Uhh... actually —while I hate the idea that they explode— they are almost certainly based on the Ford Nucleon; I'd be not only stunned, but incredulous if they ever claimed otherwise.
It's an important part of the games. Fallout 1 & 2's isometric appearance wasn't arbitrary.Pfffff
I consider it a very serious retcon though. The whole thing about the resources war was because of oil. The USA had stopped using Tanks and Helicopters because there wasn't enough oil for fuel. But then all of a sudden the entire civilian automobile industry used nuclear engines? Really? Why wouldn't the USA have nuclear tanks and Helicopters then? Fallout 3 makes it so that nuclear engines are common and everyday citizens have cars with them, so why was the USA fighting so hard to possess the last oil deposit in the world, if they weren't using much oil anymore?
But in the previous Fallout games, the cars were just starting to have alternatives to oil based fuel. The highwayman was the first car not to rely on gasoline, and it was an electric engine, not a nuclear one. And the Highwayman was just recently released before the bombs fell.
Yes, and there is a reason why it is considered a failure and was decommissioned only after 7 years of it's construction (and only really used a couple times on the field). It just doesn't work as intended and can cause more problems than solve. Also the Davy Crockett could launch a warhead from 2 to 4 km, the Fatman can launch it for maybe 20 meters or so?
...But it wasn't a misunderstanding; they made that mistake on purpose.
It's the same as with the cars; rule of cool.Yes, and there is a reason why it is considered a failure and was decommissioned only after 7 years of it's construction (and only really used a couple times on the field). It just doesn't work as intended and can cause more problems than solve. Also the Davy Crockett could launch a warhead from 2 to 4 km, the Fatman can launch it for maybe 20 meters or so?
Which is really disappointing. Because the classic games were cool a lot, without the need to retcon large parts of them.
.
And even with all of that, i still prefer New Vegas on several things over Fallout 1 and 2 (Mainly characters, story and setting, even though there's some i prefer more in Fallout 1 than in New Vegas and vice-versa).Foremost, (like FO3) it lacks the series' combat mechanics. It's not turn based. It's not 3D-isometric. Its skills are mostly threshold (instead of percentile) based. This means that the PC is guaranteed to succeed, or guaranteed to fail.
Skills like lockpick are manual actions of the player, and can be gamed; just like the shooting mechanics... and so neither of these hinges on the character's own personal abilities. The reverse is true: The player can fail where the skilled character should have succeeded.
They can break all of their lock picks by ineptness... yet the skilled PC would never break a lock pick. Lock-picks don't break (unless horribly abused)—bobby-pins don't break either. In Fallout you didn't even NEED lock picks, they just helped greatly; it was a mechanic of the games that tools aided skill checks; not enabled them*. If you didn't have a lock pick, you used anything handy; like a bobby pin, or a spring, or anything suitable.
The whole point of the lock pick minigame is player agency—when there should be none. Player agency in an RPG is to develop the character to handle certain situations...the ones they are skilled in. Handing it over to the player for direct input is taking it away from the character, and having the player do it. Think about the player doing what the character's skill is supposed to decide.
Crippling injuries. Fallout made the ability to correct crippling injuries a character development path. First Aid didn't cut it, the PC had to BE a doctor, or go find one. FO3 and NV allow the character to fix concussions and broken limbs with an injection, and the medical skill magically improves the effect of drugs.
Lastly... it HAS ironsights. Throughout the Fallout series—until FO3, it has always been that the character attacks the selected target—personally. They aim, and they use their skills and aptitude to do it—and they can fail. The difference between a critical hit, and a knick, is the character's aim, but the later games all use the player's own aiming and timing to make the attacks. This means that knick & scratch wounds that the player makes at point blank with the gun centered on the target's head appear ludicrous. They are aiming better than the character is capable of; shooting faster than the character is capable of... And this works in reverse too. The skilled character can miss their shot because the player didn't point the barrel at the target.
___
Peeves: NV prevents map-travel when overloaded or crippled... this is the most useful time in the game to ever use map travel—and you can't.
Wild Wasteland is an optional trait instead of being the world as it is; and so it actually costs a personal trait to opt-in. In Fallout, the world outside civilization was a scary place (more so than inside settlements). Because you really couldn't know what to expect.
That only happened during the war already, and wasn't implemented on vehicles. Not to mention that the microfusion cells were very inefficient and run out of charge too fast to be used as a good power source (as a matter of fact, IIRC the USA energy weapons and related research was quite outdated compared with the European ones). It was also during the war that the USA started to look into nuclear power plants too. But that never went very far because the apocalypse happened.
Why would that matter? It was an important part of the game for them, and they designed it. I merely perceive that it is so.
I really like first person view in games, but generally not in RPGs. First Person inherently swaps the player for the character, and RPG systems that dictate the response and results of the character, can tend to interfere with what gets shown on the screen.
Someone needs to make a Fallout-inspired RPG like that.
And so should they all be, in a direct numbered series... anything else is a spin-off. Spin-offs are fine; look at Fallout Tactics, and FO3 & FO4... There is nothing wrong with either of those games other than the latter two being called numbered sequels to a series they have nothing in common with except their title, (and a few cherry picked names like Enclave, and Power Armor, and Jet).
My post had at first, erroneously attributed the quote to Norzan; by mistake.Wow dude why would you say that?