I can't say I disagree with your assessment Gabe but I do feel New Vegas was a genuinely good attempt at expanding on and improving the Fallout formula as much as possible given their constraints. The branching main quest alone was a huge step up from the linear fighting evil main quest of Fallout 1 and 2 to me at least. Then we got companions with more extensive personality, reactivity, and quests, variable ammo types that actually served a purpose, and I think they did a fine job with most of the new lore. I've said before I don't like the Legion in any sense, they don't really fit in Fallout to me but at least they and all the tribal cultures you encounter in New Vegas were an honest effort at giving an area outside the Core Region it's own unique spin as opposed to Fallout 3's approach of making the East Coast more or less a dull, simplified copy of the Core Region.

Yeah there's more than a few areas and groups in New Vegas I just kinda shake my head at but there were areas like that in Fallout 2 as well. So while it can't really hold up to the originals I find it encouraging that they sought not only to vastly improve on Fallout 3 (largely by going back to the originals as much as possible) but that they also really tried to think about and improve on the core Fallout precepts as well. And succeeded. Basically New Vegas to me, while it will never be be as good as the originals, is a really encouraging step for the series. If Obsidian can keep making Fallout games and keep bringing the level of improvement that I saw in New Vegas then I really have a lot of hope for the series.

There is one thing which other people want to see but it would destroy the game for me, cities being rebuild, trees growing everywhere, radiation gone etc. This game is called fallout for a reason, I don't want to see another gta, but if the map is big enough I wouldn't mind 1 city like a vault city.
It would be best if the game would take place before fallout 3 or maybe even fallout 2, if the game would be like more than 30 years in the future after fallout nv it would break the game for me.
playing as a ghoul, mutant etc. also changing to a ghoul after being radiated, people become ghouls after long time so it would be just stupid.
Crazy human eating ghouls which can run! Ghouls never were crazy like that in old fallouts, and ghouls have so damaged body that they always comment on how something hurts them, so they shouldn't be able to run.
Many brainless super mutants! There were some in the old games but not so many! Even in fallout nv half of the jacobstown mutants were dumb as [censored]
Annoying, small and uninteresting dialogues.
Linear quests and especially main quest


And I agree that bethesda should change some writers and most of bethesda crew because when they do something new, it looks nearly exactly the same as the old one and has bugs like the old one (I'm talking about their "new" as they call it, creation engine, graphics are very nice apart from the shadows, but physics, animations, bugs, they are all as bad as they were before)
And they should change writers but only for fallout, because elder scrolls writing is not so bad.

That's about my stance too.

Though I do hope, if that ever happens, they will (or are allowed to -- which ever way it is) take the differences in design they have from Bethesda even further. I wouldn't mind more spinoffs (or whatever they're called) if they are of quality at least as much as New Vegas, but different in design. Hopeful wishes that are likely to never happen, though.

Also, if they made them much less buggy, so people wouldn't focus too much on the bugs and say it's a bad game even though story, characters and quests are compelling

Sure, that should be a goal -- the more stable the game the better (which would speak for them using their own engine, which they know as well as Bethesda does their "CreationBryo").

On the not of people focusing on bugs (a bit off topic)... There was an interesting article floating around the internet about how the American audience seems to be more prone on evaluating a game on it's technical merits, while the Europeans focus more on the content (the article compared Alpha Protocols American and European rewies). http://free-pc-guides.com/games/difference-of-opinions-alpha-protocol-eu-vs-us-reviews-whos-right-and-whos-wrong-01928

I'd be more enthusiastic if this were the case.
But Fallout belongs to Bethesda now.
So I wouldn't hold my breath.

Bethesda listening to people who are making stupid suggestions like firing their entire writing staff...

What would really ruin the series for me is if they made Mothership Zeta canon.

I would also be dissapointed if they did not use the Creation Engine.

