Why Fallout: New Vegas will be better than Fallout 3

  • 113 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for dragonfly110
dragonfly110

27955

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 0

#51 dragonfly110
Member since 2008 • 27955 Posts

I hope it is better, I loved the first 2 fallouts but I gotta say I was extremely disapointed with the way they made Fallout 3, it was an entirly different game, not eve just the gameplay style but evnen its themes, it was waay less humourous then the prvious ones and a lot more dark and depressing. ANd thats not what I go to those games for.

Avatar image for tagyhag
tagyhag

15874

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#52 tagyhag
Member since 2007 • 15874 Posts

Obsidian > Bethesda. They know their Fallout more than a Bethesda.

BioShockOwnz
What are you talking about? It's not like they're the original makers of Fallout or something.
Avatar image for mayforcebeyou
mayforcebeyou

2703

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#53 mayforcebeyou
Member since 2007 • 2703 Posts
i hope they give a different experience than Fallout 3. Then it would feel like an expansion.
Avatar image for Gamerz1569
Gamerz1569

2087

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#54 Gamerz1569
Member since 2008 • 2087 Posts

What are you talking about? It's not like they're the original makers of Fallout or something.tagyhag

Obsidian was founded by former Black Isle Studios (Original creators of Fallout) employees.

Avatar image for gmc2u_64
gmc2u_64

2402

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#55 gmc2u_64
Member since 2005 • 2402 Posts

It's not hard to literally crush Fallout 3 if it's built on a similar engine. They just have to add some decent dialogues, Fallout 3's were so ridiculously retarded a monkey's blabbering would have made much more logical sense, they were really embarassing.

Mograine

Come on, it wasn't THAT bad...

Avatar image for cobrax75
cobrax75

8389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#56 cobrax75
Member since 2007 • 8389 Posts

[QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]

Obsidian > Bethesda. They know their Fallout more than a Bethesda.

tagyhag

What are you talking about? It's not like they're the original makers of Fallout or something.

they were founded by members of black isles, who did Fallout.

Avatar image for bigblunt537
bigblunt537

6907

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#57 bigblunt537
Member since 2003 • 6907 Posts

Fallout 3 was so boring to me I honestly do not care. I did lvoe Oblivion though and thought Oblivion with guns sounds awesome. I was wrong.

Avatar image for Planeforger
Planeforger

20140

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#58 Planeforger
Member since 2004 • 20140 Posts

Dull gameplay aside, at least the writing, story, quests, characters and role playing options won't suck - so it should be fine. :P

[QUOTE="WasntAvailable"]Can you provide an example from F1/2 that had more impact than blowing up an entire town, which is about 1 of 3 major settlements in that area of the wastelands?gmc2u_64

Megaton's destruction was only 'meaningful' since it was the only vaguely interesting town that Bethesda developed for Fallout 3 - the rest were dull and lifeless.

If you blew it up or not, either way you end up with an apartment somewhere, and either way bounty hunters come after you, and either way Moira survives...so how did destroying Megaton have any real impact? I mean, if you want to use that as an example, there were plenty of situations in Fallout 1 and 2 where you could end up wiping out any number of towns.

Hm, as for an example of consequences, how about even something simple like playing a character with low intelligence? That drastically changes the way many of the games' quests play out, and pretty much every dialogue - nothing in Fallout 3 has that much of an effect.

I personally thought that Fallout was broken by it's remarkably dull combatsystem which moved way to slowly for it's own good.WasntAvailable

Slow? You could always turn up the combat speed. Oh, and it was more entertaining than either playing Fallout 3 as a straight shooter, or firing every. single. bullet. in. sloooooooow. motion. using VATS.

You literally press a button at the bottom of the screen and aim at a character and you might hit it depending on level and what you have equiped. That's poor,very few RPGs have combat systems with as little depth as that.WasntAvailable

Hm? That's the way RPG combat is supposed to work - player skill and twitch reflexes should have absolutely no effect on how well my charismatic scientist can shoot things. Also, if anything, Fallout 1 and 2 had vastly more complex combat systems than most other RPGs (especially Fallout 3) - the targetting and damage system alone made it very impressive, not to mention all of the options you had with your action points.

