Count me in pardner. Proud member of the "non-existent" Generation 1 too. Too many assumptions in your posts, missus Carol.

People never realize that I started with Fallout 3 and went back.

I'm also an avid console gamer, but apparently everybody knows I'm stuck in the past I was never part of.

sillyassumers

Wow really O.o

See?! I said it at least twenty times now.

:cryvaultboy:

The Wasteland generation?

That's generation 0.

I claim -1 because I play DOS/NES RPGs.

The problem is, is that the "original" fanbase seems to think their opinion of what the game should be matters more and outweighs those that are newer.
It doesn't.
The game will change, it has to adapt. If FO3 was anything close to the originals with turn based combat, and an eagle eye camera, then the Fallout series would have died then and there. NV wouldn't even exist. The original fanbase of a few 90's computer nerds (I say that endearingly) wouldn't have been enough to keep the franchise alive. The game will change and adapt. Is has to.
It won't be some mindless FPS, FO3 wasn't, FO4 won't be, and so on into the future.
Bethesda isn't just gonna let go of the series. Nor should they have to....because they've done a pretty good job with it-especially if your looking at the big picture.

And I'm one of them! :mohawk:

And I'm so sure that in the 10 years the Fallout franchise sat idle, the size of the fanbase just exploded.. :rolleyes:

And I though we would be on the same boat.

Yes it does.

Because we were that when it started, not to mention all the "improvements" are plain'o Oblivion flavors.

We don't know that. DA:O, too, had "eagle eye camera" and it did well (even with character, instead of player, driven combat) - and when Diablo 3 comes out, it'll likely sell even better (I'm not a fan, but the series has its following). The original Fallout 3 would've had TB combat like the original Fallouts, and real time combat much like DA:O.

Saying that keeping the touch with the its roots would've killed the series is just a baseless and - might I say, ignorant - claim. Surely, even with holding to what was, the game would've evolved to match todays standards otherwise. You are right in that adapting is a necessity, but a complete turnover is not, or was not. You may not have liked it had it been made closer to the originals I assume, but many people would've. We'll never know, but looking at the gamercrowds in the internet, it's a fair chance (more fair than dying off) that it would've sold just fine - even if not as well as Fallout 3 of today, but that is not the gamers' concern.

• You missed.
  
• Cave rat was hit for 5 hit points and was killed.
  
• For crushing your enemies, you earn 50 Exp points.

You critically hit deathclaw in the eyes causing severe blindness, like if there was any other kind.

Trapper was critcally hit in the groin for 13 points, that's got to hurt.

Boradam uses C-C-C-C-Combo Breaker! on Slaver, Slaver was hit for 156 hitpoints and was killed.

I couldn't agree more. well said

I miss those funny combat comments... :cryvaultboy:

To respond to the OP:

I, for one, do not see the game having a definite end as a mistake, as being allowed to continue after dealing with the game's main threat just does not make sense. This was especially jarring for me in Oblivion, as it felt like all the work I had put into stopping Mehrunes Dagon was a waste of time as there were no changes to the game world whatsoever save for a handful of smoking ruins that used to be Oblivion gates, a large dragon statue in the temple in Imperial City, and a large hole in said temple's roof.

In FO1&2, at the end of the MQ the big threat you've been facing no longer exists, so it wouldn't make much sense to go back and do related quests that would have netted additional help/supplies/whatever for a confrontation you've already had. FO2 does allow the option to keep going after the MQ, but it warns you that the game does not take the fact the MQ is completed into account if you do; this makes it a rather hollow experience as nobody you talk to has a clue what happened while your character does, and it just doesn't work well, if at all.

The ONLY way I would accept playing after the end of the MQ is if the post-MQ game-world actually implemented all the changes I had caused as well as acknowledged it in dialogue and NPC reactions. Given the inordinate amount of work that would require on the developers' part in order to account for every possible combination of outcomes for the various factions and settlements (which in F:NV is several billion), some of which a given person will probably never see due to play-style preferences, I don't see this happening any time soon and as such would far rather have the game end when the MQ does so that I avoid wandering around in a game-world that has no idea the MQ has even ended, let alone what I did to get it there.

I hope gamesas has the hind sight not to let another game company wreck and awarome game platform, like obsidion, and i bet gamesas never seen on how pop F3 was is and still is, so if they have not learned that others just ruin wat was an grate game pitty its not gamesas fault that vagas was so buggy and upset so meany gamers also i know a lot ppl traded on black ops for fallout vagas.

I can't really read that, but Bethesda were the people who tested for bugs and failed at it, just like when FO3 was released.

Well, I couldn't NOT agree anymore, nuff said.

Fallout 1 and 2 sold many copies, hundreds of thousands. Hell, it does NOT need to adapt. If you mean by adapt, "turn into a mindless FPS with no RPG," then [censored] off Fallout. Fallout 1 and 2 will ALWAYS be better than 3 and NV, there is no debate.

Dragon Age origins was turn based isometric, and sold like wildfire. Then, Dragon Age 2 ruined it, but whatever. There were many different companies bidding for Fallout, and I actually think that if Bioware got it, they could have done Fallout justice.

Fallout 1 and 2 were fine as they were. Bethesda ruined the deep game and turned into Oblivion with Guns. As much as I love Oblivion and Bethesda, they ruined the Fallout series.

http://www.nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=47347

So obsidian take all the credit for the good stuff in NV and bethesda take all the blame for the bad stuff?? how much more anti bethesda can you get! LOL
We dont know what kind of state the game was in when it was handed to bethesda. Knowing obsidian It was probably a complete mess!

Bethesda's job was to Publish, do QA, and Bug Test, they failed.

Obsidian's job was to write the plot, design the maps, and all that good stuff.

Well just as equally you do not know that, fact is they were responsible for releasing it in any state; admitting that Bethesda were responsible for publishing the game you love to critise but masking it with a comment on how it was probably worse, hoping to gloss over the fact that it was still Bethesda who released it so buggy, how much more pro-Bethesda could you get?

So if obsidian hand bethesda a game thats a complete mess thats ALL bethesda fault?? Both have to take a share of the blame

No, Obsidian was never responsible for QA or BT, that was all Bethesda. You can't ignore those facts, and if you do then you would lose all credibility.