In the new era of gaming

Gore and Swear means M

Sad. really :sadvaultboy: :sadvaultboy: :sadvaultboy:

As for a spin off

People will tell you ALWAYS the opposite

Because the number 3 is here, despite that the game itself dont follow the events of FO2

Its like saying that GTA IV is a sequel of GTA III :facepalm:

Fallouts 1 and 2 are dirt cheap plus it would be a good introduction into the Fallout world. Follow up with Fallout 3 and then New Vegas. New Vegas reminds me of the old games.

Well Lucky for us the Devs of New Vegas know what the real meaning of Rated M means. I hope Bethesda follows their example.

As for the spin-off thing, it just comes down to people knowing how to use a dictionary.

Comments.
Similar to how Fallout Tactics was also considered to be a Series off-shoot when it came out (after Fallout 2), great tactical game though, but with less of the type of mature content that Fallout3 has, and that Fallout 1and 2 had.

Fallout Tactics was the third Fallout game to come out, but it was not considered to be a Fallout3. New Vegas, even though having similarities with the early Fallouts is not considered as a Fallout4, it is less of a 'wasteland' scenario than Fallouts 1, 2, 3.


Actually Fallout 1 and 2 define the start of the "Fallout series" scenario. Fallout3 being now an addition to the "Fallout series" 'wasteland' scenarios.



Not so, playing Fallout3, I soon had the distinct feel of "this if Fallout ok" ... and nothing other than a Fallout. There was no feeling of there being a similarity with anything else.

Immersing yourself when playing a role-play game and not having half your mind elsewhere, then you will find that is how to best play a game.

I refer you to my reply above.

The first I heard it said that Fallout3 is “Oblivion with guns” was on this forum by the usual game gripers. At first I thought that they were just joking, a wind-up, but no, they saw that a similarity of game structure that is common to most games was a conversion mod of the other... Totally disregarding the contents, style, scenario and plays of each game that actually makes each game so really different.

If one can't see that, and when getting into Fallout3 properly that it is a true Fallout and not an "Oblivion with guns" (ludicrous, about the most unintelligent said on this forum) then I won't bother trying to explain it further.

1. Who's comments? From what I've heard there are more "This is the real FO3" than there is "This is another Tactics". :confused:
Besides, it does not need to have a number on the end, it's Fallout 3.5.
It's part of the main series while still not having a number on the end.

2. Oh so the current series? Well if I'm not mistaking I thought that sequels were suppose to "improve" upon the predecessor, there were no improvements in FO3 except for flashy graphics and FPP. The "mature content" was really kept on the D-low and the "depth"? What depth? Two words: Tenpenny Tower, explain the "depth" in it.

3. Hard to immerse myself into a Fallout game when it's not really a Fallout game.



Well of course the lore, the universe, the gameworld, weapons, dialogue and stuff was Fallout.
No arguing that.
But it's about the general gameplay.
Lots of things were removed from the originals and all we had left was the Oblivion mechanics.
How to pick stuff up, how to drag stuff, havoc bodies, slightly similar HUD, open world, fast travel, inventory screen et cetera.
So what I mean with Oblivion With Guns is that it's a "Fallout" game built on the foundation of Oblivion.
It is basically like a big team of modders got together to create a total conversion mod using the Construction Set and Oblivion.
Now, if it was a good "Fallout" game then it could be excuse for basically being a TC mod of Oblivion which New Vegas was.
But it wasn't even a good Fallout game with following lore, choices, writing, characters, logic, economy and realistic game-world.
So all I'm left with is a TC mod of Oblivion which fails in most if not all Fallout aspects.
Which is a "TL : DR" reason why I'm calling it Oblivion With Guns.

The more of Fallout3 you explore and play, the more of the mature content you will see, to state the obvious. It does have variations and varieties of mature content that has depth of game-play that you will never realise without exploration what the full depth and maturity of Fallout3 really is.

Skimping through the game with half the mind elsewhere will just not do it, mature content is more than just gore and guns and swearing.



It needs to be understood that there are huge differences in game-play time-gaps between the sequels, with a spread of something like 200 years overall. Do not expect a sequel to be a direct continuation of the previous scenario days events. It is sequel in content, game-play and scenario style of game-play and is referred to as being a "series" it need not directly follow the previous days situation.

The game needs to be played with a degree of immersion to appreciate Fallout3 depth, maturity and that Fallout3 is indeed a continuation of the Fallout series scenarios.

A good 'Fallout' game-play is guaranteed that way. It is a characteristic of the Fallout series, the ability of choice on how to mould your 'Fallout' character and game.

Failure to like Fallout3 as a 'FALLOUT' game is a failure of choice and play really.

Just to remind you:-

Fallout 1 and 2 both have taking-turns-combat, Fallout3 has real-time combat and play which you could likely enjoy more. I find it a much more complete role playing game now.

But a lot of the gripers on this forum are the taking-turns-combat fans and gripe mainly I think because Fallout3 is now real-time play, but taking-turns just wouldn't work very well as a role-play game in Fallout3, being so vast with content and exploration, player's would not spend 100-200 hours taking turns.

