What?

aw, [censored] nevermind - think I misinterpreted that....

I see..

This is a rather succinct conversation.

Which is just a euphemism for spammy. Let's try and keep that to a minimum. :nuke:

I wasn't exactly panning it ("And extrapolated from that, Fallout3 is Oblivion with guns") onto you, and I know it wasn't your argument ... but you did kind of qualify a bit of what the argument was at that time ... so felt necessary to further explain what was said ( for others).

Anyway, as regards to not seeing the forest for the trees here. I seem to remember that one of your complaints was that the inventories of both Fallout3 and Oblivion were so similar ... which is why I mentioned inventories. It was in a list of your complaints of similarities between the two games.

As regards to not seeing the forest for the trees, I could throw that back to you .. the total complaints about the game from those that don't like it, seem to be focussing on such minor details.

And I don't think that the inventories are actually similar, certainly not the alchemy one anyway ... another part of the forest of Oblivion which is a world apart from the forest of Fallout3 ... literally.

It's not to say that Fallout3 is perfect in every respect but there is nothing to dislike Bethesda for. Ok, some may have bought the game not realising that some changes may have been made between the sequels, it happens. There were changes between Fallout 1 and 2 as regards to the ability of what you could loot from dead bodies, armour as I seem to remember. Probable there were complaints then as well.

I haven't made a total compilation of my gripes. I gave a list of examples (two of which were core design and the design goal - which most certainly aren't minor details) to make a point. Inventorysystem, when looked at alone, isn't gripeworthy (other than being clunky as hell, but that's unrelated here) - same with almost every other feature when looked at alone. But when you combine those features, put them all in a same package... well, when little streams join, they form a river.

There were changes between Fallout and Fallout 2 (and there were complaints back then, too - nothing of the magnitude of which FO3 created though), and there would have been even more changes in Van Buren if it had been given a chance. But the changes back then were more natural evolution, improving things here and there, updating some systems, they didn't touch the core elements (and where they did, they weren't heavyhanded) - and they most certainly didn't turn the whole thing upside down and skin it. Changes are inevitable for a sequel to thrive, that's a given, but the changes made in FO3 just reek of tweaking the Oblivion system. Using that as the base for Fallout (instead of, you know, Fallout) just feels wrong and out of place. The changes that were made, and the way they were made would've prolly created a nice TES game, who knows, but it didn't really create a nice Fallout game. It was a crossbreed of onion and strawberry - it just doesn't fit. This eventually comes back to the "forest and the trees" so I'll just stop here to not start repeating myself too much. And as I've said, I don't dislike Bethesda (I see no point in disliking them), but I do disagree with them when it comes to their take on Fallout.

I don't hate Bethesda. I dislike them because their games are always buggy. Thats it. I loved Fallout 3(i enjoyed Fo3's story 100x more then Vegas)..

I don't hate Bethesda, in fact, I love em. They should keep their dirty grubby hands off Fallout though. Fallout should be put in the hands of those who know it.

*COUGHCOUGH*OBSIDIAN*COUGHCOUGH*

Legion Support this trhead , OR ELSE

Agreed to an extend. FO3's story needed alot of work, as a matter of fact it needed alot of work in all areas, as I'm now seeing, but still it is better than New Vegas.... Why?

NV is boring as hell!!!! I just can't make a new character any more in that game, like I was able to in FO3. The beginning drags on for a good two hours. And that fact of surviving a shot to the head, being buried alive and then being dug up by a robot... well... those aren't very good things to role play. Sure NV brought back "the good old days" but it took gambling way to far!!!! Having a city rebuilt is cool, every building being a casino, no so much. Freeside kinda svcks, and the fact NV is divided into sections by giant gates bothers me. Exploration svcks and role playing is bad. I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with me :shrug:

Playing Fallout 1 right now, a game I could never get into years ago, is already 100x better than NV was, and I'm in Shady Sands with nothing!

Plus NV's BOS, probably my favorite faction so far, was terrible. Before the game came out, people were like, "zomg the REAL BOS is back! :ahhh: "

If that is the real BOS then, wow... they svcked worse than Lyons.

Although I do like Lyons because at the time when FO3 came out, they defined "badass" for me. I love role playing good characters and having guys like the BOS back me up in my opinions is a good feeling to have.

