I don't know, it was a good game that had some pretty deep flaws, IMO.

...Deep flaws that are mostly slated to be fixed in NV, AFAIK.

:P

I never play like that :shrug:
It always seemed to negate the point of creating a character and giving them a name. I always approach an RPG as an abstract "what if" sort of experience. The PC lives in his/or her/or it's own world, with their own history, and perspective about it. The PC is not me.
If I have a Cleric (for instance) then I consider the Cleric's goals ( which may include donating most of the party's gold if they can justify it ), or refusing to be party to something that is against their faith and ethics (IE. They leave the party, or at least stay behind). Thieves go it alone (or with like minded), and don't bring the Paladin along to support them when a robbery goes sour. That sort of play....

I prefer single player multi-character games mostly; (Like, BG1 & 2, and... most of the BlackIsle line up in fact ). Fallout handled the NPC's full time (BG handled them part of the time). I almost always treat PC's exactly as you disparage. They are [to me] a window into a world that is not my own, each sees that world a bit differently. [To me] they are not a costume to venture around in, and function more like ... like the claw you see in that http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/sports-fan-bus-plush-toy-crane-rede.jpg in arcades and department stores. (its flimsy and not very accurate ~but that's what you have to work with.)
They are your implement to affect what is inside the box (in this case, the game world), and [ideally] you are completely constrained (or enabled) by their personal abilities, strengths and weakness.

This is how I approach most RPG's if possible, and in this respect I think FO:NV will actually not be as good an RPG as F1 or 2, but I do think that minor aspects from those games [and designers] will improve NV over FO3.
[ In My Opinion ]

It would appear to be a no lose situation for Obsidian, as the FO3 framework already existed, and everyone involved had 20/20 hindsight to go on, in their new work... So I could not imagine pro studios like these, not producing an improved title; Obsidian or Bethesda in collaboration or on their own.

In many (many, many) ways Fallout and BG were similar to the original SSI Gold Box games. In (SSI's) combat you had PC's and could hire mercenary's ~the mercs were never under your control, and were "loose cannons" on the battlefield. In these games you could lose all but one PC, but still have your mercs. and have a situation exactly as you find in Fallout's regular combat. The way I saw it, the player must adapt tactics to incorporate what the NPC's are doing ~and its still quite strategic; just different.

**Way back when (7-9 years ago), I always hoped that future Fallouts' would incorporate the idea that military NPC's follow orders, while civilians and mercs did not (or to a far lesser degree due to no training or ego).
It never bothered me that Ian did his own thing, but it did bother me that the Brotherhood squad assigned to you at Mariposa were indifferent, and did not take orders. (even though that's not really an option in F1)

Well coming from the company that made the 2nd star wars knights of the old republic i believe they can be trusted.

I'm the same way. My character isn't me...my character is a person with his/her own motivations. To me a first-person perspective is certainly more intimate, but not necessary for me to be immersed in the game. Then again, I grew up being forced to use my imagination when playing games and I did a lot of reading, so my perspective is probably a little different than that of someone that grew up in the age of near-photorealistic graphics.


Yep. It was the old Gold Box games that made me love small group tactics in PC/console RPGs. I think I played all of them...including the original Pool of Radiance.


I like that idea.

I'm pretty much with Gizmo and Softnerd on this one. I find first-person a nice perspective for when I want a close look at things on occasion, but I don't find anything inherently immersive about it, myself. They all have their own specific drawbacks, and I find that the viewpoint has a lot more to do with what the gameplay goals are than what's going to be more "immersive." My on-screen avatar isn't much of an extension of "me" (beyond the of course unavoidable facts that even subconsciously every character I create is still in some form a reflection of myself,) as it is a character whose actions I am directing. In the same manner I'd approach a character if I were writing a book or directing a movie.

As a PS3 gamer I hope New Vegas is more stable than Fallout 3 was on the PS3.

They did mention in some articles that they have new libraries from Sony and that they don't find it difficult to program for the PS3 cell architecture.

I'm not to worried about the storyline because the early previews said that Obsidian had better writing (more comfortable behind the keyboard) than Bethesda.

I dont see why a lotta people on these forums talk crap about fallout 3 for the most part it was a great game and not too boring til youve done absoloutley everything... it was a great game dont deny it! :fallout:

Because fallout 1 and 2 were better?
Fallout 3 failed in alot of aspects.
SPECIAL was worthless
Perks were useless
Traits were gone
Skills unbalanced
Health unbalanced
Rehashed BOS, Enclave and super mutants just cause they were iconic characters
It's not turnbased
The animations are stiff
Not enough variation in weapons
Main quest was too short
Too few sidequests
There were no economy, productivity or agriculture
Bad design on several towns
Vaults were kinda too close together
The list can go on for a long time.

