No I will not be "trolling". Even IF I was to voice my opinion AFTER I play the game it would be an INFORMED opinion. The EXACT OPPOSITE of what you are doing here and now.

I kinda have to disagree. I've played all of the Fallout games, and for me, Fallout 3 was the first that made me feel like I was actually in some kind of wasteland. Yeah, I like Fallout 1 and 2. Great games.

But they never gave me the "I am there" feeling. I think FO3 was how it should have been in the first place.

It's sad that I actually met some folk who insisted it would be better if "Fallout stayed dead and Bethesda made a brand new post-apo IP". They feel as if their 'waifu' is desecrated.

Compared to the travesty of Syndicate at the hands of EA and the butchering of XCOM at the hands of Firaxis, Fallout got the best deal. Bethesda kept most everything except turn-based and isometric view.

I was talking about the Fallout experience too. That's why I added the part where I mentioned that I am in this series from the start. If his "proper Fallout experience" doesn't include how Bethesda and actually also Obsidian represent the franchise, then yes it isn't the game he is looking for. Nothing malevolent about it too.

Are you saying you won't become a billionaire? Because I'll drop the money on you right now!

I think both FO 3 and NV are proper FO games, being that they both take place in the FO Universe. FO 4 will be a proper FO game. Now, what makes a proper RPG is an engaging story, interesting NPCs, bunch of quests, etc etc etc. I do think the writing for FO 4 will be vastly improved. If it isn't, I think it will be criticized, which people should do, so that in the future we get the best RPG experience. There is nothing wrong with Action RPG, the two can live happily together. FO doesn't have to be turn based, doesn't have to have a map node system. Would I like a FO game like that? I would, but it isn't a MUST have and I don't think it is what defines a proper FO game.

A FO game, imo, is setting, lore, environment, etc. Both games and now FO 4 I think handle that quite well. FO NV is not necessarily a BETTER FO game, it is a better RPG.

I disagree that his post is in fact "malevolent" even if he didn't imply it. "But I am sad that we can't get a "proper" Fallout game." By calling Fallout 3 and NV not "proper" Fallout games, he is essentially saying they are not genuine, not right, when compared to Fallout 1 & 2. That being said combined with "neither of them was a "proper" Fallout games." and this "A combined force from the two teams, could lead to a better representation of Fallout 1-2 games." comes together to imply that Fallout 1 & 2 were the right way to do Fallout and anything after that is wrong.

This is how his post comes off to me and the other commenters who have stated. The one line that really implies it though is this "But for us, the "real" Fallout fans, that would be a "proper" game." With the other quotes above as context he implies that only people who like the first 2 games above all are the actual fans of the franchise, and anyone who doesn't think that Fallout 1 & 2 are better than the rest are wrong and not true fans.

With all this said this is how it came off to me when I read the post.

I wan't to play FO4 first before I make a judgement about it so I won't say anything about it yet. But yes I agree with you.

I think the use of quotations really shows his uncertainty saying "real" comes across to me like he's just trying to define the core fanbase and what he thinks they want from a Fallout game. He doesn't once imply that he thinks his opinions are superior, just that he wants something different.

Anyway, I'd rather not anolyse a guy's post anymore. I just think that people here are starting to see anything negative as an attack against Bethesda and that everything has to be positive with no criticisms. Whether he got a little narcissistic in his opinion or not, it's still and opinion and should be treated as such. It'd be much nicer to come here and just read people sharing their thoughts on what he wants and seeing what they think rather than half of the posts being people getting angry again because someone has a negative opinion, even if it's constructive. I wouldn't usually reply, but the negativity of the people getting frustrated with negativity far outweighs the negativity of the original posts, usually, and it gets tiring.

It is the same for me. After playing Wasteland 2, I learned the value of being able to see the Wasteland from your own eyes versus being told what you have to see. Wasteland 2 and FO1&2 made me feel like I am playing a game in a far away land. FO3 and later make me feel like I am in a destroyed world that reminds me of my own. That is, the older Fallouts and W2 told me what I had to see while the new Fallouts tell the story by showing you stuff. The beauty of FO3 is coming into the ruins, look at the skeletons and furniture and connect what has happened here since the bombs fell. Beth may not write you a great story to read, but they are better than Obsidian at showing you a story.

I don't know. I've not seen anyone really angry about what he said, just posts to say they disagree and why. Some disagree more strongly than others. Still, they too can offer their opinion. We see negative posts everyday here and they are welcome as long as they are constructive and not done in a trolling manner. But just as they can be critical of the games, others can be critical of other's opinions as long as it doesn't become a personal attack.

