Ohh look your first post is about fallout 3 check .
Miss point of the topic check .
Generally negative borderline flame bait check .
And still have an arrogant attitude saying I need to check what fourm section i'm in check.

You woud think being a patriarch (spelling) you would follow op intended topic a bit more.

I have at least three first person games installed ~from the 1980's, and Fallout itself was a sandbox game (though you could affect the world); and didn't Bethesda release an open world Terminator game with a scale model of Los Angeles as the map (in 1987 IIRC*)?

*As I don't have that one, let me check...

** Nope, I was wrong, it was 1991.

yeah GTA is an open world game, but its a totally different type of game then a bethesda game, first of all bethesda games are a hybrid rpg/action/adventure with the emphasis on exploration and combat...and thats not close to grand theft auto, where there is an emphasis on driving around and basically just following through the story, so its part driving game, although it does add the open world element, which is great, but its not close to a bethesda game as far as gameplay and gameworld, GTA is in a different genre, no charcter development or creation, its not combat oriented like a bethesda game either, its not even partly stealth oriented either, or exploration oriented, its none of that...its a great game still but its its own type of game, so not sure what you're trying to accomplish here but rock star makes a totally different type of game then bethesda does, so there's no point in comparing them.

it doens't sound to me like bethesda games are for you, as far as bethesda "turning over" the fallout franchise to obsidian, ROFL.

So you chose to completely ignore my comment explaining why.

Sorry but gta and beths games are nothing a like .

If Bethesda does not want to impress Fallout fans who have been with the series, that is fine. They would do well to remember, however, that the base that made Fallout the successful IP it is today were not the F3 fans but the F1 and F2 fans. Obsidian impressed a lot of the old fans with their direction for the series, and thus recaptured a lot of the old fan-base who were disillusioned with F3 and Bethesda's take on the series. Does Bethesda want to lose those fans again? My senses tell me no, so I'm sure they'll adopt some of what Obsidian applied in F:NV to F4.

I love Bethesda's open world technical achievements. However, their stories are garbage, and not worthy of being slapped on a series called Fallout. If they would let Obsidian do the story lines of the future games, that would please both fan bases. The people who enjoyed F3 would get more of the wonderful world and landscapes they want, and the F:NV fans would get the stories and memorable characters Obsidian can provide.

I agree, I don't want to see something I deeply enjoy turn into.. Final Fantasy.. It's clearly out-living it's purpose. Fallout deserves better, best-case scenario is that they continue and they become mediocre at best. But really, if you can derail from the Final Fantasy series path, ( Which I used to dearly love so much ) by all means prove me wrong. But at some point I expect to see recycling or cliche pinpoints. Thats IF they choose to bathe it in some Welch's undying graqe juice. But then again, Bethesda only has the license left for one more Fallout game if i'm not mistaken. I just don't know what they want with it, considering how 'grand' New vegas was. I think that WAS supposed to be a expansion. But somehow got turned into something all it's own. Unintentional inspiration turned rogue game? Or rushed out Fallout 3 we don't want to do this anymore nonsense? I unno', but I enjoyed it. It wasn't so bad.

But ultimately. No. No more Fallout tri-billion-fecta-eleven-teen-cucumber. Unless you get on those massively amazing intertwining stories or something on an impressively breathtaking scale.

Id love to see more titles only after they figure out a fix for the game lagging and freezing as the save file grows.

And that picture didn't even include the quests for OWB and LR


Yeah, they do work differently. There are generally more choices to be made when completing quests in New Vegas, so while the average quest might be shorter than the average quest in Fallout 3, there are more ways to complete the quests in New Vegas. (So basically what Styles was saying) Choices also add a lot of replay value to the game, and open up the game to different character builds.

Also keep in mind that there are a lot of side quests in New Vegas that are considerably long, such as There Stands the Grass, The White Wash, Still in the Dark, Return to Sender, For Auld Lang Syne, and Beyond the Beef just to name a few.



And your post here is...?

Styles knows what he's talking about, and the points you've made about New Vegas quests vs. Fallout 3 quests make people here think that you do not know what you're talking about.

Him being a patriarch doesn't mean you can diss on his post, thinking that it isn't on the topic, it means that he's been around for a damn long time, and knows a damn lot about the Fallout series, which you, again, don't seem to have a grip on.

You have to accept that New Vegas might have more content, including longevity in quests.

New Vegas also has immense replay-ability because there are six ways to go in New Vegas, and only one in Fallout 3's main quest.

We are all eTuff, I understand.

Now, if we cant play nice, you all are going to have to sit in a time-out.

First rule of Internet Tough Guys:

Do not talk about being eTuff.

To be fair, the comparison is kind of deceptive. FNV does probably have more stuff to do than FO3, but not several times more than FO3 like a direct comparison of the quest lists seems to imply. There are a bunch of quests in FNV that are super short, and seem more like excuses to pun on the quest name than anything else (which is awesome, by the way). Did 'Keep Your Eyes On the Prize' and 'Cold Cold Heart' really need to be two separate missions for example? And then there are the failure-only 'quests' - 'The House Has Gone Bust' and its ilk.

Says the least mature participant of this thread. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

I don't bash Fallout 3. I have said many times that Fallout 3 was and is a very entertaining game. I did enjoy the exploration. As a Fallout game having played them all, I feel Fallout 3 falls short when it comes to being an RPG. Falls short as a Fallout game. The writing isn't great (putting it nice). Remember there are other Fallout games.

I would love for Obsidian to make all Fallout games from now on. Do I really think thats going to happen? No, I am not that stupid. Do I believe Bethesda will completely change how they make games? Again I am not that stupid. All I want is for Bethesda to put more thought into the game world. Exploration is great, but put some thought into it. The Who, What, When Where, Why and How, should be explained. Focus more on RPG than FPS.

