Most people who play Fallout 1 and 2 notice something Starkly different than what failed to occur in Fallout 3.

The single most aspect of failure in Fallout3 certainly wasnt the graphics or atmosphere, but Diplomacy.

What is meant by that is in Fallout 1 and 2 you could create a high charisma, high intellect character with no weapon skills. You could win the game only killing about 10-12 monsters. It was very difficult, but could be done if you planned it out right. Dialogue options didnt GIVE you quests, they could END them. In fact, you could make more experience points by talking them out and picking particular dialogue lines than if you fought your way to the goal.

I know the makers of New Vegas understand how this was a wretched shortcomming of Fallout3 and how Fallout3 was not fallout3 but like Fallout: Some other game. HOpefully, New Vegas will be Fallout3. I would be satisfied even with Fallout: 2.5 even at this point.

Also, you could have more than 1 person in your group. I had 6 characters in my group in Fallout 2. 5 is the max plus a wife, Miria. She wasnt very good, but with 4 other heavy fighters and my guy as healer/wimpy, she survived quite a long time. You could play as a group leader/general type which only healed others or ran away from unnecessary fights. The Outdoorsman skill made you able to choose to NOT fight random encounters in the wasteland. So, tagging this skill would be good for a Diplomatic character.

In Fallout3, I added a level of Int, used the +skill point per level perk, took the +2 skill points per book read perk, and wound up getting 80% or higher in all perks. The max was 100. There was no room for creativity as I was highly skilled in.... everything!! (really dumb for an rpg, right?)

I hope diplomacy is there in New Vegas. The average age of computer gamers is 33 years of age. Not 12.

I dont see anything wrong with fallout 3 but it will not be the real fallout 3. i think they should add a little more diplomacy that they had in the first & second game.

I agree with you but like 80% of Fallout 3 sells were on PS3 and Xbox 360, so obviously it's that audience that Beth is aiming for, it's all about money. But yeah, this game needs to incorporate more ways to role play, it's not all about killing, tactics can win battles too.

It would be nice to experiment with a persuasion character though and try to beat the game that way. But i would just be fine ripping someone to shreds with a ripper.

There were a bunch of Quests that I talked my way through in Fallout 3. :shrug:

Yeah, fallout series is not about killing. Fallout3 is not in the series at all. I can't see a thing besides the pipboy and the vault door being similar. Even the Power Armour is completely different, and also useless. It was rare, effective, and had no - agility. Agility is immensely more important than Strength in fallout3, and in F1 and F2.

but going back to Diplomacy, it adds for varying builds. Dialogue options that treebranch to COMPLETLEY different endings plus atmosphere makes an rpg. Otherwise it is an action game where the ending is obvious.

Did anyone notice how simplistic and obvious most dialogue was in Fallout3?

You stand before 400 soldiers in a room, your response to the leader who is currently smiling:
1. I would like to learn more about your faction
2. If you don't give me what I want I am going to pump you full of lead
3. I don't want to talk right now

Well, so much for rpg's and diplomacy... *snooze*

I know you are obviosly a big time fallout 1 and 2 fan but really just because fallout 3 has differint elements doesnt mean you should rash on it i really see no reason to say any of them are any better just because of dialoge choice.

Well killing is an aspect but there's more to killing than just killing. You have to have intelligence, you have to be smart, you have to have tactics so yeah I agree with you.

Yeah, the dialog choices are a bit dumbed down compared to the first two. Hopefully it has more depth in New Vegas.

Well. dumbed down is ONE thing. No options is another.

What I posted comprises 90% of dialogue "options". I know it is not easy to make millions of lines of tree-branching dialogues. However, I think it is much harder to make an engine and artwork like Fallout3. So, the effort was just not there.

Supposedly, if I react in varying ways on a quest, this changes how it works out conversationally when I talk again to those people.

However, the simplistic way is to make them just not want to talk to me anymore. That is when you Load last good saved game. That's not rpg, that's saving thegame 2-3x a day at various spots. Different is a different quest or at least maybe more hints instead of less, at the very least.

Rpg's are typically played without computers. yes, that's right folks, rpg's are played with dice in groups of people. the tree branching of the quests, fights, daily events and dialogue ARE the rpg. It really isnt tough to make a game like this. Even if it shortens the game, it will go down as an awesome game. Look at Arkham Asylum. I didnt find it that fascinating, and I know it isnt that long. It was a decent game, but everyone said" Very short" yet, it was top seller at ebgames and top rated. I know that this wasnt an rpg at all, but the idea that diplomacy can make a game pointless as it shortens it drastically (no grinding/exp'ing in the wilderness needed) But it makes it more popular and enjoyed by a large % of people.

The reason that Bethesda is "marketing" this game to younger people who like to shoot stuff in the face is that their product isnt wanted by mature people who: Have more money, play more games, and are a larger body of people. Now, I am all of those things but I am a fallout fanatic. I play them all and just enjoy them as they come. Yet, to make this geared toward and older and more contemplative crowd is not to take away sales from younger shoot em up fans. Why? well heres the reason:

Do children and young people want to model and mimic kids like them? Or advlts in power and control? Call of duty, you with characters in their 30's. Want to watch an action movie? Want to watch a 15 year old ? No. You want to watch Arnold Schwarzenegger pummel people with his 50+ year old biceps. So, the "halo effect" (not the game, the phenomenon) of catering to the older crowd always makes the younger fiend after it. WHen I was a kid, I wanted to date good looking older girls, but of course, this would fail so I wouldnt bother. Do kids play kids? Or do kids play: Doctor, House, Army, Cowboys, or maybe even Pirates and Ninjas

So, it is really a lack of trust in the huge pool of wealthy gamers to buy their stuff that makes Bethesda wimp out in designing more respectable aspects of their games. They seek to appeal to the young person who has friends and family buy their 60 dollar xbox games. They dont work yet, so I dont see this as a the be all and end all good "marketing" strategy.

Closed for trolling.

"Suggestions" for Fallout: New Vegas that are in fact thinly disguised disparagement of Fallout 3 are off topic on the Fallout: New Vegas forum.