Yep, Fallout 3 introduced me to the series too. It's kind of disappointing I seem to be one of the few who started with Fallout 3 and actually tried the past Fallouts too. It makes me want to hit the people who go 'I'm a fan of the Fallout series' then at the same time refuse to even try Fallout, Fallout 2 and Fallout Tactics just because it has 'old graphics'. Fallout 3 is just as good as Fallout and Fallout 2, but if you only play 3 and or New Vegas, you're missing half the experience ;(

I actually believe that Fallout 3's quests combined with their unmarked quests might total to close to the amount of New Vegas quests. But I'm not sure.



I absolutely agree with this.

I agree completely fo1 n 2 are the basis of the series and to just skip it because "ohh these graphikz soooo owldz weirz ma cull if dudy " it gave me so much more understanding when a beat the mq of fallout 1 and I started with fallout 3 aswell theres no excuse..

I started with Fallout 3 and prefer New Vegas. I've bought Fallout 1, 2 and Tactics and I will play them as soon as I finish Arkham City.

Well hurry up and get to them already!

Fallout new vegas with all the dlc's blows fallout 3 out of the water any day. Skyrim and Fallout 3 are very,very shallow games in terms of choices, well made characters and quest writing. Bethesda makes beautiful worlds, but their writing has become garbage after morrowind. So yeah, I hate the idea of bethesda making fallout 4, new vegas had depth, it had the right feeling, it had great characters, plenty of weapons, more fun gameplay overall and superior dlc's. And yeah if bethesda makes fallout 4 we can wave goodbye to everything we loved about new vegas. It will have shallow characters, they will bring back the horrible radiant story system from skyrim. Quest will be boring, writing will be worse, we will have much more limited choices in everything. We will walk around in a beautiful gameworld along with boring npc's without any depth to them. Companions will be even worse than in Skyrim i bet, if thats even possibe. So yeah, I think bethesda should give up making more fallout, they only do more damage to the series than good.

That's what happened to me, I started with Fallout 3, then played New Vegas, then played 1, 2, and Tactics when I heard that New Vegas was more like the original games in a lot of ways. I found that New Vegas was much more enjoyable once I played 1 and 2 because I actually understood the history of a lot of things in the game (NCR, plasma caster, smitty special, crimson caravan etc.)




http://i56.tinypic.com/250q8oi.jpg

Lol Tycho I need to save that pic to show to people that say FO3 has more quests.....XD

HOLY [censored]. Forget I said that.



What you are saying is the truth for Skyrim IMHO, but not Fallout 3.

Skyrim for me, was endless dungeon running, and it got boring after a long while.

Fallout 3 has a nostalgia that hits a certain number of Fallout fans. The one's that it doesn't hit, play New Vegas. You are obviously one of the people who don't have a nostalgia for it, which is fine, but puts you in no position to bash it.

Why is it every thread breaks down into a damn Fallout 3 vs every Fallout game? Some people need to seriously learn that criticism does not = an all out hate bashing attack of a damn game. Seriously people learn to take criticism. I would hate to see some of you people react when a professor or a couch tells you what you need to improve on.

Everyone has a opinion on what is the best Fallout. Some people have a super crush on Fallout 3. Fine I get that. Just don't jump all over me or others that point out why they don't like it. If you state why you disagree in a calm clear way then thats great. Don't pull ratings out of your ass and don't call people Bethesda hater.

On Topic: At some point Fallout will have to end, or the series will have to pull a Canticle for Leibowitz (great book).

Off topic but screw it; not worth making a thread over. What would I need to run Fallout and Fallout 2? My computers not good enough to run New Vegas or Fallout 3 so I don't think Ill be able to run them...

Um... Fallout New Vegas wins... Sorry, had to say it; but then again I play Fallout for the dialogue and world; I could probably live without the action as long as the writing was as good it was in NV; and yeah, I definitely think the Fallout series should end before it kills itself, but I really want to see at least another two games. The series seemed to of barely started for me because of the Fallout 3 introduction.

If your computer is from past the year 2000, it most likely can run the old games.

