I find the OP's questions and opinions very underwhelming.

Fallout 1 and 2 were awesome because they made everything work together, the story wasn't bullshit, the death animations were actually satisfying and you actually need a brain to make a character who can survive 5 minutes in the game.

Also, despite the turn-based combat sometimes annoying me, at least it was properly implemented, unlike that disgusting V.A.T.S system.

The whole game was turn based (in combat) and it knew it, it embraced it, it refined it. With Fallout 3, it's a fucking gimmick which saves you ammo.

I think that comparing Fallout 1 and 2 with F3 is unfair, because they're so unlike each other. The games themselves share themes, names, and ideas, but does that really make them the same type of game? I don't think that it does at all.

The originals were RPGs in the fullest sense: they gave you a vague idea of your background (beyond Vault Dweller or Tribal, you knew very little about who you were and where you stood in your home), and gave you lots of freedom to do whatever you wanted, and imagine yourself (role play even) as whatever type of character you like.

Fallout 3 by contrast gives you a full view of your childhood before you set out, so you can't really think yourself as anything other than the type of character you left the vault as (sorry, don't want to give out any spoilers :D). There is little room for role playing in a traditional sense, as in the end, the karma system makes you either a true hero of legend, or a dastardly villain. Not much of a role-playing game, but hell of a good game otherwise. Which brings me to my last point.

Fallout 1 and 2 are great games if you're looking for an interesting story that lets you be whatever kind of character you want, that let's you adventure in a wide variety of ways. But really, they're not going to impress anyone with their graphics, and, in all honesty, a lot of people may not have the patience to sit down and play out a huge firefight in turn-based combat. Fallout 3 is just the opposite: it looks great, you can fight in real-time combat, and there are more aspects of gaming than just dialog and clicking on guns or skills to use them. All great games, but very different.

Darren_Ford:
Aside from Fallout 3 the only other one i have played is Fallout:Brotherhood Of Steel. But i have seen videos and screenshots from the begining of the Fallout franchise. Now im not saying older games are a bad thing, i mean a few of my favourite games have been classics ie Dungeon Keeper, Diablo 1 & 2, Doom etc. However, when it comes down to Rpg's like Fallout i'd have to say id rather play them more streamlined rather than turn-based. Either way i'll probably have to invest in the original Fallout's to know abit better.

Brotherhood is considered the the fallout series inbred black sheep.

BrynThomas:

Darren_Ford:
Aside from Fallout 3 the only other one i have played is Fallout:Brotherhood Of Steel. But i have seen videos and screenshots from the begining of the Fallout franchise. Now im not saying older games are a bad thing, i mean a few of my favourite games have been classics ie Dungeon Keeper, Diablo 1 & 2, Doom etc. However, when it comes down to Rpg's like Fallout i'd have to say id rather play them more streamlined rather than turn-based. Either way i'll probably have to invest in the original Fallout's to know abit better.

Brotherhood is considered the the fallout series inbred black sheep.

I thought that honour went to tactics?

I own fallout 1,2,tactics and 3 and the fallout fanboys have their rose tinted glasses glued on to their retinas.

Speaking in fallout and fallout 2 was determined by intelligence rather than the far more appropriate skill of charisma which was only used for a few speech dice rolls and for bringing along teammates.
The roleplaying aspect was null and void because a jack of all trades could experience all facets of the game while a specialised player would be handicapped. Sure you can play as a diplomat but so can I with my small guns master; the only difference is that for you when speech can't solve a problem you lose, like trying to save the girl stuck in the oil tanker full of monsters. But for me when speech can't solve the problem I can shoot my way through essentially making roleplaying of any form like shooting yourself in the foot. Another example was the boxing ring in Fallout 2 which could be completed with barely any skill at all in unarmed combat.

The tactics and strategy to the games amounted to, make your allies stand in a row or they will shoot you in the back; shoot someone from far away then step behind a rock so they run up to you instead of attacking; overdose people with superstimpacks. Of course the alternative strategy was to get power armour and beat the game which I have read many fallout fanboy comments of how their armour can no longer win the game for them and it's a bad thing.

