Poll: What Fallout game is the best? and Fallout 3 or Fallout New Vegas

[pyrosaw]

Fallout: New Vegas has nicer story and characters. The setting is much better in my opinion. Although, there are far more annoying game mechanics in New Vegas, and it's easier to level up in Fallout 3. I can't really pick, but I you forced me too, then probrably New Vegas.

 

[ExaltedK9]

Believe it or not, but Fallout 3 isn't the first game in the series.

In my opinion, Fallout 3 is the best, followed by Fallout 2, then New Vegas, then the original.

I get so sick of hearing this. Theres a reason none of them are options on the poll. They are not comparable to the new installments. They are ancient and suck next to their predecessors,

OT: Fallout 3, but only because of the abundance of glitches, and invisible walls in New Vegas.

You forgot to put on your flameshield, broseph.
Also predecessors are those that come before.

OT: Fo:3 is my favorite on account of Lincoln's Repeater. It really just makes it better than anything else, period. And yes, I am an Abe Lincoln fanboy.

Yea I knew I was walking on hallowed ground when I said that I didn't think the first Fallouts were good. I will probably be made and example of...

Oh right, I mixed up my predecessors and successors.

Yes, now go back to your call of duty and your medal of honor chest thumping of "war". Oh wait, they are ancient games too. Come to think of it Fallout 3 is ancient, batman arkham asylum is ancient, all halos are ancient, gears of war is ancient, Oblivion is ancient, morrowind is ancient, and every game not made in 2011 is ancient so they all must suck. >.>

Christ, this is the same notion that is set in concrete in immature freshmen in high school.

Don't like fallout? then don't come to fallout threads. Is that so hard to do?

Any game that was made before YESTERDAY is ancient? Aren't you being a little fanatical there?

And as it happens, I love Fallouts 3, and New Vegas. Just not the first 2, those suck more than a hurricane.

Fanatical? No, i am pointing out how flawed your logic is. Newer =/= better, older =/= bad. 1.Don't like a game? Fine, don't play it. However you don't go bringing age into the argument otherwise your just spouting flawed logic. You also don't state your opinion as fact.

Yea, generally newer does equal better. If that weren't true, we would still be playing pong, instead of Halo, and Call of Duty.

1. OK. But only as long as I have your blessing... I'll stick to only the good ones.

And the age of the first installements isn't irrelevent. I mean, its not gonna e winning any awards this year for it's stunning characters, and (poker face) breath-taking visuals.

And the definition of 'opinion' is the personal beliefs of an individual. Seen as factual, in other words. But next time I'll be sure to add an 'I think' so you don't feel insecure.

No, it doesn't. By your logic mario, pong, and tetris is bad. However, since Halo 3 and call of duty are ancient now, they must suck too. It's your logic. In fact since the all the consoles are over 1 year old they all must suck by your logic.

Opinion:
a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge.

Merriam Webster disagrees with you.

English & context, learn it. Really, this is getting embarrassing. English and logic fallacy back to back? What is next?

My debunking of your misinformed argument, of course. And thats not my logic, it's yours. Age can be irrelevant, but in the case of the Fallout series, it's not. It just means that Fallouts 3 and New Vegas took a small fortune to create, thousands of man hours, an incredible amount of consideration and tweaking, and nextgen graphics, physics, and gameplay up the arse. Whereas the first 2 look like garbage, and probably took something under a year, and have very much fallen from grace.

As far as the opinion thing, heres another copy/paste from Webster's: a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter.
If you need the bottom line, refer to my previous post.

Not being a prick - learn it.

I already learned it, the question is did you? Judging by your probation i'd say not. Since you seem to insult everything to get a rise out of people. Perpetuating speculation doesn't help your point at all, nor are your attempts to insult anyone who argues with you and even use points you can't even back up. Next gen graphics? Fallout 3's graphics were a joke, requiring the green tint to hide the texture and model defects. If your graphics are so bad you need to HIDE IT WITH EDITING, it isn't next gen graphics. Look at downtown DC with fellout installed (removes green tint that textures rely on), it looks like utter crap. Physics? It uses the outdated gamebryo engine, another laughing stock that is more outdated than valve's source engine. The game play is downgraded from morrowind, a step backward. Nowhere in fallout 3 is there "next gen". Not from a technical, storyline, or game play perspective.

