Im not sure what 1950s you're thinking of then :tongue: . Now I didn't grow up during the 1950s but I have heard quite a bit of stories from people who have and when people thought of a Nuclear Holocaust back then (i.e. between the U.S. and Russia) they didn't see growing crops being feasible after any period of time. The 1950s view was "thats it! we're done! game over man! game over!," at least among the common American citizen (they didn't really think that mutations would occur because they were a bit more informed about radiation than that, but it was still a facet of culture back then). People didn't really see life after a nuclear war as possible (even though now we know that even a full scale nuclear war probably wouldn't mean the end of humanity) and certainly didn't see nations or countries such as the NCR possible, they saw a devestated world (and indeed many still do) that would last for thousands of years, so the fact that radiation still exists in Fallout 3 and New Vegas makes sense in terms of 1950s logic.

I'll agree though that the ability to perform face-lifts was a bit stupid but I think the only reason that was included was so that a person playing the game could have the opportunity to change their character's looks if they found they didn't like it (something that as a gamer I was kinda thankful for). The guy who does it is kinda tucked away in a place that rarely sees the light of day so I suppose I can just ignore him that way.

Yeah, as far as presenting a world consistent with 50s B-movie logic, F03 was more accurate.

As far as presenting a world more consistent with F01 and F02's established timelines NV was more accurate, but NV would be unrecognizable to a 50s B-Movie fan.

They started to rebuild the civilzation, well what left of a civilization, they cant stay in the " 50 B-movie format" forever

Whats its the point of a New Fallout if they gonna reuse the "Apocalyptic" ambience all over again, its like that the world itself dont want to change an stay in the same status after 200 years, or even more,

West Coast, without the Mutant and paramilitary menace, started to rebuild what left of the civilization, East Coast, is like that everything started 20 hours ago, even with the BOS, they live with fear

well whats the point in a post apocaylptic game if it starts to lose that "apocalyptic ambience" ? :tongue:

This is why I think the games need to start backtracking in the time line. Soon the term "Fallout" ( as in.... you know....the radioactive dust) isn't going to have much meaning the way things are currently going.

@Andronicus- Yeah but if the series keeps saying 'woah is our lives as we live in a desert blah blah blah'. I'd honestly like to see the game take place 10-20 years after F3 and show D.C. is somewhat stable now, with burgeoning settlements appearing, or at least mentioning that D.C. is doing better now.

I hope if there is another Eastern Fallout, that it will have more stability. Someplace big but not big enough for the Chinese to want to bomb it. I'd also like to see a Fallout game take place in a frozen wasteland (wasteland doesnt always have to mean dirt and sand :cryvaultboy: )

Yeah, I'm getting tired of a desert setting....

I honestly want to see Alaska or Hawaii.
(I mean Post-war Alaska... Damnit, I want never ending daylight in ice with mutant fish attacking from ice or [censored] like that, or better yet.. Mutant Moose.)

Guess I could have been clearer. Being a huge fan of Nippon Ichi, I know there are still a lot of isometric view games made - I personally can't wait for Disgaea 4. That said, these games do cater to more of a niche crowd. Sure, Dragon Age shifted 3 million copies in a year. But FO3 shifed nearly 5 million in its launch month alone. That's where the money is, and thanks to Bethesda's move to full 3D the franchise is alive and kicking.

Hopefully this means we'll get another FO with the gameplay further tweaked, the best of the new additions even better executed and with storytelling and in-depth RP elements that can match the original games.

Sarah Palin Behemoths :ahhh:

Oh god.. Mutant Reality Shows that FOLLOW Sarahemoths!

That would be the scariest creature in Fallout!!!!!!!!!!!!

:ahhh: :ahhh: :ahhh: :ahhh: :ahhh:

I can see the battle cry now....

"I can see Russia from up here!!!" :chaos:

OH LORD!! :shocking: We're gunna need something more than a fat man to take out this monster! A high-velocity bunker-busting missile is the only thing I can think of right now....SOMEBODY GET IT!! :ahhh:

OH NO, SOMEBODY CALL THE ENCLAVE BECAUSE IT JUST ATE ALL OF THOSE MISSILES!!!

PALIN, SMASH!

I don't think its old school elitism that makes people not like Fallout 3. Its that we know about the other fallout games and we understand Fallout better. Seeing things like "I love Fallout 3! its the best of Fallout even though I have not played any of the others" bugs me.

