Well... A sequel is a direct follow up of the story (in cases of tv, film and novels).
A spin off is when a character from a story gets their own (mostly unrelated) story. ~like say... Magnum PI being a spin off of the Rockford Files, or The Jeffersons being a spin off of All in the Family; or Frasier being a spin off of Cheers.

I [personally] would argue that in the case of interactive games, a spin-off can be the same IP, but feature unrelated gameplay. (Like Halo and Halo:Reach, or Dawn of War, and Space Marine). Its not clear cut, or perfectly accurate, but I think that a fan of DOW or Halo:CE, would not appreciate Space Marine or Halo:Reach to have been released officially as Halo 4, and Dawn of War 3; especially if the games do not focus on what they enjoyed in the numbered series..

Seeing as how the games don't have a main character getting their own game then New Vegas is not a spin-off and same with Fallout 3 or even Tactics. Unless you go by the BoS getting their own game in the case of Tactics.

The Fallout 3 does not continue the story of Fallout 2 so its not a sequel.

I guess we need a new term or better yet, just stop caring about it. I do feel future games need to drop the number besided the title.

I would disagree with that. I would say that FOBOS is both spin off, and less of a Fallout game. Though I liked Tactics... I would say the same of it. Tactics was little or no RPG (and admittedly wasn't trying for that).

My contention with Fallout 3 [being spin off and less of a FO game IMO], is that they are now hyping the 50's aspect waaay beyond what was seen in the prior two games, and discarding the core gameplay of the series ~entirely. Fallout 3 is beautiful, but does not feel like a Fallout game to me on many levels ~ FO:NV does on some levels, but certainly not all.

I have a new anology... Fallout : Fallout 3 as Dungeonkeeper : Dungeons

Its not directly comparable with games IMO. What is Dawn of War? Is it the specific librarian and commander or the series gameplay. Conversely... is Duke Nukem Manhattan project a sequel? Eh... bad example... we know its a spin off ~except.... that its basically a 3D Duke Nukem 2 :chaos:.

I agree that Tactics is a spin-off because it was not meant to be an RPG but the high-level events are canon and it has a great story. Still to me its not a lesser Fallout Game. I rate it above Fallout 3. I am a svcker for a good story lol. I have a feeling I am one of the few that would rate Tactics above Fallout 3.

There is an allout war about alot of things here, but what people are not realising is that they are all a story about what happened after the war. So in fact they r all connected to each other.

Ah well... I have not finished it yet ~but it looks really good so far.

---

I would say that FO:NV is not a sequel to either game, but it feels like a Fallout game to me.I was skeptical when I bought it, but that was my impression after 10 minutes; (and 20, and 30).

The common setting is the glue that ties even the spinoffs into a certain relation/connection to the main series, but I don't think that's what's being argued over.

I would agree.


That was funny.

Arroyo was created by the Vault Dweller
Shady Sand become a large city and becomes the NCR
BOS and Super Mutants
Harold appears again
The Master was a Vault City Resident
Military Base, Vault 13 and Vault 15 appears again

Etc

I know it s all about worthiness and spin offs when in all reality they are all about the same thing, so they r all connected. These threads r just another way to start a fo fo 2 vs tactics vs fo3 vs fo nv

They are all the same thing 3 follows the fo2 Enclave in thier pursuit of retaking the capital. So by definition it is a sequel countinues a story. NV is also a kind of sequal, but can t be numbered, because I m sure Bethesda wants the numbered titles.

Having no number doesn t make nv any less relevant to the series to me. Same with tactics in happened Bethesda says it happened (what ever it is) and the story of why bos was there is canon.

They are all equally important to the development of the story.

I consider Fallout: New Vegas to be uh, Fallout: New Vegas. It draws from elements of 1 and 2, and 3... but I'm guessing BGS will be dealing with the numbers, and other studios will be brought in to do the subtitles.

I didn't want to cause a whole big commotion over nothing. I never played the first 2 games, and I just wanted to know where NV stood in the series. I didn't understand the big step from washington to vegas, that's all.

Oni: Genius. F3 is F3, NV is NV. No need to worry about titles. Every time James Bond gets a new actor, does that mean it shouldn't be recognized as a 007 film?

We shouldn't be too mean to F3, because whatever your opinion is of it, it put Fallout back into relevance. I had completely forgotten about old Fallouts, F3 helped jog many, many memories for many people.

Heh ha, don't worry about it. Any hint of a Fallout 3 versus [X] debate and the Ghouls of Fallout past come out of the woodwork. lol

Obsidian chose Vegas because it's a cool location, pretty much. They had their pick of the United States' many States and Nevada stood out with Vegas. You can watch the http://fallout.gamesas.com/eng/downloads/videos.html for the 411 on the why of Vegas. ^_^

Edit: Oh, that link is crud. But whatever, check out the videos on the official site for the skinny on Vegas and why it was chosen.

If only it were that easy, But you are right in that it did help to put the Fallout franchise back on the map.

That's different... Batman, Sherlock, and 007 are the same whomever plays the part, its that way with any character franchise... but Fallout is not a character franchise... Its not about VaultBoy, its a setting; (and personally, I would say a game system as well).

There are many Warhammer computer games, but they are not all Dawn of War series games for being based on the Warhammer IP. Now if one wants to equate Warhammer (the IP) with Fallout (the IP), and call them all Warhammer and Fallout games (respectively) ~I suppose one can, and be right about it, but they are not all of the same series ... A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_TnVaH2VfQ&feature=related fan would not call http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvymPlPaXDE&feature=related a good DOW game. They are (and look to be) really great games each, but 'Space Marine' should never be pushed as 'Dawn of War 3'; and that is how I [personally] see Fallout 3 (as a kind of 'Space Marine' labeled DOW3, because IMO I cannot play Fallout series gameplay in FO3 :shrug:).