Power armour made the second half of the game ridiculously easy while the first half was broken for those that haven't played the game before. Anyone here ever been to the Glow? If not you get deadly radiation without any forewarning and once you leave the glow your rad away does nothing because radiation lowers your stats at certain times even if you have cured the radiation and if a stat hits 0 you die. The only strategy to counter this is to save often, yeah savespamming is very immersive.

Fanboys complain that there is a level cap when oh my it is the exact same as the level cap in fallout 1; they also complained that the ending isn't open when the ending to fallout isn't either unless you deliberately run the moment the final speech is meant to occur. Fallout and Fallout 2 both had far fewer locations than Fallout 3 and while the originals had more enemies most of them were just palette swaps. Oh and the original Fallout and Fallout 2 hold the title for the buggiest games that I have ever played before being patched.
I have heard complaints that you don't get traits in Fallout 3 which you did in the originals but traits and perks in the original 2 were also broken; if you wanted to succeed you would choose gifted or you were again shooting yourself in the foot and if you wanted to be the master of firearms you would choose fast shot, bonus rate of fire, a luck of 10 and sniper. Any other choice was inferior and you knew it while choosing.

I would comment on the lousy ending to Fallout 3 but Fallout 1/2 glitched up for the endings so all I saw was a slideshow with no sound.

I'm an old time Fallout fan. I religiously played all the Fallout games as they came out. I cleared FO1&2 at least ten times each. I was a moderator for the Black Isle Fallout forums. Also, just for the record, I think Oblivion is a pile of poop (before people start calling me a Bethesda fanboy).

Fallout 3 isn't "unworthy". In fact, it's quite worthy and a good addition to the series. It has its share of bugs and small issues, but overall it conveys the Wasteland quite nicely. The reason people are all bitchy about it is that they had a slightly different picture of the Wasteland in their heads. Going from 2D to 3D meant making a lot of design decisions, and I feel Bethesda did good. They moved from west coast to east coast and thereby bought them selves some artistic liberty by not being chained to the old games.

V.A.T.S. system is not bad in itself. It's a real-time equivalent of the aimed shots in the earlier games. The complaint might be leveled at it making the game easier than it might have been, but without it we'd just have a FPS.

As for the inevitable argument of the short and lame main quest, I present to you this:
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=WzSOKi_t5fg
Less than 10 minutes to beat FO1. The first two Fallout games were NEVER about the main quest. They were about everything except the main quest. The only difference is that the first two games refused to allow you to advance the main quest by not providing you the needed info. FO3 has a bad ending (and the entire Optimus Prime sequence is wrong), but that's it.

Overall, FO3 is a good game and is a worthy addition to the series. I'm sorry it doesn't fulfill the wet dreams of so-called "fans", but that shouldn't be a reason to hate the game...

EDIT:

hypothetical fact:

BrynThomas:

Brotherhood is considered the the fallout series inbred black sheep.

I thought that honour went to tactics?

Nope, FO:BoS gets the prize for utter abandonment of any source material. Tactics isn't the inbred black sheep, it's just the slightly wierd cousin who sits in the corner at family gatherings, but is actually nice once you get to know him... ;)

hypothetical fact:
Anyone here ever been to the Glow? If not you get deadly radiation without any forewarning and once you leave the glow your rad away does nothing because radiation lowers your stats at certain times even if you have cured the radiation and if a stat hits 0 you die. The only strategy to counter this is to save often, yeah savespamming is very immersive.

Actually... The point of that "quest" was to kill you off. The BoS are xenophobic and are kind of a bunch bastards at times.

You get plenty of warning about the The Glow. If you ask the right questions of the BOS Paladin you get the "quest" from, he'll off-hand mention why it's called the Glow. There's a few NPC's in nearby towns who'll tell you about it. And the scenery change as you get close to it is a dead give away. I thought the Glow was a nice way of the designers giving you a lesson in being prepared knowledge and equipment wise. Think before you act.

And radiation sickeness is no friggin' joke, either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_poisoning

Remember, two Rad-X a day keeps the rems at bay!

