Is there nobody who enjoys both?!

[Gizmojunk]

I'm open to new experiences, where as the hardcore fans of the originals were initially pissed because it was no longer isometric and turn-based.

But of course.

Once New Vegas came out, that tune changed very fast, though.

I think of New Vegas as a decent spin-off, and effectively a FO3.5, with strong leanings towards Fallout 2's priorities; but not gameplay. A decent ½ step back in the right direction. I don't consider anything past Fallout 2 to be a decent Fallout sequel ~because none of them are.

FO3 is a decent spin-off; but a crap sequel, for (hopefully) obvious reasons.

 

[TorontoReign]

Eh. Fallout New Vegas is a decent sequel to Fallout 2 imo. It had more C&C than most RPG's released today, whether they be isometric turn-based or not.

 

[Askorti]

Agreed. To me Fallout NV is what F3 should have been. It's not as good as Fallout 2, but it has the spirit of the series within it.

 

[Dr Fallout]

Fallout NV was the step into the right direction.

 

[Gizmojunk]

Eh. Fallout New Vegas is a decent sequel to Fallout 2 imo. It had more C&C than most RPG's released today, whether they be isometric turn-based or not.

The gameplay has nothing in common with Fallout or Fallout 2. In fact, they both have enough in common with FOBOS to be sequels to it. Imagine if Warcraft 4 had BEEN WoW, or Diablo 3 had BEEN a Skyrim clone; Baldur's Gate 3 a Dark Messiah clone?

*Imagine if Wasteland 2 had been a Mass Effect 2 clone.

These (hypothetical) titles are not sequel material IMO; are they to anyone else?

When a sequel loses the core fanbase of the series, something is very wrong with it.

 

[DarkCorp]

We have been disappointed so much that FNV is considered a worthy sequel, atleast, IMO.

IMO, would it be a TRUE sequel? No.


To original question:

The question is really a moot point. 'Enjoyment', has a broad definition in this case.

My question is,

When it comes to RPGs, what kind of features do you value the most?

What features would you consider a 'must have', in an RPG, to 'enjoy', it?


Of the above, how much are you willing to give up, and still enjoy said RPG?

 

[Aniki]

I'm open to new experiences, where as the hardcore fans of the originals were initially pissed because it was no longer isometric and turn-based.

Wow, you sure do know them hardcore fans so well.

When a sequel loses the core fanbase of the series, something is very wrong with it.

Whether it loses the core fanbase is irrelevant as long the sequel get's a new fanbase that's bigger and that's what Fallout 3 succeeded at. So even if it's wrong it doesn't matter. Bethesdas Fallout is the true Fallout now and it won't change as long the fans are satisfied and we all know that ain't gonna happen.

 

[frajaq]

When a sequel loses the core fanbase of the series, something is very wrong with it.

Lol, you say that like the only "core" fanbase is NMA dudes, when there's plenty of people out there that played F1/2 and liked it, and then played F3 & NV and liked it even more

 

[Sn1p3r187]

I think the next installment of Fallout would kindfully make me enjoy both when Fallout 4 isn't in the equation. Maybe even the afermath of the events of New Vegas would be an interesting Fallout game. Though it'd probably be set in Arizona or Texas.

 

[joevonzombie]

The thing about the "made for casuals" argument is that the people who say it have no idea what that word means. My girlfriend is a casual gamer. She enjoys The Sims and games like that. She enjoyed Fallout Shelter. She would not enjoy Fallout 3, New Vegas, or Fallout 4. As far as the gameplay goes, I mean. The reason is because it's too active. It's too complex for the relaxed experiences she enjoys. I'm sure she'd love the story, especially in New Vegas, but the gameplay is too intense for her. Casuals =/= the masses. Casuals = people who play games casually. Just because Fallout 3 and 4 seem to be made to be as accessible as possible, does not mean it's made for casuals.

It seems that only the most hardcore fans of the original games are the ones that cannot enjoy Fallout 3. Most critics, most players, agree that it's a fun game. It's only the people that are overly dedicated to the originals that hate it. I can see that Fallout 3 is not the best game ever made. I can see that New Vegas is far better. My playtime in both games shows this. However, I enjoyed Fallout 3. I had fun. I'm excited for Fallout 4. I got it on pre-order. I'm open to new experiences, where as the hardcore fans of the originals were initially pissed because it was no longer isometric and turn-based. Once New Vegas came out, that tune changed very fast, though.

I'm a fan of the original games and my original issues with Fallout 3 when the first bit of information was released had nothing to do with not being turned based and Isometric. My issues were everything looked incredibly combat focused which turned out to be true, VATS looked broken and gimmicky which also turned out to be true, and the shooting mechanics looked terrible which also turned out to be true. I do think the term casual gamer is thrown around a bit too much, what I always take from that statement is "appealing to a wider audience" which modern gaming as a whole is guilty of. Look at Bioshock, there is no penalty for death in the game. You just respawn and move forward.

 

[Gizmojunk]

When a sequel loses the core fanbase of the series, something is very wrong with it.