Avatar image for tagyhag
tagyhag

15874

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#59 tagyhag
Member since 2007 • 15874 Posts

[QUOTE="tagyhag"][QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]

Obsidian > Bethesda. They know their Fallout more than a Bethesda.

cobrax75

What are you talking about? It's not like they're the original makers of Fallout or something.

they were founded by members of black isles, who did Fallout.

I guess I have to put smileys every time I'm sarcastic then. :D I just thought everyone would get it since no one could be that oblivious.
Avatar image for skrat_01
skrat_01

33767

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#60 skrat_01
Member since 2007 • 33767 Posts
because everyone liked Fallout 3. XanderZane
Huh? Hell no.
Avatar image for DJ_Lae
DJ_Lae

42748

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 73

User Lists: 0

#61 DJ_Lae
Member since 2002 • 42748 Posts
New Vegas only needs one thing to be better than Fallout 3 - characters. The characters in Fallout 3 are awful, either stereotypes or cardboard cutouts dumped unceremoniously to populate the 'towns' in the game. Most of the dialogue was pretty dull, paling in comparison to the first two Fallout games.
Avatar image for KG86
KG86

6021

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#62 KG86
Member since 2007 • 6021 Posts

id have to disagree I hated the time splitters games, they were good in one area story other then that they failed hard in gameplay, multiplayer...etc they were golden eye with different characters. and in the later games they put more emphasis on minigames you could do.WilliamRLBaker

What, I think you have it the wrong way round. Timesplitters had awesome gameplay and a near non-existent story.

Avatar image for tagyhag
tagyhag

15874

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#63 tagyhag
Member since 2007 • 15874 Posts
New Vegas only needs one thing to be better than Fallout 3 - characters. The characters in Fallout 3 are awful, either stereotypes or cardboard cutouts dumped unceremoniously to populate the 'towns' in the game. Most of the dialogue was pretty dull, paling in comparison to the first two Fallout games.DJ_Lae
I disagree, because it also needs child killing. :P
Avatar image for darkmoney52
darkmoney52

4332

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#64 darkmoney52
Member since 2004 • 4332 Posts

Fallout 3 was pretty disappointing. The enviroments were all bland and lifeless, with equally boring characters, and the gunplay was very clumsy outside of VATS. So you could play the game awkwardly or in slow motion, great. Still enjoyed it though, plenty of fun searching for unique weapons and exploring vaults, and blowing heads off.

Avatar image for RobbieH1234
RobbieH1234

7464

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#65 RobbieH1234
Member since 2005 • 7464 Posts

[QUOTE="cobrax75"]

[QUOTE="tagyhag"] What are you talking about? It's not like they're the original makers of Fallout or something.tagyhag

they were founded by members of black isles, who did Fallout.

I guess I have to put smileys every time I'm sarcastic then. :D I just thought everyone would get it since no one could be that oblivious.

Uhh...this is System Wars we're talking about.

Avatar image for jarhead20
jarhead20

380

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#66 jarhead20
Member since 2006 • 380 Posts

Not a fan of Obsidian. Kotor II was nowhere as good as Kotor, and Alpha Protocol looks meh.IronBass

Agree. The first Kotor is easily one of my favorite games all time but the second one was pretty average, it was the same game with some new textures (not that many though) ... If things remain the same then I expect New Vegas to be pretty similar to Fallout 3... which isnt bad by any means, so im looking forward to it even if with a little skepticism..

Avatar image for LinKuei_warrior
LinKuei_warrior

2670

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 0

#67 LinKuei_warrior
Member since 2006 • 2670 Posts

Fallout 3 was pretty disappointing. The enviroments were all bland and lifeless, with equally boring characters, and the gunplay was very clumsy outside of VATS. So you could play the game awkwardly or in slow motion, great. Still enjoyed it though, plenty of fun searching for unique weapons and exploring vaults, and blowing heads off.

darkmoney52

This.Oblivion with guns no thanks

Avatar image for Syferonik
Syferonik

3060

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#68 Syferonik
Member since 2006 • 3060 Posts
I just hope this Fallout won't have retarded walk/jump/swim animations when played on TPS
Avatar image for DragonfireXZ95
DragonfireXZ95

26716

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#69 DragonfireXZ95
Member since 2005 • 26716 Posts
[QUOTE="Panther501"]

So many of us had a great time with fallout 3 such as I but when I heard the new Fallout: New Vegas would be made not by Bethesda but by Obsidian, I was psyched. Obsidian software was founded by the leftover members from Black Isle and Interplay, the makers of the original Fallout 1 and 2 + tons of other fantastic games like freespace 2 and Descent. The reason this will be so much better is because its being made by the orginal devs of Fallout. The vision they had from the orignal will be ever greater in this one and not a replica like Fallout 3. I can't wait to see how they continue the Fallout storyline.