I have played the old turn-based-combat games, they were very enjoyable at that time, but flawed in that once becoming adept at the calculations, taking turns became more of a drag on the play. I find Fallout3 is a breath of fresh air on the scenarios, far better, and it's not difficult to use one's mind in real-time role-play, in fact it‘s more fun.

We complain about FO3 because of tons of reasons, the major one's being lore, story, writing, characters, gameworld, logic within the Fallout universe, roleplaying limitations and linearity.
A lot of us want it to go back to TB combat but we're fine with a real time FPP combat so that is not the reason why we hate on FO3.

Why do people think TB combat is "slow" or "boring", it is actually really quick and exciting! Your mind races on how to spend your action points and you gamble with the end of every turn, hoping that your enemy doesnt get a one-up on you during their turn, it is very climactic and dramatic.

Gabe. You own. That is all.

Okay, click the gun and shoot the super mutant witht he rocket launcher. 0/12 Ammo! OH NO RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN!!!!! Followed by: the death screenshot.

What svcks is firing three of three shots (Increased Rate of Fire, making each shot 3 AP) from my Turbo Plasma Rifle at 95% chance to hit, and missing every time.

i agree with what you say. The original fallout games were fun in there day but they're just old dated games now. turn based combat games are becoming a thing of the past, they're to slow. Bethesda has done wonders for fallout, a lot more than the originals managed! I think the people that prefer turn based are probably not very good at real time combat(which is understandable)

That doesn't make sense. Just because I like turn-based for a RPG means that I probably am not good at real time? Dude, I win at Rainbow Six: Vegas 2, Call of Dooky, and Battlefield.

well why do you prefer turn based? i saw in an earlier post someone describing it as exciting, dramatic n climactic! more so than real time combat?? c'mon! If turn based combat is still so fantastic why does it hardly ever get used?

It isn't used because game developers spend millions of dollars and years to create games, they're (sadly) not going to go out on such a risk.
So right now, it's unknown if a TB game would sell well in the main stream market since next to none are released. (JRPG's doesn't really count since their TB mechanics are vastly different and "are" successful in their market.)

And I prefer TB combat because it makes SPECIAL work the way it was suppose to work.
SPECIAL was designed specifically for Fallout's gameplay, it was complex but functional and dealt with action and consequence heavily.
Isometric TB combat is more strategic and allows for more intelligent gameplay rather than just "shoot them butches."
So I like it because it forces me to actually "think" before I act.
I like it cause it makes me more careful in distributing stat points, traits, perks.

And if I get through a random encounter with a pack of deathclaws I actually feel like I accomplished something.
I actually feel that "I'm that good."
In NV and FO3 on the other hand I mostly just breeze through everything even on VH HCM.

So my reasons is: action and consequence, strategy, planning and challenge.

1. It made Fallout unique.
2. Turn-based in Fallout was very climatic and dramatic. People get blasted to bits get the snot beat out of them. Sometimes people try to run, but to no success.
3. Why don't people use turn-based? Because RPGs are falling into genericism. Every game is trying to be epic. Turn-based simply fell out.

Good point, watch this video, this should support your argument

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RizVcwSSNmY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aF54vf9fqw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMLbEAxjzj8

If these aren't epic and funny, I don't know what is.

I played the Hell out of Fallout 3. See unlike some people on the forum I play the games first before I talk about them (not saying you're on of those people). I bought Fallout 3 the day it came out. I made countless characters I bought all the DLC as they came out. I wasted the Summer of 2009 playing it. I did not notice anything that should have given Fallout 3 a M Rating. All it has is alot of gore and blood and someone now and then saying a swear.




Fallout 3 does not take place 200 years after Fallout 2 it takes place 36 years after. Fallout 3 does not fit the the definition of sequal. By your definition Fallout Tactics is a sequel and so is New Vegas. Second by the same definition Fallout 3 is not a sequel became Fallout 3 changes the style of Ghouls/Super Mutants/Power Armour/ Wasteland and its not a RPG its a FPS sandbox game.

Fact is Fallout 3 is not a sequel because it does not continue the story of Fallout 2.



This. I got alot of enjoyment out of Fallout 3 for what it is, a game trying to be Fallout. When it comes to the series as a whole, its the odd game out for the reasons gabriel listed.

im an old gamer so ive played my fair share of old games. Turn based combat 'fell out' because its not popular enough. Why use this old system when the alternative is much better? What is wrong with trying to make games epic and the best they can be? i think some people are stuck in the past a little. im prob older than you but i love the way games are going

The alternative is better in YOUR opinion. The problem isn't making games epic. The problem is games are trying too hard to be epic a la Fallout 3.

No the alternative is better in the majority's opinion. unfortunately for you theres not enough people that share your opinions. The gaming industry is a company thats sole purpose is making money. if they made big games like fallout TB just to suit the select few they would go bust. now where have i heard that before........oh yes the originals went bust