Lol, you say that like the only "core" fanbase is NMA dudes, when there's plenty of people out there that played F1/2 and liked it, and then played F3 & NV and liked it even more

They are not the core audience. I'll try again

Imagine if Relic made Dawn of War III, and the game was for all intents a ~Space Marine clone. That game could be awesome, and even loved by Warhammer 40k fans ~but...
That is not a 'Dawn of War' title, and not played for reasons a fan of DoW would seek out a DoW sequel; as opposed to playing just any other Warhammer title. I think FO3 is a good game on its own, for what it is ~mechanically, and artistically, but there is nothing left of the Fallout franchise in FO3/4 that I would want or look for in a Fallout sequel... and I would actively seek out (with an open mind) any game purporting to be one.

Bethesda getting the license was the first I'd ever heard of the company; so I went out and bought Oblivion to see what they were capable of doing with their own in-house IP, and I was immediately impressed with their engine ~specifically just how amazingly well suited it was for building a Fallout game from; they wouldn't have to change it much, or start from scratch. It was absolutely beyond conception ~for me, but not others here, that they would actually/seriously/unbelievably... forgo making Fallout 3, and instead making Oblivion 2.5, but they did, and skinned it with the least significant trappings of the Fallout IP.

When I saw the first PR images, I thought they had matched Bladerunner in their interpretation of the source material; when I saw the first gameplay screens, I was overjoyed... and mistaken (it wasn't them).

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewN2qBXQKXY

When I saw Bethesda's [authentic] first gameplay, it felt like a kick to the teeth, and a parting slap. It felt like I'd been one of those fans waiting days [years] at the door for a midnight release, and minutes before opening, they bused in a gaggle of clueless preferred customers, and ushered them in ahead of the line. They abused the Fallout fanbase for word of mouth/hype, and pulled the rug out at the last minute like some insane Jamie Kennedy bait & switch prank.

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmOkh-t_1RU

 

[BigBawss]

From the short amount of time that I have browsed this forum all that I can see are people either talking-shit about Bethesda's Fallout games or people talking shit about the "old, boring turn-based" games.

IS THERE NO MIDDLE GROUND????

I have played both the original Fallout games and the modern ones and have enjoyed them both very much - somewhat equally.

Please can someone tell me that I'm not the only one?!

I play all of them. I first discovered Fallout (1) around 2005 or so.

But yeah, while Fallout 3 is my least favorite of the series, I don't dislike it to the point that I don't play it period.

 

[Beaushizzle]

From the short amount of time that I have browsed this forum all that I can see are people either talking-shit about Bethesda's Fallout games or people talking shit about the "old, boring turn-based" games.

IS THERE NO MIDDLE GROUND????

I have played both the original Fallout games and the modern ones and have enjoyed them both very much - somewhat equally.

Please can someone tell me that I'm not the only one?!

I play all of them. I first discovered Fallout (1) around 2005 or so.

But yeah, while Fallout 3 is my least favorite of the series, I don't dislike it to the point that I don't play it period.

Are you sure your CDs didn't get hit by a drunk driver?

 

[Deep One]

From the short amount of time that I have browsed this forum all that I can see are people either talking-shit about Bethesda's Fallout games or people talking shit about the "old, boring turn-based" games.

IS THERE NO MIDDLE GROUND????

I have played both the original Fallout games and the modern ones and have enjoyed them both very much - somewhat equally.

Please can someone tell me that I'm not the only one?!

I've played Fallout1&2 (Fallout Tactics keeps loosing my interest due to it's linearity), even gave Fallout 3 and Fallout NV a try (almost finished the story in New Vegas but bugs and glitches got in the way, Fallout 3 was just awful). Overall I prefer this third-person real-time action gameplay over turn-based slogfest (no offense to anybody but I have love/hate with turn-based genres, just not entirely my thing). So with the release of Fallout 4 coming soon I'm hoping I can at least this time properly scratch my itch of being a walking tank wielding some form of Vindicator and making swiss-cheese out of anything that attacks me.

 

[joevonzombie]

From the short amount of time that I have browsed this forum all that I can see are people either talking-shit about Bethesda's Fallout games or people talking shit about the "old, boring turn-based" games.

IS THERE NO MIDDLE GROUND????

I have played both the original Fallout games and the modern ones and have enjoyed them both very much - somewhat equally.

Please can someone tell me that I'm not the only one?!

I've played Fallout1&2 (Fallout Tactics keeps loosing my interest due to it's linearity), even gave Fallout 3 and Fallout NV a try (almost finished the story in New Vegas but bugs and glitches got in the way, Fallout 3 was just awful). Overall I prefer this third-person real-time action gameplay over turn-based slogfest (no offense to anybody but I have love/hate with turn-based genres, just not entirely my thing). So with the release of Fallout 4 coming soon I'm hoping I can at least this time properly scratch my itch of being a walking tank wielding some form of Vindicator and making swiss-cheese out of anything that attacks me.

No sure if serious.

 

[frajaq]

Looks like a pretty common wish to me

 

[Walpknut]

This is what games are nowadays anyway, what the people in the 90's thought all games where like.

 

[Fall Out Boy]

Noticed no-one hasn't brought up "Fallout: Piece of Shit" yet. Doesn't that game not make Fallout 3 look like a fucking masterpiece?

Spoiler

hahhaa

 

[Fall Out Boy]

This is what games are nowadays anyway, what the people in the 90's thought all games where like.

Honestly, I say don't blame the developer blame the consumer, after all it's the consumers that want more of it.

 

[Deep One]

No sure if serious.

Frankly I do not care. People think what they want to think. I've told what I felt was necessary for me to say in this thread and that's that.