I'll say this much:
To my way of thinking "Fallout 3" is actually a rip off of "New Vegas".
While "Fallout 3" was a decent game, I feel that it was lacking in terms of writing and the way the world was presented compared to the first two Fallout games and Tactics. "Fallout 3" just got a lot of the details and a big part of the vibe plain out wrong. I kind of felt that Behtesda would have actually delivered an even better product had they not been trying to work within the Fallout world which they just were not able to really do justice to.
"New Vegas" is done by a lot of the same writers as the original Fallout games, and while I don't think they quite have the same backbone they once did the style is more along the lines of what "Fallout" should actually be. What's more it seems to be picking up elements from "Van Buren" which was the original "Fallout 3" before the well known series of events that lead to Bethesda eventually winding up with the franchise.
It's also noteworthy that despite the numerical designation of "Fallout 3" it takes place in a radically differant location from the other games in the series, being more akin to a spin off than an actual sequel in terms of actual material and what it covers.
-
As far as the game's actual content goes, I think the problem with people calling it an "expansion pack" is that the kids today have little experience with games. Yes, "New Vegas" uses the same engine as "Fallout 3", however that doesn't make it any more a "glorified expansion pack" than say "Planescape Torment" is an expansion pack to "Baldur's Gate". In the overall scheme of gaming it's not unusual for a number of games to be released using the same basic engine, such as "the infinity engine" or whatever. Heck, when you get down to it, most shooters are the same game almost literally with a few tweaks, as most of them draw upon the same basic engine such as "Unreal" or "GRAW" or other engines. I think a lot of people, including a surprising number of "experts" who do reviews, simply do not get that two games developed using the same toolboxes are going to be extremely identical. Claiming that one game using GRAW for example is *almost* identical in play to another game using GRAW despite some thematic differances should go without saying. I find it especially amusing in cases where one game is accused of ripping off another in cases like that, when in reality they are both ripping off whatever game the engine was pimped with. All those games using the "Unreal" engine are by and large going to be similar to umm, Unreal.
Overall I think there is enough in "New Vegas" for it to easily be considered it's own game akin to a "Baldur's Gate II" or "Icewind Dale" were despite them sharing the same engine with other games.
These are my opinions, and not really in keeping with the intent of the original poster I guess.
I guess for the kids who never played the original "Fallout" games they see things as starting with "Fallout 3" I can understand that perspective. For the real fans of the series who have been following it from before gaming was quite this mainstream, "New Vegas" is more along the lines of the game they were waiting for, at least as far as the material in the game goes. Engine wise, I don't think the current "first person shooter" type Fallout games will ever be able to scratch the itch of a true hardcore RPG player... though admittedly "New Vegas" *DOES* come closer to this than "Fallout 3" did because "New Vegas" does force people to make some harder desicians with character development, as it's far more difficult to develop a perfect character, and due to the usage of things like attribute levels again in addition to just skill percentages, and putting more minimums into dialogue options as opposed t letting people save and reload until they get what they want, it does force people to tend to specialize rather than simply being able to automatically do whatever the best thing is for any given situation.
To my way of thinking "Fallout 3" is actually a rip off of "New Vegas".
While "Fallout 3" was a decent game, I feel that it was lacking in terms of writing and the way the world was presented compared to the first two Fallout games and Tactics. "Fallout 3" just got a lot of the details and a big part of the vibe plain out wrong. I kind of felt that Behtesda would have actually delivered an even better product had they not been trying to work within the Fallout world which they just were not able to really do justice to.
"New Vegas" is done by a lot of the same writers as the original Fallout games, and while I don't think they quite have the same backbone they once did the style is more along the lines of what "Fallout" should actually be. What's more it seems to be picking up elements from "Van Buren" which was the original "Fallout 3" before the well known series of events that lead to Bethesda eventually winding up with the franchise.
It's also noteworthy that despite the numerical designation of "Fallout 3" it takes place in a radically differant location from the other games in the series, being more akin to a spin off than an actual sequel in terms of actual material and what it covers.
-
As far as the game's actual content goes, I think the problem with people calling it an "expansion pack" is that the kids today have little experience with games. Yes, "New Vegas" uses the same engine as "Fallout 3", however that doesn't make it any more a "glorified expansion pack" than say "Planescape Torment" is an expansion pack to "Baldur's Gate". In the overall scheme of gaming it's not unusual for a number of games to be released using the same basic engine, such as "the infinity engine" or whatever. Heck, when you get down to it, most shooters are the same game almost literally with a few tweaks, as most of them draw upon the same basic engine such as "Unreal" or "GRAW" or other engines. I think a lot of people, including a surprising number of "experts" who do reviews, simply do not get that two games developed using the same toolboxes are going to be extremely identical. Claiming that one game using GRAW for example is *almost* identical in play to another game using GRAW despite some thematic differances should go without saying. I find it especially amusing in cases where one game is accused of ripping off another in cases like that, when in reality they are both ripping off whatever game the engine was pimped with. All those games using the "Unreal" engine are by and large going to be similar to umm, Unreal.
Overall I think there is enough in "New Vegas" for it to easily be considered it's own game akin to a "Baldur's Gate II" or "Icewind Dale" were despite them sharing the same engine with other games.
These are my opinions, and not really in keeping with the intent of the original poster I guess.
I guess for the kids who never played the original "Fallout" games they see things as starting with "Fallout 3" I can understand that perspective. For the real fans of the series who have been following it from before gaming was quite this mainstream, "New Vegas" is more along the lines of the game they were waiting for, at least as far as the material in the game goes. Engine wise, I don't think the current "first person shooter" type Fallout games will ever be able to scratch the itch of a true hardcore RPG player... though admittedly "New Vegas" *DOES* come closer to this than "Fallout 3" did because "New Vegas" does force people to make some harder desicians with character development, as it's far more difficult to develop a perfect character, and due to the usage of things like attribute levels again in addition to just skill percentages, and putting more minimums into dialogue options as opposed t letting people save and reload until they get what they want, it does force people to tend to specialize rather than simply being able to automatically do whatever the best thing is for any given situation.
