Dude nothing is that tedious and boring.

Face it, the old fallouts had their day and thank God it's over and done with. LoL Scoreboard!

Well, I still have fond memories of playing FO2 and strongly disagree with the characterization of FO2 as crap, comparing the Trial or Test or whatever it was called to FO3's opening sequence is a bit of a stretch. sheltom claims that it took him a whole day to get through that first area because he didn't focus on Melee/Unarmed - I don't know if that's reasonable or not, because I've always done that area with Melee or Unarmed. By comparison - the entire FO3 opening sequence up to escaping the Vault isn't going to take more than an hour, even on the most obsessive run through it - regardless of what SPECIAL you've picked or what skills you've tagged.

Edit: hopefully added a bit of clarity

That's pretty much right. You got it. I'm the one telling you how it is. Understand? LoL

No of course not. Personality and taste are the biggest factor in what your preference will be. If graphics, an isometric viewpoint, and turn based don't bother you then you may like Fallout and Fallout 2. If you like turn based and isometric view points, you may love Fallout and Fallout 2. If you don't like those two things, and\or if 2D graphics bother you then you probably won't like Fallout and Fallout 2. I know plenty of people who got into the first two Fallouts and loved them even after 3 came out. The poster that is trashing the games clearly fits into the latter category, and his opinion is just as valid as the viewpoint of anyone else. Showing a lack of respect for the games and their fans is another matter entirely, however.

So now you are trying to have your lack of willing discussion"ness" be a good thing?

It's never taken me more than half an hour to get through the Temple. I'm just sayin, you still are forced to sit through an opening that never changes(aside from the convo topics and karmic choices you make), and that's going to take you atleast 15 minutes either way. It doesn't make the game any better or worse, albeit somewhat annoying on occasion. But that's just my opinion.

I've yet to play 1 or 2, but I've just ordered a set of the old Fallout games, so soon I'll know.

For now I'll have to go with the biased answer of Fallout 3. But yeah I could easily play it 2 months straight. I've had my copy for a week now. I'm sure I'll still be playing in a month's time, just to try and explore every area of the map.

That's about the size of it... I've not seen a decent game since 2005, and not seen a decent RPG since 2001.


As I see it, the Fallout series was advancing in its chosen direction towards its goal of being a http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/f2advert.jpg ~minus the wizards & elves; but was then forcibly side tracked in the opposite direction off towards being an FPP Neo-RPG like Oblivion. On it's own its a cool game, sure... but its a step back in the progress towards its original intent. A fate that Diablo has been fortunately able to avoid in it's #3.



:tops:

And whoever was implying that FO2 was no more buggy than any other game is off his rocker too.

"detractors criticized frequent bugs and lack of improvement over the first game."

That's straight from wiki. One guy in the modder community eventually released his own patch beyond the scant fixes Interplay did as their version didn't go past 1.02. The modder fixed over 800 bugs by himself lol.

So that dog don't hunt. Face it, the game was buggier than most and just bad from every angle.

A fate that Diablo has been fortunately able to avoid in it's #3.



:tops:
[/quote]

Please don't jinx it... My next favorite series. lol.

Bwahahahahahahhahahaha

You speak as if Fallout 3 is more stable than the Golden Gate Bridge. Fallout 3 probably had more bugs than Fallout 2, even after two patches I'm still running into glitches and bugs left and right. This speaks nothing Operation: Anchorage, which clearly didn't go through QA.

I can't see how, by anyones standards Fallout 3 isn't at least decent. But did you not find these games enjoyable; Half Life 2, the latest MI was pretty good, Jedi Knight Outcast, Assasians Creed or San Andreas? didn't realise you were talking about Rpg's. But some of those games still stand.
I completley agree that as a sequel FO3 isn't good. But it has to be taken for what it is, it makes no attempts to be an isometric tactical shooter, and shouldn't be seen as such.

I have said NOTHING about bugs in Fallout 3. However, FO2, I am speaking from actual FACTS. Something some of you seem to be running short on.

Jedi Outcast wasn't bad, but it wasn't as good as its predecessors in my opinion. Generic and illogical level design, WHOAMG.



Oh, I'm sorry, apparently all of those bugs I encountered never existed. How silly of me to say that they did.

I haven't had any problems at all since I disabled my codecs.

It depends on your minimums... I bought [in this order] FEAR collectors ed. and Oblivion collectors ed., and Stone Prophet. FEAR sits unplayed after 30 minutes, Oblivion was played to lvl 26 (my character is stuck in swimming mode in the forest), Stone prophet was just more fun I thought.

I made the mistake of buying Max Payne1 and Fallout 3 at around the same time and after playing both for a few hours... Fallout 3 sat ignored for months.

The last line in just about every one of your posts is a calculated insult to anyone that would disagree with you. Your opinion is something you're entitled to, but you would do well to cut the crap.

I'm talking about game design bugs, not performance bugs. Fallout 3 is probably the most stable Bethesda game from a performance standpoint.

Agreed... Morrowind was great but... well that's all that needs to be said.

This would have more force if it was more apparent that it applied to Fallout 3 as well. There have been numerous comments about brain-dead console kiddies who are intellectual under-stimulated and are only interested in PHAT LEWTS that go by with nary a peep. There certainly is a LOT of condescension from folks who think FO3 >> FO1/FO2, but it is by no means any greater than that shown by those who think FO1/FO2 >> FO3.

I've seen dialogue bugs, but that's about it. Dialogue in general needs substantial improvement in the next game.

Kind of a silly question to ask on the Fallout 3 forums, don't you think? Personally? I'd go with Fallout 1.

I don't condone extremists from either side of the fence. The folks at the RPG Codex are crass and unreasonable, I don't even bother trying to argue Fallout 3's case there. Some select folks at NMA who are very vocal are no better. Still, we're not at NMA or the RPG Codex... Bethesda's forums are essentially the official forums for the entire series now, so there should be respect shown from both sides.

Maybe because I was attacked repeatedly for my opinion that I'm supposedly entitled to. Oh and by the way, your last line of text looks like you're trying to insult or boss someone around too. So you can Please continue, my good sir. or ignore me too if you don't like it. I don't really care at this point.

Scoreboard.