Jandau:

As for the inevitable argument of the short and lame main quest, I present to you this:
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=WzSOKi_t5fg
Less than 10 minutes to beat FO1. The first two Fallout games were NEVER about the main quest. They were about everything except the main quest. The only difference is that the first two games refused to allow you to advance the main quest by not providing you the needed info. FO3 has a bad ending (and the entire Optimus Prime sequence is wrong), but that's it.

The first game started wiping out locations if you hadn't finished the main quest, how is that not about the main quest?

hypothetical fact:

BrynThomas:

Darren_Ford:
Aside from Fallout 3 the only other one i have played is Fallout:Brotherhood Of Steel. But i have seen videos and screenshots from the begining of the Fallout franchise. Now im not saying older games are a bad thing, i mean a few of my favourite games have been classics ie Dungeon Keeper, Diablo 1 & 2, Doom etc. However, when it comes down to Rpg's like Fallout i'd have to say id rather play them more streamlined rather than turn-based. Either way i'll probably have to invest in the original Fallout's to know abit better.

Brotherhood is considered the the fallout series inbred black sheep.

I thought that honour went to tactics? I liked tactics, for one it was hard, really challenging later. I realised though it was barely connected to the fallout series.

No tactics wasn't great, but brotherhood was a traversty.

hypothetical fact:
Fallout and Fallout 2 both had far fewer locations than Fallout 3 and while the originals had more enemies most of them were just palette swaps. Oh and the original Fallout and Fallout 2 hold the title for the buggiest games that I have ever played before being patched.

To say Fallout 1 and 2 had fewer locations is debatable, I feel it had more when you consider the number of cities and what they contained. I don't count things such as random empty diner or charnel house full of raiders, a location. Fallout 3's mighty buggy too, its the one thing they got spot on.

hypothetical fact:
The first game started wiping out locations if you hadn't finished the main quest, how is that not about the main quest?

I have never, in all my years of playing the game had the chance of seeing this happen. You would literally have to SLOWLY complete every last thing the game has in itself and then spend a few hours (real time, not game time) running in circles on the world map for it to happen.

It's not a very relevant game mechanic. If you were constantly riding just ahead of a Super Mutant wave and it was an ever-present threat, then yes, it would be interesting. But as it is, I've never seen this happen myself, only read about it. Also, none of the people I've ever talked to about the game have ever seen it happen either.

Gameplay > Graphics.
OK?
/thread

To answer the OP's original questions:
1) I'm somewhat ambivalent on the whole turn based vs. real time thing. I'm better at turn based but thats because I started gaming with Civilization and didn't start playing FPS games for a long time. Had the real time mechanics been decent and not felt like a really clunky generic shooter I would have been very happy without a turn based mode. The slow-mo and death animations while cool were overused since they were used on every single shot.

2) VATS had some potential however it wasn't so much an aimed-shot mode as it was a cheat-mode. Since you only took 10% damage in VATS you could just stand and fire without worrying about getting hurt which made it obviously superior to real time mode no matter how good at FPSs you are. VATS isn't really turn based because your enemies don't get a turn its really god-mode pretending to be a game mechanic.

Really though the combat while mediocre at best isn't the biggest problem with Fallout 3 its the absurdity of the game world. Fallout 3 was so busy tripping over itself to prove that it was a Fallout game by shoving just about every major plot element from the previous games in that it seemed to miss the fact that the setting (that was required for this reanimation of defeated enemies) made absolutely no sense. Working computers, 1 real city, loot in mailboxes and rubble everywhere suggests maybe 5 or 10 years after the nuclear war not 200! Combine this with the poor voice acting, horrible story and poor quests (with a few notable exceptions) and you get a decidely average game that lacks most of what made Fallout 1 good.

"Can someone explain to me why?"

No. You are too stupid.

harhol:
Old games are better than new games because they are old.

what Harhol says, taking that into real life context, who do you prefer down your road?;
a) that spotty teen that spits on cars or,
b) that little old lady that says hello to everyone that walks past while she does her gardening.

