Well you have to accept that the majority of the current fallout fanbase started with Fallout 3. The original fallout fans are actually a minority. Bethesda/Obsidian are a business after all, and must cater to the majority rather than the minority. In the future Fallouts, you can expect a more Fallout 3 feel, with exploring and an exciting game world filled with quests and dungeons with a decent story, as opposed to a brilliantly told story with a more static game world. It's just what gaming has become. I'm not saying it's bad, either, as I consider myself a Bethesda fan more than an Obsidian fan.

Well you have to accept that the majority of the current fallout fanbase started with Fallout 3.
The original fallout fans are actually a minority.
Bethesda/Obsidian are a business after all, and must cater to the majority rather than the minority.
In the future Fallouts, you can expect a more Fallout 3 feel, with exploring and an exciting game world filled with quests and dungeons with a decent story, as opposed to a brilliantly told story with a more static game world.
It's just what gaming has become.
I'm not saying it's bad, either, as I consider myself a Bethesda fan more than an Obsidian fan.

No, i dont, there is no proof of that.
A medium-sized established fanbase is worth more in the long run than a large fanbase that may or may not stick to the franchise.
Minus the "quests" "static" (The originals were far more dynamic than Fallout 3) and you're statement is worded correctly, but it is not right, that all future Fallouts will have a non-Fallout feel, i so do refuse.
If that is true, it is sad, it used to be for gamers by gamers, games for nerds, before the coming of "casual gamers".
I consider myself a Fallout fan.

In the future Fallouts, you can expect a more Fallout 3 feel, with exploring and an exciting game world filled with quests and dungeons with a decent story, as opposed to a brilliantly told story with a more static game world. It's just what gaming has become.

Before the coming of casual gamers id consider the ps1 to be the start of the "casual game saga" it opened up gaming for the masses so the old fallouts are in this time period and i wouldn't consider fo3 to be casual.

The original Fallouts were made in 1997 for PC, they once made a game for the PS2, the Burned Game, then they made another FO3, and led to a rapid dilution of an established loyal fanbase with casual gamers.

I fail to see how the fan base was diluted with "casual gamers" please explain.

Not that all casual gamers are bad, but now they seem to be who Bethesda listens to, and not the old fans that had waited for so long, staying loyal, instead catering to Action Adventure Shooter crowds and giving the old guard of cRPG fans, Fallout fans, the cold shoulder.

I'd say catering for the tes (wich i don't se as casual.)fans but not you're random casual cod chump.

And the term "simulation" was added with Fallout 3 onwards

McClellan Townhouse

No, the exploration in FO3 was great, but did not make any sense.

"Electricity, pre-war electronic equipment, powered and still working computers (just think about that for a second), working cola & snack machines, weapons, ammo, scrap metal (needed by many), and even unlooted first aid boxes are everywhere."

"In fact, I'm not sure that the people you meet are even aware that they are living in a post-apocalyptic environment. One woman is writing a survival guide (a couple of centuries too late for that, don’t you think?), being genuinely curious about what happens when you step on a mine. Another lady is busy collecting Nuka-cola bottles and giving Nuka-Cola history tours. Makes sense, what else is there to do in a post-apocalyptic world? "

"he biggest problem is not so much that it isn’t Fallout, but rather that the setting doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. Bethesda had an opportunity to craft a cohesive “living & breathing” world, but instead chose to build an amusemant park with a bit of everything ‘cool’ they could think of. To be fair, some things Bethesda did are brilliant and atmospheric, but they are isolated elements that never form a coherent and consistent world that makes even the most basic sense."

"The war-torn environment is superb. Broken buildings, highways, and bridges, interiors, ruined subway stations, the remains of the capital city are done nicely and convincingly. It’s a fantastic work, even if it’s off the mark by 200 years."

"Unfortunately, the previously mentioned design decisions cripple the exploration a bit. It’s relatively easy to acquire the best equipment and max your key skills before you see half of the gameworld. Considering that many places don’t have any “reward” other than killing and looting whatever inhabits them, it would have been nice to have something else to do there other than sight-seeing and looting."

All quotes taken from http://www.nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=47347

Before the coming of casual gamers id consider the ps1 to be the start of the "casual game saga" it opened up gaming for the masses so the old fallouts are in this time period and i wouldn't consider fo3 to be casual.

The original Fallouts were made in 1997 for PC, they once made a game for the PS2, the Burned Game, then they made another FO3, and led to a rapid dilution of an established loyal fanbase with casual gamers.

Mmm never knew that a desert with nothing to do is more entertaining than D.C. area. Walking around in the mojave is joyful if you dont expect ANY combat...

You're quoting from No-Mutants? Of course it's all going to be negative. :facepalm: It's not all mindless sight seeing and looting. Go back and read some of the previous statements made by people in this thread. There are stories behind some of those places in FO3.

what it comes down to is this, lets say you live in a hovel with no power, thats barely standing up from a bombed out neighborhood. The house next to you is fairly intact, has power, and is full of food and pre war tech. It is abandoned. Do you or anyone else in 200 years not move in and make it there own?

So, the New Vegas equivalent of F3's exploring (according to some people here) is talking to people at locations. Ok. That's all well and good. But insanely more boring and repetitive than dungeons. In a dungeon, you can't tell what's around the corner, you're scared, but also determined to loot/kill/explore/whatever. When I'm in a town full of people who have no intention of killing me, sure I'll talk to them, learn some new stuff, but there's just no excitement, no pull factors. Information in Fallout 3 was harder to get as terminals/notes/objectives were at the end of buildings full of enemies. Clearing out a building gave you some form of a reward, a little info on the location, or loot. I can definitely see why some people don't miss this stuff at all, but I can't imagine why they consider a few more lines of dialogue to be a satisfactory replacement.

And anyone arguing realism and believability really ought to stop playing video games.

I think some people would prefer that the desert has a dungeon, a town, a place of intrest and a phat loot stash every few paces.

Then they can complain that the map feels too small.

No, it's just seems to be the only thing Bethesda can do. After Skyrim it should be easy to predict what Fallout 4 will be like.

I played the Hell out of every Fallout Game and I spend next to no time on NMA and I also enjoyed Fallout 3 but I do find that most of Fallout 3 is mindless, EXPLOSIONS with very poor writing that forces you to side with "the good guys" over the bad guys. The game only give you two options (well it says it does :rolleyes: ). As my earlier post states that on the the back of Fallout 3 says "Are you good or evil?" There are some awesome holotapes in Fallout 3 but it does not excuse the crappy back stories behind locations and the game world. Coming across towns with only two people or people that sell junk :facepalm:

Funny thing is, the map is already been judged as too small despite it being almost exactly the same size as Fallout 3.

This.

What is it?

I guess it wouldn t help if the map was opened becuse they really didn t put anything on what they have.

Back to COMBAT yeah I said it. There s people afraid in this tread to write the word COMBAT, because they think or will get bashed.

The people that most sain people r going to see as as the eneny in their first play through svck at COMBAT. Lore might say Ceasar read books about the Roman Legion, but I can asure u from playing the game he didnt. The Roman Legion brings swords and shields and archers that shoot flaming arrows into COMBAT. When in COMBAT the real Roman Legion closes ranks and protects each other with their shields. No old guard sees any problem with the lack of in game tactics and strength of CL. You have to be mad because thier lore says that copied the once great Roman Legion, but when in COMBAT they run away like little girls. There tactics and equip. r nothing like the Roman Legion. Matter of fact they make the Roman Legion look bad. Any coments on that from and old guard???