Graphics don't matter in a game. Only in shallow games do they matter, look up crysis. Its old and generic but still looks better than anyhing you've seen now. By the way you trying to compare a CRPG with an FPSRPG is just embarrassing. Next you'll say Dragon age was bad because it didn't have russians and guns.

In a word, yes (good comeback though). And as for my probation, you know that Pixar thread thats so popular right now? Well I posted that I thought up was boring, and had the bad luck of that beingthe first post. And I caught alot of flak from pissed off manchildren who agressively rushed to its defense.

But thanks for bringing up something thats completely irrelevant, because it just demonstrates how you have nothing substantial to say.

You say that Fallout 3's graphics were a joke, when FO1 looked like it had been rendered in Microsoft Paint. But you're right, FO3 looks so much worse. And even if the physics aren't top notch, they still a hell of a lot better than Fallout's 1 and 2. And I don't remember any assault rifles in Morrowind, so your little theory there is bullshit as well.

I'm sure Fallout 3 won game of the year when it was realeased for being inferior to it's, what, 6 year old(?) predecessors. Really, if you seriously believe that, then you're just not seeing things logically. But that seem perfectly in charcter for you.

Comparing games from different genres isn't embarrassing, it makes perfect fucking sense. Whats embarrassing is your determination to ignore facts and common sense, because you're ferociously nostalgic for the "good" old (incredibly OLD) days of Fallout. Before it was good and all.

And Bioware is my favorite developer, and I liked Dragon Age. Also, I'm half Russian, and don't like games where they're depicted as evil. I'm just patriotic that way.

Common sense? Since when is following games purely for graphics ever common sense? It will only cost you extortionate amount of money to view "graphics" as console cannot render good graphics anymore. Its been years since the hardware consoles use has ever been recent. Hell the Xbox was already outdated by the time it came out. To view "graphics" would need even more money. Why spend all that when photorealism is is literally outside the window?

You say fallout was never good in the past when it scored a 89 on metacritic, 1 score point away from fallout 3 and scored HIGHER than New vegas (85). If fallouts are so bad, why are they still regarded highly on metacritic and almost the same in scores? And the USER scores for fallout 1 is 9, while fallout 3 is 7. If fallout is so bad, why is it so praised now? and by so many people years after its release? and on the biggest review site?

Game of the year awards are practically popularity contests. It shows nothing other than a publication that likes it. Its basically the opinion of the publication and its writers. Game of the year awards are not given by the gaming god, only publications that post news of video games. Hell GOTYs started at the earliest 1992 (?), and even then it wasn't until 2000 to 2008 did the "big" publications began to do GOTY awards.

I didn't say you thats it's better solely because of it's good graphics. And now you're ust talking nonsense. What the hell do you mean by "Consoles cannot render good graphics anymore."? You talk about me condemning stuff for being old, you think that the Xbox was outdated by the time it came out. And by "To view "graphics" (why the hell do you have quotation marks around graphics anyway?) you would need even more money." what exactly do you mean. If you want to see a games graphics, you would have to spend money to buy the game?
I don't know what these ramblings mean, can you please translate them to english for me?


I didn't say that the old Fallouts weren't good back when they came ou, but they are nowhere near as good as it's next gen successors. To say so would be completely retarded.

And let me get this straight, the Game of The Year award is meaningless, but an obscure review that said it was good is now a more viable judgement? In what fucking universe?

Because I'm sure that a multinational annual televized objective evaluation is far less a credible source than some no-name blogger who thinks that the first 2 Fallouts are 'Teh Bomb!'.

And believe me, it's not so praised. The new Fallouts have a much larger following, and always will.

But it's becoming painfully obvious that your willing to disregard all of the facts, reasonings, and evidence that doesn't agree with you.

And unless you want to be a COMPLETE hypocrite, I wouldn't complain about my spelling, and grammar errors again.

Unless of course you've already edited all of yousr out. Which would take awhile.

 

[LinkSwitch]

I prefer Fallout 3, mostly because of the darker atmosphere in comparison to NV. I just dont feel immersed in a game about post-apocyptic situations when the feeling is as merry as it is in NV...

