Nope, lemme tell you my story:

I got Fallout 3, one the happiest days of my life. I played it fully and came on these forums. I used to think that all originals were elitist people who needed to accept what Fallout is becoming, boy I was wrong.

When I got FNV, I realized just how much better the older ones were in terms of story. I gobbled up old lore like there was no tommorrow. I finally understood the original's opinion and now I support it.

I understand the sentiment behind this, but understand that not all games are/were action-oriented games. A lot of RPGs, especially during that time period, were not first-person games, and certainly were not intended to have the type of FPS-ish gameplay that Bethesda's games had. The fact that it wasn't 3D or first-person doesn't make the art style worse or better.


Not sure what you mean by "indie days," but that's an opinion. Daggerfall's graphics were nothing to write home about.


Eh, Bethesda's artwork was equally cartoon-ish, and their art style in Daggerfall and Arena was run-of-the-mill fantasy fare. It wasn't original in any way. I'm not saying one was better than the other, but I played a lot of games during that time period (worked at a software store), and Bethesda's artwork and "graphics" were fine, but not stand-out. The big draw to their games was the huge game world and lots of options for your character...not graphics.

I'm also not arguing anything about whether the original FO games were better or worse than any other game. I'm just responding to some very specific things you're saying here. Besides, what does Bethesda having "better graphics" in their games at that time or not have to do with anything?

When you got New Vegas? So, you never really enjoyed the originals, you just assumed New Vegas, which you yourself do really prefer was the spiritual successor to Fallout 2?

To me RPG games have always been turn based games. I have never played Fallout 1 and 2 but they seem more RPG than 3 and 4 which I have played.

What is the use of having a guns skill if it doesn't even matter much? Besides needing it for a weapon requirement it only reduces damage done by a little. I would prefer if I just built my character and let the game take control of all the fighting. Like in Oblivion with the lockpick skill, did you even have to raise that skill to crack the hardest locks? When you let humans do all the actions most skills don't even mean anything.

In my opinion games like Fallout 3,4 and Oblivion are just adventure games with RPG elements mixed in.

I did not assume, I knew. I pieced together all of the original's evidence, and realised that FNV fits their point of view.

I belive that the true spiritual successor to Fallout 2 is not tactics, cause that rerolled some canon, Fallout Brotherhood of Steel is not really a Fallout Game, Fallout 3 is on the East Coast, so that leaves FNV.

3D graphics engine vs. 2D graphics engine, and you don't see how the 3D game engine is technically better?

Give me an example of Bethesda's cartoonish Fallout art style, because I fail to see how the western Enclave's armor is no more cartoonish than the eastern Enclave's armor or how super mutants in the west aren't more cartoonish than those in the east. I'm also picturing the ghouls and people, in general, in comparison to one another as well as vaults. It all seems outlandish and overly-glossy in the originals. Obsidian's continuation of the style I'm referring to includes securitrons, geckos, and the return of http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Remnants%27_power_armor.

It's not. The drawn backgrounds of some isometric games seriously outclassed the visuals of the 3D games at the same time. Best illustrated in numerous games that used elements of both, where the 3D elements actually stood out as lower quality.

You assumed the originals were better simply because you enjoyed New Vegas more, not because you actually played the originals and enjoyed them more? That's not realization, that is assumption.

I have watched countless video footage of the originals and they look fun And I have played turn based games before, and enjoyed every bit of them.

No. It's actually quite insulting.

Let me tell you why Fallout 3 was bad compared to the originals, Before you start accusing me of trying to fit in.

Fallout three stole the second games story and added a daddy that runs away.

Thats it.
What you do, Daddy runs away! You look for daddy, you find daddy, daddy tells you to find a GECK (Fallout 2), and to kill super mutants vats (Fallout 1.) and then you fight the enclave, You must save this part of the world from the Enclave! OH NOEZ. (Fallout 2.)

Ya know what? Why the hell not? We live in a time when production FAR exceeds necessity, so why can't humanity expect to sit back and enjoy it's achievements. This whole mentality of "nothing should ever be easy" only shows me that corporate propaganda has really won the war for free thought.

Much better, actually. And that has to do with how much more important skills and stats were which also counts to the better RPG mechanics.

