Don't really think that's a spoiler, but fixed anyway. As for quality of writing, that's hardly something i expect to be high on a game. Every story has already been told, we are just getting reworded remakes now

For me the dialogue lines are just there to give the meaning, i write the dialogue of my characters

In any game where I cannot type my responses from scratch, I cannot fully get into my character conversation-wise, that's the nature of someone else writing your lines for you. Fallout 1, 2, 3 New Vegas and Torment all had at least one dialogue choice that I thought was bad, ill-fitting or just dumb. Man, looking back, I would have missed so much good stuff if I shut the game off on any of those.

Interestingly enough, the line you mentioned from Fallout 3 I never thought of as bad because it never occured to me that it was intended as a serious response. I thought it was sarcastic. I could be totally wrong about that, but that was the impression I got.

As far as the topic of the thread: I agree that this game is more in line with the first and second games. That hasn't changed my very high opinion of the third one though, especially since without it, we wouldn't have Fallout New Vegas at all. I'm thankful.

I disagree, I think it feels nothing like Fallout 1 and 2. It's Fallout 3 with a different story and different voice actors/characters.

If you hated FO3 because of it's story... then you missed out on a lot of fun game play imo the story was just something to do when you need an EX boost and you can skip past dialogue and read the subtitles if the voice acting bothers you that much (honestly most of your time in that game is spent running around the wasteland and shooting at stuff though.. much the same in NV).

Just a few things that aren't present that defined the old series: enter/exit grids that allowed you to escape...anything, time limit until 'game over', turn-based combat with a very buggy aiming system (3 missed 95% shots in a row weren't in-frequent), easier games once you knew how to obtain power armor/powerful weapon early in the game.

Personally I'm probably going to get an angry reply stating how wrong I am but I believe you really wanted FO3 to be good, but you hate Bethesda's games, so you wouldn't allow yourself to like it. Now that the old games devs helped polish their own FO3 out of Beth's engine/game, you allow yourself to enjoy Fallout 3's gameplay system. Yeah the nice voice acting helps too I suppose though I'm starting to wonder if there's only 1 male voice actor in the entire game... for the NCR.

Cheers mate :foodndrink: we are on the boat

FO3 was a big let down for me as well. New Vegas is alot better and is a true Fallout. Not trying to upset FO3 fans, its a fallout game yes but to me it felt like it was trying to look fallout while doing its best to be oblivion or some other sandbox game.

Sounds alot like Fallout 1 and 2. Both involve blowing places up at the ending. Only difference is they "wanted to take over the world, nooooooooooooooooo"...

At least they were original Fallout games :whistling: FO3 just copied the original stories, half baked and rehashed them and made sure to remove the elements that made the originals great.

What elements were removed? It's not a loaded question, I honestly want to know.

Fallout 2 Enclave = Take over america.

Fallout 3 Enclave = Take over america.

Fallout 1 Supermutants = Mutate everyone.

Fallout 3 Supermutants = Mutate everyone.

@ Person above this post: They removed intresting dialouge, Decent story behind things, Killed off Harold, Removed SPECIAL's importance, Removed decent game balancing, Any good RPG elements. (Yeah you can level up, Yeah you have conversations, BUT YOU ONLY CHANGE THREE THINGS IN THE FREAKING GAME.)

Heres what those things are.

Daddy says you been a good boy/girl, or daddy says you been a bad girl/boy.
You poison water, Or you don't.
You send someone else into the purifier, Or you don't.

Define original? Fallout wasn't "original mad max" but it "stole" from that and the game "Wasteland". Fallout 3 breathed new life into a very, very dead game. The people at Bethesda were fans of Fallout like you and me, they just wanted to make a new game. You look at it as though all they wanted was money and profit. I disagree, half baked and rehash are a matter of opinion, not fact.

They bought a license to a story and game world. They did their best with the tools they were familiar with to craft their own unique story in the Fallout universe. North America is a big place. Why does everything have to revolve around "how they did it" in the old games States? All kinds of hell could have unleashed in the other united states, and FO3 is saying what happened in washington.
*shrug*

I think that the originals had terrible design choices of their own. Namely enter/exit grids, time limits until o no the world is gona end!, most of the skills were useless (outdoorsman, gambling, stealing, throwing, etc) and sloppy combat that lied to you about how accurate your shots were. Apparently 95% meant "haha get ready to waste some ammo".