XanderZane
Well Fallout 3 was superb. They will need to top that, which will be tough. I wish them luck, because everyone liked Fallout 3.

The writing alone will easily top Fallout 3. That was some of the worst writing ever, especially in a story driven game. Also, only 2 choices for most of the quests are really boring.
Avatar image for DoomZaW
DoomZaW

6475

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#70 DoomZaW
Member since 2007 • 6475 Posts

We don't know anything about Fallout New Vegas besides the fact that it is being developed by Obsidian, and that is a about it...

Avatar image for RyuRanVII
RyuRanVII

4257

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#72 RyuRanVII
Member since 2006 • 4257 Posts

Another problem of Fallout 3 is the terrible character development. At lv15 I was almost invencible, and at lv20 I had 100 points on most of main skills. I could sneak, steal, unlock doors, convince NPCs, create and repair itens, barter, access computers, make a lot of damage during combat, etc. Also, S.P.E.C.I.A.L. implementation in Fallout 3 was too much forgiving. Where's the fun on being a god-like character on a RPG?

Avatar image for WasntAvailable
WasntAvailable

5605

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#73 WasntAvailable
Member since 2008 • 5605 Posts

[QUOTE="gmc2u_64"]

Dull gameplay aside, at least the writing, story, quests, characters and role playing options won't suck - so it should be fine. :P

[QUOTE="WasntAvailable"]

Megaton's destruction was only 'meaningful' since it was the only vaguely interesting town that Bethesda developed for Fallout 3 - the rest were dull and lifeless.

If you blew it up or not, either way you end up with an apartment somewhere, and either way bounty hunters come after you, and either way Moira survives...so how did destroying Megaton have any real impact? I mean, if you want to use that as an example, there were plenty of situations in Fallout 1 and 2 where you could end up wiping out any number of towns.

Hm, as for an example of consequences, how about even something simple like playing a character with low intelligence? That drastically changes the way many of the games' quests play out, and pretty much every dialogue - nothing in Fallout 3 has that much of an effect.

[QUOTE="WasntAvailable"] I personally thought that Fallout was broken by it's remarkably dull combatsystem which moved way to slowly for it's own good.Planeforger

Slow? You could always turn up the combat speed. Oh, and it was more entertaining than either playing Fallout 3 as a straight shooter, or firing every. single. bullet. in. sloooooooow. motion. using VATS.

You literally press a button at the bottom of the screen and aim at a character and you might hit it depending on level and what you have equiped. That's poor,very few RPGs have combat systems with as little depth as that.WasntAvailable

Hm? That's the way RPG combat is supposed to work - player skill and twitch reflexes should have absolutely no effect on how well my charismatic scientist can shoot things. Also, if anything, Fallout 1 and 2 had vastly more complex combat systems than most other RPGs (especially Fallout 3) - the targetting and damage system alone made it very impressive, not to mention all of the options you had with your action points.

The example you provided was a common joke at the time. It wasn't a massive consequence, it was just one big joke way of playing the game. Fallout was not the only game to do this. It never really added anything to the game regardless. Some amusing dialouge exchanges, but apart from that it just meant you had to play the game in a very limited way. I need another example that dosn't show up every single time I ask that question because it's just not that impressive. You're examples arn't any greater than blowing up a large town. Sure, you don't ever need to return there, but then the same applies to Fallout 1/2. You can make decisions, but at the end of the day the consequences can be largely ignored. The only game I've ever played that's carried it's consequences across is The Witcher, and only very slightly. And what do you mean the rest of the towns were dull? They had a city built out of an aircraft carrier. That's a hell of a lot more intresting than most, if not all,of the towns and villages in Fallout 1/2.

