Thanks god obsidian dosn't make an other fallout :)

[Antartic]

An interesting debate, IMHO Obsidian has destroyed every sequel they've touched...

 

-NWN2 is graphically better than NWN1 (probably 5 years older) and its plot is better for single player mode, the only thing is that they've ruined its unique multiplayer mode by adding the necessity of a downloadable component for every persistent world. And the unique quality that distinguishes NWN is its online gameplay, destroyed by Obsidian...

 

-Dungeon Siege III, I have no words to describe such abomination, in general lines is the casualization (consolization), of another unique saga hardly based on party and deep mouse control in isometric view... converted into a generic console game, probably fault of Square Enix, but it doesn’t matter, Obsidian did that shame...

 

-New Vegas has better ‘role’ but FO3 is a wonderful game to mod and achieve a unique atmosphere of desolation like Mad Max 1 & 2, while New Vegas is populated of crowds more close to Mad Max 3 that doesn't fit in the sensation of loneliness that we felt being the Lone Wanderer in FO3.

 

In synthesis Obsidian seems very good in their own games, but horrible in outside sagas, it seems that they don't understand the original spirit of a saga; they don't care the kind of game that they are intended to continue, starting from scratch with their own criteria. But when you love a saga (like the three mentioned), you expect more of the same, better and expanded, not another brilliant idea that shits in all that you loved of previous games.

[bajs11]

I do agree that the graphics of the vanilla version of FO3 and FNV are crappy compared to some of the other games released during the same time but this is the reason why sites like Nexus exist and why people like me prefer to play games on PC instead of consoles with their inability to modify and improve and have to make do with inferior and outdated hardware even with their so called next gen consoles. what the game makers should have done in the first place is to add more graphics settings and options and make higher resolution textures for the PC version instead of lazily porting the game so I wouldn't have to download several giga bytes of textures and learn how to use ENB not to mention all the hours I spent reading and learning how to make the game run without crashing every ten minutes but I guess it wasn't all that bad considering I now know more about how the game works and the joy I felt when playing the much improved game.

[DoctorKaizeld]

I started as a console gamer and switched when I realized I could make FO3 better then it already was! except for the lousy and very cliché main plot it had a great atmosphere and had characters you truly cared for. unlike NV where you're just a pissed off homicidal maniac bent on destroying everything in your path that stops you from getting Benny. oh and you get him way too soon.

[charwo]

I've not played a homicidal maniac! In both games the first response from the designers is make a shooting galley. There are more peaceful options in New Vegas, but really, the goal is to shoot everything up.

 

Take the Dunwich Building and dealing with the Surgeon in the Red Racer Factory. You can't save, reason or even talk to Jamie or the Surgeon, even though both are not necessarily violent. Both are very, very disturbed, probably both from supernatural evil. But you can't save either . In fact there are only two times in all of vanilla Fallout 3 you can spare killing Enclave personnel, unless you bolt or cheat like a maniac you WILL end up killing several guards in Vault 101 and you can't even turn Shelby's Outcasts back to McGraw and subvert the coup attempt at the end of Anchorage!

 

Vegas is better, but not much better. You can't convince Cobb to leave Goodsprings alone or get Eddy to do it. NCR HAS to take control of the prison Attica style with no option to negotiate a surrender or just kill Eddy and Scramble to leave the Gangers without leadership. It makes sense that the ferals are loose at Repcon, but unless you are VERY good at sneaking, you can't complete the Bright Bortherhood's quest without completely slaughtering the supermutants down in the basement. You can find their leader first, get him to cooperate, but you could still end up killing so many of his followers getting to your objective, when you come back he tries to kill you too!

 

The problem with the new games is that they are first person shooter hybrids. They look like first person shooters and casual fans expect there to be a lot of shooting, and not a lot, if any diplomacy. If they don't mostly play it like a first person shooter, it's a waste of a mechanic. Mind you this is coming from someone that spent more time looking for raiders to slaughter Fallout 2 than actually playing the storyline. But it was different there: You had the northern half of the West Coast to travel, and there were no spawn points, just random encounters. Combined with the car, it felt like a pacification patrol over long distances. Fighting repawning raiders in the exact same spots OVER AND OVER again felt more like weeding.