 

[ExaltedK9]

Believe it or not, but Fallout 3 isn't the first game in the series.

In my opinion, Fallout 3 is the best, followed by Fallout 2, then New Vegas, then the original.

I get so sick of hearing this. Theres a reason none of them are options on the poll. They are not comparable to the new installments. They are ancient and suck next to their predecessors,

OT: Fallout 3, but only because of the abundance of glitches, and invisible walls in New Vegas.

You forgot to put on your flameshield, broseph.
Also predecessors are those that come before.

OT: Fo:3 is my favorite on account of Lincoln's Repeater. It really just makes it better than anything else, period. And yes, I am an Abe Lincoln fanboy.

Yea I knew I was walking on hallowed ground when I said that I didn't think the first Fallouts were good. I will probably be made and example of...

Oh right, I mixed up my predecessors and successors.

Yes, now go back to your call of duty and your medal of honor chest thumping of "war". Oh wait, they are ancient games too. Come to think of it Fallout 3 is ancient, batman arkham asylum is ancient, all halos are ancient, gears of war is ancient, Oblivion is ancient, morrowind is ancient, and every game not made in 2011 is ancient so they all must suck. >.>

Christ, this is the same notion that is set in concrete in immature freshmen in high school.

Don't like fallout? then don't come to fallout threads. Is that so hard to do?

Any game that was made before YESTERDAY is ancient? Aren't you being a little fanatical there?

And as it happens, I love Fallouts 3, and New Vegas. Just not the first 2, those suck more than a hurricane.

Fanatical? No, i am pointing out how flawed your logic is. Newer =/= better, older =/= bad. 1.Don't like a game? Fine, don't play it. However you don't go bringing age into the argument otherwise your just spouting flawed logic. You also don't state your opinion as fact.

Yea, generally newer does equal better. If that weren't true, we would still be playing pong, instead of Halo, and Call of Duty.

1. OK. But only as long as I have your blessing... I'll stick to only the good ones.

And the age of the first installements isn't irrelevent. I mean, its not gonna e winning any awards this year for it's stunning characters, and (poker face) breath-taking visuals.

And the definition of 'opinion' is the personal beliefs of an individual. Seen as factual, in other words. But next time I'll be sure to add an 'I think' so you don't feel insecure.

No, it doesn't. By your logic mario, pong, and tetris is bad. However, since Halo 3 and call of duty are ancient now, they must suck too. It's your logic. In fact since the all the consoles are over 1 year old they all must suck by your logic.

Opinion:
a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge.

Merriam Webster disagrees with you.

English & context, learn it. Really, this is getting embarrassing. English and logic fallacy back to back? What is next?

My debunking of your misinformed argument, of course. And thats not my logic, it's yours. Age can be irrelevant, but in the case of the Fallout series, it's not. It just means that Fallouts 3 and New Vegas took a small fortune to create, thousands of man hours, an incredible amount of consideration and tweaking, and nextgen graphics, physics, and gameplay up the arse. Whereas the first 2 look like garbage, and probably took something under a year, and have very much fallen from grace.

As far as the opinion thing, heres another copy/paste from Webster's: a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter.
If you need the bottom line, refer to my previous post.

Not being a prick - learn it.

I already learned it, the question is did you? Judging by your probation i'd say not. Since you seem to insult everything to get a rise out of people. Perpetuating speculation doesn't help your point at all, nor are your attempts to insult anyone who argues with you and even use points you can't even back up. Next gen graphics? Fallout 3's graphics were a joke, requiring the green tint to hide the texture and model defects. If your graphics are so bad you need to HIDE IT WITH EDITING, it isn't next gen graphics. Look at downtown DC with fellout installed (removes green tint that textures rely on), it looks like utter crap. Physics? It uses the outdated gamebryo engine, another laughing stock that is more outdated than valve's source engine. The game play is downgraded from morrowind, a step backward. Nowhere in fallout 3 is there "next gen". Not from a technical, storyline, or game play perspective.

Graphics don't matter in a game. Only in shallow games do they matter, look up crysis. Its old and generic but still looks better than anyhing you've seen now. By the way you trying to compare a CRPG with an FPSRPG is just embarrassing. Next you'll say Dragon age was bad because it didn't have russians and guns.

