People say vegas is so different to 3 but I dont really thin

Post » Sun Mar 06, 2011 9:49 pm

Some people say Bethesda changed fallout. I want to ask how they changed it. Someone said they changed the meaning of fallout? How did they do this.

Why is it sooo different to FO1 and FO2?
User avatar
Destinyscharm
 
Posts: 3404
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2006 6:06 pm

Post » Sun Mar 06, 2011 9:59 pm

:blink:
User avatar
Lily
 
Posts: 3357
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 10:32 am

Post » Sun Mar 06, 2011 4:54 pm

Fallouts 1 & 2 were held strictly to the PC. The games were made in the late 1990's and thus, 3D tech had been poorly developed. Both games were sort've like side scrollers from an eagle eye point of view (I forgot what the term is) and only used V.A.T.S. (a.k.a. took turns attacking eachother) for combat.

If you want to see what I mean, just look up videos of F1 & 2 on youtube, it should clear things up a bit.
User avatar
Sheila Reyes
 
Posts: 3386
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 7:40 am

Post » Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:24 pm

Okay, I think I might understand what you're asking. There is a substantial difference between 3 and the originals. It's a long list from the way you play (view, combat etc.) to minor/major thing (like the fierceness of the BoS in FO3). Then there is all the opinion stuff, the best bet is to give them a run and see for yourself.
User avatar
how solid
 
Posts: 3434
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:27 am

Post » Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:56 pm

Only one big difference in these two games in New Vegas you can pick sides in Fallout 3 you cannot.
User avatar
Averielle Garcia
 
Posts: 3491
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 3:41 pm

Post » Sun Mar 06, 2011 11:20 pm

Some people say Bethesda changed fallout.
....
Why is it sooo different to FO1 and FO2?


The old games were RPGs, the games of today are more like shooters with RPG elements. There's a world of difference between the gameplaystyles - while in the past stats made a huge difference, now they mostly only slightly boost your abilities. And as said above, there is a big list of things that are different. But don't trust us, play the games or check some youtube vids and draw your own conclusions.
User avatar
roxanna matoorah
 
Posts: 3368
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:01 am

Post » Sun Mar 06, 2011 8:45 am

In FO1 and 2, humanity were already rebuilding society. The different towns of the wasteland were trading with each other. They were growing crops and raising brahmin. Businesses and governments were being established. Larger settlements had militias or security forces that could defend the town. There was already a large trading city in FO1 that created a centralized economy by backing bottle caps with clean water. The NCR had been created in FO2 and it already had a population of 700,000. Most of the ruins had already been scavenged by people who used the salvage to rebuild civilization. Only areas heavily infested with mutants, protected by old world security, or too difficult to find were left intact.

FO3 didn't have any of that. People were still acting like the bombs had just fell. There was barely any trade between the different towns. There was pretty much no government. There are really no businesses except Talon Company and they give no explanation about who hires these guys. All the ruins were pretty much untouched. No one even bothered to loot all the high tech stuff at Project Purity. People just don't seem to want to rebuild.
User avatar
Calum Campbell
 
Posts: 3574
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:55 am

Post » Sun Mar 06, 2011 11:19 am

These comparitive studies of all the Fallout's belongs in the "Fallout Series section" of this forum. I do believe there are several open and feel free to argue discuss it in one of those. :)

Besides, I just closed one of these for some horrible flaming and flamebaiting and namecalling and my ban finger is still twitching from the experience. Don't start another please.
User avatar
LuBiE LoU
 
Posts: 3391
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 4:43 pm


Return to Fallout: New Vegas