[MarchUntoTorment]

...Is it heresy to declare that I enjoyed FO3 and NV more than the originals?

[Falconian]

...Is it heresy to declare that I enjoyed FO3 and NV more than the originals?

Objectively, yes.

Subjectively speaking, there is people who literally likes eating feces, so I guess anything goes.

 

http://i.imgur.com/kkyMQ3g.jpg

[MarchUntoTorment]

'Objectively speaking' made me burst out laughing. There is no 'objective' with reference to taste. Personally, I just found the isometric games boring; I found no interest in their combat, and the storylines weren't as engaging to me as NV's (FO3 doesn't count - its story was abysmal). WIth that said, I never played much of them and my first Fallout game was FO3, so it's entirely possible that my perspective is somewhat warped.

 

Nonetheless, that's a very interesting diagram, and one I - for the most part - agree with. New Vegas had an infinitely superior faction system, much better endings, better companions, and very, very good role-playing. Not to mention Dead Money, which was probably the most engaging DLC I've ever played.

 

However, the one thing that New Vegas did wrong (and that it did very, very, horrifically wrong) was the atmosphere - it felt like it was set in the wild west, not in a post-apocalyptic nuclear wasteland. Lonesome Road was the only section of the game to actually feel remotely post-apocalyptic.

 

Fallout 3 had the feel down perfectly, and that feel hooked me from the second I stepped out of Vault 101. Every scene, every landscape, was flawless. I would often go on long treks around the wastes just to see what I would find. I still remember fondly one day reaching the top of the map and simply sitting there watching the sun set over the vast, empty wastes; it was beautiful, and possibly the only beautiful moment I've ever had while playing a game (although the ending of Dead Money might count as well - I loved that DLC's story and characters to death).

 

If someone ever managed to combine FO3's landscape, setting and feel with NV's faction system, characters, storyline and gameplay, I would consider it the perfect game. Alas, that's never going to happen - the scale of the overhaul is just too large.

[Antartic]

Falconian, I like all under the Obsidian column but also keep in mind that is slightly out of context. considering that Bethesda DID the entire game from scratch while Obsidian only did (more or less) an expansion of FO3, if we take in consideration that only Fallout Wanderers Edition adds (proportionally) more content with less.

 

By the way, I would prefer a Fallout 3 expansion keeping its postnuclear atmosphere, than this sort of 'cowboy' sequel...

[charwo]

Fallout was NEVER intended to be post-apocalyptic. It's post-post-apocalyptic, well into the rebuilding phase. Even Vegas realy disappointed in this regard. After 200 years, there's NOTHING new. No new style of cars, no new fashions, nothing. Fallout needs to genre shift: you can only justify a genre in a time phase in it's lore and you can't justify the lack of rebuilding and humanity moving on after 200 years. Think about post Roman Europe: 476 was a bad year, but the world was much, MUCH different in 676. Culture was different. technology was different, religion was very different. If you want to go to another apocalypse, the black death hit Europe like storm in 1348. But while that legacy was strong, Europe in 1538 looked NOTHING like it.

[MarchUntoTorment]

Fallout was NEVER intended to be post-apocalyptic. It's post-post-apocalyptic, well into the rebuilding phase. Even Vegas realy disappointed in this regard. After 200 years, there's NOTHING new. No new style of cars, no new fashions, nothing. Fallout needs to genre shift: you can only justify a genre in a time phase in it's lore and you can't justify the lack of rebuilding and humanity moving on after 200 years. Think about post Roman Europe: 476 was a bad year, but the world was much, MUCH different in 676. Culture was different. technology was different, religion was very different. If you want to go to another apocalypse, the black death hit Europe like storm in 1348. But while that legacy was strong, Europe in 1538 looked NOTHING like it.

 

A game called 'Fallout'...

 

...was not intended to be post-apocalyptic.

 

Excuse me, I think you skipped a logic step there.