Rockstar and Bethesda is a tough one too call but interplay/obsidian don't really have dominance in there respective area to be honest.

Ha ha you people crack me up. Perhaps I was being harsh, NV was not a POS game, a POS is a game like the marvel and capcom series. What I should have said is that COMPARED to Fallout 3, New Vegas was crap and this specifically is Obsidians fault. I have no doubt that Bethesda will make another Fallout and will not let Obsidian do it (hopefully) and it will be great like Skyrim and F3. Seriously though NV was not all that great.

Well for those who never want it to end, what if this happened. It is 2900 and humanity has discovered slip-space drives and we discover new planets. One of these planets just so happens to have just had a nuclear war, and the series takes place there for 6 or 7 more games and then when we get to fallout 30 we can move to another galaxy!

That's cool that you have an opinion, but you really just sound like you havnt got a clue about what your saying. Fallout 3 is better than NV, why?
I could say mass effect 1 was better than 2, but it doesn't say why, and guess what iv never played either of the games. It sounds like your just trolling around with absolutely no knowledge of Fallout what so ever.

Besides, all that's different from F3 to NV is: a different map which made far more sense, more *choices (big one), better customization of your avatar aswell as weapons. I could go on for days but really it doesn't matter cause it just my opinion, but atleast there's a bit more detail than.... Fallout 3 is better.
Your reasons are about as black and white as Bethesdas writing skills.

Obsidian svcks..... Pffffff, get [censored] real!

Wait you need details?? I figured the details were obvious, I suppose not because you are....for lack of a better word, blind. Ha ha. Alright, they added a ton of crap to NV that they did not need (one example is the reloading table). Half the characters have the same voice, the MQ line is not at all interesting, the loading times are longer, 90% percent of the quests are unentertaining (I believe it was Gamespot who first mentioned that), there were various technical problems. I could go on. Gamespot even gave it a 7.5 where as F3 got 9.0. It is not just me obviously. Theres your details. It is like I am arguing with a 5 year old.

I believe 1 or 2 more installments will suffice (I prefer to see 1 final installment with major, mind-blowing, hella badass, DLC's).

But yet, when they end it, I want them to keep us thinking. What they should not do is just wrap it up by saying a faction took over, or another nuclear explosion, or anything like that.
I believe if they just end it with a final faction taking over, it will feel rushed and, in honesty, what one faction could truely rule the world. I believe the next Fallout should deffinetly end in major disaster (but not nuclear.)

I also think it would be cool for a smaller DLC, where you meet a scientist who believes to have made a time traveling device, and as you go back into the past, your mission is to stop the nuclear disaster. This might give us a feel as to how the world is in its current, fallout setting. Obviously the 'hero' will fail, and either 1.) opt to let it happen, as the hero realizes that if it doesn't happen, the entire world will be tense for years to come, and everybody will be on high alert, or 2.) the hero will be shot, thus sending him back to the fallout age.

In the end, 1 final installment + 4 major DLCs and the smaller origin DLC, (along with possible weapon add-on DLCs) would suffice, and keep me imagining about the wonderful world of fallout.

I agree....

OT: If I ever miss that feeling of fallout, I can always play BF3.
Five minutes on Gulf of Oman and you could hardley tell the diffrence between it and Boulder city!

1. Well Fallout 3 had 20 quests or something, that was it. New Vegas had hundreds I think with at least 20 good ones for sure.
2. I think Fallout 3 had even less voice actors, but I can't confirm that.
3. The MQ line is a matter of opinion, so that doesn't hold any validity.
4. Loading times are longer because your save file becomes larger quicker in New Vegas because there are more things to do, at least the case for me.
5. My Fallout 3 had more bugs than my New Vegas, so that is also a matter of perspective
6. And finally, I don't rely on websites to decide whether I like the game or not. I bet gamespot gave Modern Warfare 3 a 8-9.5 or something, where I would give it a 6. So again this one is a matter of opinion making its validity much lower.

So you can enjoy Fallout 3 the most, no one cares about that. It is when you start forcing your opinions onto people, and flaunthing your opinions like they are facts when people get annoyed.

