http://www.neoseeker.com/news/9147-commentary-11-ways-fallout-2-was-better-than-fallout-3/

http://cnovak42.hubpages.com/hub/Old-PC-RPGs-and-why-theyre-better-than-a-lot-of-new-ones

They made some good points there, and don't say that fallout nv is as good as old ones because it's better than fallout 3, it's still way worse.

Bethesda should read these before creating fallout 4 because most importantly it shows how much humor and dialogues were a big part of old fallouts where as in fallout 3 and nv there was nearly nothing funny, and there were much better dialogues in old fallouts, in the old ones there was more about present time and not about past, in new fallouts instead of talking with people about today you talk about their past like where they were born why do they live there, why did they join something, it's so boring I skip most of it.

In old fallouts you could get unique perks for doing something and people would react to who you are, for example you've been a porm star you could get std and people would recognize you, if you were a boxer people knew that, in new fallouts you help the world and the only people that notice that are the ones from the radio.

Old fallouts were more about speech than about fights but in the new fallouts it's other way around, you get boring speech, 90% of conversations you're asking dull questions like :"Who are you?" "Why are you here?" "Can I help you", and nearly always you had to be polite and serious! So you couldn't make a choice what character should you have, if you wanted to be serious, silent, aggressive or a joker.
And then after these boring conversations you get into repetitive and boring fights.

In old fallouts actually your character actually had good dialogues, no simple ones, and they were a great part of the game making it much more enjoyable.
Then fights were interesting, you could bomb the place, lock the doors so you could kill enemies room by room etc.

So what are your thoughts on these? Do you agree with these articles?

Its all about your perspective on which one s are better. That is all.

Order of Best IMO

1st: Fallout

2nd: Fallout 2

3rd: Fallout New Vegas

4th: Fallout Tactics

5th: Fallout 3

I love the first person perspective of the new Fallouts. I just wish that the developers hadn't fallen into the same trap as almost every other game series, which is "Make the world more 3D and prettier while neglecting everything else that makes it a game." The whole objective of the original Fallouts is for the player to interact with the game world in ways that have lasting effects and consequences. This allows the player to feel as if they are actually role-playing and not just shooting things to reach the highest score.

Fallout 3 sank a leg into that trap and NV is sort of hobbling out of it, but now is the time for BGS to demonstrate that they have learned from the mistake and allow the series to run again. I highly doubt they will, because BGS is tightly reigned in by Zenimax to make the monies as efficiently as possible.

#6 is completely false.
busiting on Fo3 for having piles of rubble that you cant pass? Cause there was nothnig like that in Fo2, right?
You can also go the end game location right off the bat in Fo3. You wont be able to do anything, but you can go there right out of the vault if you really want.

#3 and #10 is just an opinion (and ones I really do not agree with) and #8 is incorrect (there were hostile ghouls in F1 and F2 and more than one nonhostile ghoul in F3).

Other than that I agree completely.

I agree with the last two posts. I for one don't think that the weapons fallout 3 added for dumb, some were cool and others interesting. I definately didn't enjoy some of them, but could see the use of them. With my experience with Fallout 2, I never found Navarro until the BoS told me where it was, not sure if I did something wrong, but I went on the spot where it was, even looked it up and it wasn't there. And after that there a couple locations that must be unlocked or something, like the sierra army depot. Where Fallout 3's locations and New Vegas' are all there from the start. Then with 10, again like he even said an opinion (not sure if intentional or not).

8 would be correct if he added in that GHOULS DONT RUN, it physically hurts for them to even move, so running would be torture.

The first link..
Looking back at that. Its like a troll post. Cause anyone who has actually played F3 knows that a lot of that simply is not true.

No? Unless I've forgotten something.

So, there arent junk piles and fences that make you take other ways around in any of the cities?
Can you just leave any town in any old place, or do you have to go to an exit grid?

Wow this is so true... I love fallout and 2. Fallout 2 is the best

There are exit grids and for the most part they go all around the part of the town you are in. So yeah you can just leave the town at any point you want. Most towns also let you choose what part you will spawn in. So you don't have to enter at one point and work your way all the way to the far end.

