if i may, why so?

Not including more aliens, utterly dead to me then.

I would say FO:3 was better than NV and had a better storyline, but that's a whole other debate. I think if they kept the setting as it is now as a grassy wasteland with plants and water purifiers would ruin the game for me, NV was I think a test for new features and had other things that made me over look that. I was used to eating Radroach meat and Fancy lad snack cakes, not Xander root and Cave fungus. Radiation poisoning wasn't really a problem at all in NV.

yea, i agree with you on the second part
Radiation didnt play as big as a role as it should have in New Vegas, also i was kinda sad by the lack of Mutants in Fallout: NV

would have been cool to talk to Caesar about his opinion about mutants or maybe the NCR and mutants having some sort of peace treaty or some steps of Mutants being accepted into the NCR idk something

You do know that there is a Fallout and Fallout 2 right? New Vegas went back to how Fallout was/should be. If anything Fallout 3 was a test for new features because alot of things in New Vegas are not new to the Fallout Universe. Fallout 3 had little if anything to do with the past games, other then taking factions from the west coast and putting them 3000 miles away in DC.

Fallout 3 is set 200 years after the great war. Zero progress has been made in that time. Yet in the west and midwestern united states, people have started rebuilding long ago. Fallout takes place 84 years after the great war, and the progress made by the people in the core region was light years a head of the people of DC, that had 200 years.

New Vegas is the natural progression of human progress and nature. Fallout 3 was a bunch of morons sitting around in radioactive crap wholes doing nothing for 200 years.

Another thing you seem to complain about is that Fallout New Vegas has to much RPG. That it isn't a copy an past TES game set in a radioactive crap whole.

yea i wanted to say that to him too, but Bkoss is kinda right..its all a matter of opinion
eh

Yeah it is a matter of opinion, but it isn't an educated opinion. :thumbsup:

Its like some people don't notice the 3 next to the word Fallout. Going on about how Fallout 3 did everything right and New Vegas is the freak. When you look at the series as a whole as in all five canon Fallout games.. Fallout 3 is the freak. (not counting Tactics because it isn't an RPG).

i can be a freak? too if u know what i mean :hubbahubba:


why dont you get over here ....

Thats very disturbing ...

rofl im kinda drunk right now

seriously through dont act like you dont want this Bkoss i know you do
you like freaks dont you!

Well that could be explained somewhat with the mutants, as well as with the one guy in the scrapyard and his group. There has been some "advancement" but those were halted by a increase in Super Mutants as I'm sure other factors.

Ah drunk talk. There needs to be an anti drinking and posting campaign. Sad to say I have done that a couple times myself.

Anyways, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but when that person goes on about how Fallout 3 is the greatest Fallout, the best thing since sliced bread.. but only played two of the five Fallout games. How can their opinion really be taken seriously? Yeah I know I am being "an elitist old dinosaur" but really if someone came along and said to you "Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith is the greatest Star Wars movie of all time".. but then asked what his opinion is of the other five movies in the series and they go "oh I never watched them." Would you take that person seriously?

Not really. The people in the core region advanced just fine and the Master had entire armies of smart mutants running around. The mutans in DC are leaderless and complete morons and there isn't armies of them. There is also the matter of no trees and no plants but for oasis and later point lookout. Another question that comes to mind. If there is a bunch of stupid super mutants around and the place is radioactive and nothing grows.. Why not move to another place?

A better example would probably be the old Spyro games by Insominac or the Legend series by Activision.


There's also issues with the fact that Fallout 1 and 2 are Turn Based Combat games, which not everyone enjoys.



I think what would ruin it for me would be if it became too linear, as the games are based around choice and if my only choice is a tunnel where I can pick good or evil on a pop-up every hour or so doesn't exactly meet the expectation of open world.