And again, I still love fallout 3 even though it's numerous faults. (I didn't put in 800 hours into a game I hate)
I guess I have a love/hate thing going on with fallout 3.

how i defend fallout 3
Because fallout 1 and 2 were better?- i think so to
Fallout 3 failed in alot of aspects.- also true
SPECIAL was worthless- not worthless. but not as important
Perks were useless- not really
Traits were gone- true
Skills unbalanced- some not all
Health unbalanced- true
Rehashed BOS, Enclave and super mutants just cause they were iconic characters- i dont think so
It's not turnbased- well so. i like turnbased to but it was fine as an fps/rpg
The animations are stiff- somewhat
Not enough variation in weapons- i thought it was ok
Main quest was too short- yeah
Too few sidequests- true
There were no economy, productivity or agriculture- i was to busy having fun to notice
Bad design on several towns-yeah

you were about 60% right but fallout 3 was still a better then average game hopefully new vegas will be an amazing game
Vaults were kinda too close together
The list can go on for a long time.

And again, I still love fallout 3 even though it's numerous faults. (I didn't put in 800 hours into a game I hate)
I guess I have a love/hate thing going on with fallout 3.
[/quote]

[quote name='SpEcTrE.' date='06 July 2010 - 09:29 PM' timestamp='1278480574' post='16132577']
how i defend fallout 3
Because fallout 1 and 2 were better?- i think so to
Fallout 3 failed in alot of aspects.- also true
SPECIAL was worthless- not worthless. but not as important
Perks were useless- not really
Traits were gone- true
Skills unbalanced- some not all
Health unbalanced- true
Rehashed BOS, Enclave and super mutants just cause they were iconic characters- i dont think so
It's not turnbased- well so. i like turnbased to but it was fine as an fps/rpg
The animations are stiff- somewhat
Not enough variation in weapons- i thought it was ok
Main quest was too short- yeah
Too few sidequests- true
There were no economy, productivity or agriculture- i was to busy having fun to notice
Bad design on several towns-yeah

you were about 60% right but fallout 3 was still a better then average game hopefully new vegas will be an amazing game
Vaults were kinda too close together
The list can go on for a long time.

And again, I still love fallout 3 even though it's numerous faults. (I didn't put in 800 hours into a game I hate)
I guess I have a love/hate thing going on with fallout 3.
[/quote]
[/quote]

We can all banter our lists of reasons around and one person's list is no more important or accurate for another than the next. It's an individual taste and opinion and all points can be argued by either side for an eternity and still there will be no winner and loser. Different strokes for different folks.

@ I Was Out Of Name Ideas: Don't bait people like that. You don't have to see why others have their own personal preferences. They do just like you.

Now, if this thread is going to continue with the bait and rebaits that are here and the poke a poke contest I'll just close it. These comparison threads never go well because everyone thinks their opinion is the only right one when in reality everyone just has to please themselves and don't need to force their opinions done another's throat.

Hopefully this isn't seen as a bait/rebait post. I just SpEcTrE's post was interesting

The only point I really wanted to comment on was

"Rehashed BOS, Enclave and super mutants just cause they were iconic characters- i dont think so"




I don't see how BOS, Enclave, and Super Mutants could be seen as anything other than rehashed due to iconic status. Bethesda literally transported every major faction from the West Coast to the East Coast. In my opinion it was a terrible idea for two reasons.

Firstly, it didn't make a damn bit of sense, but more importantly it was a missed opportunity for Bethesda to get creative and make up some new stuff. Prior to Fallout 3 noone had any idea what was going on on the East Coast. Now it's pretty much exactly the same as the West Coast, only there are bears and Fat Men.

Counter.
SPECIAL was worthless- not worthless. but not as important- compared to how important it was in the earlier games, then yes, it was complete trash.

Perks were useless- not really- Yeah, they were, Child at heart gave like 8 dialogue options or something, complete crap of a perk, then we had overpowered perks like paralyzing palm or grim reapers spring or the one I hate the most: almost perfect.

Skills unbalanced- some not all- I meanth how skill points worked, as it stands we can become ace of all trades by lvl 30.

Rehashed BOS, Enclave and super mutants just cause they were iconic characters- I dont think so-They did, how big are the odds that the remaining Enclave, and a BOS team arrive at the same place, and that FEV that was so darling dear sealed up in Mariposa just happened to fall into the hands of Vault-tec? If they went with one of these three then it'd be fine, but all three of them returning to the same place? Only did it so people would feel familiar to the game. Therefor, they rehashed those factions instead of coming up with iconic new one's. Only other factions we have in the game are Regulators who are so un-fleshed out that they're just a bag of skin and bones, Talon Company which can't be spoken to without them shooting your torso in half, Outcasts(re-hashed western BOS) which was the only interesting faction and couldn't be joined and lastly raiders who are all complete psychopaths.
Only factions they bothered to give some kinda story to is the one's they rehashed.

