it was raw and dirty and just had this feeling that NV will never be able to capture. Well, lonesome road came very close but was more confined but had the feeling sort of.

NV had hardly any underground content like the subways and sewers in fo3. Crawling those interiors is part of what made fo3 so awsome. NV don`t have nearly as many explorable interiors and most are very small with the exception of only a couple. The NV map is alot smaller with the perimeters of the map being blocked by invisible barriers. That really annoyed me. The explorable downtown dc area was huge and a blast to go through. In NV I haven`t run into anything even remotely simaler in size or scale. I haven`t seen any behemoths either. I actually also really didn`t care for the mq in NV, in fo3 I did and wanted to go on because it felt more personal and drew me in. I didn`t feel that way with the NV mq, I was actually bored with it. It was cool to have alot of different factions you could align with in NV , but even that didn`t do anything for me. Overall though, nv wasn`t a bad game but I prefer fo3. NV was just too clean, even the ruins were clean and tidy and it just didn`t feel right to me.

The short answer is the writing.

The main quest was a vast improvement over FO3's, imo, though I generally have a bias against "saving the world" kind of stories (admittedly Liberty Prime was pretty awesome). The main quest in FNV felt more nuanced, and drove home that everything is a compromise when you deal with politics on a regional level. Also, having been introduced to the Brotherhood of Steel in FO3 I was extremely excited with seeing the morally gray BoS that was in FNV.

It's not just the quests and being able to choose New Vegas' fate, various things in the game world also made more sense. For example, something FO3 never even bothered to address - why are there so many guns and ammo everywhere? In NV there's a whole faction dedicated to making and selling guns. The settlements felt like part of a larger world, and the world in general felt more lived-in, like it existed before the player encountered them. No doubt part of why it seemed like nothing was going on in most of the Capital Wasteland was because it truly was a anarchic wasteland, but that's part of the problem.

My biggest complaint I have against New Vegas is the map linearity, but because of good writing it was nowhere as egregious as it could have been.

I do agree wit h what you said except the myth that fallout 3 has only two endings .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7hCJhkxS1o&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Ok so six in a video game adds immersion for you..?I'm sorry thats just creepy , let me guess you want fallout to bring back the killing of children as well?

It adds immersion because it's what happens in the world. It's not overt in Fallout, you can ignore it if you want with pretty much no consequences, but it feels more plausible as a world than one where it pretty much does not exist.

And to be honest, I would support bringing back killable children. Why? Because it would allow the children to take meaningful roles in the world, and give a reason for the player to watch their fire.

-Nukeknockout

Its not that I want to kill children in Fallout, I just want to know that I have the option.