Furthermore, those games were far easier. Slayer perk anyone? Power armor at level 1? Save/load spamming and running to exit grids to easily bypass end-game enemies?

People need to take off their rose colored nostalgia glasses.. :rolleyes: FO3 was better in every way. That includes the camera that is far superior for immersion and exploration. imo

Damage threshold and six being able to go past 100 in skills, traits, ammo had no weight. Removed might have been to strong of word changed might be better, perks every level, skill books everywhere. No green plants but Oasis and later point look out. Everything radioactive. FO3 just had no challenge for me at all. I had to always handicap myself just to get the hint of challenge. Every other fallout game provides a challenge. I can go any place in FO3 and only run into some enemies of my skill or lower. Originals and New Vegas I can run into dozen or so enemies far greater then my skills.

Original as in they did not copy one another. Wasteland was given creadit for inspiring FO1 and was even talked about.

Power Amour at level one if you know where it is and you want to kill yourself getting to its location. Its every hard to get to it. I die 99% (takes hours and hours of saving, getting killed and reloading to get there, inch by damn inch) of the times I tried to get it at level one. PA in FO3 was a joke, I was killing Enclave with pistols at level one!

I would rather have great story and characters, quests over finding nothing but skill books and teddy bears!

Wasteland was created by some of the same dudes who created Fallout

and thats only you opinion, not all of us watch FO3 like better game than the originals,maybe is easier for you, maybe is easier for others, maybe is easier now, back in the nineties it wasnt easier

Power armor at level 1?. are you kidding?

They did want money.

No company buys license to make a game unless they want to profit.

Also, Just because you like shooters does'nt mean it was better in everyway, The only reason the camera work was better is because in the originals, THERE WERE NO [censored] CAMERAS.

It was a top down game, PA at level one? You can do this in fallout 3, I ran from Vault 101 to D.C. once, Killed a BoS person with a 10MM pistol, Took his PA.

While I was'nt able to wear it, I could still get it, Fallout 1/2? You have to [censored] go through about three hours of gameplay JUST to get it, So if you are that bad at the game to still be level one after that, No wonder why you like Failout 3 better.


AND Outdoorsman was helpful, Unless you want to have to fight about 30 things just to get somewhere in fallout 2, You'd need Ourdoorsman, Gambling was useless, Stealing? Are you kidding me? You have to be really bad at stealing if you think its useless, Sloppy combat? You must be confusing the first games with Fallout 3.
Also, Just because you exploit the game mechanics does'nt mean everyone else does.

How is buying a dead property to continue it copying it? Did you want zero references at all? No super mutants or brotherhood? You'd have been complaining about that. Pretty sure in the behind the scenes DVD they give respects to the originals, declare themselves fans and state they just wanted to bring the game back to life. You can youtube it..

It's not hard at all. You can do it 100% success every time by the power of exit grids and quicksaving. FO3/NV don't have exit grids, so you can't run away from powerful opponents easily.

Would you rather randomly encounter enclave at level one and they ruin your game because you can't run to an exit grid to escape their impossible difficulty? You say things without even thinking of the consequences, or reasons why they have to exist.

Oh, for you it's soley opinion then, because I disgaree on dialogue, decent story, game balancing and good RPG elements. I didn't notice the lack of story choices since I spent almost all of my time doing sidequests. Then again, it's a distinct possibilty that I have no taste since I liked Fallout 3 more than Fallout 1 and 2. I don't believe that Fallout 3 was universally better, I just enjoyed it more and got more gameplay out of it. Also, I really enjoyed playing Fallout: Tactics. I will put my dunce hat on now go sit in the corner.



I'm glad to see DT back, though I never understood going above 100 in skills - that seems counterintuitive. six was never a big part of the story for me and it didn't add any gameplay value, so not really sad to see that option go. I can see why someone wouldn't like many of the various other changes you mentioned though. As for challenge, do you think Fallout New Vegas has delivered that ... or is it just going to the same areas that always have the same type and level of too-tough enemies that is the challenge? For me, that just means I'm locked out of going to those places until I've reached X level and have X weapon and X skills or have completed X quest. That's not a challenge, that's a prerequisite.

What I think has made New Vegas more challenging where Fallout 3 wasn't is fast moving enemies, DT and poison.

I seem to be the only human being capable of enjoying all the fallout games. They all have their flaws but none of them were terrible games. They were all very fun to play. All of them have comic-book quality stories. But they're video games, and they excel at what they're designed for, playing.