I see all the time people explain why they don't like it. We give very good reasons and all we get back are stupid insults about being elitist. I have said before "There are other fallouts to judge Fallout 3 by." FO3 alone good game but when you hold it up to FO1 and FO2 it just falls short because its missing so much that the originals have and that was brought back to FO New Vegas.

My last list made simple

1) No damage theshold

2) No reputation System

3) Wrong atmosphere

4) To Black and White (good and evil)

5) Forced to help the BoS

6) Enclave brought back after their destruction in FO2 and over done.

7) Become God (maxed skills) very faced and forced to handicap my characters

8) No multiple Endings and therefore my actions have no meaning.

@Styles:

Response to your last list made simple:


It’s all just personal taste in the end, but the out-and-out hatred some people have for F03 seems to come from the fact that Bethesda “dared” to change the formula and that that change made it very, very successful. Jealousy.

But did the change in formula make it successful? that we can never answer, unless you've got a device that can take us to a paralel dimension where Bethesda released a FO3 game in the same style as FO1 and 2.

As for me, I thought Fallout 3 was very good, but New Vegas to me points out clearly where it went wrong, even as an action RPG.

Its alot more then a tweak.



FO3 needed a reputation system. Think how stupid New Vegas would be if you sided with Legion and everyone liked you? Which is why FO3 svcks without it.



It is. Great War was 200 years ago not last week. No ones growing crops, no live trees other then Oasis, no economy, no real sign of progress at all. DC was not hit worse then the west.



FO1 and FO2 you can avoid the BoS altogether. New Vegas you can avoid them as well.



There are more Enclave in FO3 then in FO2. New Vegas say only the diehards went East, the rest were killed on the rig or by the NCR and BoS. Many others just gave up. So why does FO3 have thousands?



No real difference in stopping the God factor IMO.



Fo3's multiple endings "He was good/bad, blah blah blah but in the end he did good/bad" Its the only Fallout with "endings" that passed judgment (because the whole game is Black and White) and I still did not know what happened to anyone.



New Vegas is far out selling FO3 so theirs something to be said for the original forumla. Also Bethesda was the overseer so they greenlighted the change back to the original formula.

@styles

In the interest of friendly debate

Why not let an evil character ally with fiends? The radiation and its effects have always been stylized and retro-futuristic, so what the world would really look like 200yrs later doesn’t matter. It wouldn’t look like any of the games.

There is only one way to avoid the brotherhood in NV and to do it you had to know about their existence and purposely choose to avoid them (presumably not being curios as to who they are).

Eden was forming a new Enclave –its leadership was from the “diehards” in the West, but its foot soldiers could have been “pure” people from the East (maybe from vaults). Its left beautifully vague.

NV stands on the shoulders of F03’s success so it would be bad if they didn’t outsell it. That said, money made doesn’t equal better – I think it rests on which game gave you a better experience- and on that to each his own opinion. :fallout:

Technically yes. Fallout 3 has been praised numerous times as a great game, its sold so many copies that Bethesda is rolling in cash right now. Heck I think the sales of 1950s music must have gone up because of the game and critics rave about it. I'm not saying that New Vegas is any different in terms of its success but the fact of the matter is that New Vegas is very similar to Fallout 3, prehaps not to Fallout fans like us, but to the general gaming public it is (i've been asked the question "isn't it exactly like Fallout 3?" so many times that I want to punch something) and in many ways New Vegas's success is testament to Fallout 3's greatness as a game.

I'm not saying that the old formula is bad (indeed it definetly deserves more praise than it often gets) but looking at that formula based on what had been done and what was coming (Van Buren) I just don't think it would have been as successful as Fallout 3 was. Maybe part of that was simply the fact that a well known company developed it, but honestly could a isometric turn-based game be able to compete in the current gaming market now? I think the answer is frankly no, at least not on the scale at which Fallout 3 and New Vegas compete. One thing that struck me as why this would occur is after watching a preview of Van Buren on youtube (I think it was the demo or something and was entitled "what fallout 3 was supposed to look like") I scrolled down to the comments section and a good majority of the comments were along the lines of "what is this crap?" and "thank god for Bethesda" and it took me a while to find comments that were more favorable to Van Buren. I'm not saying that the comments section of a youtube video is a good way to get an accurate polling for the gaming communities opinion (or for that matter anyones opinion), but it does say something.

