[Breanna Van Dijk]

But personal feelings can't just redefine the original games. You can't say blood and gore are "Winnie the Pooh-y". You can't say that Darth Vader being Luke's father isn't "Star Wars-y". If it's in the original series, from that original momentum and team, then it's an aspect of the series. You can NOT LIKE IT, but it IS Fallout-y.

People can make mistakes ~and admit them (like the guy who made the chess playing scorpion in Fallout 2). Just because its included the game doesn't mean it should be ~look at "toilet drinking".

[Stay-C]

I think you should just look at the "over the top" stuff as just that, easter egg stuff, not nessisarily as rock solid canon. While I didn't mind New Reno at all it was actually a lot of fun finding out everything you could do there. I still haven't found out how to do certain things yet!

Edit: typo!

[Lance Vannortwick]

I think you should just look at the "over the top" stuff as just that, easter egg stuff, not nessisarily as rock solid canon. While I didn't mind New Reno at all it was actually als oof fun finding out everything you could do there. I still haven't found out how to do certain things yet!

:foodndrink:
That's basically how I look at them as well.

[Karine laverre]

:foodndrink:
That's basically how I look at them as well.

And me. And I feel that's exactly how they should be taken. Though people can go as far as to take offense, it seems o_O

[RAww DInsaww]

People can make mistakes ~and admit them (like the guy who made the chess playing scorpion in Fallout 2). Just because its included the game doesn't mean it should be ~look at "toilet drinking".

Yes, but there appears to be an appalling double standard when we compare the mistakes of the earlier fallouts with the mistakes of the current one. None of these games are perfect, of course but a defining feature of being a fan is the ability to overlook or discount the failures of focus of fanaticism. To me, the New REno thing, the scorpion thing (thanks for reminding me...I had forgotten about THAT) and the out of character humor broke that game. To you, thery appear to be just points to shrug off, like I tend to shrug off the many faults of FO3.

[Roberta Obrien]

To me that stuff was ment just as it was supoosed to be. I laughed at them and then carried on. Just like in movies you have the comic relief character...

[Michael Korkia]

Yes, but there appears to be an appalling double standard when we compare the mistakes of the earlier fallouts with the mistakes of the current one. None of these games are perfect, of course but a defining feature of being a fan is the ability to overlook or discount the failures of focus of fanaticism. To me, the New REno thing, the scorpion thing (thanks for reminding me...I had forgotten about THAT) and the out of character humor broke that game. To you, thery appear to be just points to shrug off, like I tend to shrug off the many faults of FO3.

I have never thrown toliet drinking into the mox of things that bug me in FO3. Because it doesn't. I have never tried to biasly bring FO3 down, every point I have made has been objective and a result of much consideration. Toilet drinking doesn't ruin it, flying deathclaws don't ruin it. Broken S.P.E.C.I.A.L, very much ruins it.

I can shrug off the things in the originals because, like FO3, the associated content under scrutiny isn't that gamebreaking.

[Liv Brown]

To me that stuff was ment just as it was supoosed to be. I laughed at them and then carried on. Just like in movies you have the comic relief character...

But it's NOT a movie, and for those of us who role play our characters by seeing the game through the eyes of our character, all of that was just too much. I don't mind humor at all, but it is possible to juse humor in a way taht doesn't break immersion.

[CArlos BArrera]

I have never thrown toliet drinking into the mox of things that bug me in FO3. Because it doesn't. I have never tried to biasly bring FO3 down, every point I have made has been objective and a result of much consideration. Toilet drinking doesn't ruin it, flying deathclaws don't ruin it. Broken S.P.E.C.I.A.L, very much ruins it.

I can shrug off the things in the originals because, like FO3, the associated content under scrutiny isn't that gamebreaking.

Isn't that gamebreaking TO YOU.

Yet you aren't the only one playing these games, and those who share your style of gameplay aren't the only ones playing these games either.

[Kayleigh Williams]

They are all good games. I can't complain overly much about FO, FO2 or FO3. Each had things I was unhappy with but all are superb games. And I have every reason to believe this one will be splendid as well.

I imagine I could strip any of them to bare bones and find numerous problems...but why bother when I can just play them and I enjoy them all to overlook any flaws that might exist.

It all boils down to personal preferences anyway. :shrug:

[James Baldwin]

But it's NOT a movie, and for those of us who role play our characters by seeing the game through the eyes of our character, all of that was just too much. I don't mind humor at all, but it is possible to juse humor in a way taht doesn't break immersion.

Well I can't claim that you play the game wrong... but is it possible that you are not playing it as the developer's intended?

I mean... If they (for the months they scrutinized it and tested it), if they played it as you did, would they not also have been put off by it (and perhaps "corrected it") ~but clearly they weren't; They left what they had, and even added more later on.

[Jaki Birch]

Well I can't claim that you play the game wrong... but is it possible that you are not playing it as the developer's intended?

I mean... If they (for the months they scrutinized it and tested it), if they played it as you did, would they not also have been put off by it (and perhaps "corrected it") ~but clearly they weren't; They left what they had, and even added more later on.

