Heh, you assume Beth made out best with the settlement.

Considering IPLY never violated the agreement, i doubt that to be the case. "When this epoch began to wind down, the remnants of life once more ventured forth to commence the struggle for survival and dominance. This is the story of some of them" -Damnation Alley

Objectively speaking, B or Inter would never agree to a settlement if both parties didn't get something 'worthwhile'.

It would be either money or FOOL. There is no 'best' side to a settlement per se.

Perhaps gamesas get's to conbtinue developing FOOL and B get's to make a few more Fallouts? And some hands exchange some money
?

i truly hope b's just OUT of fallout forever. they screwed it up BAAAAAAD. Learn a habit, it’s not wise to upset a mutie.
But sir, nobody worries about upsetting a Human.
That’s ‘cause Humans don’t eat people when they get irritable. Mutie’s are known to do that.

Green Haired and PProud!!!!

Well hopefully in the next few days we should get a flood of information on FOOL. Coz this very slow trickle of useless stuff is killing me

You are being served by Nymus powered by black boyshorts with black lace, a pink bow, and pink ribbon and a hot pink and black lace, totally frilly.

Indeed!

im betting theyll flood us now that the threat of it being dead is gone. Learn a habit, it’s not wise to upset a mutie.
But sir, nobody worries about upsetting a Human.
That’s ‘cause Humans don’t eat people when they get irritable. Mutie’s are known to do that.

Green Haired and PProud!!!!

I know I sound like a broken record, but I do not get the hate directed toward the Bethesda Fallout games. I just do not get it. They are pretty damned solid, better than Fallout: Tactics.

I for the record would like to see a situation where gamesas, Bethesda, and Obsidian (developers of New Vegas) are able to make as many Fallout games as each respective party wants to make so long as they all remain respective to each other's continuity which should not be a problem due to differences in geographic locations within the game.

I agree with you. I enjoy B's version of fallout, and IMO have more business acumen and potential. But however if you express this sentiment here, you get labeled a troll or whatever.

I'm just bidding my time in these forums until solid information comes out about FOOL. Once it is, you'll see my true allegiance =)

THEY'RE NOT FALLOUT!!!
liek we keep saying. Learn a habit, it’s not wise to upset a mutie.
But sir, nobody worries about upsetting a Human.
That’s ‘cause Humans don’t eat people when they get irritable. Mutie’s are known to do that.

Green Haired and PProud!!!!

First: I have not heard anyone say that.

Second: That is totally meaningless. In what way are they not Fallout? They have the same setting, factions, and tone. Admittedly Fallout 3 was kind of weird story wise when set next to Fallout 1 and 2, but Bethesda had the good sense and common courtesy to set it on the other side of the country to leave plenty of room for more direct sequels to Fallout 1 and 2, which we got with Fallout: New Vegas.

Are you saying you wanted Fallout 3 to be an isometric 3rd person turn-based RPG? Because I can respect that, but you have to admit such a game would not have made anywhere near the impact that Bethesda's Fallout 3 made.

It's because they are NOT Fallout, not true to the mood of the world - and not true to, well, anything really. They're an abomination on the IP.

You are wasting your breath. The die-hard fans of gamesas will steadfastly deny that any other company other than gamesas is capable of making a decent fallout game. The fact that by turning Fallout 3 into a 1st person based RPG shooter, B has captured more market share than gamesas ever had with all their 3 games combined.

Bottom line, you can love gamesas, but you should also acknowledge that there is a world outside the well.

I have come to realize that. I would argue that FO3 was closer to the style of FO1/2 than Fallout: Tactics. At least FO3 had dialogue trees and did not have that funky looking bat-eared Power Armor. Plus, Fallout: Tactics had some continuity hiccups like saying the Brotherhood started in a Vault and some of the concepts within did not line up with the concept of the Vault Experiments as seen in Fallout 2.

You are wasting your breath. The die-hard fans of gamesas will steadfastly deny that any other company other than gamesas is capable of making a decent fallout game. The fact that by turning Fallout 3 into a 1st person based RPG shooter, B has captured more market share than gamesas ever had with all their 3 games combined.

Bottom line, you can love gamesas, but you should also acknowledge that there is a world outside the well.

Quit trying to act like you have a god damn clue about what you're talking about. This is why a lot of people hate others who discovered the IP from 3 and NV in a modern gaming world that is different from 15 years ago in nearly every aspect of the imagination, and suddenly think they're Bobby Kotick - (not that anyone would really want to think they are an actual piece of dog s**t), and subsequently throw around words like "market". Man, this guy knows what he's talking about guys - he referred to a possibly tangible, possibly intangible thing called the "market".

When gamesas made Fallout 1 the "market" reflected the populace's attitude towards video games, and asking a lot of people to invest in a video game was an exercise in frustration. Video games were still a novelty to a LOT of people - the majority of internet users still had dial-up, (which does away with a console with internet access in any practical manner) and TCP/IP dominated a lot of private games. It's basically WHY battle.net was received so strangely - a lot of people liked it - a lot of people didn't see the need for it. Point being - ofcourse a shitload of people play Fallout 3 and NV - because (and I'm not complaining about this) that's what consoles have done for the venue of entertainment - a shitload more people can PLAY video games today. The sheer number of potential participants is far greater than the people who even owned a computer 15 years ago. So please, don't get mad when someone doesn't give you an ounce of respect and very, believingly, assumes you're 13 years old when you say something as retarded as what you just said.