No matter what the argument is, no-one can say that what Fallout 3 did is not successful, its too popular a game for that kind of talk to happen. I can see though why people have a problem with it being considered a sequel to the first two though which i guess is where most of the problem lies. The thing is though is that for me, if Fallout 3 wasn't called fallout 3 and wasn't a part of that series and was its own deal, then I doubt I would be on these forums right now or would have played the orginals. I would be on the forum for _____ _____ or whatever Fallout 3 would be called if it wasn't fallout.


Edit for new posts:

I guess my issue with that is, when I play a post apocalyptic game, I don't want to see progress. I want to see devestation and death and hopelessness and a feeling permeating the air that cries out "what the hell did we do?"

I would like to point out that I was introduced to Fallout 3 first, not the older games-mainly due to my age. As I was really young when the first Fallout games came about and I was oblivious to their existence consequently. The point is, that didn't shape my opinion. I loved Fallout 3, still do, but I noticed a lot of flaws-flaws that Fallout: New Vegas did a very good job at fixing(at least for the most part). The more complicated storyline(s), more balanced RP/game mechanics are very happily welcomed by myself. And so I actually prefer Fallout: New Vegas out of the two-not because I hate Fallout 3(not even as a "Fallout game," as many put it), but because Fallout: New Vegas kept what I loved about Fallout 3 and rid and fixed the less lovable factors of the previous game. Fallout: New Vegas, as far as I'm concerned, did it's job in improving from it's past work and acting as a different game-not just a "giant DLC" as many seemed to love labeling it at first.

Though I admit, my priorities in a game are in the story's quality and how complicated it and the gameplay is(reasonably so, it can't be/have some B.S. in-game excuse to make the game more difficult). Not in graphics, not as much in exploration, and certainly not in what I get to beat with a stick or shoot down(not that I don't somewhat enjoy video game violence, just not enough to where its anywhere near my top expectations in what a game ought to have).

Fiends are so drugged out you can't really deal with them but you can sell drugs to their leader. You can talk your way into their vault. Which you can't do in FO3 with say Talon Company.

Yes in New Vegas you have to talk with the BoS for most outcomes but FO3 you are forced to work with them, they take you in. They have Liberty Prime which is needed for the final ending. New Vegas you can talk your way in an Blow them up. Or you can tell lie to yes man. So very little interaction with them if you want. Unlike FO3 where they are the White Knight Heroes.

What the area looks like is importaint because FO1 and FO2 did not have radiation everywhere. Trees are growing, people are farming and feeding themselves. How people are making a living, feeding themselves is impostant for atmosphere. FO3 has it so nothing has changed since the bombs fell in two hundred years. Yet some how people figured out how to do complicated facial surgery.

Canon says only vault Vault 13 and Vault 101 stayed closed forever (V13 was to stay closed for 200 years I think). Everyone else is impure to the Enclave. Even if their are more vaults un opened till Enclave came why would they join them. One big problem with FO3 very little is explained. How did Lyons get there in just two years? Why so many Enclave?

Each their own I guess but like I said before FO3 is not the only Fallout in which to judge it by. There is a reason why its Fallout 3

The point of Fallout is War, War never changes. Its about man kind trying to rebuild from our biggest mistake. The Great War is in the past. FO1 is 84 years after the great war because the Devs thought that was enough time for things to start improving. For people to star rebuilding.

I love Fallout 3. Is it a great game..yes. Is it a great Fallout game? No.

I ate my hat and decided to play Fallout 1. Fallout 1 is amazing, and they got the post-apocalyptic feel 100% perfectly. It felt desolate, yet civilization was rebuilding.

One thing I could not get about FO3 was the lack of farms. "Oh, but DC got hit hard." Total crap. Los Angeles got hit hard, almost nothing was left standing, can you say the same about DC?

The first town I came upon in FO1, Shady Sands, was a farming town, and that is 80 years after the war!!

But the statement "War, war never changes" is perfectly applicable to a game like Fallout 3, the war between nations turns into a struggle for survival and a war over as simple a thing as fresh water (the purifier). To me "war, war never changes" refers more to how conflict arises still after everything is gone and the world is in ruins, because thats what we, as humans do. I don't see "war, war never changes" as literally meaning that "Hey there was a war for resources and between nations that destroyed the world again and now look! The exact same thing with virtually the same reasons is happening between post-war nations like the NCR and the Legion."