In a word, yes (good comeback though). And as for my probation, you know that Pixar thread thats so popular right now? Well I posted that I thought up was boring, and had the bad luck of that beingthe first post. And I caught alot of flak from pissed off manchildren who agressively rushed to its defense.

But thanks for bringing up something thats completely irrelevant, because it just demonstrates how you have nothing substantial to say.

You say that Fallout 3's graphics were a joke, when FO1 looked like it had been rendered in Microsoft Paint. But you're right, FO3 looks so much worse. And even if the physics aren't top notch, they still a hell of a lot better than Fallout's 1 and 2. And I don't remember any assault rifles in Morrowind, so your little theory there is bullshit as well.

I'm sure Fallout 3 won game of the year when it was realeased for being inferior to it's, what, 6 year old(?) predecessors. Really, if you seriously believe that, then you're just not seeing things logically. But that seem perfectly in charcter for you.

Comparing games from different genres isn't embarrassing, it makes perfect fucking sense. Whats embarrassing is your determination to ignore facts and common sense, because you're ferociously nostalgic for the "good" old (incredibly OLD) days of Fallout. Before it was good and all.

And Bioware is my favorite developer, and I liked Dragon Age. Also, I'm half Russian, and don't like games where they're depicted as evil. I'm just patriotic that way.

Common sense? Since when is following games purely for graphics ever common sense? It will only cost you extortionate amount of money to view "graphics" as console cannot render good graphics anymore. Its been years since the hardware consoles use has ever been recent. Hell the Xbox was already outdated by the time it came out. To view "graphics" would need even more money. Why spend all that when photorealism is is literally outside the window?

You say fallout was never good in the past when it scored a 89 on metacritic, 1 score point away from fallout 3 and scored HIGHER than New vegas (85). If fallouts are so bad, why are they still regarded highly on metacritic and almost the same in scores? And the USER scores for fallout 1 is 9, while fallout 3 is 7. If fallout is so bad, why is it so praised now? and by so many people years after its release? and on the biggest review site?

Game of the year awards are practically popularity contests. It shows nothing other than a publication that likes it. Its basically the opinion of the publication and its writers. Game of the year awards are not given by the gaming god, only publications that post news of video games. Hell GOTYs started at the earliest 1992 (?), and even then it wasn't until 2000 to 2008 did the "big" publications began to do GOTY awards.

I didn't say you thats it's better solely because of it's good graphics. And now you're ust talking nonsense. What the hell do you mean by "Consoles cannot render good graphics anymore."? You talk about me condemning stuff for being old, you think that the Xbox was outdated by the time it came out. And by "To view "graphics" (why the hell do you have quotation marks around graphics anyway?) you would need even more money." what exactly do you mean. If you want to see a games graphics, you would have to spend money to buy the game?
I don't know what these ramblings mean, can you please translate them to english for me?


I didn't say that the old Fallouts weren't good back when they came ou, but they are nowhere near as good as it's next gen successors. To say so would be completely retarded.

And let me get this straight, the Game of The Year award is meaningless, but an obscure review that said it was good is now a more viable judgement? In what fucking universe?

Because I'm sure that a multinational annual televized objective evaluation is far less a credible source than some no-name blogger who thinks that the first 2 Fallouts are 'Teh Bomb!'.

And believe me, it's not so praised. The new Fallouts have a much larger following, and always will.

But it's becoming painfully obvious that your willing to disregard all of the facts, reasonings, and evidence that doesn't agree with you.

And unless you want to be a COMPLETE hypocrite, I wouldn't complain about my spelling, and grammar errors again.

Unless of course you've already edited all of yousr out. Which would take awhile.

For one, you say thet graphics are all important when it would cost an arm and a leg to get "god like graphics". Consoles cannot render the "god like graphics " due to their stagnant technological state. You would have to buy an expensive PC for that. Even then the PC would be under utilized since not every game has "god" graphics. In short following graphics is illogical and a waste of money. Graphics don't last long and will only be improved, its utterly impossible to stay completely at the cutting edge.