It's not turnbased- well so. i like turnbased to but it was fine as an fps/rpg- Yeah, it's fun as an FPS as well but it lost the same feel that the earlier games had.

Not enough variation in weapons- i thought it was ok- Really? Two shotguns, two automatic rifles, two lever action (or what ever it's called(hunting&sniper rifle)) rifles, one smg, this ain't enough, should be at least 4 or 5 different shotguns so you can pick the one you like the best, every small guns player wind up with Terrible Shotgun...

There were no economy, productivity or agriculture- i was to busy having fun to notice- I guess it's at this point that the game broke my immersion so to say.

And so what if it's better than the average game, the average game svcks so hard it'll ***** ** ******* ****** **** *****... Yeah...
Fallout has it's own standard, and fallout 3 didn't hold up to it.
It's a great game, it's just not a great fallout game.

well obsidian is like the new interplay and mostly the same people that made the first fallouts so if you liked the first ones then you should be good but if you didnt well self explanitory and obsidian was the maker of neverwinter and alpha protocal so you can see their style there so your judgement but should be good

Well... I'm not so far gone as to sit through the credits (again :laugh:) and count, but how many from FO1 exactly? The main crew (that unfortunately get credit for everything including stuff they didn't do) aren't a part of it at all as far as I know. Fergus worked on the Hub I think, but how many really? To my mind this is somewhat [unnervingly] like comparing TES teams no?

We can go on and on about flaws but quite frankly , Fallout 1,2,3 were amazing and NV Will be , oh and dont forget Oblivion was awesome too .

Who knows. What I do know is I'll have to use mods like I'm doing with my second run through of Fallout 3 (first one was a vanilla run through).

Since this is an opinion thread, I only made it to page 6 before I just headdesked and decided to skip ahead and post.

Yeah, I'm going to like it more. If they had only fixed super muties and came up with the more cohesive plot it looks like they made, I would have been happy. But what they've done is not only expand upon the game mechanics, but I think they've made it feel much more fallout . Not only because its on the West coast, FO3 could have felt alot more Fallout, but they botched quite a few things. From everything I'm seeing so far, it just feels more...real, to the series. They're resurrecting content and ideas last seen in the originals, and Van Buren concepts are being implemented, especially the ones that I personally liked.

I'm gonna enjoy watching NMA react to this, see what they pick apart on this.

'Err....ummm....ITS NOT TURN BASED BLASPHEMY~!'

Well, i liked fallout 3 too, but it had many bad points and i dont understand why they did alter the many things that was already practically perfect.
Special was poorly done. (why change system what was practically perfect in fo 1 and 2.)
Traits gone, (there is no excuse to not include them.)
Skills (not balanced at all. But it has a some good changes as merging some skills, like a sneak and steal into one skill.)
Not enough weapons.
Enclave too weak.
Encounters too small.
Player too healthy..etc.

Well, first fallout is just a demo of the fallout 2. So it doesnt matter if the people from fallout 1 arent making this new vegas.

Fallout 2 is the game what made fallout into a iconic game and not just an generic game.

And expecially with avellone, this game should be awesome, afterall he made the best city in the gaming history, the new reno. That city is a perfect example to what is an rpg.


So, as i said before, this new vegas will be much better. Im sure that. It will be also more fun to make own mods, as there is now point to make skill and special checks as players wont be anymore jack of all trades. :foodndrink:

One thing that im worried in vegas, is the merging of the small guns and big guns. Its not excuse to merge them because big guns didnt have enough weapons. They could have made more weapons into it. That grenade machine gun would have been good new weapon for the big guns.

I also am worried about that there will be low level energy weapons.


Well, they dont even consider a fallout 2 to be a real fallout. :violin: Well some do, but they are in minority.

Let's be honest here, Fallout and Fallout 2 didn't have particularly long main quests either. The difference comes in the fact that they didn't hold your hand, so you didn't always have a clear idea as to where to go and what to do, and this gives the illusion that they were long. You also had to do side quests for experience because enemies didn't scale to your level like they do in Fallout 3. Now if you know exactly where to go and what to do in Fallout 1/2, and take side quests out of the equation, then it would probably take about the same amount of time to finish them as it does Fallout 3's main quest which shows you exactly where to go and what to do at every turn right as soon as you start your very first character.



... what?

This topic is going nowhere and in circles with everyone doing comparisons of the games and lining up on opposite sides about something that will never be resolved. And we can't know what FO:NV will be. We can only hope it will be something we will all enjoy. Too many reports and retorts in this one. Case closed. If you want to debate what is best Fallout, Fallout:2 or Fallout:3 you can take it to the Fallout series section of this forum. This section is for FO:NV and since it is not out yet nobody can know how it will compare and when it is out the place for comparisons is still in the FO series section.