Sorry, just looked it up; dumb as hell question. Thanks; gonna download it soon; can't see GAME having a copy.

rockstar does make excellent games but there isn't a comparison , for one thing grand theft auto is a driving game, and red dead redemption is a good game but its kinda like grand theft auto except on a horse, so yeah rockstar games are great but trying to compare rockstar games to bethesda games is dumb. totally different genre's...rockstar games are story driven and the same thing is gonna happen each time, there's no factions, no exploring, no character development, no focus on combat or stealth at all, they have no rpg elements..so when you want exploration, combat, stealth, rpg elements...rockstar games aren't gonna give you that, and for that matter new vegas isn't gonna give you that either...now comparing new vegas and read dead redemption is probably a better comparison, but comparing bethesda games to rockstars is like comparing apples and oranges.

my opinion lines up with the gaming community....what 10 people on a game forum think is inconsequential to bethesdas success as game developers, bethesda has already been recognized for what they do so well, and what they do well, will be continued in FO4 just like it was in oblivion, FO3 and skyrim....the award winning formula stays the same.

That's great. Everyone wants the same award winning game with different paintjob over and over again.

Grand Theft Auto is not a driving a driving game, it is a sandbox game(open world), Fallout 3 and TES are also sandbox games(open world), they can be compared because they are both sandbox games(open world). It's not dumb to compare two similar concepts, it can actually be quite productive. Bethesda could certainly learn somethings from Rockstar. I don't mean game mechanics, but they can learn to put more focus on what makes RPG's interesting instead of just making them big and pretty. This is clearly possible since Rockstar focuses not only on making an incredibly vibrant world(I have always said that Liberty City, Vice City and San Andreas feel like characters in the games), but also manage to make a compelling story, with great dialogue and fascinating characters. Rockstar is far superior to Bethesda in one thing in particular: making you care.
There's a special phrase for this, it goes something like cookie cutter games. You're saying that doing the exact thing over and over again is going to satisfy the gaming community? Do not demean them like that.

Don't get me wrong, I love Bethesda and they do an excellent job in making their games fun and pretty, but like anyone they need to be criticized for when they make a lackluster effort in an area.

the bottom line is bethesda makes games people like and the get recognized for it by the entire gaming community..what terms you want to use "cookie cutter" etc are irrelevant, and bethesda games are not the "same old game" we had 20 years ago...ROFL first person games in general are relatively new, and sandbox/openworld games are even newer, and i don't hear people complaining about monopoly being "the same old game" tons of people of people still buy and play it, so yeah they're gonna keep making it...anyone with brains knows that if something isn't broken, you dont try to fix it.

First person games are anything but new. Sandbox open world games are not new either. See Daggerfall (incidentally a Bethesda game and the second iteration of the thing their still doing) for one example.

i can take criticisms just not every second post...
.
And to the people flabergasted by the pic of quests in both games Josh Sawyer said that quests work differently and are shorter than in fo3 so it doesn't tellt the full story lol

Fallout 1 and 2 do NOT need a good PC at all, I can run it on my cheap 2001 laptop, at max FPS. Fallout 1 and 2 are from the 1990's, so you OBVIOUSLY don't really need a good computer for them. Hope it helped

Anyone with any kind of brain knows that you can't keep on doing the same thing to entertain people over and over again or you are going to lose fans. The things that make games interesting and separates them from the crowd of other beautiful games is the story, the dialogue, the characters and the emotion that they make you feel, all of these things are definitely not fixed in Bethesda games. I didn't use the words "same old game" anywhere in my comment so the quotations are not appropriate. You said that they will continue the "award winning formula"(correct use of quotations) they had in Oblivion, Fallout 3 and Skyrim, this sounds like you want them to continue this cookie cutter formula of making big, pretty and largely soulless games.

As UnDeCafIndeed said neither of the genres you mentioned are new. Doom came out in 1993, Daggerfall came out in 1996 and Grand Theft Auto came out in 1997.

These are the official Bethesda forums, their are Bethesda employees on these forums. We are definitely not all of their fanbase, but we are the easiest way for them to access to it.

Its stil criticism, not an attack. Take the time to see what section of the forum you are in. Take a look at the topic and what it is about. Sit back and think before you post. As I once told you, in the Fallout 3 section, for every one post you see there, there is another 5 I didn't bother to post.

As for quest. They are different then Fallout 3 and some are shorter, but what I notice about New Vegas' quests. Is that they are like the orginals. There are many ways to finish them. Most of New Vegas' quest have an option to talk your way out of killing. Whereas alot of Fallout 3's don't have such an option.

Yeah we are in the new vegas forums yet most people are anti fo3 and not pro fonv ,and werent you the first or second to bring up fallout 3 in this thread rather needlessly?