GOTY awards are effectively meaningless since its not a focused award. Its given by publications, and even then they only gained popularity recently. Reviews put together and form a number that shows how good it is however has weight. If you look at the official and user score, they are the same and in the user score the old games surpass the new ones. Games can be good regardless of age. Mario, pong, and tetris all stand with the newer games of today and are still loved. Age means nothing about a game's quality. Sure it has a large following but that only proves they are more accessbile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_of_the_Year
http://www.metacritic.com/

You don't know what metacritic is do you? Wow. Just wow.

Metacritic isn't exactly mainstream. Not like IGN, Game FAQs, or ya' know...the Escapist. Just because some nostalgic blogger says something doesn't make it remotely true. It really shocks me that you would sooner debunk GOTY than your obscure metacritic. I don't care what score he gave them.

And I'm not even talking about "God like" graphics. Just good enough to not look like the first Fallouts. They look like shit, and you can't deny it.

And (this is the last time I'm gonna say it) I'm not saying that old games cannot be good, alot of them still are. But you cannot honestly compare the first 2 Fallouts to the new ones. That would constitute a whole new level of dumbass.

One that you have clearly achieved.

 

[Jezzascmezza]

I think I like New Vegas more than Fallout 3.
I only got it a few days ago, so I didn't experience the seriously buggy launch I keep hearing about.
I think there's also more to do in NV than there is in Fallout 3.

 

[Revne]

new vegas is fallout 3 + new content. you deside!

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

I haven't played Vegas yet (I won't buy the current version, I'll wait until a GOTY-edition comes out with all the add-ons) but im still going to say that FALLOUT 2 is the best fallout game.

Fallout 1 coming in as a close second, and on third place is Fallout 3.

New Vegas is ywet to be determined in my eyes, though I seriously doubt it will be able to top fallout 1 and 2. Few games have ever been close to comparison to those two...

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

Other than all the bugs, New Vegas is the better of the two.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

And (this is the last time I'm gonna say it) I'm not saying that old games cannot be good, alot of them still are. But you cannot honestly compare the first 2 Fallouts to the new ones. That would constitute a whole new level of dumbass.

No not really. A whole new level of dumbass would be trying to claim that everything that is "the newest" would by default be superior to anything that is older.

Just because something is new it doesn't mean that it has progressed or become superior to the older, and if you genuinely believe that to be the case then you are certainly not the right person to call others "dumbass"...

 

[SamElliot'sMustache]

Haven't played the old ones, so I can't comment on them, but I like New Vegas a lot more than Fallout 3. There's a nice balance of humor and dread (my first encounter with Caesar's Legion), lots more to do, and way more interesting characters. I also enjoy the 'western/mobster/cheesy Americana' vibe more to the more straightforward style of 3.

Metacritic isn't exactly mainstream. Not like IGN, Game FAQs, or ya' know...the Escapist. Just because some nostalgic blogger says something doesn't make it remotely true. It really shocks me that you would sooner debunk GOTY than your obscure metacritic. I don't care what score he gave them.

You do realize Metacritic is a compilation site that collects reviews from mainstream sources and averages out their scores, right? That it's not 'one nostalgic blogger?' And it's hardly obscure, being the other big review aggregator on the web (I suppose you've never heard of Rotten Tomatoes, either).

 

[OneOfTheMichael's]

I think fallout 3 until new vegas has at least 3 more dlc.

 

[Internet Kraken]

[Excruciating combat? Bollocks. Is it really that bad? .

It's a bit like this...

You miss Gecko.

Gecko hits you for 1 damage.

Raider hits you for 4 damage.

Raider leader hits you for 5 damage.

Golden Gecko hits Raider for no damage.

You miss Gecko.

Gecko hits you for 1 damage.

Gecko critically hits you for 4 damage, knocking you off your feet.

Gecko hits you for 1 damage.

..... and so on and so on. It's like a cure for insomnia.

It is painful to endure, even at the highest combat speed settings.

THIS

Oh god, I tried playing Fallout 2. I really did. And I can see why people love it. But my god that combat made me want to kill myself. It was excruciating. Even when I wasn't struggling to survive, the combat was so painfully dull that I dreaded every big encounter. Fallout 2 was a good game for its time, but it has not aged well.

Also you know how people complain about glitches in the new game? They were just as bad in the old ones. Here's just one example; I had sex with someone, and my companions vanished. Let me repeat that; I had sex with someone and my companions, who are basically needed to survive, vanished. It got worse than that though. Trying to fight the Enclave with a teleporting deathclaw companion does not work well, and eventually the game was rendered unplayable and I abandoned it.