*Sigh*

In Fallout 1, attempting to join the Brotherhood of Steel (BoS) caused the player to be given a quest to go to "The Glow" a massive pre-war science facility brimming with tech...that had been nuked into near oblivion with ground-penetrating warheads. One BoS groups tried to get in decades before the game takes place, but all died. The quest is one given to outsides wanting to join the BoS to make them literally go away and die trying to join. The Elders in Lost Hills write the player character off and go back to their business, firm and amused in their belief that they've sent another wastelander to die.

Then you come back with the tapes, successful in the mission that was supposed to kill you. Making the PC the first person the BoS has ever recruited from the outside world, and generally informing the Elders that they can svck off, as the Dweller is officially more badass than the entire Brotherhood combined.

As for the future of Fallout, I hope to see the Post-post apocalypse world continue to expand. Humanity staying in a barbaric, post-civilizational rut is utter nonsense. We thrive on organization and continually try to improve the world around us so that we may better occupy it. Progress is in human nature, what differs is iof we make the same mistakes we did in the past. Wanting to keep Fallout the irradiated Mad Max hellhole the way "purists" want to keep it would be the death of the entire storyline. I see much more potential in the stories born in the rebuilding and expansion of mankind's place in the world and beyond as for more compelling and fantastic than some half-literate wanderer grubbing in toxic mud for ammo for game after game.

We do? :sadvaultboy:

I thought we were the ones complaining about how Fallout 3 was an irradiated Mad Max hellhole, even though it doesn't make sense 200 years later, people living in barely-standing shacks (sometimes less people in one settlement than a small school class) without visable means of food production and economy, being used to super mutants, raiders and giant creatures attacking them for decades and they're still being alive after all this time.
And I am sorry that if to you, purist and dinosaur isn't the same. It's just what we're used to hear.

whoa, ur taking me way too literal



couldnt explain it better myself

It seems like many people don't like the new games, which i dont quite understand. i myself haven't played FO1 or 2 so i can't i really judge them against FO3 or FNV.

anyways, i wouldn't like to see the same type of storyline from FO3 i like the choice of Legion or NCR, House or Independent. if strays away from that well.... :flamethrower:

If they made another Fallout without having slide shows for the multiple ending based on how we played the games like Fallout, Fallout 2, Fallout Tactics and New Vegas. Worse if they made a Fallout with no ending.. it just keeps going and going and going :ahhh:

Can you explain please?

Indeed. I'd love to see what Obsidian can do with their own engine and a lot more freedom in design goals instead of just having to follow in Bethesda's footsteps.



Except New Vegas proves that Bethesda is willing to let other companies work on Fallout and New Vegas was a very successful game. So I don't see any reason why Bethesda wouldn't be willing to let Obsidian work on the series again.

No. I've done the quest.


What you said was just so dumbfounding with nothing making sense.......................Jesus

I love ALL Fallout games (minus Tactics and Brotherhood of Steel but Fallout 1 would always be my favorite game of the series). I think of all the changes as "evolving" instead of "replacing". I will never understand most people hating (disliking) the new Fallout games (and yet playing them).

What would ruin the series for me is having the Midwestern BoS as a main faction in a game and a good vs. evil storyline. I prefer shades of gray and I want progress in terms of development (towns, villages, cities, ect...but not overly so). I also want consequences and not just killing someone and waiting three days to be "forgiven".

And finally, Interplay getting the Fallout franchise again. :/ Those are my two cents.

Why?
There's a great chance we could get this:

Time machine bicycles

I like barbaric, post-civilizational world!!

There are farms in fallout 2 and in fallout nv, there is some electricity, plants but not too much of them, and that's enough for me.
I don't want to see game where I'm in a reconstructed new york city with huge organizations, nhs, police, everything working properly, with beautiful parks, people driving cars etc.

I like the fallout the way it is, if I want to play the game with all the things mentioned I would play gta.

But that's just my opinion.

Sorry, let me explain. Fallout: Tactics is great; I really do love the whole idea of different type of people joining the Brotherhood in exchange for resources and such (and going on missions). But what completely through me off was that there wasn't much connections to Fallout 1 & 2 and it was more combat oriented. Not only that but it's more like a post-apocalyptic version of CoD in terms of gameplay; to me it didn't feel like an RPG.

