Let me start this comment a little differently, then. (I promise there is a point - see if you can find it
).
Batman Begins was a great movie. It took the Batman lore very seriously and treated the backstory in the Batman universe with respect. It also made a fresh start with the series much like the movie Batman (1989) did.
It explains Batman's dilemma and how he became the (bat)man he did. Superman Returns not so much. I know he is called Kal-El on Krypton, and that -el in hebrew is a prefix for angels (or even gods?). I just thought the writers overdid this in Superman Returns. But I would be really ready to
someone if the movie had been called Superman V (as I think there already is Superman IV??).
Superman Returns changed much of the story and background in the Superman lore e.g. Lois is no longer the hard-working smart N.Y. bad-mouthing reporter, she is supposed to be, but is now a MOM. And she and superman do have a kid together
I mean, what's up with that. Didn't the 'new adventures of Lois & Clark' tell us, the audience, that Lois&Clark couldn't get any children at all, because of some biological problems with Kal-El's (Clark's) sperm?? (or something similar??).
The writers of Superman Returns made as many alterations to the Superman Canon as Bethsoft are doing in Fallout 3. And as such Fallout 3 shouldn't be called Fallout 3, as it really isn't a sequel, it is a game in its own right. [Just like the games in the TES universe isn't called Arena 1, 2, 3, and 4...].
I still protest, both here, and on the BGSF boards, about the the things I find breaking the lore and the verisimilitude of things (in the Fallout universe). I don't like that at 19 your character just decided to get up and leave the Vault 101, why isn't it the Overseer who throws you out. I don't like the toiletdrinking, nor do I like the idea that 'supermutants are truing to conquer the world'. I don't like the exploding cars as cars powered by fusion cells shouldn't really explode?, nor do I like the idea of the BoS being just another type of Rangers in the Wasteland, trying to get the supermutants. I'm still some
about the VATS combat, but it seems more and more clear to me that it is, and probably will be, closer to FPS/CTB combat than (real) rpg combat. I mean, you can pause & aim in Gears of War, too, right? And why do all the supermutants, or at least the one from the screenshots, look like something out of LOTR, they look like Uruk-Hais, to me.
I'm sure the game will be pretty good, I just don't think (anymore) that it will have the original Fallout feel. And that's why I would be content with Bethesda making a game called say: Fallout: East Cost Story, or something similar. This also ties in with what Pete Hines said in the Sponge interview that they 'are trying to make a worthy successor to the first two games'. Why them oh why then
call the game Fallout 3
when it apparently is a succesor, inspired by the original games, and not a (true) sequel...
![Wink ;) ;)](/../../xencustomimages/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
Batman Begins was a great movie. It took the Batman lore very seriously and treated the backstory in the Batman universe with respect. It also made a fresh start with the series much like the movie Batman (1989) did.
It explains Batman's dilemma and how he became the (bat)man he did. Superman Returns not so much. I know he is called Kal-El on Krypton, and that -el in hebrew is a prefix for angels (or even gods?). I just thought the writers overdid this in Superman Returns. But I would be really ready to
![Violent :violent: :violent:](/../../xencustomimages/smilies/violent.gif)
Superman Returns changed much of the story and background in the Superman lore e.g. Lois is no longer the hard-working smart N.Y. bad-mouthing reporter, she is supposed to be, but is now a MOM. And she and superman do have a kid together
![Wall :wall: :wall:](/../../xencustomimages/smilies/wall.gif)
The writers of Superman Returns made as many alterations to the Superman Canon as Bethsoft are doing in Fallout 3. And as such Fallout 3 shouldn't be called Fallout 3, as it really isn't a sequel, it is a game in its own right. [Just like the games in the TES universe isn't called Arena 1, 2, 3, and 4...].
I still protest, both here, and on the BGSF boards, about the the things I find breaking the lore and the verisimilitude of things (in the Fallout universe). I don't like that at 19 your character just decided to get up and leave the Vault 101, why isn't it the Overseer who throws you out. I don't like the toiletdrinking, nor do I like the idea that 'supermutants are truing to conquer the world'. I don't like the exploding cars as cars powered by fusion cells shouldn't really explode?, nor do I like the idea of the BoS being just another type of Rangers in the Wasteland, trying to get the supermutants. I'm still some
![Confused :-? :-?](/../../xencustomimages/smilies/icon_confused.gif)
I'm sure the game will be pretty good, I just don't think (anymore) that it will have the original Fallout feel. And that's why I would be content with Bethesda making a game called say: Fallout: East Cost Story, or something similar. This also ties in with what Pete Hines said in the Sponge interview that they 'are trying to make a worthy successor to the first two games'. Why them oh why then
![Wall :wall: :wall:](/../../xencustomimages/smilies/wall.gif)
![Wall :wall: :wall:](/../../xencustomimages/smilies/wall.gif)