Not that I recall. The only location that was similar to Fallout 3's D.C. in the originals was Necropolis in Fallout 1. I can't think of a single location like D.C. in Fallout 2.

I don't really get what you think exit grids have to do with this but most towns in Fallout 2 had multiple exit grids as well.

Kevin Spiess - Tuesday, November 4, 2008 8:30pm (PST) - "And the Fat Man launcher? Oh man. Don't get me started. I'm just going to pass on that one"

What's wrong with the Fat Man? I freaking love that thing. "You wanna play? OKAY! Say hello to my little freind!" BOOOM!!!! Eat Mushroom cloud and DIE!

A lot of the first one seems like complaining for the sake of complaining.He failed to mention any of the good things in Fallout 3. Like watching your enemies explode in gore, a fairly emotionaly invested story, and all the joys of launching a home made nuka-grenade into a stack of raiders.

Moira Brown made me laugh. She also made other people laugh. She also made other people annoyed. Same thing with Three Dog. Humor isn't universal. I still remember asking John Cassidy about why he was outside of Vault City and Tycho about the Desert Rangers. So what if I can't ask Fawkes about "what do you know about Megaton?" or Star Paladin Cross "What do you know about Rivet City?" In all honesty I don't care about that, I'll find that information on my own. I AM interested in Craig Boone's past and I AM interested in Raul's stories.

While I would love the option to become a super awesome ex-boxing champion who now works as a Mafia member and does porm during his free time, don't say that "nobody notices" in Fallout 3. People give me money, water, and medicine in random encounters as a good character, the Regulators regularly hunt down an evil character, and your companions may choose whether or not to join you based on your Karma. I loved the "status" of the old games (Gigolo, Married, Divorced, Child Killer, etc) and would love them to return, but don't claim that only the guys on the radio notice.

I don't remember enough of Fallout 1/2 to make an accurate comment on this.

I think that the articles were, like most "comparison" articles, wearing rose-tinted goggles and ignoring what good the new games have done compared to the old. I admit, they did have some good points but "I felt bad when I killed an innocent feral Ghoul" is a stupid comment considering the author also had to kill "innocent" slaves in Paradise Falls, "innocent" animals, "innocent" Enclave members who were only doing what they thought were best. Then there is the comment on not having any "memorable" dialogue in Fallout 3 when I can still remember Three Dog announcing himself, memorize the song's lyrics, and giggled when I responded to Moira Brown in a snide manner. The author also ignored other good points like not all random encounters ended in violence (such as the one where somebody would ask for your autograph), the fact there were indeed multiple ways to accomplish an objective (do I kill the Ghouls trying to get into Tenpenny Tower? Do I kill the humans? Look for a solution? Just kill them all? And what do I do about Vance and his blood-svcking posse? Then there's Harold, Agatha, and the whole Cyborg thing...)

Whilst I agree that Fallout 1 and 2 had better writing than 3; I do believe that in the alternative universe where Interplay/BIS didn't collapse and continued to thrive yet fallout wasn't green lighted until the mid naughies that it looks awfully like Fallout 3.

It's all just personal opinion, some people are going to like the originals more and some people are going to like the new ones more.

True there may be more than one exit grid, i guess i am trying to say there are parts at the edge town maps that you cannot exit from as well, which are essentially invisible walls. On the flipside fallout three didnt have many invisible walls at all contrary to #6 on that list. New vegas on the other hand.....

Honestly the guy that wrote that didnt evenplay all of fallout three, otherwise theywouldnt say all ghouls are portayedaszombies. It simply isnt true and tells a lotqbout the writers motivations.