I rest my case.
/case

fierydemise:

Really though the combat while mediocre at best isn't the biggest problem with Fallout 3 its the absurdity of the game world. Fallout 3 was so busy tripping over itself to prove that it was a Fallout game by shoving just about every major plot element from the previous games in that it seemed to miss the fact that the setting (that was required for this reanimation of defeated enemies) made absolutely no sense. Working computers, 1 real city, loot in mailboxes and rubble everywhere suggests maybe 5 or 10 years after the nuclear war not 200! Combine this with the poor voice acting, horrible story and poor quests (with a few notable exceptions) and you get a decidely average game that lacks most of what made Fallout 1 good.

Now if Bethesda had listened to this there would be cities and police and societies with only the distant threat of some kind of monsterous menace planning on overthrowing humanity. JUST LIKE OBLIVION!
They made the world a wasteland because that is what people think of when they think of a nuclear holocaust which brings in more money; and because they were trying to prove that they were capable of handling the Fallout title without making it an Oblivion clone.

I'm sure it's been mentioned, but YES... Fallout 3 was made by Bethesda... makers of Oblivion...
It's first and foremost a First Person Shooter.

Because of Fallout's original premise of being either real-time strategy OR turn-based (depending on the player's choice), the V.A.T.S system was introduced. It's no different than the turn-based strategy of the original 2D Fallout games.

I personally love it... but then, I'm always a gun-wielding player when I play it, so watching me fire a bullet in slow motion as it plows into my enemy's skull, either ripping it off at the neck or make it explode outright, makes me happy.

...That made me sound like a psychopath, huh?

I think the main problem here is the actual "Fallout" name attached to the franchise. I know that if this was a brand new game without the Fallout name on it people would be loving it.
I know nostalgia is a good thing sometimes but dont let it stop you from enjoying an otherwise good game

Fallout 3 was doomed to be insulted by Fallout fans no matter what company or what the final product would be. I can link to rather offensive pictures representing the poor quality of Fallout 3 before it was released but you can look up no mutants allowed yourselves. It is sad that Fallout fans would rather their series die being remembered for games that fell into a gorge of poor quality like Tactics and Brotherhood of Steel, than be revitalised at the hands of a new company.

Akin to a child that can't recieve the blue car but instead recieves the red car and throws a tantrum; Fallout fans will throw a tantrum if their car is anything but Interplay.

hypothetical fact:
Fallout 3 was doomed to be insulted by Fallout fans no matter what company or what the final product would be. I can link to rather offensive pictures representing the poor quality of Fallout 3 before it was released but you can look up no mutants allowed yourselves. It is sad that Fallout fans would rather their series die being remembered for games that fell into a gorge of poor quality like Tactics and Brotherhood of Steel, than be revitalised at the hands of a new company.

Akin to a child that can't recieve the blue car but instead recieves the red car and throws a tantrum; Fallout fans will throw a tantrum if their car is anything but Interplay.

There's nothing wrong with a franchise just ending. I know that's anathema to the video game industry but we don't need to constantly dig up and tart out old favourites to turn a dime.

Trist66:
I've seen countless oldtime fallout players whine about it "not being a true fallout game", arguieng with statements such as "it's in 3d" or "The V.A.T.S system is dumb". Now, I've never played the original two fallouts, so I don't know how good it really was. Really though, you honestly have more fun watching a 2d picture hitting another with pre-animated sequence, then watching a 3d physics engine take control when you watch a super mutants head bounce of a building in downtown D.C?

Can someone explain to me why?

EDIT: I forgot to talk about the second statement, "The V.A.T.S system is dumb". I honestly say that it's your fault that Bathesda put that in. You had to cry about it "not being turned base", so they gave you V.A.T.S. I'm not complaining, because I love the system, but tell me how clicking some text, and then watching an animation, is more fun then actually thinking about what you have to do to beat an enemys speed, strength, and intellegence.

The technical graphics I have no quarrel with. The design however, is awful. It's not Fallout anymore. That's my problem, not with going 3D, not with advanced graphics, but with the design. It doesn't look, or feel, like the same world anymore.

The VATS system I also have no quarrel with, it just doesn't have a place in Fallout. It's a great system, and makes for some really cool stuff, but it doesn't fit the gameplay of the series.

