If you think the United States Army throwing unlimited numbers of Vertibirds at Liberty Prime dispite it constantly destroying them, if you think Enclave soldiers with laser rifles getting bombs thrown at the and blasted apart by Optimus's laser from a mile away, before later having being killed by an orbital strike, which of course they had themselves as a target, constitutes a last stand I have to ask why?

I don't want them humanized or "nice guys" either. I'm not saying that they have to accept wastelanders either (Fallout 3 would be the only exception to the rule that I could see) but I'm just saying that if they appear in any future games in any form other than "remnants" (i.e. the chicago outposts, if they are still there) then I would like to see some sort of option to help them (somewhat along the lines of the Mojave brotherhood for instance) and make it so that helping them makes sense from the Enclave's perspective (i.e. not bringing in wastelanders). I'm just kinda tired of being forced to shoot up my favorite faction in the games (Fallout 2, and 3) is all (NV gave me a taste of that but I want MORE :hubbahubba: ).




Agreed they did not deserve it and Fallout 3's "destruction" of them was stupid (apparently mecha robot is greater than air superiority :blink: its just stupid, and thats not even touching the problems with Broken Steel :yucky: ). But I also don't think we should just write them off as "well thats it boys, we're done, game over man, game over!" I'll continue to believe that somewhere the Enclave lives (even if its just by a thread).



Yep and thats all im saying, that all the games treated the Enclave's destruction kinda foolishly. But I would rather them be beaten by a faction that at least uses power armor than by a mutie villager from a backwards tribe who finds the proverbial "don't push" red button on the Oil Rig.

EDIT:


totally agree. Thats not really what I meant Omega when I said I liked how they were in Fallout 3. I liked their inclusion, I HATED their "last stand".

I can't imagine why anyone would prefer FO3 over FNV, but to each their own.

I have a love/hate relationship with Bethesda. They have huge, open-ended RPGs, which I love.

The problem is that all of their games are huge buggy messes. The writing is lack luster, and six actors voice every NPC in the world. I'd rather just read text than assume every NPC in the world has the same voice.

Because it was entirely unoriginal and uninspired. They had an opportunity to create totally new factions, heroes, villains, etc on the East Coast and instead they chose to plop down a few boring locations and reuse major factions FROM THE PREVIOUS GAME.

Super mutants: Check
Enclave: Check
BoS: Check
Vaults: Check

OK LOLZ IT MUST B A FALLOUT!!!1

I would agree with you except for the fact that I believe Bethesda wanted to "sum up" the Fallout series for those who hadn't played the originals. Introducing old factions made sense in that regard. Do you realize how many people would have never heard of either of those 2 factions had they not been introduced or included in Fallout 3?

I figured that they wanted to try and ingraciate themselves into the Fallout community by not doing anything to radical and messing with established canon.

Yeah I thought that too. But prehaps by doing that it proved to be a downfall in some respects.

Y'all have a good point and it's one I've considered but I tend to lean more towards my explanation given the general blandness of the story and the mediocre and un-compelling writing.

The story may be bland and unoriginal to someone who played the first two. But to someone who is just being introduced to the series it has much more of a "WOW" factor to it.

The fact that I can honestly quote this, is why Fallout 3 is bashed. Fanatics.

There's extremists on both sides, but I'm not sure how that's particularly relevant to the quality of the product itself. If I'm going to judge Fallout 3 I'm going to judge it on its merits as a Fallout game, and on its own merits. I couldn't care less about how devoted the fan base is to it.

agreed. I wouldn't judge the whole by the few. I like Fallout 3 better and I support the game. Do I go out and yell at people over the internet that "NEW VEGAS SUX!! " though? Nope. because thats not productive at all, I respect and listen the opinions of others, even if they differ from mine. As a wise Voltaire once said, "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Oh, how so untrue that is. In every respect...

...apart from you saying ....