Star Wars 6 for me. Anyway more jazz music. A Chicago map. Will win it for me. What will kill it? Well anything but those things. ;'}

You guys need to solve your problems in a closet.....a dark closet.... :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

I do not understand that view... In Fallout the risk is there of contacting some post-war malady/ goo/ or infection that can mutate you into a monster (even though it does not happen in the game for technical reasons). The consensus (by those who knew them) was that had they had the money available, the player would likely have continued the game (FO1) after surviving a dip in the FEV vats, a supermutant themselves. I would not mind this event / or fate, so long as it were not trivialized or milked for camp laughs; (much :rolleyes:).

I would rank the Glow quest as my favorite quest in the game.


Why should it matter if it is? Its not the Fallout system, its the Skyrim system. I am rather partial to the way combat works in the Disciples series ~but I would not want it's method used in the Fallout series any more than Quake's or TES. :shrug:

:trophy: :tops:


** What would destroy the series for me?
Playing Fallout came with a sense that the PC could only accomplish so much, and none of it was guaranteed to succeed. Having things work out the way you wanted was actually really cool when you managed it. Having things not work out (missing that all important ~hopefully critical hit that could save Dogmeat, or jamming a lock somewhere where that its a week's travel to find some explosives to get it open), usually made sense, and genuinely felt like it was bad luck, or one's own fault for acting stupid and not thinking or taking things seriously.... Like the Chess game in the Glow... That's one of the most memorable moments in the game, and I KNOW that we would never see something like that in the recent and future Fallouts to be. :sadvaultboy:

What would destroy the series for me? For the most part its already happened, but the second shoe is yet to drop.

So what if the west coast has advanced? Why should it be the same everywhere else? Where would they go? You guys made such a big deal about a robot crossing the country with Ed-e.

I am not saying that DC should have been as advanced as say NCR at the time of New Vegas, but it should have been at the same level of advancement as the Core Region at the time of Fallout. Zero progress made in DC. No farming, no real economic system. It was just people living in radioactive mud wholes. No living trees or plants. Why no living trees or plants but for Oasis? Fallout 3 is the only game that didn't have living trees and plants (but for Oasis) and no crops or live stock say for one brahmin in Megaton.

I am not sure what you mean by making a big deal about ED-E crossing the country. My point is, if DC is a radioactive crap whole, why live there? Why not Point Lookout where you can grow crops. Why not anywhere but DC? Why is DC still radioactive after 200 years? When most of the location in Fallout were radiation free.

Fallout 3 made no sense when it came to setting. It looks like the war happened yesterday. People seem to like that.. but they don't clue into the fact that its been 200 YEARS since the great war, and that most of the country, which was destroyed far worse then DC, has already started rebuilding. Trees and plants are everywhere.

Well, Skyrim-style removal of stats and skills would be very frustrating. I can see how some of what Skyrim did kind of make sense (plus, it's actually their franchise, not just legally), but each skill and stat in Fallout serves a purpose. Before they just remove stuff, they should refine the usefulness for each stat and skill and make them all distinguishable. Then, they should add more if they can. In Fallout's case, there is really no excuse to remove any of the current skills or stats.

Reverting the progress New Vegas made would also ruin it for me.

Mothership Zeta-style alien involvement.

Restricting your character to a backstory a la Fallout 3. I wouldn't even be happy if it went the FO1/2 route, though it wouldn't ruin it for me. Absolute blank slate with no inherent special abilities (Skyrim did not do this, making you special as the Dragonborn) and is essentially just another wastelander would be ideal for me.

Inane plots. That includes glaring plotholes. This includes stuff like new FEV and Enclave.

I might add more later, but that's mainly it.

If they dumb it down as much as they dumbed down Skyrim.

They're ruining a good series.

There isn't much for them to dumb down anymore, though.

I personally enjoyed FO3's story a lot more than New Vegas', even with the lack of options, but I'm apparently the minority.

Loot Scaling. Removal of Equipment Durability. The Skill Tree System From Skyrim, it is too old school while demanding new school which breaks it. So yeah aside from that I can adapt unless they do something that messes with the formula like they did with Skyrim, which i wish I could be playing right now.

may i ask why?