You word that as if the developers can't make mistakes.

[Chloe Yarnall]

Well I can't claim that you play the game wrong... but is it possible that you are not playing it as the developer's intended?

I mean... If they (for the months they scrutinized it and tested it), if they played it as you did, would they not also have been put off by it (and perhaps "corrected it") ~but clearly they weren't; They left what they had, and even added more later on.

Oh, but this game addresses my RP needs much better tahn FO1/2 did, so I'm not complaining...much.

[kasia]

Oh, but this game addresses my RP needs much better tahn FO1/2 did, so I'm not complaining...much.

Nice Avatar.

I can accept that.

In my case my contention is still being upset that they made it a sequel. Grafting TES onto the Fallout IP
[dictating the future format, and destroying all chance of a Fallout 3 that fits with the series :shrug:]

Its by no means not a fun game or even not a good game, but it is the wrong game.

[IMO]

You word that as if the developers can't make mistakes.

That's true. { :hehe: but technically I was only referring to Fallout 2 }

Well, I'm pretty sure they did make mistakes in the second one (though not the ones most commonly pointed at).

In Fallout 1, they designed the combat/skills engine, then the setting, and then played it, and tinkered with it until it met their vision of what they wanted. ~In this light... what mistakes?

[Robert Garcia]

In my case my contention is still being upset that they made it a sequel.

Indeed. Fallout: Capital Wasteland would be a more fitting title, just like Fallout: New Vegas is.

-Slavers ()roll the Hub into New Reno);

You mean the Den? There were no slavers in the Hub.

[~Sylvia~]

Nice Avatar.

I can accept that.

In my case my contention is still being upset that they made it a sequel. Grafting TES onto the Fallout IP
[dictating the future format, and destroying all chance of a Fallout 3 that fits with the series :shrug:]

Its by no means not a fun game or even not a good game, but it is the wrong game.

[IMO]

Certainly. I fully undersatand the difference in playstyles. That's why this F:NV is so interesting....I would expect that you will get a little more of waht you are looking for, and maybe so will I.

Who knows, if F:NV is financially successful, perhaps this is where the franchise diverges into a "console" path and a "traditional" path. Now wouldn't that be interesting...

[kyle pinchen]

Certainly. I fully undersatand the difference in playstyles. That's why this F:NV is so interesting....I would expect that you will get a little more of waht you are looking for, and maybe so will I.

That would be a good turn ~of events.

[Laura-Jayne Lee]

Who knows, if F:NV is financially successful, perhaps this is where the franchise diverges into a "console" path and a "traditional" path. Now wouldn't that be interesting...

F:NV will also be released for consoles and will have the gameplay style of FO3. I don't really see how it's going to be that "traditional" to be a point of divergence of any kind.

Sure, the quests and writing might be more to my linking, but likely not much else. Has potential for a good spin-off, but it won't be a "traditional" sequel. nor will it be any less of a console game than FO3.

[Joanne Crump]

I never saw the humor in Fallout 2 to be immersion-breaking. Perhaps it is because I started with Fallout 2, but to me all that stuff was internally consistent with the kind of world I was playing in. Science! doesn't take itself seriously, half of both games don't take themselves seriously, they're both games with a lot of humor in them. I played Fallout 2 specifically for the humor and atmosphere, the same way I play an old LucasArts or Sierra adventure game.

[Sandeep Khatkar]

Indeed. Fallout: Capital Wasteland would be a more fitting title, just like Fallout: New Vegas is.



You mean the Den? There were no slavers in the Hub.

Yes Den.

Sue me...I'm playing FO1 right now.

[RAww DInsaww]

tired of games in Vegas why not the great city of Houston??? bigger better!!! :gun:

[Nany Smith]

I hope they have all the new hotels in the game. It wouldn't make sense to have them, but all the old hotels aren't that interesting.

[Harry Hearing]

I hope they have all the new hotels in the game. It wouldn't make sense to have them, but all the old hotels aren't that interesting.

Less of this

Vegas hotels may been completely obliterated for all we know, then you don't get your old, or new hotels, how do you like THEM apples mutfruits!?

[Jade Muggeridge]

I would find it annoying if it was just a gambling den with nothing else. If all they did was gamble, what do they have to actually gamble. If nobody earns money, what can you risk? Dirt?

[Jeff Tingler]

F:NV will also be released for consoles and will have the gameplay style of FO3. I don't really see how it's going to be that "traditional" to be a point of divergence of any kind.

Sure, the quests and writing might be more to my linking, but likely not much else. Has potential for a good spin-off, but it won't be a "traditional" sequel. nor will it be any less of a console game than FO3.

Ausir, at this point, any move towards your ideal has to be good. It's not likely you will ever get all of what you want, but none of us will. If the franchise diverges here, you may get a MORE traditional series of games, with strong storytelling, better dialogue, and the other RPG features that tend not to do well financially these days. It's preobably the best you can hope for.