"Oblivion is a good game, has no greater relevance here," .......

As for "Oblivion with guns" as some have said, that has always been a ludicrous thing to say, as has been shown.

Re the topic.
I played the early Fallouts and they were great, I yearned for a next version of Fallout, but wondered if it would be as good as I remembered the old Fallouts to be, at that time.

Bethesda excelled themselves in that respect, improving about every aspect of the early versions, which made me wonder why I thought that the early games were so good. Must have been because, way back at the time, they were a ground breaking type of play, something new.

Anyway, Fallout has now evolved into a far superior game as in Fallout3, yet is still in keeping with the kind of mature play that the old Fallouts were.

There are those who seem to be nit-pickers of really minor details, minor detail changes that are usually more about giving the game a very good balance of play, if you thing about it, as Fallout3 is.

Those who favour board game combat play, as the early Fallouts had, are unlikely to favour Fallout3 for it's real-time play. Board-game combat play can be fun for a short while, but is so flawed for games with the size and amount of content of games of today.

But each to their own choice.

It is Oblivion With Guns, same controls, same graphics, same engine, same sandbox map thingie.
They basically took a car and gave it a new paintjob and changed the car seats.


Does not compute.
Don't see how dumbing down skills, dialogue, quest resolvement, setting, SPECIAL et cetera is "improving" the series.


Don't see how FO3 was 'as dark' or 'darker' than the originals. :shrug:


Minor details are what makes the game.
It's like that saying "enjoy the little things in life".
Same thing goes for games.
So nit-picking is okay as long as it is within reason.

This.

You can have your own opinion but F3 is just great to me. Not saying it's perfect, and in my opnion Vegas was a big step backwards from perfect, but F3 is great.

As some have posted before F3 was just to sum up the series for those who haven't played F1 or F2, but now I can see original things and factions looming before the upcoming games.

And I have to ask all who hate F3 or Bethesda, why are you here? If you felt they ruined the series, why do you keep soming back (I am not speaking to anybody in paticular! So don't say I am!).

I mean I would have left, played the originals and never returned to these forums, yet you keep coming back... Is it because you have hopes for Bethesda or because you just like complaining?

Most of us don't actually hate them yknow.
I don't hate Bethesda, I love FO3 on it's own merits.
I hate FO3 as a "Fallout" game though.
And well, all I can hope is that they game by game move closer to what the originals were like.
If they drift away further on the other hand then I won't stick around here.

I wasn't talking about you or most other people, but those who actually hate F3 and Bethesda.

I don't think there are any of those around.
I mean, one occasionally pops up but they move on after they've vented a bit.

Same focus on dungeon crawling as well.



I don't either. The game looks darker on the surface, but the actual content is pretty lighthearted and zany (Wasteland Survival Guide, Superhuman Gambit, Nuka Cola Challenge, the Fat Man and Liberty Prime to name a few examples). Fallout 3 as a whole felt extremely cartoon-like, which I'm not faulting the game for since the series is set in a 1950s Sci-fi comic book world. I just think people tend to overstate how dark the game really was.

Blood,gore,robots,sci-fi movies apparel=/= Darker

Darker is more than more blood and more swear, is the content of the Universe itself,

Ok, here's a rant for ya:
Fallout 3 just has more in common to TES4 than Fallout 2. You can't deny that. It has, some of which Gabriel pointed out already, same controls, same graphics, same core structure, same UI, same menus, same gameplay, same design goal, similiarly dumbed down mechanics, same black and white story, same dialogscreen, same map design, similiarly empty and one dimensional characters etc. The only thing that resembles Fallout is that it shares the setting (it has vaults'n stuff so it must be Fallout), but everything else stems from Oblivion. Every improvement to the game was made over what Oblivion did (or was thought doing) wrong in its iteration of the same system, not over how it was done in the original Fallouts. With that in mind, how is "Oblivion with guns" a ludicrous thing to say?

