Comment on Fallout 3 Junkwall by vermaden
Fair enough. I'm still inclined to say that a fair dose of nostalgia skews your opinion. I still think calling it TES with guns is pretty crass and uncalled for. FO3 was unique enough to stand as a separate entity from TES.
Now, I'm not sure Beth Soft should have been as bold as to call it Fallout 3 though. It was quite the departure from the originals, not only in gameplay, but in setting and story. Granted it's their game now, it might have faired better with older fans if they hadn't dubbed it a numbered Fallout game. However, I don't think it was a lackluster sequel in any regard.
What things did you feel that Bethesda did poorly with Fallout 3, if you don't mind me asking.
Also, New Vegas was a stand-alone title, not an expansion of Fallout 3.
Now, I'm not sure Beth Soft should have been as bold as to call it Fallout 3 though. It was quite the departure from the originals, not only in gameplay, but in setting and story. Granted it's their game now, it might have faired better with older fans if they hadn't dubbed it a numbered Fallout game. However, I don't think it was a lackluster sequel in any regard.
What things did you feel that Bethesda did poorly with Fallout 3, if you don't mind me asking.
Also, New Vegas was a stand-alone title, not an expansion of Fallout 3.
> I'm still inclined to say that a fair dose of nostalgia skews your opinion.
Of course it is, if Fallout 3 will came without knowing the old Fallouts 1 & 2 I will probably like it more, but knowing how good a Fallout can be I am more 'picky' here.
> What things did you feel that Bethesda did poorly with Fallout 3, if you don't mind me asking.
Character 'scaling', for example creating a character in Fallout 1 & 2 You have had some tough choices to make, good at that, bad at that etc. While Fallout 3 still uses SPECIAL, choices between low or high stats are not that crucial, it will 'work' anyway, like it does not matter.
The battle ... is a caricature for me, You have action points to use, but they reload in real-time and while doing that You can still fight in that real-time waiting for the tour-based attack because its 'better'?
These are major flaws I saw after playing Fallout 3 for several hours, I can not say about the depth of plot or the diversity of quests etc, it would be a lit from me with such a short period of playing that game.
Thanks for clarification on F3NV, I really thought that just an expansion
Of course it is, if Fallout 3 will came without knowing the old Fallouts 1 & 2 I will probably like it more, but knowing how good a Fallout can be I am more 'picky' here.
> What things did you feel that Bethesda did poorly with Fallout 3, if you don't mind me asking.
Character 'scaling', for example creating a character in Fallout 1 & 2 You have had some tough choices to make, good at that, bad at that etc. While Fallout 3 still uses SPECIAL, choices between low or high stats are not that crucial, it will 'work' anyway, like it does not matter.
The battle ... is a caricature for me, You have action points to use, but they reload in real-time and while doing that You can still fight in that real-time waiting for the tour-based attack because its 'better'?
These are major flaws I saw after playing Fallout 3 for several hours, I can not say about the depth of plot or the diversity of quests etc, it would be a lit from me with such a short period of playing that game.
Thanks for clarification on F3NV, I really thought that just an expansion
Yeah, with the add-on Broken Steel it's incredibly easy to max out all of your stats, including SPECIAL ones. Even in the Vanilla game it's not that hard to max your regular skills if you really want. I can agree on that.
The combat system served its purpose. They made it a little harder to exploit in NV though, thankfully.
And as far as story goes, I'd imagine you'd like NV better than FO3. It stays closer to the Core Region (like it's on the fringes, in Vegas, obviously), and features the NCR and brings back Van Buren's Caesar's Legion.
The gameplay of NV is more or less the same as FO3's though. But it's much harder to max out your skills in vanilla NV. If you have the add-ons its easy to max everything, but the third add-on also adds a trait that stops you from leveling at 30 (which is the vanilla level cap, the cap with all add-ons is 50).
All in all, I think you'd like New Vegas more, but I dunno how much more... Give it a rent, perhaps. Unless you have absolute zero interest in it, of course.
The combat system served its purpose. They made it a little harder to exploit in NV though, thankfully.
And as far as story goes, I'd imagine you'd like NV better than FO3. It stays closer to the Core Region (like it's on the fringes, in Vegas, obviously), and features the NCR and brings back Van Buren's Caesar's Legion.
The gameplay of NV is more or less the same as FO3's though. But it's much harder to max out your skills in vanilla NV. If you have the add-ons its easy to max everything, but the third add-on also adds a trait that stops you from leveling at 30 (which is the vanilla level cap, the cap with all add-ons is 50).
All in all, I think you'd like New Vegas more, but I dunno how much more... Give it a rent, perhaps. Unless you have absolute zero interest in it, of course.
> The combat system served its purpose. They made it
> a little harder to exploit in NV though, thankfully.
Its not for me whatever is it hard or easy, but it
should be consistent, integral, not some random not
very well thought idea poorly implemented at the same
time, its not sub $1 game, its multi-million budget
game, such mistakes are unforgeable for me.
If they wish to provide two models for battle
gameplay, they should put an option in the menu,
those who want real-time FPS would be playing it like
a Quake, those who want turn-based gameplay would
choose that one and everybody would be happy.
> And as far as story goes, I'd imagine you'd like NV
> better than FO3. It stays closer to the Core Region
> (like it's on the fringes, in Vegas, obviously),
> and features the NCR and brings back Van Buren's
> Caesar's Legion.
Its not about the place, playing the same locations
over and over again can be quite boring, its not
about location
> All in all, I think you'd like New Vegas more,
> but I dunno how much more... Give it a rent,
> perhaps. Unless you have absolute zero interest
> in it, of course.
Currently I do not even own a hardware capable of
playing Fallout 3 or NV, not talking about permanent
lack of time
Maybe I will try to convince me to F3 and NV some
time, but I definitely look forward for Wasteland 2
> a little harder to exploit in NV though, thankfully.
Its not for me whatever is it hard or easy, but it
should be consistent, integral, not some random not
very well thought idea poorly implemented at the same
time, its not sub $1 game, its multi-million budget
game, such mistakes are unforgeable for me.
If they wish to provide two models for battle
gameplay, they should put an option in the menu,
those who want real-time FPS would be playing it like
a Quake, those who want turn-based gameplay would
choose that one and everybody would be happy.
> And as far as story goes, I'd imagine you'd like NV
> better than FO3. It stays closer to the Core Region
> (like it's on the fringes, in Vegas, obviously),
> and features the NCR and brings back Van Buren's
> Caesar's Legion.
Its not about the place, playing the same locations
over and over again can be quite boring, its not
about location
> All in all, I think you'd like New Vegas more,
> but I dunno how much more... Give it a rent,
> perhaps. Unless you have absolute zero interest
> in it, of course.
Currently I do not even own a hardware capable of
playing Fallout 3 or NV, not talking about permanent
lack of time
Maybe I will try to convince me to F3 and NV some
time, but I definitely look forward for Wasteland 2