I still don't understand what is so complex about the combat system either. I take it you have played alot of RPGs? So then a game that only lets you perform the one action (Or occasionally 3 varities of that. Unless you want to use a stimpack I guess.) with only one effect, damage basically, is as complex as a game that uses a variation on the D&D rule set which was the common standard at the time? I don't think so. I turned up the combat speed to full, and it was still dull, unintresting and simplistic. I've never played an RPG that requires you to repeatadly perform the same dull task. Aim, point, click, wait. That is not complex, nor is it clever. Fallout 1/2 have some of the worst combat systems ever concieved. I have no idea why people attempt to defend it, it's complete tripe. The targeting anddamage system were impressive? Seriously? So when you calculate a couple of stats and click on a target, suddenly targetting becomes impressive? And when you do thesame for the damage applied that too becomes impressive? Absolute nonsense.Atleast in F3 I didn't spend most of my time waiting for an enemy to move.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b19214ec908b
deactivated-5b19214ec908b

25072

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#74 deactivated-5b19214ec908b
Member since 2007 • 25072 Posts

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]

Obsidian may have those members but it doesn't produce much of quality any more.

just cause you have members of a developer doesn't mean much look at free radical they tried to replicate the success of golden eye by pretty much copying golden eye with every time splitters release, then when they tried to do something different they made haze then went out of buisness.

WilliamRLBaker

Timesplitters was so awesome best FPS series ever! its such a shame they went bust :(

Fallout new vegas could be good but im not sure since i know nearlynothing about it.

id have to disagree I hated the time splitters games, they were good in one area story other then that they failed hard in gameplay, multiplayer...etc they were golden eye with different characters. and in the later games they put more emphasis on minigames you could do.

I doubt you have ever played anyTimesplitters game.

Go play timesplitters 2 with some friends then come and tell me the multiplayer is lacking.

Avatar image for clone01
clone01

29844

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#75 clone01
Member since 2003 • 29844 Posts
Meh, I don't care who's making it. All I know is that more Fallout 3 content is = win in my eyes. So long as it's not slipshod work like Op. Anchorage or M. Zeta.Stevo_the_gamer
how's the broken steel dlc? i haven't played any of them yet.
Avatar image for Mograine
Mograine

3666

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#76 Mograine
Member since 2006 • 3666 Posts

[QUOTE="Mograine"]

It's not hard to literally crush Fallout 3 if it's built on a similar engine. They just have to add some decent dialogues, Fallout 3's were so ridiculously retarded a monkey's blabbering would have made much more logical sense, they were really embarassing.

gmc2u_64

Come on, it wasn't THAT bad...

Bittercup's greeting:
"Hi, my name is Bittercup"
Your options to interact with her:
"Bittercup? That must be the dumbest name I have ever heard!"
"Nice to meet you, Bittercup."

Or something very similar. You can't seriously say this is above pitiful.

Avatar image for gmc2u_64
gmc2u_64

2402

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#77 gmc2u_64
Member since 2005 • 2402 Posts

[QUOTE="gmc2u_64"]

[QUOTE="Mograine"]

It's not hard to literally crush Fallout 3 if it's built on a similar engine. They just have to add some decent dialogues, Fallout 3's were so ridiculously retarded a monkey's blabbering would have made much more logical sense, they were really embarassing.

Mograine

Come on, it wasn't THAT bad...

Bittercup's greeting:
"Hi, my name is Bittercup"
Your options to interact with her:
"Bittercup? That must be the dumbest name I have ever heard!"
"Nice to meet you, Bittercup."

Or something very similar. You can't seriously say this is above pitiful.

That was Average, but not HORRIBLE.

Avatar image for gmc2u_64
gmc2u_64

2402

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#78 gmc2u_64
Member since 2005 • 2402 Posts

[QUOTE="XanderZane"][QUOTE="Panther501"]

So many of us had a great time with fallout 3 such as I but when I heard the new Fallout: New Vegas would be made not by Bethesda but by Obsidian, I was psyched. Obsidian software was founded by the leftover members from Black Isle and Interplay, the makers of the original Fallout 1 and 2 + tons of other fantastic games like freespace 2 and Descent. The reason this will be so much better is because its being made by the orginal devs of Fallout. The vision they had from the orignal will be ever greater in this one and not a replica like Fallout 3. I can't wait to see how they continue the Fallout storyline.