When I said "whether or not Oblivion was a good game bears no relevance here", I meant that it shouldn't matter here because this is not TES, this is not part of that series - what TES does right or wrong should, on a general level, have no bearing on how Fallout is done. They're different animals and should not crossbreed, and if they did, Fallout should be the prominent source of genes.
End of rant.

I think I have some coffee now.

Its funny when I read someone saying "don't nit-pick the details" of FO3. Its funny because many that feel New Vegas is a "step-back" only seem to focus on the games lack of "atmosphere" (which was wrong). New Vegas is many steps ahead of FO3 in every way but I guess exploration which I don't care about that much.

I can understand someone saying I love both games but I enjoy the "atmosphere and exploration in FO3 more." I understand it because those are things FO4 can work on. When someone says New Vegas is a step back its like they don't care about any of the many improvements of New Vegas. hardcoe Mode, Damage Threshold, Reputation System, Traits, Iron sites a better working economy, return of original style Power Amrour, Better dialogue, better Followers, Follower quests.

They want more exploration and more cool stuff :sadvaultboy: :sadvaultboy: :sadvaultboy:

How many times do I have to throw out that Tim Cain quote? Let me tell you something Sebor.

Fallout 3 is a good game.

It stops there.

It stops right at good game. It isn't epic, it isn't awesome, and it sure as hell isn't what the mass hype and hysteria made it to be.

Why?

Looking at it as a Shooter: as a shooter it works, but it's clumsy and has problems. There's no iron sights. When I "aim" it feels jumpy, and precision aiming is a pain whenever I'm trying to hit something far off. The scope on Sniper Rifles is horribly off-center as well. 3rd person is, suffice to say, broken. 4/10

Looking at it as a RPG: as an RPG it's fine, but plagued with issues. You have a couple choices in most scenarios, but some of them seem like after-thoughts. One critical problem is that Player Skill trumps Character Skill, and that maxing out skills is painfully easy. One Character doing it all is bad bad bad for replay value. Game Balance is practically non-existent, and god-mode is horribly easy to achieve. The world doesn't seem like it's laid out logically, and the writing is go-awful. It seems quite clear that the writers didn't make a practice of actually saying what they were writing so that the flow of it seems natural. Plot-holes infest the game as well. 5/10

Looking at it as a Sandbox: as a Sandbox Fallout 3 excels. Lots of hidden goodies and puzzles that will please the wanderlustful players for days on end. Dungeon crawling is very well done, and the game is full of unique places. 9/10

Looking at it as a Fallout: oh... my... god. This game is HORRIBLY plagued with continuity errors. Weapons, the GECK, the world in general, are all wrong. The game tries to hard to be epic, and includes idiotic elements like exploding cars, the Fat Man, and don't even start with Liberty Prime. The game rehashes the plots of Fallout 1 and 2. I don't even want to go on, because of the amounr of disgust I have. 2/10

That's the heart of the issue, though. Exploration may not be a big deal for you, but it is for a lot of Bethesda fans, who, likewise, may not see the things you care about as big deals. It's not hard to understand why some people didn't like New Vegas, all you have to recognize is that exploration is a really, really important factor for some people (such as myself).

I do agree with you that saying it's a step back is rather ridiculous. Nearly everything was an improvement, and I hope Bethesda implements all of those improvements in Fallout 4. I wouldn't even say the exploration was a step back, because, while I think it was awful, it was developed by Obsidian and not Bethesda, so there's no reason to worry that Fallout 4 will have any less of a quality sandbox than Bethesda's previous games had. Considering Bethesda is still in pre-production of a game that's most likely Fallout 4, there's no excuse for them not implementing all of the improvements New Vegas introduced.



So quality exploration is equatable to "cool stuff" (in this case used as a derogatory term) to you? I must have missed the memo that said if a game you like isn't good at something, that quality must be something only non-h3rdc0re RPGeee players would care about.