Now learning about the midwest and western BOS they seem even more badass and I can't wait to see them in the originals.

Oh hi :wink_smile:

I have at least 14 characters, unlike FO3 where I only have 3 for every karma

The Courier doesnt have a background, so it does more easily to create a history for him/her,

The Lone Wanderer have a story, born in Vault 101, raised and abandoned by Daddy, And railoaded to do what he says even if you are a evil person



Of course its better, we are talking about the days where the art of making videogames was the true power to success, now the money is the true power, and everyone seems to be failing at it (staring at EA)

RolePlaying games have more sense in their plots back in the 90, not even Dragon Age surpass game like Baldurs Gate, Planetscape Torment, etc,

Bioware was the master of this in the good ol days

Lol ok bad choice of words on my part, they were toward the exploration thing, I know many people prefer NV over FO3, I'm just saying I don't.

As for the history thing, still surviving a shot to the head kinda gets me angry, because I find it hard to role play after that experience, you're just to damn lucky imo

Why is role playing as a guy who was shot in the head difficult exactly?

No clue, to me it's brilliant. RPGs in the days of DnD would simply thrust the character into a situation. Now RPGs feel the need to force a back story, history, etc.

Its less difficult, but more unbelievable. I just find it hard to role play knowing the extreme luckiness that you have encountered, which brings me to the point that maybe Obsidian took gambling to far.

I found it easier to create backstories for my characters in Fallout 3. I don't know why but I think the emphasis on the main quest/side quests just didn't get me in the mood to create more interesting characters than just "House guy","Legion guy", "yes-man guy", etc. Not saying that thats what New Vegas is designed to do or that the game svcks because of it, I just have a different way of playing. :shrug: I guess I could ignore the "born in Vault" part for my characters in Fallout 3 and after that the sky was the limit. I didn't feel like I needed to finish the questline or even start it at all. I became lost in a myriad of possiblities for roleplaying in Fallout 3.

Other than that I did find the whole "shot in the head but perfectly fine" thing to be a bit shall be say....unbelievable (as Roughnecks pointed out). But the intro to New Vegas (Fallout 3 had an amazing intro) and the "shot in the head" are the only parts of the storyline/start of the game that I find fault with. The rest is amazing.

Well said, exactly as I was trying to put it

So how is find daddy and save the world from evil doers that different from the first two games?

Fallout 1: Find the spare parts to save your home and you end up saving the world
Waterchip then the Super Mutants
Fallout 2: Find the spare parts AGAIN! to save your home and you end up saving the world.
Find the GECK, and save the world from The Enclave.



Here's the deal with the ruins of vegas, they didn't make anymore then was absolutely needed, you need to dispel your disbelief at the size just like you do for how long it takes in real time for a day to pass or for population demographics. You just can't have that kind of realistic scale in a game it doesn't work.

in Fallout 3 they wisely stuck the ruins of DC own in the corner of the map that way you'd have this vast view of the ruins you couldn't access. Giving the illusion of the whole city. I'd also point out that well built concrete structures can actually handle a nuclear far better then a lot of you give them credit

Hmm I never thought about that before. Thats actually a good point.

@roughneck I agree there something about new Vegas map that so damn boring compared to fallout new Vegas. What I also did like Is I couldn't do a damn thing with out pissing off a certain fraction. If I kill a Cesar legion guy, how the he'll do they no about it if there were no witnesses to see it happen. Fallout new add good things as well like iron sights, gambling,and more choices. But to me new Vegas took out to much everything(exploration,fun,atmosphere ect ect).

Yeah, exploration is the only thing keeping me from playing this game again. Exploration and Come Fly with Me, I feel obligated to do the quest but I don't want to :mellow:

Well you had a choice in F1 to serve the Master. Also you had multiple paths you could follow to achieve those goals in both games rather than what scripted event happened to choose for you.

Well in F3 all you saved was the purification machine. You still have enclave, super mutants and talon company running around. Sure they have clean water now but its still a day to day fight to survive.

In F1 the Vault Dweller not only saved their vault they saved the wasteland from the Master's Army. Likewise with F2, the Chosen One helped save their people and stopped the Enclave from killing off the world.

Nevermind