DragonfireXZ95

Well Fallout 3 was superb. They will need to top that, which will be tough. I wish them luck, because everyone liked Fallout 3.

The writing alone will easily top Fallout 3. That was some of the worst writing ever, especially in a story driven game. Also, only 2 choices for most of the quests are really boring.

What if New Vegas has Gameplay not as good as F3? It wouldn't matter if it has better writing, I'd EASILY take F3 if NV isn't as FUN.

Avatar image for htekemerald
htekemerald

7325

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#79 htekemerald
Member since 2004 • 7325 Posts

Not a fan of Obsidian. Kotor II was nowhere as good as Kotor, and Alpha Protocol looks meh.IronBass
Kotor 2 was a solid game with many improvements over the first, I have no doubt that it would have been amazing if lucas arts has not had it rushed out for Christmas

Avatar image for Filthybastrd
Filthybastrd

7124

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#80 Filthybastrd
Member since 2009 • 7124 Posts

If they can make the sotyr better I'm content. F3 was rather lacking i in that department.

Avatar image for gmc2u_64
gmc2u_64

2402

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#81 gmc2u_64
Member since 2005 • 2402 Posts

[QUOTE="IronBass"]Not a fan of Obsidian. Kotor II was nowhere as good as Kotor, and Alpha Protocol looks meh.htekemerald

Kotor 2 was a solid game with many improvements over the first, I have no doubt that it would have been amazing if lucas arts has not had it rushed out for Christmas

That Ending left me speechless...about how much it sucked.

Avatar image for subrosian
subrosian

14232

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#82 subrosian
Member since 2005 • 14232 Posts
[QUOTE="XanderZane"] Well Fallout 3 was superb. They will need to top that, which will be tough. I wish them luck, because everyone liked Fallout 3.

Popularity is not the same thing as quality - and yet Fallout 1 / 2 were popular games in their time. I do not foresee New Vegas having problems with being overshadowed by Fallout 3, so much as facing the problem of Bethesda having burned people out. After releasing gad-knows how many add-ons for Fallout 3, people may be looking at the name "Fallout" and going "no thanks, I've had enough".
Avatar image for Dystopian-X
Dystopian-X

8998

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#84 Dystopian-X
Member since 2008 • 8998 Posts

I don't follow the whole "It's teh X developer, the game is gonna be amazing by default" Though I'm really interested in New Vegas, so far I've seen nothing to get my self overhyped and say it's gonna be already better than 3. But if they do blend some of the elements they took away from FO 1/2 into 3's environment and it's features then it could be quite awesome.

Avatar image for gmc2u_64
gmc2u_64

2402

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#85 gmc2u_64
Member since 2005 • 2402 Posts

New Vegas should allow the player to kill children. Not allowing that is what made Fallout 3 bad. Fail Bethesda.IronBass
...how does Killing Children make F1/2 better? Seriously.

Besides, the ESRB (And others) would punish Bethesda for that. Heck, F3 could've been Banned in Countries for that.

Avatar image for Dystopian-X
Dystopian-X

8998

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#86 Dystopian-X
Member since 2008 • 8998 Posts
[QUOTE="subrosian"][QUOTE="XanderZane"] Well Fallout 3 was superb. They will need to top that, which will be tough. I wish them luck, because everyone liked Fallout 3.

Popularity is not the same thing as quality - and yet Fallout 1 / 2 were popular games in their time. I do not foresee New Vegas having problems with being overshadowed by Fallout 3, so much as facing the problem of Bethesda having burned people out. After releasing gad-knows how many add-ons for Fallout 3, people may be looking at the name "Fallout" and going "no thanks, I've had enough".

Not everyone hated the Fallout 3 DLC. As I matter of fact I'd love that New Vegas had some more like Broken Steel and Point Look out. Those were pretty good. And hopefully Beth. Learned that we don't want some like Mothership and Anchorage.
Avatar image for deactivated-63f6895020e66
deactivated-63f6895020e66

21177

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#87 deactivated-63f6895020e66
Member since 2004 • 21177 Posts

[QUOTE="IronBass"]New Vegas should allow the player to kill children. Not allowing that is what made Fallout 3 bad. Fail Bethesda.gmc2u_64

...how does Killing Children make F1/2 better? Seriously.

Besides, the ESRB (And others) would punish Bethesda for that. Heck, F3 could've been Banned in Countries for that.