I agree Bond isn't a great example, Bond's setting changes around him with every decade that passes. But it reads to me like you'd be happy with an isometric port of what you loved in very old games and that if you were at the helm the franchise would die a death because it would never, ever move forward. I doubt you have a great idea as to how to bring that gameplay to a modern audience on new technology and have it stand up the way it seems to in your head. Correct me if I'm wrong. You have a vision of Fallout that is, if you're honest, mostly yours... but you're kinda blending that idea with an argument about core gameplay changes rendering one title in the franchise *not a part of that franchise*. Pretty strange given the decade-long gap. I'd expect some hearty changes, moving away from the Neverwinter Nights clickable gameplay. Personally I thought Van Buren looked poop. I don't think it would have sold half as well as ye olde fans want to believe, either.

Fallout 3 could be seen as a springboard the Fallout setting can use to evolve into something truly great, evolving in a pretty organic way. Its finding its feet, realising the setting in a new and engaging way, and also implementing core gameplay elements too, it's just had to do it one installment rather than in a process spanning years because Fallout as a setting was pretty much going nowhere, with new *ideas* from the people in charge leaning toward targetting the console market, by producing a bad console game.

Personally I wouldn't have given DoW2 the title DoW2, but it is DoW2. The gameplay is totally different, can't spam dreadnaughts and stoofs damn it! But the core elements, though skewed, are kinda present, and the franchise is finding its feet as it evolves. The multiplayer I guess is solid across both titles, same old thing, but the single player campaign is eh... not Dawn of War, fighting for resources and trying to hold victory points.

You are entitled to disregard a title in a franchise, my reaction to doing that is pretty much... meh.

I already argued that exact same point, go bark up another tree.

Many different companies were bidding for Fallout, and Bethesda (unfortunately) won. EA wanted the franchise so that Bioware would make it. I actually think Bioware would have done a good job. Fallout (was, then became not) is about good writing, and Bioware has that.

Another company called Troika wanted the IP. They would have done amazing.

It irks me when people say "Bethesda revived Fallout," when other companies that would have done a better job also wanted it.

What also irks is FO3 fans trumpeting freedom, but when you counter with the forced BOS thing, they cry that freedom is in the world. Well, I hate to burst your bubble, Fallout is about freedom. If you want to be a speech expert, go for it. This is where FO3 failed. I was forced to kill things. Thats not freedom.

Troika, seriously? You're citing Troika?

Buggiest games in the history of PC gaming? Possibly.

Edit:

Any outside, unbiased observer will tell you that that is a factual claim. lol Just' saying. Pretty sure enough time has passed (not to mention the DLC and a whole new title we've seen since) to let it drop. What could have been... might have been the worst thing to have happened to the franchise. What did happen... is what got us to these forums playing New Vegas, with all the potential of new DLC and the promise of another good Fallout title in the future. :shrug:

Officially, Fallout 3 is the sequel. In spirit, however, many original fans consider Fallout New Vegas to be the true sequel. End of story.

Of course not. No one here wants an isometric port.

I would have preferred there not be a FO3 as after FO2 they are grasping... The charm of the setting is in the years just after the war... after that the setting would change; it did change in FO2, but was still plausible and in many ways expected... With Fallout 3 we got a franken-shooter set 200 years after the bomb, and looking like it fell only a few years before. Bottlecaps were used instead of US coins ~in DC! Bottlecaps were a quirk of convenience out in the desert; but kept for brand identification; even though it had been abandoned (and ridiculed) in Fallout 2; and then forced into New Vegas to not confuse the fans . Fallout was great and [IMO] has been profitably ruined in the new millennium. Its one of those settings that falls into an undeath with the advent of McSequels. Now it has aliens as canon when before they were a tongue in cheek joke for the player (complete with velvet Elvis). Plus the whole 50's thing is way out of proportion from the previous games.

I would love it to be designed for modern hardware; when it was announced I was hopeful of rich 3D environments, dialog heads rivaling the Nvidia head demo, and multi threaded AI with the same kind of relations between the settlements. What I got reminded me a lot of Oblivion.

Being honest, one cannot answer that with certainty... I'd have to rely on others posting agreement ~for how could I know if it was only my own vision.

Incidentally... my hope for Fallout 3 would have basically (and loosely) been a post apoc retro 50's 'the Witcher' kind of game, with no elves or spell casting, but all the guns, explosives, and humor of the series; and preferably with an enhanced version of Fallout Tactics' combat system ~but maybe that is just me. :chaos:
*Also I'd prefer not to have a centered PC... and have the camera behave a lot more like Dawn of War's.

So did I.

IMO Fallout got worse the day the principle team left Interplay, and it went down hill starting with Fallout 2. I like fallout 2, and hold it above most other RPG's, but they had already begun to suffer the clone of a clone effect, and IMO begun to mis-interpret the setting and intents (even with a FO2 design doc from the original designers).

Actually I would have preferred the original concept for DOW2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzVlpUf7e5w


True; and also some of the best ~just as they did with Fallout.

If you really want fo destroyed give it to EA

Newsflash: Your no more forced to kill things in NV than you are FO3.

See guys? These right here are the kind of people I'm talking about.
It's these kinds of posters this forum would be better off without.

What, you mean series fans? That's not a nice post, and I doubt those you mention would suggest the same of you.
What you quoted was basically the truth. The IP went up for auction and was bought by the highest bidder. One of the original devs commented that it was as if the ex-wife sold their kids.

**Come to think of it.... Is it possible to get into GNR without the player defeating the... well, guard?

I only played through it once... so I don't know, but I would assume the BOS couldn't do it alone.