6th December 2017, 6:13 PM
@Mars Chris Avellone was a big developer for both of those Fallouts and even created various papers that were compiled as the "Fallout Bible", which was canon at one point. The big issue with Fallout 3 after watching someone play through Fallout 1 and 2 (did not play it myself and my computer cannot even run the games) is that it deviates from the lore and feel of the original Fallouts and New Vegas. It felt like the Bethesda developers just ignored what the original setting was like for the most part.
@Kursed For me, the reason why I liked it is it continued the feeling of how society was rebuilding after the war, added interesting features that make the game interesting and a tad more "realistic", and built connections to the previous games that Fallout 3 did not include. Also a lot of the quests (including the main one) forced you to make a difficult moral decision that was never clear-cut good (as playing a good karma character), even on minute decisions. I still give the edge to Fallout 2 being the best game in the series. Plus, the bugs in New Vegas are ridiculous and at times game-breaking (especially Old World Blues).
In general, the big praise comes from how New Vegas goes back to how the original games felt as more RPG based instead of Fallout 3 being more of a first person action game, and it brought back elements from those games, while utilizing the best of Fallout 3's combat system (and improving it). The reason for this is some of the original developers from 1 and 2 were a part of Obsidian.
Fun fact: The Fallout 3 released by Bethesda is not the original Fallout 3. The original was developed by Black Isle Studios, but was eventually cancelled due to Interplay laying off Black Isle developers during development. It was code named Van Buren. Some of ideas in the game were carried on to New Vegas.
@Kursed For me, the reason why I liked it is it continued the feeling of how society was rebuilding after the war, added interesting features that make the game interesting and a tad more "realistic", and built connections to the previous games that Fallout 3 did not include. Also a lot of the quests (including the main one) forced you to make a difficult moral decision that was never clear-cut good (as playing a good karma character), even on minute decisions. I still give the edge to Fallout 2 being the best game in the series. Plus, the bugs in New Vegas are ridiculous and at times game-breaking (especially Old World Blues).
In general, the big praise comes from how New Vegas goes back to how the original games felt as more RPG based instead of Fallout 3 being more of a first person action game, and it brought back elements from those games, while utilizing the best of Fallout 3's combat system (and improving it). The reason for this is some of the original developers from 1 and 2 were a part of Obsidian.
Fun fact: The Fallout 3 released by Bethesda is not the original Fallout 3. The original was developed by Black Isle Studios, but was eventually cancelled due to Interplay laying off Black Isle developers during development. It was code named Van Buren. Some of ideas in the game were carried on to New Vegas.