I'm glad people don't always agree. Blanket agreement in everything would be like living in a world of siths.

If you enjoy negativity, stay tuned the next few weeks.

We will never see a fully 'Fallout' Fallout game but Obsidian will bring us as close as we can get. Unfortunately, from the Fallout 4 leaks, it appears that Fallout as a franchise is diverging even further from the originals, such that I fear even Obsidian will be Unable to reign it back, especially as Chris Avellone (One of the lead writers of NV) left recently.

Also Wasteland 2 is only a continuation of the original Fallouts superficially, when you actually play it it is obvious that they share very little in common, other than being turn based post apocalyptic CRPGs.

Wasteland 2 never gave me nostalgia goosebumps for Fallout though many say it does. I'm thinking its like this Fallout just hit the right time back in the 90's and then here's another thing the witty writing for the game although its certainly something you might copy but that's just it right feels like a copy rather than the real deal.

Sorry but it was good in its time. Trying to remake that well you end up with W2 which wasn't really fun for me, although a ton of people think its fun I have no idea why, thought Devine Devinity was way better.

Next we will draw comparisons with Star Wars 4-6 being better than Star Wars 1-3.

I love the Fallout setting and honestly I prefer it over Tamriel but I couldn't care less what constitutes a proper Fallout game. No, I'm here for a proper Bethesda open world game and the fact that this one has an awesome sci-fi setting is just a sweet bonus for me.

Hah!!!! That is the truest thing I have read in all of the threads.

Just be glad that Fallout Extreme never existed.

This forum is like the cradle of democracy compared to, say, 2K forums for XCOM in which every dissident voice is silenced and moderators actively bait you into getting banned if you criticize Firaxis or their games. People are extremely civilized and tolerant here.

Most definitely not. I don't expect tolerance, though; it's the Internet and I've never came across a place where I haven't seen a thread full of anger and at least one personal attack. Moderators here are more tolerant than the average place, but users aren't 'extremely civilised' from what I tend to see. But I don't expect them to be. I don't expect myself to be usually to be honest.

I don't think there can be a "true" and "proper" Fallout game.

For that to happen then nothing would ever change or be enhanced upon.

Personally I enjoyed FO3 more then NV. But then again FO3 was my introduction into the series and its intro was more gripping to me. I stepped hesitantly towards the exit, knowing death waiting behind me should I turn back. And that ahead of me, the frightening unknown. My eyes glazed over for a moment in temporary blindness as I saw the sun for the first time. And then as my eyes adjusted, nothing but wastelands and a ruined city in the distance.

That got me hooked. That felt like how a post apocalyptic world should be. Sorry NV fans but FO NV starts out like a corny mob movie and despite it being said you suffered no memory loss... have extreme memory loss and can't even remember a thing. All in the name of allowing players to discover the world. Sorry but stepping out of a vault and not knowing what is going on in the world makes so much more sense.

But still as I said, I enjoyed NV. not so much for the wastelands but the story. It was fun.

I look forward to FO4.

Much of this. The F1/2 were great games, and set a great foundation for the series. F3 was what brought us into the world. Being in a 3d environment (for me) made me get much more invested than 1/2 ever could just for the sake of being able to see the CW.

FNV I feel was a step forward and a step backwards at the same time. It gave us vast improvents to the playability (I don't think that's a word >.>) of the game. It overhauled key systems that made it much more enjoyable. The story I felt was a bit lacking, although maybe it was just the desert >.>



The best thing of recent I feel was from the modding community in "A tale of two wastelands" or whatever the current incarnation is being called.

Thoroughly excited about what F4 will bring us.

That's good to know, now I can agree and understand what you mean. This being the internet after it's hard to know what a person means. This being the internet, when ever I see that, it's usually to troll or cause vs battles to get people riled up.

Just remember, "this is my opinion" is four simple words that will get your opinion across more than quotations ever will.

i'm a longtime fan of bethesda games and i love the elder scrolls also and i think they do a good job making the type of games their fans want, i like that they made fallout in their style of game developing, there's some things i would of liked different in fallout 3 but overall its my favorite game of all time easily so i don't have any major complaints about BGS games, i trust todd howard when it comes to delivering great game's in bethesda's style.

Indeed, and I am not making any judgement on FO 4 either, as we do have to play it before any praise or criticism. I do think it will be better than 3, and it will be improved, and I do think there will be things I like and things I will criticize.

Bethesda has exactly one obligation - to make the best game fitting Todd and crew's vision that they can. Some fans will love it - some won't. That is life.

Rather than having Bethesda and Obsidian/inExile team up for Fallout 5, I would rather see Bethesda and Id Software team up to make a really good Rage 2.