The other part is pure opinion. I love turn-based games, since they are about assesing your opponents speed, strength and intelligence, instead of just playing a twitch-based unbalanced fps. It's not about clicking some text and watching an animation, it's about making an informed tactical decision about what is the most sound approach in that particular situation, instead of just spraying wildly (yes, I know you're doing more than just spraying wildly in Fallout 3, but you don't know seem to know anything about the gameplay of the first two, so it's a fair use of words.)

That said, I like Fallout 3. Sure, I personally, think it looks like crap. I personally, think the storyline is ridiculous, and I think the design is just awful and gimmicky. But that's me.

To me it is not however a Fallout game. It can't be, too many things just don't make sense. It's not the same world anymore, it's not the same game. It may be somewhat related, but it has more in common with a random shooter, or mad max than it has with Fallout. That's just the way things are.

I know this may be hard for an fps-player to understand, but some games are more than just graphics and gameplay style. Some games have story, a fictional universe, characters, and those matter so much more. That's the difference here. The first fallouts share all of those with each other, the third one has some related things in them.

If you'd have played the real Fallout games when they were newer you would understand.

I tried to play Fallout 1 about a year ago, I liked the world and story but found the gameplay to be clunky and unenjoyable. I didn't love the Fallout 3 main quest, but the world was superb and the gameplay was excellent.

F3 might not be a worthy successor to F1 in terms of RPG mechanics, but F1 wouldn't be a worthy successor to F3 gameplay wise. It's a different game, and good in a different way. And that's good for the Fallout series; much better than either dying or endlessly repeating similar games with higher numbers on the end.

Trist66:
I'm not complaining about the story thing, as I can definately see that being better, I'm just talking about people that whine about it not being fallout 1 or 2.

That's because it isn't LIKE the other two. Both Fallout 1 and 2 were immersive RPGs with fantastic dialogue, real impacts on the world in many places, deep NPCs, a great story, and multiple endings.

Fallout 3 is an action RPG with more emphasis on action then RPG. Yeah, the game is good, but it isn't in the same vein as the first two. The graphics are better, the world is more convincing, even the perspective is fine! But the interactions, the story telling, and the NPCs don't even come close to the quality that Fallout 1 and 2 have.

And I greatly enjoyed the combat in Fallout 1 and 2. It was WAY more tactical then Fallout 3. And guess what? It didn't happen every 5 seconds when I'm just walking from one place to another. For an desolate wasteland, there seems to be a lot of raiders with rocket launchers and high-powered assault rifles kicking around. What gives?

Eclectic Dreck:
Fallout 3 is unquestionably the best game in the fallout series thus far...

Says who? I question that! I'd say Fallout 1 is the best in the series. Unquestionably! And no, nostalgia isn't the problem here. I've played the originals recently.
You know what the problem is?
Frat boy Jim and ADD Andy want less talking, less character interaction, less story, and more 'blowing the shit of things'. So Bethesda (Whom I do like) tries to compromise and gives us a half-assed in between version that does everything (Action and RPG gameplay) in an 'OK' way.

The story? It's ok.
The NPCs? They're ok.
The action? It's ok.
The dialogue? It's ok.

Nothing really great, save the graphics. Whoopty-freaking do.

That's the problem that fans of the originals have with this newest installment. Fallout 1 and 2 gave us great graphics (For it's time, though Fallout 2 less so), great RPG gameplay, and great action for it's time.
Now what? We expect the same here! Great great great!
What do we get? A good game, sure. But nothing like the originals.

hypothetical fact:
Fallout 3 was doomed to be insulted by Fallout fans no matter what company or what the final product would be. I can link to rather offensive pictures representing the poor quality of Fallout 3 before it was released but you can look up no mutants allowed yourselves. It is sad that Fallout fans would rather their series die being remembered for games that fell into a gorge of poor quality like Tactics and Brotherhood of Steel, than be revitalised at the hands of a new company.

Akin to a child that can't recieve the blue car but instead recieves the red car and throws a tantrum; Fallout fans will throw a tantrum if their car is anything but Interplay.