No, in Fallout 3, exploration is what I did. As for the fitting in, read the above. He/she admitted he/she never played the originals, so why is my point not valid? I gave my reasoning for thinking so about that ONE person, and I was correct. I didn't say the majority of people who prefer the originals didn't really prefer them. Why are you insulted? Did you also assume the originals were better based off of videos or did you come to your own conclusion? If you did the latter, then I'm not referring to you.

Indeed


Time for you sir to stop studying the originals and actually play them.

I came to my own conclusion by the way. And no, you are not correct. I have done HOURS of research and video watching, so I consider myself informed of what I believe.

BTW: I am male.

It wouldn't be that bad if it wasn't so terribly executed like in F3.

I played Fallout 3 through 3 times including all the DCL content and I've been a huge fan of Bethesda games.

Until Fallout New Vegas.

It crashes more than any game I've played to the point where I'm done, stick a fork in me. I'm done playing this game and will trade it and not buy another Bethesda game until the reviews are in.

FWIW, I've struggled with it up to and including level 26.

C yah!

"Indeed", yet you see my point? Why are you insulted, then? I am truly curious.


I read a review, once, but never played the game. I heard it was better than another in the series and the review described it as fun, but I never played the game. Is it my own conclusion if I say that game truly is better? I really recommend playing the originals if you are so interested. They come in a trilogy pack for $15 and should be quite easy to obtain.

Thats why I am getting them for Christmas...been holding it off way too long.

You, my friend, have just described Fallout 3's story in a nutshell PERFECTLY!!! I applaud you. :clap:

Seriously, Fallout 3 was a decent game, it just wasn't a decent Fallout game. It's as if Bethesda just skimmed over the stories of Fallout and Fallout 2, threw in some pieces from them, and then just plopped in an unoriginal plot device plus some elements they deemed to be OMG SUPER AWEZOME!!! just to have it stand out from the originals. Then the rest just feels like they adapted their Elder Scrolls system (which don't get me wrong I love Elder Scrolls) to be a bit more Fallout-ish.

No, I don't. 3D game engines of that time period weren't well-suited to render anything but first-person games with few actors on the screen. Since the combat in the original games was intended to be top-down strategy style it wouldn't have made sense for them to have used an engine like the one they used for Daggerfall. A technology being newer does NOT automatically make it more appropriate for your application.


Um...I was comparing the Fallout games to Arena and Daggerfall. I don't think it's reasonable to compare a game from 1997 with a game from 2008 in the visual department. Which style of power armor you like is just an opinion. Bethesda's Enclave armor is a lot like the PA from Tactics (in fact, nearly identical), so I don't 100% give them credit for that design anyway.

I think the securitrons are pretty cool. The TV screens with faces that indicate their function are especially cool. The 'bots in FO3 were not Bethesda's original designs, so I'm not sure where you're going with that. Brain-bots and Mr. Handy are taken directly from FO1/2, and Protectrons look like a zillion other robots from the '50s and '60s.


1. History has shown countless times that complacency breeds mediocrity.
2. Some people play games for the challenge. I don't mind having an Easy setting, but please give me a setting I can use to challenge myself. It's half the reason I play games to begin with. :shrug: Lack of difficulty in games is a little boring to me.

Posts went away.

Disagreeing with someone's opinion should not end up with a personal attack.

If there are problematic posts, please report them and let the mods deal with it.

Why is the engine "sadly outdated"? I think the Gamebryo engine still looks fantastic. With all due respect, I think its the crying out for "better graphics" and "better engines" that make games shorter than they used to be with less substance to the story. All the time and effort has to go into the graphics instead of the story.



You can get them for 5.99 a piece at GOG.com. Parts 1 and 2 as well as Tactics.

That is where I got my copies of parts 1 and 2, and I do intend to play them through one of these days, but its hard for me to deal with turn-based combat. I suppose if I can get past that, I will really enjoy them. I do not need fancy graphics to enjoy a game, I STILL replay the Baldur's Gate games now and again (also available at GOG.com).

I have to laugh at myself though. I svck, I CANNOT get past the cave rat in Fallout 1. It kicks my backside every time. lol I can't even seem to figure out how to attack it. lol

As for my opinion of Fallout 3 and Fallout NV, I love 'em both. Just love 'em. And am perfectly fine with their graphics engine. The constant scramble to update graphics, if you ask me, is what kills the depth of the games.

I'm not insulted in any way because your post wasn't directed at me. However you could have formulated it in a more delicate way imo.

Nevermind..