Because the series traditionally used nukes with a kind of reverence and irony; Very sparingly, and never trivially.... But also the main reason is that (I don't know if you know this but...) The Fatman in FO3 is loosely based on a real weapon ~a Nuclear rifle (tripod or vehicle mounted; It's too heavy to lift or shoot, and takes a crew of three). Problem with it was (beside being quite shockingly insane) was that the explosion was always too close to the crew and they risked getting irradiated even at 1 mile away. The explosion from it came with a fatal dose of radiation to everywhere with in 500 feet of impact, and a likely fatal dose to within a ? mile.

PC's will shoot the fatman at targets across the street; (and might even shoot twice). :banghead:

http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/450px-Recoilless_gun_155mm.jpg

** I would not mind a Fatman in Fallout 3 or 4; but I would want it to be rare, and with maybe just two or three rounds in the game, and them explode like Megaton did.
(and have 1 or more of those 2 or 3 rounds be terribly hard to find in the game). IMO it should be a city killer, and cross off the location on the overland map.

Im elder scrolls through and through and i of course prefer 3 and new vegas.
I also have 1, 2, and tactics and i just cant get into it.
I guess you can say im used to the bethesda style of fallout.

http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r150/MuyThaiFighter/Funny%20Pics/1595201-oh_look_its_this_thread_again_super.jpg.

Yes, Fallout, Fallout 2, Fallout: Tactics were superior. Fallout 3 was awful. New Vegas is the return to a 'true fallout' game style. Us filthy plebians introduced through Fallout 3 are not worthy of the elitest dinosaurs and old fans. We get it. People need to just quit making 'proof anything not F3 is superior here's some random link why'.

Seriously, opinions will be opinions and not true facts. End of story.

That is without the a doubt the craziest thing I've ever seen! (not your idea, but the actual use of something like that in real life) Who in their right minds would ever think that having a small yield nuclear bomb that you launch from an infantry unit would be a good idea?! "Just don't drop it on your foot there boys, or you, and everyone around you, will be dead before you realize you've had an accident."

** Personally I love watching little mushroom clouds. Though I agree that a real warhead should be rare. Personally I wish the Nuka Grenade packed a little more punch, and left a mushroom cloud and some radiation... maybe they could make a supa-nuka-grenade? but that's just me.

Edit: I wikied it btw and it's called the Davy Crocket, it was designed as a first defense against the Sovioets if they invaded Europe. Not only would the resulting blast vaporize any adavancing troops (as there were supposed to be several of these "Atomic Battle Groups" stationed across the border) but it would render the area unihabitable for 48 hour due to high radiation levels. This is just the kind of 50's lunacy that makes the Fallout series so great.

Logic? In an internet forum? RUN! :bolt:

Personally?

I still maintain that hands-down, Bethesda's #1 biggest mistake of all was simply deciding to call it Fallout 3. I think this idea that the game needs to be judged as any kind of a successor to the previous titles is the leading cause of trouble ever since that game came out. What confounds me even more is that they weren't even trying to make a... (for lack of a better word) "true" sequel to Fallout 2.

Viewed as "let's make a game that takes place in the Fallout universe, but through the lens of what we, Bethesda, do best," I tend to find a lot less that bugs me. Exploration in a highly-detailed world that's generally more concerned with looking neat than logical (and then supporting that with varying layers of lore) is sort of Bethesda's bread and butter. Populating a fictional world with hard choices that have lasting and far-reaching consequences is what Interplay was really shining with, back when it was a relevant company. It's just apples and oranges.

Myself, it's been over a decade since Fallout 1 and 2 came out. It's been over 3 years now since Fallout 3. I just can't, in all honestly, bring myself to care about comparing and contrasting the two games any longer. I hope that going forward, Bethesda continues to try and push their boundaries into territory that is unfamiliar to them, and build on some lessons picked up from F3, F:NV, and retrospectively with F1 and 2.

But I'm also not worrying overly much about the prospect that Fallout 4 is still going to be a generally "Bethesda-style" game, focusing on their brand of exploration and their definition of player freedom. At the end of the day, they're going to do what they feel is going to make the best game they can - and that's not necessarily going to coincide with what I would want out of a Fallout RPG. Personally, I came to terms with that a year and change ago. :shrug: