Duck and Cover

So New Vegas is due in roughly 10 days. I'm buying it because I remain obsessed with Fallout from the moment I pick-pocketed that Desert Eagle from the guard at Junktown's gate. I liked tactics for what it was. I didn't ever play BOS. I saw some BOS videos and determined that it actually wasn't Fallout but some kind of demonic trickery. It's apparent that some of you think this of Fallout 3.

In terms of Development, The Fallout franchise in 2010 could not have fallen anymore back into the hands of its original creators than the title is currently, w/ Obsidian (I don't want to hear shit about Chris Taylor because he isn't a functional design team unto himself).

I don't hate to say this because I am a true Fallout fan and a select few who frequent these boards for decades (or a decade) believe that they are as well... when they are actually - more appropriately put - fans of particular era's in (specifically PC) gaming. They simply played the first two games obsessively to the point of not being able to accept a non-isometric follow-up. I'm not defending Fallout 3 - my god no - I'm just calling out those that want a throwback to 1997 technology and disguise their sentimental romanticism for that era of gaming as a legitimate 'Oblivion with guns (!)' argument. And these people are Ingrates when it comes to Fallout 3.

If we were to all be intellectually honest as Fallout (1&2) fans, then we would have to admit that we never expected the franchise to become main stream, game-of-the-year stuff. And I know, this isn't necessarily a positive thing (because some of us still want to be able to kill children in our games) but I'm sure no one would disagree that after the dissolution of Black Isle/Interplay, none of us expected a Fallout 3 to be a 1500 hour 3D action/adventure title developed by a company that would put that much money, cannon, and attention into it. Regardless of the outcome and your opinion of it, OK?!


So as an original fan who holds Fallout 2 as the best game ever: to hell with old Fallout junkies who lump in Fallout 3 with BOS. I'm sick of your rhetoric.

It's like, after BOS, I'd assume that anything where the developers tried to remake the critical elements of the franshise would at least get some "thanks for trying" sentiment from the DAC/NMA base. Instead you all started calling Fallout 3 'FallORC' because the mutants looked like Orc's. I mean, there were some terribly disappointing game details that would come out in those first images and videos but nevertheless, there was significant momentum being put back into the greatest series in video gaming. Sometimes I wonder if some of you really anti-Fallout 3 fans here expected there to be a 3rd installment because I certainly didn't after BOS and about a dozen YEARS went by with no news.

So if Fallout 3 is so not Fallout fan worthy, you make a post-nuclear sequel to Fallout 2 then. Wait, you already did. You moded the shit out of Fallout 2 and made a dozen sequels in a dozen languages. And the fact that you were able to do that remains both impressive and telling. What it tells us is that that 2D isometric cow's been milked and is now dead. I loved it in all its incarnations too.... and I accept that we have had to move on with the technology and the times. You all understand how Mario 3 came from Donkey Kong, right? I'd love for Fallout 4 to be turn-based, 2D, and returned to its original art direction. But then you can do that for me and all of us here at DAC in your basement now, can't you?

As far as the dialogue, plot, characters, quests/story, karma system of Fallout 3 they truly are reprehensible and unforgivable so I don't have any points to make there. There was a fucking robot in the finale. And steel be with us.

Obviously New Vegas uses the same general build in terms of engine and art style (though much seems to have been changed for the better in minor ways artistically). Again, this still remains the best situation Fallout: New Vegas can fall into because it gave the Black Isle, I mean Obsidian team time to get to the characters, dialogue, quests, etc. that were the most abhorrent elements in Fallout 3.

This is the most that the original fallout fan base can be given in a 2010 Fallout sequel - CONSIDERING.

Yet I bet this isn't even enough to give New Vegas a chance for some of you. And what I deduce from that is... you might not really be interested in Fallout as much as you thought you were. You're just a cranky PC gamer.

tl;dr for my fellow readers: THIS IS THE BESTEST WE WILL GET SO FUCK ALL THE H8RS.

Macky wrote:So New Vegas is due in roughly 10 days. I'm buying it because I remain obsessed with Fallout from the moment I pick-pocketed that Desert Eagle from the guard at Junktown's gate. I liked tactics for what it was.

So do you, joking aside, like the holocaust for "what it was?" The Third Reich did a damn fine job at mass murder, better than most, but not better than all, but that doesn't make it something I'd want to have been around to witness.

I didn't ever play BOS. I saw some BOS videos and determined that it actually wasn't Fallout but some kind of demonic trickery. It's apparent that some of you think this of Fallout 3.

So you dislike BOS on the same grounds that the masses [of DACK] dislike FO3 but you assert that, somehow, your disdain for FOBOS is acceptable, whereas the OTHERS'[tm] dislike of FO3 [on the same grounds] is somehow wrong.

In terms of Development, The Fallout franchise in 2010 could not have fallen anymore back into the hands of its original creators than the title is currently, w/ Obsidian (I don't want to hear shit about Chris Taylor because he isn't a functional design team unto himself).

Now we are rewriting history. As has been clearly laid out many times before Troika was in it to win it, they just just "forgot" their briefcases full of money to match those brought by much larger, much less worthy companies such as our mutual friends at Bethesda.

I don't hate to say this because I am a true Fallout fan and a select few who frequent these boards for decades (or a decade) believe that they are as well... when they are actually - more appropriately put - fans of particular era's in (specifically PC) gaming.

I'd highly suggest you read the boards, as it comes up quite [absurdly] frequently that the majority of the posters do not like the current era of gaming, it has been clearly stated on MANY occasions and this is hardly groundbreaking news.

They simply played the first two games obsessively to the point of not being able to accept a non-isometric follow-up.

No, I'd say it's more than likely that they equate the massive leaps forward in graphics to a underemphasis on plot, story, character, coherency, writing, or pretty much anything but the graphics themselves to the newer era of gaming, leaving "old, bad graphics" with a plethora of memorable and great games and "new, good graphics" with few to no even good games, depending upon which forum-goer you're asking.

I'm not defending Fallout 3 - my god no - I'm just calling out those that want a throwback to 1997 technology and disguise their sentimental romanticism for that era of gaming as a legitimate 'Oblivion with guns (!)' argument. And these people are Ingrates when it comes to Fallout 3.

Ingrates? Really? A lack of gratitude from fans who were, for all intents and purposes, entirely ignored, all but shoved in the closet and forgotten while they did their own thing and released the "new and improved" Fallout to a "new and improved" fan base. How about a lack of concern for the plot, setting, character, gameplay, and story that were all integral parts of what made Fallout Fallout? Gratitude should only be given when it is due. If I promise I'll cook you a meal and I end up heating up feces and telling you it's delicious does this somehow earn me gratitude?

If we were to all be intellectually honest as Fallout (1&2) fans, then we would have to admit that we never expected the franchise to become main stream, game-of-the-year stuff.

Again, if you spent more time reading around here I think you would have noticed that very few posters ever wanted that and pretty much none would have expected it.

And I know, this isn't necessarily a positive thing (because some of us still want to be able to kill children in our games)

That's what had you hooked on Fallout? Of all the things, the characterization, the story, the setting, the gameplay, the emotional bits, the thing that most screams "FALLOUT!" to you was... killing children?

but I'm sure no one would disagree that after the dissolution of Black Isle/Interplay, none of us expected a Fallout 3 to be a 1500 hour 3D action/adventure title developed by a company that would put that much money, cannon, and attention into it. Regardless of the outcome and your opinion of it, OK?!

Did you go into a two month coma while playing Fallout 3? I'm not sure how else you could get fifteen hundred hours out of the game. And that's only slightly sarcastic, I honestly don't know how you could spend that much time in the game, quality or likes and dislikes aside it just was not that long. I beat it in a weekend and while playing sporadically over the next couple of weeks I did just about everything that there was to do. They put some money into it, sure, but throwing money at a complex problem doesn't [always] resolve it in a smooth or proper fashion. They certainly didn't worry to much about canon or attention [assuming you're referring to attention to the details of Fallout and Fallout 2], as they certainly played it fast and loose with the connections to the world, it was much moreso a connection to the GAMES, it was a sequel to the box labeled "Fallout 2," not a sequel to the game stored on the disc inside said box.

So as an original fan who holds Fallout 2 as the best game ever: to hell with old Fallout junkies who lump in Fallout 3 with BOS. I'm sick of your rhetoric.

Personally I'm rather sick of the "yeah, well I liked it so I'll gripe and complain about how you guys gripe and complain" rhetoric, but at least I had the decency to hold it in until such time as it was reasonably fitting to bring it up.

It's like, after BOS, I'd assume that anything where the developers tried to remake the critical elements of the franshise would at least get some "thanks for trying" sentiment from the DAC/NMA base.

I made a comment or two on this subject earlier, but if you have forgotten I'll rehash some key points.

1. If, as your intent seems to claim, they were trying to remake critical elements of Fallout in Fallout 3 it was easily a horrifying cascade of failure. I would personally say that you are correct, in that they REMADE CRITICAL ELEMENTS of the franchise into flashier, easier to digest, streamlined, and more modern versions lacking the depth, creativity, and ingenuity that made Fallout what it was.
2. There is never, in a fan/artist relationship or in whatever life you have out there, any sort of compulsory societal demand that you must lavish praise on me "just because I tried" to do something. If that is how you live your life, god help you, truly. You are in for a long series of letdowns.

Instead you all started calling Fallout 3 'FallORC' because the mutants looked like Orc's.

Woah there, horsie. Fallorc? Really? Now that you said it I do recall it coming up once or twice, in fact a quick check using the SuperAwesomeDAC Search-a-tron 2000 shows "fallorc" appearing seven times, one of which is this thread, the others all landing, it seems, within the month of June, 2007. Of all the delightful nicknames the community was able to come up with this is the one that rubbed you wrong, this is the one that haunts you so much that you bring it up now, three years after it was last used on DAC?

I mean, there were some terribly disappointing game details that would come out in those first images and videos but nevertheless, there was significant momentum being put back into the greatest series in video gaming.

Significant momentum being put back into the title of the game, not into what it implied, and certainly not momentum behind the generation of fans that played it "back then." It was all marketing momentum, buildup and hype behind "the cool new thing, sequel to that game that was super awesome but none of you have played," not based on the roots from whence it sprang, but rather from the standpoint of "screw it let's make a new audience."

Sometimes I wonder if some of you really anti-Fallout 3 fans here expected there to be a 3rd installment because I certainly didn't after BOS and about a dozen YEARS went by with no news.

Fallout 2 was launched in '98 or so; Van Buren was canceled in 2003, if memory serves; FOBOS hit in '04; FOBOS2 was scrapped later in '04; and the license to develop and distribute Fallout 3 was purchased in 2004 for a bit over a million bucks by a company [Bethesda] who made it quite public that they were beginning development on it. There really wasn't too great of a gap between games, especially not towards the end [of my timeline above] where there was a constant boilover of news spewing out about Fallout, my favorites being "oh God, Van Buren is dead" and "oh God, Bethesda is making it now" [be the latter a good or bad "oh God", depending upon the reader's opinion].

So if Fallout 3 is so not Fallout fan worthy, you make a post-nuclear sequel to Fallout 2 then. Wait, you already did. You moded the shit out of Fallout 2 and made a dozen sequels in a dozen languages. And the fact that you were able to do that remains both impressive and telling. What it tells us is that that 2D isometric cow's been milked and is now dead.

Please elaborate on this statement. How does the existence of a very strong community of fan-made expansions, sequels, and modifications prove that the 2D isometric "cow" has been milked? Personally that sounds like it's alive and kicking, and pretty darn strong at that. Maybe you're referring to the fact that there hasn't been a "real" and published game made by the aforementioned individuals. If that is the case I'm leaning more towards the fact that those individuals were spread out across the globe, not sitting together in uncomfortable chairs in some office building being paid a reasonable-but-not-quite-enough[butwelovewhatwedo] salary to make ends meet while they develop said game. They build it in their free time between taking care of kids, jobs, school work, whatever the day to day necessities in life may be for any given one of them.

I loved it in all its incarnations too.... and I accept that we have had to move on with the technology and the times. You all understand how Mario 3 came from Donkey Kong, right? I'd love for Fallout 4 to be turn-based, 2D, and returned to its original art direction. But then you can do that for me and all of us here at DAC in your basement now, can't you?

Gotcha. Now I see what path you're taking here. While yes, it is true that you can mod the legal property of a business entity in order to make a not-for-profit game, you still need to come up with a pile of money to then develop [or license] an engine with which to use on it, and then, somehow, find a publisher willing to front you enough money to hopefully live long enough on top ramen and water to actually develop a game that can be legally sold and then pray that some store, somewhere will actually put it up on their shelves because they could just as easily double or triple slot Halo or the newest Madden. And here we have the true heart of the issue: gaming has moved on, you're right, but not necessarily as you describe. Publishers want more, gaming is much bigger, selling a few hundred thousand copies isn't the goal, every game has to be THE next game. The technology has moved on, yes, but that only makes it dated, not useless. The fans of 2d isometric games probably number roughly the same as they did fifteen years ago, the issue is that that is no longer a lion's share of the market, it's a drop in the bucket. Publishers don't want a game to launch to a small audience with strong reviews from independent sources and a small but steadily growing fanbase, they want it all and they want it all now. APB is a perfect example. It was marketed as the greatest thing since sliced bread, launched to a massive marketing campaign and flopped, hard. The details are long [but really worth following if you're ever bored], but suffice to say they assumed that everyone would play it and no one bothered to tell them that they're all too busy playing World of Warcraft, Halo: Reach, or whatever else to care. This day and age it seems all too common that publishers and developers just want a big slice of the gaming population and adjust their development and marketing strategies accordingly. The history of game like Fallout is irrelevant next to the newest market study saying that all gamers just want a sling shot that launches mini nukes, so let's not build on what was, let's just build it fresh and new and cool.

As far as the dialogue, plot, characters, quests/story, karma system of Fallout 3 they truly are reprehensible and unforgivable so I don't have any points to make there. There was a fucking robot in the finale. And steel be with us.

You're not standing up for Fallout 3 nearly enough for all of the trash talking you aimed at the other side of the fence earlier.

Obviously New Vegas uses the same general build in terms of engine and art style (though much seems to have been changed for the better in minor ways artistically). Again, this still remains the best situation Fallout: New Vegas can fall into because it gave the Black Isle, I mean Obsidian team time to get to the characters, dialogue, quests, etc. that were the most abhorrent elements in Fallout 3.

They are still under the watchful eye of their publisher, Bethesda. It may not be made by Bethesda, but it's certainly not going to be Obsidian's game to its core. I seem to recall an interview some time ago with someone at Obsidian saying that they wanted to set it back in time, between FO2 and FO3, but they were shot down, being told that it had to be chronologically after FO3. Even if they let them have free reign with the larger elements, enough small changes will eventually warp the entire thing. Keep twisting the foundation and eventually the walls start cracking and pretty soon you're going to need a new roof.

This is the most that the original fallout fan base can be given in a 2010 Fallout sequel - CONSIDERING.

Really? That seems to be one of the rallying cries of the anti-DAC DAC membership. "It could be worse!" or "This is the best of the worst options!" do not exactly fall in line with positive thinking in my book.

Yet I bet this isn't even enough to give New Vegas a chance for some of you. And what I deduce from that is... you might not really be interested in Fallout as much as you thought you were. You're just a cranky PC gamer.

Honestly a large amount of the DAC vets are just bitter on gaming, once again, that's a pretty obvious fact. I think the biggest aspect of that bitterness stems from the fact that, as has been discussed MANY times here on DAC, they do not view the current direction of the Fallout Franchise as true to its roots. You said yourself that that is how you view FOBOS, so do you endorse FO3 just because it's not as bad as FOBOS?

I think it boils down to the majority of the bittervet status of DAC [I can't speak for NMA, I haven't read anything there in several years] stems from the feeling that Bethesda has made mockery of what Fallout was, metaphorically digging it up from the grave, claiming it was out of deep love, and then manipulating the game like a handpuppet. Many DACKers simply feel Fallout should have stayed dead and buried. Just because it IS back doesn't necessarily mean that it SHOULD be back.


And, just for the record, you clearly are quite bitter as well, as demonstrated by this entire post, half of it was just lashing out wildly at what you view as your enemy on these forums. If you hate the opinions of other posters on DAC, why do you come here? Honestly. This isn't a "go away," but really why not go to a more Fallout 3-friendly board and spend your time among like-minded posters?

I didn't like, read all of that, but I'm gonna wait till people say about it then wait till it gets cheaper.

I heard its forcin me on steamworks so I probably won't. I might get a cracked version and if I think they really stayed true to themselves I might buy some stuff to support them.

Really that's the biggest thing for me. I'm serious about my boycot of steam, haven't bought shit on steam ever since I experienced their sucky support.

I watched the G4 X-Play thing about New Vegas that aired tonight. It made me really hopeful for the game. Time and time again the devs being interviewed said things like, "We added feature X to New Vegas," which really wasn't the adding of a new feature so much as the addition of a feature Bethesda neglected to put into Fallout 3 that was present in the first two. Myriad things about the shows presenters pissed me off, like the narrator's and interviewer's treatment of Fallout 3 as the "original" Fallout, and the assertion of the interviewer that Fallout 3 had memorable characters.

Fallout 3 was an abortion, with less player choice than was present in Tactics. But in a lot of ways, that game needed to happen in order to gracelessly transfer the series to the modern gaming era - there was no way around that - especially if it means Obsidian keeps making Fallout titles.

I don't care how mainstream a title is, or how obscure it is; I can play Halo Reach then immediately fire up Civ 3 and have the same amount of fun in both. What I care about is how well a game is made, and Fallout 3 was nothing but money motive that sours any joy a thinking man might get from it. Obsidian seems dedicated to making a real Fallout game.

jetbaby wrote:So do you, joking aside, like the holocaust for "what it was?" The Third Reich did a damn fine job at mass murder, better than most, but not better than all, but that doesn't make it something I'd want to have been around to witness.

no hesitation, straight off you go and break godwin's law. I like that.

apart from that, nothing I haven't heard before. I'm curious to know whether you will buy FONV jetbaby, call me dense but I didn't really get a sense as to your position on the matter at hand. it seemed more like you were shooting down everything that macky was spurting.

personally I'm waffling between buying the game for 60-70 dollars when it comes out and buying it a year later when it'll be 20 bucks, any suggestions?

gobbleykins wrote: personally I'm waffling between buying the game for 60-70 dollars when it comes out and buying it a year later when it'll be 20 bucks, any suggestions?

I'd suggest pirating, then making your decision. If you think it's good, buy it at the price you think it's worth. If you hate it, delete it and move on.

It's what I've down with my past few games, though the only things I thought were worth money were Alpha Protocol and The Sims 3.

Expected a cakester thread because of the title.

Don't mind the third person camera or action-style gameplay, enjoyed fo3 enough, expect new vegas to range from slightly worse than fo3 to a whole lot better, but not good enough to be inspiring.

Would have preferred to see troika get this chance, liked fo1 more than 2, liked arcanum and bloodlines more than kotor2/nwn2/alpha protocol. Obsidian runs too close to the bioware formula.

Well, nonetheless, Mack makes a valid point. We can comb through New Vegas to find every flaw and be frustrated, or we can withhold judgement until we've identified everything we love and hate and compare the tallies and intensities of those opinions. To judge not even by its cover but by its predecessor when the author has changed is a bit too quick for fair judgement even when reservations towards taking time out for the next chapter are as high as they are with NV. It's worth giving a fighting chance to prove itself.

Imma gonna play it!

jetbaby wrote:

So you dislike BOS on the same grounds that the masses [of DACK] dislike FO3 but you assert that, somehow, your disdain for FOBOS is acceptable, whereas the OTHERS'[tm] dislike of FO3 [on the same grounds] is somehow wrong.

I realize this is somewhat hypocritical of me. And I actually agree with most of your retorts to my arguments. I would go through them but for the most part you appropriately pointed out the errors in my various rants. I must have been drinking or something.

I'm not conceding defeat to my primary underlying opinion that - well, I think Retlaw83 said it better than I attempted to here:

Retlaw83 wrote:
Fallout 3 was an abortion [...] But in a lot of ways, that game needed to happen in order to gracelessly transfer the series to the modern gaming era - there was no way around that - especially if it means Obsidian keeps making Fallout titles.

I think this one point is true, if nothing else.

.... but I do hear that this was actually a worst case scenario for many people. Jetbaby... I've said this a million times at DAC and had a lot of interesting feedback about the point, but I've never played a bethesda game before trying Fallout 3 so everything about the build was new and novel to me. This doesn't mean that I don't think the game failed in so many fundamental ways at properly replicating the Fallout world and experience, it's just that I didn't have any internal reference to Oblivion, etc. And as much as people here at these boards have tried to convince me that that doesn't matter - I'm convinced that when it came to my ability to give Fallout 3 a shot, it really did matter that everything about the game world was new (to me).

Seriously, Macky, what is it with the tone of the thread?

I've read a couple more like-minded threads or posts on this previously, and seeing you're the first to actually concede to anything, (as opposed to just trolling) I just have to ask.

Why? Why does it bother you so much that some people on here are going to judge this game before they try it, when they could and probably do just that to every other game out there??? I mean, I do, it's what gets me to decide wether or not to actually buy a game (that and TPB).

But why? Why do you feel the need to "protect" someone else's property by ranting with the intent to insult whoever doesn't agree with you?
Do you think anything I say about it that isn't up there with the marketing punchlines or the fanboy's rave of "ZOMG BEST GAEM EVAR!!!!1one1!" is either going to have a negative impact on the game's development or going to spoil your enjoying the game? Really??

BTW if you haven't noticed a lot of the most active posters around here ARE actually looking forward to this. Try combing through "In the News".



So next time, try not to sound like a troll, and instead of trying to go after a (pretty invisible) group of people that you apparently don't understand, at least do it personally.

Me, as far as I'm concerned Fallout 3 should have only been a sequel to the real Fallouts (1 and 2, I'm not even mentioning BoS or Tic-Tacs).
Either that or it should have remained dead.

When making Oblivion with guns, (their obvious next step) Bethesda could have called it whatever the hell they wanted, they could have given their creatives all the room to, you know, actually create something, but then marketing intervened. And lo and behold, Fallout ended up on Bethesda's plate. Not because they were the better game developers, not because they were going to make the better sequel, but because they had the money.

Call me old-fashioned, call me idealist, call me whatever the fuck you want but I don't like the way that major game publishers operate, and to me, a guy who considers Fo2 to be the best computer game he's ever played, Fallout 3 stands tall and proud as the perfect example of everything that's wrong with them. A pretty looking, overhyped, bad shooter with poor story, horrible player choices, shameful character development, terrible dialogue, even worse voice acting, otherwise good sounding, greatly soundtracked and supremely editable piece of someone else's mind, and one that hardly justifies the RPG tag on the box.
That it manages to get rave reviews across the board makes it all the more annoying.

So do forgive me if I've been vocal about (and given Fo3's track record) how FoNV doesn't look to be the game that'll take Fallout 2's 12 year-old ass out of the top seat.
I reckon some other game should have by now.
That I wanted to expect the best out of sequels to my favorite game shouldn't be an hindrance.
Are you still convinced it was?



Now, to answer the poll question, why yes, I will give it a chance!
And not because I'm expecting it to be the best game ever, (and because this is Fallout we're talking about I'm thinking I SHOULD be expecting the best game ever) but because I'm actually quite fond of Obsidian's previous efforts. Kotor 2 (while not being that much of a SW fan) is easily in my top 10.