And as for 3 and NV - I played them, I liked them - but I understand they are NOT Fallout. Not because of the view - not because of most game mechanics - but because of how they were made. Fallout 1 and 2 actually had quite a serious, fvcked up tone to them, and though they were envisioned with a '50s flavor - and that was the frosting on top for the IP - the entire game from beginning to end had a very, very, very, down to earth attitude - and quite honestly, barely had any semblance to a '50s style in them. The '50s thing was almost purely aesthetic, and on top of that, only in very minute places of the wasteland. Because people cared about getting by - not looking like it's the '50s still. Go back and play part 1, you'll feel like you're in more of a Sci-Fi than anything else. Everyone was pissed, at the very least, extremely untrusting and with reason (just go back to The Hub and see how much a bich even the librarian was, not even mentioning the midget) - everything was dirty - people escaped from reality into crack houses together - most people were in simple rags and, subsequently, fashion (even for those who stole, i.e. raiders) wasn't even a consideration - and just about everyone shot before they asked questions.

In 3 and NV, everything was so mind numbingly scripted - even the "random" encounters - nothing made sense and the world and its inhabitants were overly crafted to the point that anyone with HALF a brain (this hereby excludes the major portion of Bethesda's Fallout player base) had their 4th wall broke. Even in the most civilized of places, people can scavenge guns, clothes, FOOD, and even water still somehow worked in water fountains (even though enough time has passed for generations of cows to produce two heads consistently) - but noone can find or make basic oxidizers? Are you kidding me? One may argue that it's because noone gives a shit anymore - but even that is refuted by the game's own content in that the inhabitants of Tenpenny Tower would CERTAINLY want to see an actual white dress, brown suits, and some spotless surfaces. SURELY THOSE people would have been superficial enough to make the place a beacon of prewar delusion. But what's that? It can be refuted further by its own content? That's right - I do seem to remember collecting detergent the entire fu**ing game to make bombs or whatever. Yeah, that made a lot of sense.

Where they failed was putting so much an emphasis on aesthetic aspects, humor, humor, and more humor - subsequently making a game that didn't even take itself seriously.

One of the coolest things I remember about Fallout 1 was the reality you were faced with just about every time you started to buy into that "Katrina" attitude and wanted to raid and steal everything. A prime example of this was Necropolis. An entire, huge city, with tons of buildings and nooks and crannies all for the taking. And almost nothing of value to note. Everything destroyed, weather worn, rusted, and smashed (just about), and/or pilfered already. You were taking part in an epic story, yes, and you were quite a tool of destiny itself - but you were just a chapter in the story of humanity at that point. In the end you were nothing. Not an all-powerful, single-handed instrument of refacing the world as you know it.

In the end of part 1, it made SENSE that they cast you out. It was PAINFUL - I felt distraught and lost - and it was hard to pick myself up again (I wonder if the character ever did) - but IT MADE SENSE. At the end of 3 and NV when they tried to pay homage to that humble style of an ending - I started laughing aloud at how utterly retarded and out of place it was. You basically are doing something that only someone with plot armor could have done the entire game - more and more people know who you ARE, and doing increasingly insanely risky stuff (but no fear, you're OBVIOUSLY the hero in this story), then all of a sudden, for no reason whatsoever, you're outta there?

It's no wonder Michael Kirkbride is out of the picture and Oblivion and Skyrim turned out the way it did.

I see your points on most of those things you said. I do find it annoying that everyone wears about the same 2 dozen sets of tattered clothes and the fact that vending machines are still stocked is pretty dumb. That along with about 1,000,001 other nitpicks. The way everyone stares at you while talking, people's rigid movement, recycled NPC to NPC conversation, et cetera. However, some of your complaints I would attribute to the passage of time and the differing style of the game. The reason people seem moderately less hostile is because the world has healed a bit in the interim few hundred years. Not much, but enough. The reason you gained more noteworthiness by the end of the game in Fallout 3/NV is because of the smaller play area and in the case of Fallout 3 because of the radio station which kept everyone apprised of just about your every movement.

I do not think it is entirely unrealistic to still have running water though. A few years back they uncovered a section of the Colloseum which had not been touched by human hands since the fall of the Roman Empire and it still had running water. Good craftsmanship can handle the test of time.

I sort of understand your point regarding the over-usage of the 50s motif in Fallout 3/New Vegas, but when you are dealing with a 1st person perspective window dressing becomes a larger concern as you can see things more clearly, and I do not personally believe it was overused. The place where it was most present was the radio, which was not even present in the earlier games, but which was totally awesome.

Forcing you to be cast out of Vault 101 in Fallout 3 regardless of your actions was indeed kind of weak. Unless of course you meant the ending ending where you died regardless, which was also weak. At least they kind of fixed that with the Broken Steel DLC, but whatever. I will not argue that it was generally pretty weak. For the record though the protagonist of Fallout 1 (canonically known as the Vault dweller) did "pick himself up" as you say. He then founded Arroyo and his grand-child was the protagonist of Fallout 2. In your words: Something tells me you never actually played it......

Incidentally, an ellipses has 3 periods. Some people would argue it is three periods followed by a 4th period to end the sentence, but those people are wrong.

What you said about the industry is kind of missing the point. Yes games were less played 15 years ago, but if an isometric 3rd person turn-based RPG were released today very few people would have interest.

Besides my agreeing with most things you said I do not think that detracts from the general "Falloutness" of Fallout 3/New Vegas, and you insulting the intelligence of anyone who thinks otherwise is completely uncalled for.