Summer - You know I went in hopeful, and was trying to be really positive. It was years ago now, but you may remember that I was the one trying to get the old fans and the developers to get along, with the meet the devs threads. When details about the game hit, I was. . . very disapointed. Making the game be about your father felt like if in FO1 the Master had stolen all the water chips. Part of what made FO1 so special was that you were sent into a mysterious world with a specifc task, but just being in that world changed you. By exploring the world, you become a member of it, and then organically discover the larger threat, which is totally unrelated to your initial task. That is absent from Fallout 3, which is a real shame.

Other than that, the games are just extremely different. And they are different enough that i do not think that the same people who like FO1/2 would be predisposed to like FO3. This doesn't mean that they won't like it, but there is no reason to assume that a FO1/2 fan will be a fan of FO3.

The writing quality is subjective, of course, but I just plain didn't like it in FO3. Even if you like it, I think you have to admit that it is very different from FO1 and 2, so there is no reason to infer that like FO1/2's writing would make someone like or dislike FO3's writing. There are completely different.

Another major difference is the brand of exploration. In FO1/2, you go to defined areas and explore from a fixed perspective. Only things that are nominally useful can be interacted with. A lot of the exploration is actually discovering items that trigger written descriptions, and this is also clearly different form FO3. So in a sense, FO1/2 have much more limited but focused exploration. It takes less time, and involves less "pixel hunting" to look for the "good stuff." By comparison, FO3 has TES style exploration. First person, with the ability to explore the whole world, and interact with/steal almost everything. This is a broader exploration in a sense, but it is clearly different. I would argue that enjoying exploration in FO1/2 does not predispose you to liking exploration in FO3 or vice versa, since the gameplay mechanic involved is so very different.

So, why don't I like FO3? I guess a better question is why should anyone assume that I would? I love the first two games to death, but do not like the TES series. If FO3 was more like FO1/2, then I think it would be surprising that I don't like FO3, but these are very different games, from thematic, stylistic, and mechanical standpoints, and I just don't like where FO3 comes out on these points. If this was another TES game, or some other random game made by Bethesda, of course I would assume it is not for me, because I have played almost all of their games and never liked them. But this was fallout, and I love those games, so I was willing to give a game which I would not have ever tried a shot based on nothing but the fallout elements of the game, and to me, those were lacking. NV is close to FO3 on a number of these points too, but it has enough of FO1/2 in it to make it work for me. If anything, this latter point should be the surprise, and it is a real testament to what Obsidian has created that they were able to make a game which is so different from FO1/2 in almost all the same ways as a game that I don't like feel like FO1/2 anyway.

I don't know why I get the feeling that if Bethesda had created NV and Obsidian had created FO3 (each otherwise exactly the same as they are now), many of the Beth haters positions on the relative quality of the two games would be reversed.

I don't know why I get the feeling that if Bethesda had created NV and Obsidian had created FO3 (each otherwise exactly the same as they are now), many of the Beth haters positions on the relative quality of the two games would be reversed.

I don't know why I get the feeling that if Bethesda had created NV and Obsidian had created FO3 (each otherwise exactly the same as they are now), many of the Beth haters positions on the relative quality of the two games would be reversed.

in Megaton they lifted the whole tail section of a plane onto a shack apartently, nevermind the stupid bomb!

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

And less, ammo, radaway and caps when scaving, nerfed VATS, chinese stealth suit & fat boy, no Nuka cola grenades, no Plasma Rifle on steriods (courtesy of Harkness), Death Claws that are actually dangerous, no dart gun. limb damage & concussions are much bigger issues, slow healing stimpacks, ammo having weight

Yes, definitely. Though a glitch with VATS is that sometimes, between shots, the creatures get a split second of superspeed, so if you're using explosives, you're kind of screwed. Man, I have crippled my limbs so many times this way. I think I need to make a little fraps montage of dynamite bouncing off of PowderGanger's foreheads and landing at my feet. Definitely need to take Duck and Cover perk.

In related news: I <3 Hydra

Speaking of which, I want chems to have weight too, I think I'm going to need find or make a mod for that. Also, in relation to the Father/Lone Wanderer meeting you mention in the other post: absolutely. That was a frustrating disappointment.

I went into Fallout 3 with high hopes, despite not liking Bethesda's previous games (some of you may remember me as the guy who started the "Meet the Devs" threads on the FO3 board). Ultimately, I was very dissapointed in every aspect of the game, especially the writing, and couldn't even bring myself to play more than a few hours. I was cautiously optomistic about NV, since I like Obsidian's work, and am a huge BIS fan but I knew the game would still be on the engine that I did not like.

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.

Don't know about your game, but Harold did not die, and I really enjoyed having the caracter in the game.

old failed story (Van Buren).

Can you please explain that?

I don't recall Van Buren ever being published. Do you? :spotted owl:

The game was canceled, there is a tech demo, but the history is far different from the original Van Buren,..

Canceled still notes failure, be it the dev team or the company itself (In this case the company), it was still canceled, therefore failure by all technical reasoning.

/headdesk

Enclave... Its the same group. OMG the same group has the same... motives? yeah not a shocker. Not ripped off its called a throw back.

Don't know about your game, but Harold did not die, and I really enjoyed having the caracter in the game.

I don't know about you, but if I had a plane tail section handy, I'd hoist that baby up on my shack in a second. It's after the apocolypse, food is hard to find, surivial is a major challenge, but guess what ... I just put a 747's tail on my house. The only thing that could make me more awesome is if I had a pack of trained radioactive bears that gave me weekly pedicures with scrap metal.

Bethesda revived the series and made it what it is today.