So, I guess I don't have a problem with the Midwestern Brotherhood in an upcoming game per se...I'm more worried with how they will be fleshed out if they are. I love my RPGness games.

However, the intro is a classic. LOL

I am with you on that one. But the game wasn't an RPG though, that's why there are no RPG features in it except building your character which actually is pretty limited since it's a waste of skill points if you put them in anything that isn't a combat skill, hehe. Well, the game is a bit flawed in that area, it's very linear and it's not really my kind of game. I like the tactical aspect of it, but since it's so linear and not an RPG, it doesn't really appeal to me that much. I think it would have been awesome if we'd have the same, or more, of the RPG elements of Fallout 1 and 2 thrown in with the gameplay of Fallout Tactics. So my favorite skill, Speech, wouldn't be useless, it wouldn't be just linear missions, and you could choose between turn-based and real-time, it'd satisfy most people.

But what I do like, though, is the general story and the endings (specifically the Barnaky ending, hear Styles out on that one). The endings are really Fallouty, they tell everything that happen in the future to everyone, the wasteland and factions, just like all Fallout games except Fallout 3 does.

And actually, when you think about it, it is more tied to Fallout 1 than than Fallout 3 is. Basically, Brotherhood argue about letting new blood in to survive or not, so elders send those people away in airships to hunt down the fleeing remnants of the Master's Army. If you look at Fallout 3, the mutants there kind of retconned the origin of FEV and that it only existed in Mariposa, they are a different breed of mutants from a different strain of FEV apparently. Then the Brotherhood is there too, they travelled 3000 miles by foot because... I'm probabably wrong here, I don't know why, but because they knew there might be tech in D.C.? And then there's the Enclave showing up too, in the same city, but this is unimportant for my argument here. My point is that Tactics' background story makes a better job of connecting to the Fallout 1 story than Fallout 3. But that's about it, other than that, it is as you say, more combat orientated, and that is because it is called Fallout Tactics, and not an RPG (though I have no idea why Micro Forté kept the Fallout RPG template in the game, like all the skills that are useless but still there. They could really have polished on this one more, but I guess there was something about deadlines as with all games that got rough edges.)

Have you read Styles idea about a plot involving MWBoS? If not, you ought to

So what you are saying is you don't like Tactics because it wasn't an RPG. You love the Midwestern Brotherhood. Just not the game play of Tactics itself, and you don't want another game with that style of game play. A squad based tactical game. It was not sold as an RPG. I understand :foodndrink: Personally I really enjoy Tactics. I rank it higher then Fallout 3.




Yes have you see it? :deal:

Fallout would be ruined for me if how the core gameplay from the original Fallouts is as watered down or more so than Fallout 3. I could still play a game in the Fallout universe with a crumby plot, shallow dialogue, and theme park world if the SPECIAL attributes are given appropriate weight, skills are implemented thoroughly, and perks are designed to accent how skills function. NV is a step in the right direction, but there could be a lot more meat put on the bones of core gameplay. This is a game afterall and although I would enjoy a great story and dialogue interactions that is only 1 segment of the whole. I can enjoy action oriented games given they have enough depth in gameplay to keep things interesting.

CoD has no depth because all weapons function pretty much the same, the maps are pseudo 3D because characters can not jump around and use the landscape in more than 2 dimensions, and stuff like that. That kind of game is boring to me while TF2 can keep me entertained indefinitely. I felt the 'walk of shame' after trying to play World at War a a second time. Once I knew the fights and experienced the weapons there was no depth to keep me entertained. Never bought a CoD game after that disappointment. Dead Space 2 was disappointing to me in a different way, because although it has a lot more toys the 'levels' were not designed to use them to their full potential and the content was not as well thought out or implemented as the original. The dialogue was horrible which makes me irritated when I hear people praising how Isaac says '[censored]' repeatedly 8,000 times during every conversation... seriously that might entertain 'CoD fans' but it was boring to me.

It takes skill and imagination to write...if they can't find other jobs then do what everybody else does, go into the medical field! :celebration:

Fallout is pretty much destroyed for me, so I don't care what they do anymore.