It was sarcasm. Some people complained about that. I shouldn't be surprised, since people complain about the most stupid things here in SW, but that was just too much.
Avatar image for subrosian
subrosian

14232

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#88 subrosian
Member since 2005 • 14232 Posts
[QUOTE="Dystopian-X"][QUOTE="subrosian"][QUOTE="XanderZane"] Well Fallout 3 was superb. They will need to top that, which will be tough. I wish them luck, because everyone liked Fallout 3.

Popularity is not the same thing as quality - and yet Fallout 1 / 2 were popular games in their time. I do not foresee New Vegas having problems with being overshadowed by Fallout 3, so much as facing the problem of Bethesda having burned people out. After releasing gad-knows how many add-ons for Fallout 3, people may be looking at the name "Fallout" and going "no thanks, I've had enough".

Not everyone hated the Fallout 3 DLC. As I matter of fact I'd love that New Vegas had some more like Broken Steel and Point Look out. Those were pretty good. And hopefully Beth. Learned that we don't want some like Mothership and Anchorage.

Broken Steel was nice because it added to the whole of the game, while still leaving you in the "big world". Mothership, Anchorage, The Pitt, etc failed because they trapped you out of the world. However Anchorage was a nice change of scenery, while the Pitt was simply a smaller version of the far better "big world". - However having pumped out so much DLC, and made Fallout 3 so large, I can easily see general consumers going "eh, I've had enough Fallout for a while" - depending on when New Vegas comes out.
Avatar image for tagyhag
tagyhag

15874

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#89 tagyhag
Member since 2007 • 15874 Posts

I don't follow the whole "It's teh X developer, the game is gonna be amazing by default" Though I'm really interested in New Vegas, so far I've seen nothing to get my self overhyped and say it's gonna be already better than 3. But if they do blend some of the elements they took away from FO 1/2 into 3's environment and it's features then it could be quite awesome.

Dystopian-X
While I don't really follow that whole developer thing, I make excuses for some. For example: Black Isle hasn't made a single bad game.
Avatar image for cobrax25
cobrax25

9649

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#90 cobrax25
Member since 2006 • 9649 Posts

[QUOTE="Dystopian-X"][QUOTE="subrosian"] Popularity is not the same thing as quality - and yet Fallout 1 / 2 were popular games in their time. I do not foresee New Vegas having problems with being overshadowed by Fallout 3, so much as facing the problem of Bethesda having burned people out. After releasing gad-knows how many add-ons for Fallout 3, people may be looking at the name "Fallout" and going "no thanks, I've had enough".subrosian
Not everyone hated the Fallout 3 DLC. As I matter of fact I'd love that New Vegas had some more like Broken Steel and Point Look out. Those were pretty good. And hopefully Beth. Learned that we don't want some like Mothership and Anchorage.

Broken Steel was nice because it added to the whole of the game, while still leaving you in the "big world". Mothership, Anchorage, The Pitt, etc failed because they trapped you out of the world. However Anchorage was a nice change of scenery, while the Pitt was simply a smaller version of the far better "big world". - However having pumped out so much DLC, and made Fallout 3 so large, I can easily see general consumers going "eh, I've had enough Fallout for a while" - depending on when New Vegas comes out.

I though point lookout was pretty good...

Avatar image for gmc2u_64
gmc2u_64

2402

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#91 gmc2u_64
Member since 2005 • 2402 Posts

[QUOTE="gmc2u_64"]

[QUOTE="IronBass"]New Vegas should allow the player to kill children. Not allowing that is what made Fallout 3 bad. Fail Bethesda.IronBass

...how does Killing Children make F1/2 better? Seriously.

Besides, the ESRB (And others) would punish Bethesda for that. Heck, F3 could've been Banned in Countries for that.

It was sarcasm. Some people complained about that. I shouldn't be surprised, since people complain about the most stupid things here in SW, but that was just too much.

...oh crap. Sorry! :P

But yeah, not Killing Children shouldn't be an Option for an Argument about how "Failout 3 Suks!!!!1111!". Killing Children is rather Pointless.