 

[ExaltedK9]

Believe it or not, but Fallout 3 isn't the first game in the series.

In my opinion, Fallout 3 is the best, followed by Fallout 2, then New Vegas, then the original.

I get so sick of hearing this. Theres a reason none of them are options on the poll. They are not comparable to the new installments. They are ancient and suck next to their predecessors,

OT: Fallout 3, but only because of the abundance of glitches, and invisible walls in New Vegas.

You forgot to put on your flameshield, broseph.
Also predecessors are those that come before.

OT: Fo:3 is my favorite on account of Lincoln's Repeater. It really just makes it better than anything else, period. And yes, I am an Abe Lincoln fanboy.

Yea I knew I was walking on hallowed ground when I said that I didn't think the first Fallouts were good. I will probably be made and example of...

Oh right, I mixed up my predecessors and successors.

Yes, now go back to your call of duty and your medal of honor chest thumping of "war". Oh wait, they are ancient games too. Come to think of it Fallout 3 is ancient, batman arkham asylum is ancient, all halos are ancient, gears of war is ancient, Oblivion is ancient, morrowind is ancient, and every game not made in 2011 is ancient so they all must suck. >.>

Christ, this is the same notion that is set in concrete in immature freshmen in high school.

Don't like fallout? then don't come to fallout threads. Is that so hard to do?

Any game that was made before YESTERDAY is ancient? Aren't you being a little fanatical there?

And as it happens, I love Fallouts 3, and New Vegas. Just not the first 2, those suck more than a hurricane.

Fanatical? No, i am pointing out how flawed your logic is. Newer =/= better, older =/= bad. 1.Don't like a game? Fine, don't play it. However you don't go bringing age into the argument otherwise your just spouting flawed logic. You also don't state your opinion as fact.

Yea, generally newer does equal better. If that weren't true, we would still be playing pong, instead of Halo, and Call of Duty.

1. OK. But only as long as I have your blessing... I'll stick to only the good ones.

And the age of the first installements isn't irrelevent. I mean, its not gonna e winning any awards this year for it's stunning characters, and (poker face) breath-taking visuals.

And the definition of 'opinion' is the personal beliefs of an individual. Seen as factual, in other words. But next time I'll be sure to add an 'I think' so you don't feel insecure.

No, it doesn't. By your logic mario, pong, and tetris is bad. However, since Halo 3 and call of duty are ancient now, they must suck too. It's your logic. In fact since the all the consoles are over 1 year old they all must suck by your logic.

Opinion:
a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge.

Merriam Webster disagrees with you.

English & context, learn it. Really, this is getting embarrassing. English and logic fallacy back to back? What is next?

My debunking of your misinformed argument, of course. And thats not my logic, it's yours. Age can be irrelevant, but in the case of the Fallout series, it's not. It just means that Fallouts 3 and New Vegas took a small fortune to create, thousands of man hours, an incredible amount of consideration and tweaking, and nextgen graphics, physics, and gameplay up the arse. Whereas the first 2 look like garbage, and probably took something under a year, and have very much fallen from grace.

As far as the opinion thing, heres another copy/paste from Webster's: a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter.
If you need the bottom line, refer to my previous post.

Not being a prick - learn it.

I already learned it, the question is did you? Judging by your probation i'd say not. Since you seem to insult everything to get a rise out of people. Perpetuating speculation doesn't help your point at all, nor are your attempts to insult anyone who argues with you and even use points you can't even back up. Next gen graphics? Fallout 3's graphics were a joke, requiring the green tint to hide the texture and model defects. If your graphics are so bad you need to HIDE IT WITH EDITING, it isn't next gen graphics. Look at downtown DC with fellout installed (removes green tint that textures rely on), it looks like utter crap. Physics? It uses the outdated gamebryo engine, another laughing stock that is more outdated than valve's source engine. The game play is downgraded from morrowind, a step backward. Nowhere in fallout 3 is there "next gen". Not from a technical, storyline, or game play perspective.

Graphics don't matter in a game. Only in shallow games do they matter, look up crysis. Its old and generic but still looks better than anyhing you've seen now. By the way you trying to compare a CRPG with an FPSRPG is just embarrassing. Next you'll say Dragon age was bad because it didn't have russians and guns.