Yeah, run to san fran and steal it. That easy. Run to navarro and lie to the guards. Then steal it. Easy to do. Run into baddies along the way? Run to the exit grid. Get killed? Press F7 to instantly reload and try again. You'll make it.

I would not have mind not seeing Super mutants. It would be better then the things that came out of Vault 87. Super Mutants from the originals would have been good as well. Still they would have to be rare.

Going to get that PA in FO2 is game breaking if you want to do it at a low level. If you are more interested in poinless killing and not really playing the game fine go do it.

I would have loved to encounter athe Enclave at level one and have the crap scared out of me. Just like I run into Deathclaws in the Originals and New Vegas. I don't see it as ruining my game I see it as a challege. Making it so I have to think. Not just running and gunning with near unlimited weightless ammo.


I forgot to include poison, its great to have back .

So much fail in this post it's not funny. Of course they made money selling the game. But they could have easily bought it and called it "Toxic Dead World 3". They worked (yes making a video game takes work, imagination and creativity!) very hard to bring FO3 from the dead.

I don't like shooters, but the 1st person and 3rd person cameras are superior to the isometric because you can adjust them any way you please. Allowing you to view the world from any angle. The isometric doesn't let you move the camera at all. More freedom = better. You CAN even move the camera to isometric, almost. On the PC.

Your take on outdoorsman.. yeah not even going to bother trying. Lost cause. It was useless to put points into Stealing is what I meant. A quickload has the same result as a higher %. Yeah sloppy combat, very. Don't tell me you never burst killed a good guy. Or a companion burst killed you. Happened alot. And as already stated, 95% didn't mean 95% in that game. Sloppeh.

This is completly NOT opinion.

New Vegas DOES a better job since it integrates itself better in the lore, is not a complete good vs. evil story and gives its plotelemts depth. +better Dialouge writing (explaining this would go rather deep into the englisch language but lets just say its more diverse in execution). This is just pure fact rather than opinion.

I'm not arguing that it makes it a better game or that you can't enjoy the story of 3 more. BUT, if we start this we can in the same way argue that Michael Bay movie writing is superior to lets say (rather extrem example I know) Martin Scorseese.

Since you're such a genius, explain all your details on how and why to properly design a sandbox game with a 13 mile radius, and how to prevent people getting wiped out randomly by enemies they can't possibly defeat constantly. Especially with 1) random spawns 2) patrolling npcs 3) scaling difficulty.

They did the best job possible with a limited time frame, and I like how the system works much more than random battles, ala final fantasy.

And, as already stated... Fallout 1and 2 were freaking easy. If you encountered a deathclaw you only had to walk 10 spaces to escape it forever... *sigh* probly my last post here as im just spamming what seem to be drunk people with information like some kind of human manual -_-...

I must be some kind of wuss, I never found FO1 and 2 easy. Even with a power-armour-clad, Gauss-Rifle-wielding level 20+ character I was terrified of running into Deathclaws and (especially) Super Mutants. Gatling Guns and Missile Launchers had me reaching for the reload button all too often. Definitely don't miss that feature.

Once you get a good build going and find a good weapon, you can shoot most enemies for 50-120 damage for 2 (3 without perk) action points. Alien blaster can be found early in the game with a high luck stat.

Shooting the eyes helps a lot if you have bad equipment.

For the most part those games were reload spammy as you said, though. Helps me to fail to see the nostalgia

I'm sorry to disagree and draw this out, but it is opinion. Popular opinion does not equal fact, and if you wish to prove otherwise, you're going to need to supply objective material and set the standards you're going to measure these facts by.

Integrates itself in Fallout Lore: This is absent of any factual basis. This is not required to have a good story, even in a Fallout game. If you disagree, that's your opinion not a fact.
Is not complete Good vs Evil: Some of the most widely celebrated and loved stories are simply Good vs Evil, all the same ... a Grey story is not factually superior.
Plot Elements having Depth: We'll need an objective review of all of these elements to decide if there is any factual basis for this statement. Anyone can easily say the reverse and give reason for it, but that doesn't make it a fact.
Better dialogue: 'Diverse in execution' is not factually superior to 'simple in execution'.

really! where.

Just kidding. i really loved this game, but i still think none of the more recent games have been able to capture the feel of fallout.

what this game needs is to be a little Darker.

also it needs more dark humor