Avatar image for tman93
tman93

7769

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#92 tman93
Member since 2006 • 7769 Posts
Weird after reading the first few posts system wars seems to have done a 180 on their opinion on Fallout 3.
Avatar image for tman93
tman93

7769

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#93 tman93
Member since 2006 • 7769 Posts
On topic, I do hope that New Vegas turns out well as I loved Fallout 3 and am basicly sold on anything Fallout from now on. (Im one of those noobs that never played Fallout 1 or 2)
Avatar image for deactivated-63f6895020e66
deactivated-63f6895020e66

21177

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#94 deactivated-63f6895020e66
Member since 2004 • 21177 Posts
But yeah, not Killing Children shouldn't be an Option for an Argument about how "Failout 3 Suks!!!!1111!". Killing Children is rather Pointless.gmc2u_64
Indeed. Besides, as you well said, it would only mean unnecessary trouble for Bethesda to add something that's considered a huge taboo by most societies and that would add absolutely nothing to the game.
Avatar image for cobrax25
cobrax25

9649

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#95 cobrax25
Member since 2006 • 9649 Posts

[QUOTE="IronBass"][QUOTE="gmc2u_64"]...how does Killing Children make F1/2 better? Seriously.

Besides, the ESRB (And others) would punish Bethesda for that. Heck, F3 could've been Banned in Countries for that.

gmc2u_64

It was sarcasm. Some people complained about that. I shouldn't be surprised, since people complain about the most stupid things here in SW, but that was just too much.

...oh crap. Sorry! :P

But yeah, not Killing Children shouldn't be an Option for an Argument about how "Failout 3 Suks!!!!1111!". Killing Children is rather Pointless.

not really, it was just one of those things that gave the original games their dark, ironic moods...something that Fallout 3 lacks entirely....along with any intresting NPC's, and any intresting diologue.

Avatar image for -TheSecondSign-
-TheSecondSign-

9303

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#96 -TheSecondSign-
Member since 2007 • 9303 Posts

Having never played any Fallout game prior to 3, I have to say I'm curious if it will live up to what I've heard about it, and what I'll think about it when it comes out.

Day one buy for me, no question.

Avatar image for Dystopian-X
Dystopian-X

8998

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#97 Dystopian-X
Member since 2008 • 8998 Posts

...oh crap. Sorry! :P

But yeah, not Killing Children shouldn't be an Option for an Argument about how "Failout 3 Suks!!!!1111!". Killing Children is rather Pointless.

gmc2u_64

This is true however I wouldn't mind having the option to do it at all. It still feels pretty silly how you are supposed to be able to kill everything except for those kids and certain weak characters who are magically "knocked out" After having a fat man shoved to their heads.

Avatar image for -TheSecondSign-
-TheSecondSign-

9303

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#99 -TheSecondSign-
Member since 2007 • 9303 Posts

[QUOTE="gmc2u_64"]

[QUOTE="IronBass"] It was sarcasm. Some people complained about that. I shouldn't be surprised, since people complain about the most stupid things here in SW, but that was just too much.cobrax25

...oh crap. Sorry! :P

But yeah, not Killing Children shouldn't be an Option for an Argument about how "Failout 3 Suks!!!!1111!". Killing Children is rather Pointless.

not really, it was just one of those things that gave the original games their dark, ironic moods...something that Fallout 3 lacks entirely....along with any intresting NPC's, and any intresting diologue.

That doesn't change the fact that the hate over that one particular change is incredibly stupid.

Of course they weren't going to let you kill kids. This isn't the 90s, games are no longer the same entertainment medium they were 10-15 years ago. It would've been media suicide right out the gate if they'd of included that. Besides, the game could've had those things without having to kill children. The fact that people even thought of ($*#&ing about that made me want to puke.

So your game won't let you murder children. Whoopty freakin' doo. Get over it.

Avatar image for gmc2u_64
gmc2u_64

2402

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#100 gmc2u_64
Member since 2005 • 2402 Posts

[QUOTE="gmc2u_64"]But yeah, not Killing Children shouldn't be an Option for an Argument about how "Failout 3 Suks!!!!1111!". Killing Children is rather Pointless.IronBass
Indeed. Besides, as you well said, it would only mean unnecessary trouble for Bethesda to add something that's considered a huge taboo by most societies and that would add absolutely nothing to the game.

Besides, their KIDS. What would Kids do to deserve to get their heads blown off by a Shotgun?

It's just stupid and really not worth it.