In a word, yes (good comeback though). And as for my probation, you know that Pixar thread thats so popular right now? Well I posted that I thought up was boring, and had the bad luck of that beingthe first post. And I caught alot of flak from pissed off manchildren who agressively rushed to its defense.

But thanks for bringing up something thats completely irrelevant, because it just demonstrates how you have nothing substantial to say.

You say that Fallout 3's graphics were a joke, when FO1 looked like it had been rendered in Microsoft Paint. But you're right, FO3 looks so much worse. And even if the physics aren't top notch, they still a hell of a lot better than Fallout's 1 and 2. And I don't remember any assault rifles in Morrowind, so your little theory there is bullshit as well.

I'm sure Fallout 3 won game of the year when it was realeased for being inferior to it's, what, 6 year old(?) predecessors. Really, if you seriously believe that, then you're just not seeing things logically. But that seem perfectly in charcter for you.

Comparing games from different genres isn't embarrassing, it makes perfect fucking sense. Whats embarrassing is your determination to ignore facts and common sense, because you're ferociously nostalgic for the "good" old (incredibly OLD) days of Fallout. Before it was good and all.

And Bioware is my favorite developer, and I liked Dragon Age. Also, I'm half Russian, and don't like games where they're depicted as evil. I'm just patriotic that way.

Common sense? Since when is following games purely for graphics ever common sense? It will only cost you extortionate amount of money to view "graphics" as console cannot render good graphics anymore. Its been years since the hardware consoles use has ever been recent. Hell the Xbox was already outdated by the time it came out. To view "graphics" would need even more money. Why spend all that when photorealism is is literally outside the window?

You say fallout was never good in the past when it scored a 89 on metacritic, 1 score point away from fallout 3 and scored HIGHER than New vegas (85). If fallouts are so bad, why are they still regarded highly on metacritic and almost the same in scores? And the USER scores for fallout 1 is 9, while fallout 3 is 7. If fallout is so bad, why is it so praised now? and by so many people years after its release? and on the biggest review site?

Game of the year awards are practically popularity contests. It shows nothing other than a publication that likes it. Its basically the opinion of the publication and its writers. Game of the year awards are not given by the gaming god, only publications that post news of video games. Hell GOTYs started at the earliest 1992 (?), and even then it wasn't until 2000 to 2008 did the "big" publications began to do GOTY awards.

I didn't say you thats it's better solely because of it's good graphics. And now you're ust talking nonsense. What the hell do you mean by "Consoles cannot render good graphics anymore."? You talk about me condemning stuff for being old, you think that the Xbox was outdated by the time it came out. And by "To view "graphics" (why the hell do you have quotation marks around graphics anyway?) you would need even more money." what exactly do you mean. If you want to see a games graphics, you would have to spend money to buy the game?
I don't know what these ramblings mean, can you please translate them to english for me?


I didn't say that the old Fallouts weren't good back when they came ou, but they are nowhere near as good as it's next gen successors. To say so would be completely retarded.

And let me get this straight, the Game of The Year award is meaningless, but an obscure review that said it was good is now a more viable judgement? In what fucking universe?

Because I'm sure that a multinational annual televized objective evaluation is far less a credible source than some no-name blogger who thinks that the first 2 Fallouts are 'Teh Bomb!'.

And believe me, it's not so praised. The new Fallouts have a much larger following, and always will.

But it's becoming painfully obvious that your willing to disregard all of the facts, reasonings, and evidence that doesn't agree with you.

And unless you want to be a COMPLETE hypocrite, I wouldn't complain about my spelling, and grammar errors again.

Unless of course you've already edited all of yousr out. Which would take awhile.

For one, you say thet graphics are all important when it would cost an arm and a leg to get "god like graphics". Consoles cannot render the "god like graphics " due to their stagnant technological state. You would have to buy an expensive PC for that. Even then the PC would be under utilized since not every game has "god" graphics. In short following graphics is illogical and a waste of money. Graphics don't last long and will only be improved, its utterly impossible to stay completely at the cutting edge.