Well, I refer to other franchises that suffered the "Curse of the 3rd" where the 3rd installment of a series is done by different company and is harshly compared to the previous titles. Ask these people how they felt about it:
Star Control 3
Master of Orion 3
Carmaggedon TDR 2000 (3rd game)

And wanting a franchise to die gracefully isn't a bad thing. With Hollywood churning out sequels and prequels to titles that were never meant to continue past the original... Sometimes, just putting it to rest isn't that bad of an idea.

Eclectic Dreck:
Fallout 3 is unquestionably the best game in the fallout series thus far...

Baby Tea:

Says who? I question that! I'd say Fallout 1 is the best in the series. Unquestionably! And no, nostalgia isn't the problem here. I've played the originals recently.
You know what the problem is?

I'd would say says me for starters :P

Yes, the stories and character interactions were better in fallout 1 and 2. But that was really that games only strength. The gameplay itself, the art the pacing - all of it was fairly bad. Writing had to make up for the technical limitations or the game wouldn't work.

And when it comes to the story, the whole water bit really doesn't seem that bad. I mean, did we want more super mutants or machine armies or what have you?

you're kind of overreaching by talking about the fallout games you've "never played." saying that, you probably wouldn't be surprised if you did play them because the fighting mechanics are just about what you described (incidentally, i couldn't stand it because it was all slooooow as molasses and i found myself reading books just to pass the time.)

Eclectic Dreck:
Yes, the stories and character interactions were better in fallout 1 and 2. But that was really that games only strength. The gameplay itself, the art the pacing - all of it was fairly bad. Writing had to make up for the technical limitations or the game wouldn't work.

And when it comes to the story, the whole water bit really doesn't seem that bad. I mean, did we want more super mutants or machine armies or what have you?

What are you talking about?
When the game was released, it was very well received, graphics and game play included, by all! If you compare it todays games, then sure they are bad. But, at the time of release, there were good! Maybe not 'top of the line', but certainly not 'bad'. Not even 'fairly'.

And the pacing is near perfect! The fallout series is NOT an 'action' series. It's an RPG first and foremost, save the new installment. You might not think so by todays standards, but that goes right back to my point about Frat Boy Jim and ADD Andy who can't sit still long enough to enjoy a game without blowing somethings head off every 5 minutes.

And I didn't say the story in Fallout 3 was bad. I said it was merely 'OK'. Which sucks, since the other two had excellent stories.

kalemsalaam:
you're kind of overreaching by talking about the fallout games you've "never played." saying that, you probably wouldn't be surprised if you did play them because the fighting mechanics are just about what you described (incidentally, i couldn't stand it because it was all slooooow as molasses and i found myself reading books just to pass the time.)

so did I, until I found the Preference menu and sped up the combat of all those folks that weren't me. Then things went by a lot faster, especially the big fight sequences taking up a whole town.

Baby Tea:
What are you talking about?
When the game was released, it was very well received, graphics and game play included, by all! If you compare it todays games, then sure they are bad. But, at the time of release, there were good! Maybe not 'top of the line', but certainly not 'bad'. Not even 'fairly'.

And the pacing is near perfect! The fallout series is NOT an 'action' series. It's an RPG first and foremost, save the new installment. You might not think so by todays standards, but that goes right back to my point about Frat Boy Jim and ADD Andy who can't sit still long enough to enjoy a game without blowing somethings head off every 5 minutes.

And I didn't say the story in Fallout 3 was bad. I said it was merely 'OK'. Which sucks, since the other two had excellent stories.

What I think is especially odd about most of these comments, is simply the fact that I don't see where you're coming from. The story themes and turns are really no different than what we saw in the previous Fallout games. Granted, there are far fewer side quests and unique things to do in the wastes, but that is the inevitable result when you produce a modern game: it takes longer to make an hour of content now than it did a decade ago. Yes the interface is different, and I can see how some would cry fowl but for me, it offered an exciting new way to explore the wastes. I've already seen the wasteland in pixelated 2d isometric views in three games, and have even played the monstrosity that was the XBOX fallout game. True the game's combat mechanics are no longer nearly as strategic; both systems have their merit and i feel the increased immersion that the first person perspective allowed for was worth giving up much of the strategy for. To call the latest installment of fallout anything other than an RPG seems silly. Yes, combat is often more similar to a FPS than an RPG, but the game is almost assuredly a role playing game.