I see no reason why Fallout 3 and New Vegas can't have a baby to make Fallout 4.

Edit: At least I try not to bash it. I can be harsh about Fallout 3's writing.

If they did, it would play out like a bad soap opera.

Fallout 3: Don't you love me? I cook, I clean, I do everything for you! What about the baby?

Fallout 4: Dada. Dada.

New Vegas: I'm sorry, but you're just not my type. I'm going out with someone else now.

Fallout 3: You... you cheated on me?

New Vegas: Yes...

DUN DUN DUNNNN

Yeah, basically if New Vegas + 3 create Fallout 4, it's going to be a disaster, mainly because of pacing. New Vegas encouraged you to do side quests by intentionally having your quest markers drag you through populated locations. Fallout 3, on the other hand, scoops you up and drags you through the main story because all the locations you pass pretty much are essential to the main story. The only way to deviate off of Fallout 3's main story is to wander off the beaten path. It's not a bad idea, but the pacing is completely off from New Vegas, which encouraged you to do side quests without making you feel like you had to venture off of the main quest on your own to find them.

Most people say that Fallout 3's biggest advantage is that it did exploration better. That and the atmosphere.

IMO all Fallout games have a great amount of exploration. Fallout 3's is more of dungeon crawling (not totally a bad thing). Would Fallout 3 have suffered if it had some healthy green trees along the rivers and people growing some corn? I don't think so.

Would New Vegas svck if it has a couple more dungeon like areas? I don't think so.

So a mix of Fallout 3 exploration and atmoshphere with New Vegas' great writing and atmosphere. Things will be good. Throw in Fallout Tactics combat system and Fallout and Fallout 2 levelling character creation system and it would be the best game ever.

If future games focused more on RPG over FPS, focused on explaining things and stick to canon. I would be happy.

I explained it to the other guy and he decided to completely ignore it.
I'm saying that GTA and Fallout 3/TES are both sandbox games. Every console GTA game has had an amazing environment, an interesting story, fascinating characters and great dialogue. Fallout 3/TES only have one of those things I mentioned. The point of my comparison is that Bethesda(who deliver a fun, pretty and shallow game) could learn from Rockstar's(who deliver a fun, pretty and interesting game) example.

fallout has outlived it purpose ? sounds more to me like you don't like it that bethesda owns the fallout franchise and they made it so freaking successful it bothers you...they made fallout better than its ever been and they make great games and everyone knows it...bottom line..every one of their games is rated at like 9 or 10 by the entire gaming community...i never played a bad bethesda game, and i've played like 5 of their games the last 10 years....their worst game is better than most games ever will be.

Really, they make great games?
I beg of you, Check out the skyrim forum as well as F3, you can't go more than 2 threads before seeing something along the lines of: How long untill you got bored with Skyrim, WTF is wrong with destruction, and my personal favorite on skyrims is a thread created for the soul purpose of complaining about skyrim.
Great games usually don't have more bad feed back than I could read in a lifetime. F3 and Skyrim were GOOD action-adventure games that rode the hype-train all the way to the bank.

God, it's not like we hate F3 or skyrim, but we do hate seeing such lost potential. You can't tell me than any single part of skyrim or F3 actually grabbed you and made you say 'holy [censored]! That was amazing'

Most the time your saying something like:
[censored] skyrim, [censored] it's stupid leveling [censored] system [censored] [censored] [censored] [censored] no I dividuality [censored] [censored] [censored] lame NPC, stupid one shot [censored] [censored] Mage, [censored] [censored] WHAT MAGIC? [censored] [censored] lame skills, [censored] [censored]!! Skyrim can svck my [censored] [censored] [censored]. Sack of [censored] excuse of an RPG!

People here would like a joint effort of both studios and you just keep flat out accusing everyone of not liking Bethesda owning the franchise? I mean... is that your only argument here? Really?

It's.... a bit pathetic. Just sayin'

He's just a kid, it seems like. Ignore him. His grammar, to his childish opinion on the Bethesda games points it out quite well IMHO.

Every single post he's put on the New Vegas forums has been absolutely meaningless.

On Topic: It doesn't bother me that Bethesda owning the rights to this MMO, but they made some big, fat, obvious mistakes in Fallout 3 and I hope they learned from them.

They also could learn a lot from New Vegas and its DLC's as well.

Agreed, this is Bethesda first Fallout game and they did what their good at, Large open word games, with interesting places to explore ( like matyr said) and it worked! Granted the story could have been better and perhaps some more quest but that’s what Obilsain (spelt wrong) did with New Vegas.

When they make fallout XXXX I hope they learned what to do to improve it and make it better for new & old fans

if you don't like how bethesda makes games now, you're never gonna like the games they make, all their games are massive sucesses, they make the type of games their fans like, they aren't gonna ditch their game style and make some old ass rpg nobody wants to play, they don't make old fashioned rpgs, they put a lot of time into making their game environments, all those locations aren't just for show, like the downtown dc area, all the underground bases and dungeons, all those locations like la enfant plaza, the capitol building etc. they aren't there just to look at, for people who like combat and sneaking around stalking enemies etc, those locations are fun, lots of nooks and crannies to hide in, all sorts of large building complexes and ancient ruins, thats the type of game they make. i don't expect id software to change the types of games they make, or valve, they aren't gonna change how they make their games, why would they, they all make great games already. bethesda is no different.

Oh my god... I NEVER said they were gotta get rid of that BUT to improve on it, like for example have their be more qeusts the player can do,