Besides, I'll have to have played it in order to diss it properly.

gobbleykins wrote:apart from that, nothing I haven't heard before. I'm curious to know whether you will buy FONV jetbaby, call me dense but I didn't really get a sense as to your position on the matter at hand. it seemed more like you were shooting down everything that macky was spurting

That's because that was the intent. Aside from a few pokes at humor throughout [and of course the opening sentence], it was meant to be at least somewhat unbiased retort of a biased assault on the locals. As for my personal opinion? I'll buy the game, I'll play the game, I'll write DAC a review of the game. My expectations are in one box, my hopes are in a second box, and both will be shoved under the bed while I play New Vegas, as they are every time I purchase a game.

Manoil wrote:Well, nonetheless, Mack makes a valid point. We can comb through New Vegas to find every flaw and be frustrated, or we can withhold judgement until we've identified everything we love and hate and compare the tallies and intensities of those opinions. To judge not even by its cover but by its predecessor when the author has changed is a bit too quick for fair judgement even when reservations towards taking time out for the next chapter are as high as they are with NV. It's worth giving a fighting chance to prove itself.

He really didn't though. I think the resounding opinion of the majority [in numbers, not in volume] seem willing to at least give it a shot, there are just a few, very loud individuals who have no interest in the game.

Macky wrote:.... but I do hear that this was actually a worst case scenario for many people. Jetbaby... I've said this a million times at DAC and had a lot of interesting feedback about the point, but I've never played a bethesda game before trying Fallout 3 so everything about the build was new and novel to me. This doesn't mean that I don't think the game failed in so many fundamental ways at properly replicating the Fallout world and experience, it's just that I didn't have any internal reference to Oblivion, etc. And as much as people here at these boards have tried to convince me that that doesn't matter - I'm convinced that when it came to my ability to give Fallout 3 a shot, it really did matter that everything about the game world was new (to me).

Sure it works out for your view of the game, but that's like never reading a book until someone hands you the Oprah Book Club list and you think it's the greatest thing ever. You need source material to base your views on. Bethesda runs the same as Bioware, they are very, VERY formulaic games where the visuals change but the core of the gameplay has stayed the same for a decade across several titles in various series. If you don't KNOW that you won't get that tingling sense in the back of your mind where something is saying "I've played this before..." Which, in and of itself is not a bad thing, but when I'm playing Fallout I want to get that sense regarding Fallout, not Oblivion, not Morrowind. I want the familiarity to build on the foundations laid forth by its predecessors, not the entirely unrelated neighbors across the street, down the block, and around the corner.

Tofu Man wrote:Seriously, Macky, what is it with the tone of the thread?

I've read a couple more like-minded threads or posts on this previously, and seeing you're the first to actually concede to anything, (as opposed to just trolling) I just have to ask.

I said I was drinking when I wrote it. I realize that I was being a troll AFTER I stopped drinking. So I would have said certain things differently. It's like, you know Tofu - when you beat your wife when you come home from work and then regret what you did in the morning.

jetbaby wrote: That's because that was the intent. Aside from a few pokes at humor throughout [and of course the opening sentence], it was meant to be at least somewhat unbiased retort of a biased assault on the locals.

First of all I AM a local. I've been coming to DAC for my Fallout fix ever since it went online. I mostly just read posts from month to month and stop to say something before major events happen in the Fallout community, like the first Fallout 3 teaser trailer, the release of New Vegas, or when pictures of Dreadnought's penis reenter circulation.

I do realize your and Tofu's points to this particular, sort of half-baked post of mine and I don't disagree with them in the end - so that's all. I guess I just have moments of really wanting other old school Fallout fans to be as excited as I am about anything Fallout related without sounding like I or you need to love bethesda or Fallout 3 in order to do so (but maybe accept Fallout 3 to some extent....?). I know this sounds implausible to some but I think we're all still at these boards because of our underlying weakness for anything Fallout. I guess I just think it's cool that the 'brand' is alive and well again, despite the nature of its current incarnation.

Macky wrote:when you beat your wife when you come home from work and then regret what you did in the morning

know how you feel man

Too late yuzhiwen, I got Word free with my new Dell laptop.

aw man you ruined my threadkill that was like my seventh one

There are custom dissertation writing service helps the students to complete their dissertation.They have expert writers to prepare the dissertation with quality structures.

gobbleykins wrote:aw man you ruined my threadkill that was like my seventh one

So do it again!