If there is one thing that I don't like fallout 3 for, it's the simple fact that combat (which I enjoyed) is more or less the only way to approach the game. Diplomatic conflict resolution, so much a part of the original games are lost here and that is indeed a tragedy becuase it limits the number of replays I can get out of the game. Afterall, the first time I used small guns and in the end game turned to energy weapons. My second play through I focused on big guns. The third time I tried to create a character with the highest possible stats across the board. Yet, at the end of it all, other than altering the amount of ammunition I had and the how easy a particular encounter was there was no real difference in the game.

Still, for it's shortcomings Fallout 3 remains the best fallout made thus far in my book. Yes, I liked fallout 2 better but that doesn't mean it's a better game. In an ideal world we could take the strengths of both games and combine them into the greatest RPG of all time but it seems that time and manpower limits will keep that dream from reality for quite some time.

I'd just like to point out to those citing Fallout 3 as buggy, Fallout 2 was horrendously buggy. Just abysmally so. It had so many patches, mostly user made and they have still not covered them all. Some game destroying. However its still my favourite Fallout game. Actually I intend to dedicate a weekend to it soon again. After Fallout 3s dissapointing ending.

Im just going to add a little more input to the thread, without rambling. I missed the ability to talk your way out of most situation and go through the entire game without a bullet being fired. I just adored that in the old Fallouts it was epic. It really conveyed how quickly we simply resort to violence to solve our problems (even though its quite acceptable in games). The storys of the originals were mind blowing stuff, Fallout 3s was okay but the impact of everything didnt seem as dramatic as previous installments. Also most of the final outcomes just came out of a single final decision. A little dissapointing.

The gore was kept suitably upscaled in Fallout 3 I applaud that but wheres the crotch? I miss being able to blow a guys balls off. And take out half his torso with a shotgun blast. Good times. How come power armours tiny too? Old school power armour was huge hulking stuff with radioactive signs all over it. It was love :P I like the FPS choice of gameplay, and felt VATs was a real success, well employed. Not as many memorable characters and only 2 really viable towns (Megaton and Rivet City) which gave alot less variation than previous games (Fallout 2: San Fran, New Reno, NCR, Navarro, Klammath, Gekko, Vault City etc... very varied, epic places to go). There just isnt as much to miss in FO3, its a great game but only an okay Fallout game. Mind as a game techincally I;d have to agree with many, its much better. The mechanics are glorious.

But... it was a bit easy. FO2 could challenge a newcomer much more brutally. Fallout 3 even on hard was never has unforgiving as Fallout 1 AND 2. I hope I shed some non rambling light on the subject, its easy to get away from the point.

I just wish I could still target the eyes with VATS

Symp4thy:
I just wish I could still target the eyes with VATS

Blinding an enemy! Good times, that would have been 10 times as epic in Fallout 3... /sigh

keithburgun:
"Can someone explain to me why?"

No. You are too stupid.

Obviously, so are you since you couldn't find the huge quote button under the post.

NezumiiroKitsune:

Symp4thy:
I just wish I could still target the eyes with VATS

Blinding an enemy! Good times, that would have been 10 times as epic in Fallout 3... /sigh

You also can't target the groin, why for can't you target the groin?

Shooting the balls off Metzger in Fallout 2 was one of my favorite moments in that game (I was playing a female character and I slept with Metzger to get a price break on Vic)

Actually that reminds me, here are some things you could do in Fallouts 1 and 2 that have no equivalent in Fallout 3...

- Whore Yourself for Gecko Pelts
- Sleep with Metzger to get a break on Slave Prices
- Get married in an impromptu Shotgun Wedding only to have your lame ass spouse follow you around for the rest of the game until you killed them or sold them off.
- Make your hero a dullwitted cave man, an eloquent talker or an abrasive anti social git
- Punch a Rad Scorpion in the Brain
- Shoot someone in the groin
- Play chess with an intelligent Rad Scorpion
- Have Speech be a useful skill