GOTY awards are effectively meaningless since its not a focused award. Its given by publications, and even then they only gained popularity recently. Reviews put together and form a number that shows how good it is however has weight. If you look at the official and user score, they are the same and in the user score the old games surpass the new ones. Games can be good regardless of age. Mario, pong, and tetris all stand with the newer games of today and are still loved. Age means nothing about a game's quality. Sure it has a large following but that only proves they are more accessbile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_of_the_Year
http://www.metacritic.com/

You don't know what metacritic is do you? Wow. Just wow.

Metacritic isn't exactly mainstream. Not like IGN, Game FAQs, or ya' know...the Escapist. Just because some nostalgic blogger says something doesn't make it remotely true. It really shocks me that you would sooner debunk GOTY than your obscure metacritic. I don't care what score he gave them.

And I'm not even talking about "God like" graphics. Just good enough to not look like the first Fallouts. They look like shit, and you can't deny it.

And (this is the last time I'm gonna say it) I'm not saying that old games cannot be good, alot of them still are. But you cannot honestly compare the first 2 Fallouts to the new ones. That would constitute a whole new level of dumbass.

One that you have clearly achieved.

lordy, lordy, where to begin with your misconceptions?

1st: The official score is 89, one point away from fallout 3, and higher than fallout new vegas.

2nd: the user score is calculated by multitudes of people's scores. Not one person. The user score shows that fallout struck a much higher chord than fallout 3.

3rd: Review scores are calculated by 5 or more reviews from actual publications like gamespot and IGN.

4th: You're comparing classic rpgs with an FPS RPG, two different genres. Comparing the new and old fallouts are like comparing starcraft II with GTA IV. By that logic path GTA sucks because you cannot command troops, doesn't have the factions, and has no base building. Understand? Genres go into sub genres and have different requirements. City builders are a sub-genre of strategy, and have different criteria. Do we ridicule city builders because there are no troops to command? no. Should we ridicule final fantasy because it doesn't have "phat gunz"? No. By that same logic, fallout 3 sucks because its a tiny game with only one city, one hooker, no child killing, no nut shots, no eye shots, no jokes, and small selection of guns and armor.

5th: So you ridicule fallout because of graphics? still? Just wow. The level of ignorance exuded by the notion is simply amazing. Graphics do not dictate game quality. At all. Simply shooting down a game purely for graphics alone is plain concentrated ignorance.

Yet again your stance is poorly constructed.

Again, the score that one website gave Fallouts one and two when they came out hold no credence. Scoring systems change with time. Back in it's day pong would have probably gotten a 10 out of 10.

And I don't know where you got the idea that you can't compare games from different genres, because they're different. You're just saying that so that your favorite games won't suck in comparison. Which they do.

And the fact that you're ready to dismiss the GOTY awards in favor of a single review just shows your persistence to believe what you want, even when it's not true.

And if you disliked Fallout 3 because there wasn't enough whores and child killing for you then I tihnk that says something about you. Nothing I didn't already know though.

And graphics are an extremely important part of any digital media. Theres a reason that people make such a big deal of them. You would be lying if you said that nobody cared, because most everybody does. But please, explain how ignorance is just dripping fromthat statement. Again, you're just willing to contradict that because you love the first Fallouts so much.

Besides I'm not even shooting down the first ones because of the horrible, horrible, sickeningly aweful graphics. They're just a testement to how dated, and irrelevant the first installments have become.

Being completely objective, Fallouts 3 and New Vegas are better than their predecessors. They took more money, and time to make. They made WAY more money. They have many more awards, Many better reviews, A much larger fan base, and way more advanced technology.

Sorry, it's just the truth.

 

[ExaltedK9]

And (this is the last time I'm gonna say it) I'm not saying that old games cannot be good, alot of them still are. But you cannot honestly compare the first 2 Fallouts to the new ones. That would constitute a whole new level of dumbass.

No not really. A whole new level of dumbass would be trying to claim that everything that is "the newest" would by default be superior to anything that is older.

Just because something is new it doesn't mean that it has progressed or become superior to the older, and if you genuinely believe that to be the case then you are certainly not the right person to call others "dumbass"...

It's not better by default, it's better because it took more money to make, MADE way more money, won many more awards, got many more good reviews, has a larger fan base, and utilized next gen technology.

Just speaking objectively.