Ha ha I like how you go through all that work just to try to prove me wrong. You keep believing that you are right if it helps you sleep at night.

Well at least your are good at arguing a point, cause you just changed my mind. FALLOUT 3 FOREVER!!!

This saddens me and shows me that there is no hope... Because if you read the last sentence you would know I wasn't trying to prove you wrong.

Yea I agree Fallout 3 forever.

Or until F4 gets released (unless Obsidian makes it).

...indeed

"I agree as well, Shallow and pedantic."

When will you learn that you can't convince people that have no opinion of their own? Someone that needs a game magazine to tell them what is good and what isn't good, is completely incapable of forming an opinion of their own. They prove it by always going back to the old stand by "it was rated better." Yet they don't understand how the ratings work. One key thing is they don't take into account the Fallout Series as a whole. They go by the latest graphics and the "Michael Bay-O-Meter" of explosive Epicness to decide if a game is good or not. There is no brain power that goes into it.

So I hope you learned to just avoid people that can't think for themselves


Edit: I should get some sleep because my spelling is getting worse lol.

No, I will always make futile attempts to make things better. And when humanity falls apart, I can at least say I tried.

Fair enough. At least you knew when to call it quits.

For me to consider you and your view/opinion of which Fallout is better.... Yea, hell yes you better have some reasons. Styles is right, if you need to look up on Gamespot to tell you what is a good game then you better just go pop some of your riddelin and play MW3, it got great reviews so you should enjoy.
I'm starting to doubt you even played NV, prolly picked up your big brothers copy of F3 and thought it made you smarter because there was dialog that consisted of more than "get those guys".

Go away, your a troll... Or stay and continue to wash away any thoughts of you having a brain(or an opinion of your own)

You are arguing like a thirteen year old. This is the Fallout forums, not Youtube or the Skyrim section. Please learn that no opinion, not even your own, is fact. This is not a thread for insulting New Vegas or any other Fallout game. The OT is about whether or not the Fallout series should eventually end, you're off topic.

OT: It has to, either in a few more games or when humanity shoots itself in the foot in 65 years.

Bad move there, you have basically proved to people who read this forum page that you are a child. Whether you are or not, no one knows. You are just acting like one.

I don't understand why people are so closed minded and cannot respect both games.

Hey easy on fo3 there pal .
I swear I must be the smartest fallout 3 fan ever half of them are drooling retards.

Fallout 3 had about 116 confirmed quests last I was aware ffs.

People just spout crap believing it is right makes ya think how much they have even played the dam game.

Didn't NV have like more than double the quests of F3? And you are by far the smartest of the F3 fans, the majority mostly sound like the other fellow who put in his 2 cents.

Ohh i'm not disputing it new vegas crushed fallout 3 in terms of number of quests but remember josh sawyer saying they where shorter tho i'll try find the vid.

And to the two fallout 3 guys go to the vault and read everything you can then play fo1 n fo2 then comeback thanks.

Oh for the love of- This whole thread can be summed up in http://i754.photobucket.com/albums/xx181/Simon_Gardner/wrongontheinternet.gif image.

Seriously, Some people loved Fallout 3 and think it was superior, why? Because 3 was more built in the vein of an explorable sandbox, however it lacked in story. The people who enjoy 3 more probably enjoy a good sandbox over a good story. In reverse, people who liked New Vegas more probably enjoy a good story over a good sandbox. New Vegas has lovely dialogue, but it's exploration is horribly shorter than it could be. Despite New Vegas having a good story, exploration is it's failure point.

Personally, I enjoyed New Vegas a little more. Why? Because I enjoy a good story. But when I want a game that gives me a nostalgic yearning for a retro-futuristic world with remnants of a society that held the 'perfect' Atomic Family near and dear to it's heart? I go stomping into our nations capital ala Fallout 3. They're both massively enjoyable games, and very good Fallout games. Seriously, get off your high horses just because someone doesnt agree with your opinions, if you have that big a problem with different opinions someone needs to smash your router, since you do not belong on the internet. >_>

Sorry to through a spanner in the works but I just think I prefer it because it introduced me to the series I have a nostalgia for fallout 3 .