I didn't leave my favorite game series, my favorite game series left me.

[Kekvit Irae]

Total War - Sometimes I'll pop my head back into a game of Empire, but honestly... I hated Shogun 2. There was something about it that didn't click with me.

The Elder Scrolls - Let me get this out there: I HATED MORROWIND. I hated the pre-built "dungeons." I hated how they turned high/wood/dark elves into Amy Winehouse (too soon?). I hated those damn cliff racers. Oblivion redeemed itself only because it had much better modding potential.

World of Warcraft - Patch 4.2. Anyone who plays WoW will know why I canceled my subscription.

Bioshock - The original Bioshock was a true masterpiece; a worthy successor to System Shock 2. Bioshock 2 was an insult to the legacy. Exact same plot. Exact same gameplay. Exact same game. Multiplayer was fun, but it didn't erase the foul taste out of my mouth.

Deus Ex - There was no "Invisible War." It was all just a dream. It was all just a dream. It was all just a dream.

And the worst offender: Dragon Age - Dragon Age: Origins and Awakening were the shining jewels in modern RPGs. Sure, they had their flaws, but they were so engaging and fun that it didn't matter. Then came Dragon Age II. I can forgive the new combat system. I can forgive the newbie-mode changes to talents and the removal of skills. I can even forgive the retcons and the fact you are a participant rather than a leader. What I cant forgive is my favorite character from Awakening doing something so batguano insane in the final act. SERIOUSLY, ANDERS? SERIOUSLY?!

[Crazed Rabbit]

Total War - Rome went from the strategy and tactics of MTW to the mass appeal of shiny graphics and easy gameplay. In my foolishness, believing CA's hype, I bought ETW on release, like a fool. I'm not going to buy another one of their games.

Also, Call of Duty. I played the original, where you didn't have a little number pop up in the middle of the screen for killing someone.

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

Also, Call of Duty. I played the original, where you didn't have a little number pop up in the middle of the screen for killing someone.

CR

Call of duty 2 and to a lesser extent 3, were really solid games. From 4 and beyond, the series became about measuring yourself and showing off then about the fun of it.

[Kekvit Irae]

Call of duty 2 and to a lesser extent 3, were really solid games. From 4 and beyond, the series became about measuring yourself and showing off then about the fun of it.

I wouldn't exactly say that CoD3 is a "really solid game," but that's your own subjective opinion. Personally, I believe it was simply way to get a 360 launch title out the door. Regardless, I enjoyed the Polish tank missions.

And as for CoD4 and higher... Bulletstorm said it better than anyone else could. (may or may not contain offensive language)

[Montmorency]

Deus Ex - There was no "Invisible War." It was all just a dream. It was all just a dream. It was all just a dream.

Invisible War was a good game and you cannot prove otherwise.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I wouldn't exactly say that CoD3 is a "really solid game," but that's your own subjective opinion. Personally, I believe it was simply way to get a 360 launch title out the door. Regardless, I enjoyed the Polish tank missions.

And as for CoD4 and higher... Bulletstorm said it better than anyone else could. (may or may not contain offensive language)

I felt that CoD 3 was very, very similar to CoD 2, idk what wouldn't make it a solid game. I remember playing a lot of CoD 2 and 3 and I remember a few multiplayer maps from CoD 3 that I still think were the funnest I have ever played.

[phantom]

Total War Series.

Shogun: Awesome!
Medieval: Awesome!
Rome: Terrible but at least it could be modded - and were you not entertained?
Medieval2: Puerile
Empire/Napoleon/Shogun2: Didn't buy as looks like more of the same, can't be modded and is obviously geared towards selling downloadable content to the kiddies that now play these games.

Total War is a game series in decline. The CA ran out of ideas long ago and now they're just rehashing the same tired old . As usual the fanboys (or their parents) will run out and buy it. It's a real waste of something which had so much potential.

[Drunk Clown]

As usual the fanboys (or their parents) will run out and buy it.

LOL?

[lars573]

Or could it be because we legitimately felt it was a deeper, more immersive game with a lot more complexity to it? I'm over 30, I hardly need to go out of my way to sound older.

I mean seriously, NPC's got boiled down to 2-3 dialogue choices and you never had to figure anything out in Oblivion because even if you were required to read a book or a clue, a text prompt would pop up over the top of it telling you exactly what to do next.

I'd humbly submit that people who needed features like that were probably in the wrong game, and I don't know why they put it in. It turned it into sort of a hack and slash action game with no real RPG to it. That's of course not even getting into the things like levelled mobs, levelled loot, the game having like 8 voice actors you had to hear all the time, and really just no complexity to the world at all. The races don't even act like they notice other races and there's no real factional or political development at all. It's just good guys vs. omg crazy psychopathic cult worshippers and necromancers.

That's why I felt it went off a cliff in terms of the audience it was aiming for.

I'm 30 and I feel that Oblivion was FAR superior to Morrowind. I enjoyed Morrowind in it's time but it had SEVERE flaws that irritated me to no end. Flaws that were all fixed in Oblivion. Sure you can get all through Oblivion in 35 hours compared to a 60 or 70 hour Morrowind game. But 30 of those hours in Morrowind were walking to and from your destination. As for the leveled loot and enemies, Morrowind was the only ES game that didn't have a heavy handed level keying system. Also the main quest in Morrowind was you fighting crazy cultists and Liche's (who are super powerfule necromancers). They just couldn't show them in the same way due to hardware limits. Morrowind also had about the same amount of dialogue choices with NPC's. If there were more it was 1 or 2. Really the fact that all dialogue in Oblivion is spoken it why you notice how generic it is.

Total War Series.

Shogun: Interesting, but the tactical battles are impossible crap to actually play.
Medieval: More of the same. But hey I can pimp out my daughters and burn fools at the stake.
Rome: Now this is what I've been wanting. Battles that are actually playable! Plus crucifixion.
Medieval2: Finally a Medieval game that's playable all around. And I can own Popes while pimping my daughters
Empire: Best game so far. Getting an economy pumping is no longer a matter of luck, cheating, and owning 30+ provinces.
Napoleon: More of empire

Fixed.

[Vladimir]

Why all the hate for M2:TW? The mods are excellent and despite the flaws with archery I found it much more enjoyable than S2 is.

[phantom]

Fixed.

Your the first person I have seen complaining that the 'tactical battles' in the first two games are impossible to play. Usually the consensus is that the first game had the best tactical battles but not the greatest graphics. Might I suggest that its more a question of your inability to play the battles in the first two games rather than something lacking in the battles themselves? The battles in rome and medieval 2 were poor and the games themselves were obviously aimed children.

[aimlesswanderer]

- Civilisation: 1 was fantastic, 2 very good, 3 can't remember much, 4 excellent, but 5? A bit of a shocker, I'm afraid. It's just not fun, which is very disappointing. Something went badly wrong. Not sure how it got such good reviews...

- Lords of the Realm: 1 and 2 both excellent, and I still play 2 occasionally. But 3? , a total shocker - made no sense, horrible graphics, just sooooooo baaaad.

- MOO: 1 good, 2 great, 3 . A friend described the game as something "which plays itself".

[Monk]

- Civilisation: 1 was fantastic, 2 very good, 3 can't remember much, 4 excellent, but 5? A bit of a shocker, I'm afraid. It's just not fun, which is very disappointing. Something went badly wrong. Not sure how it got such good reviews...

I've heard a lot of people compare 5 to 3 in the regards that.. it's solid mechanically there's just nothing there. I remember getting so hyped on that game and buying it day one. Played it for about 5 hours and then never played it again, just not sure what went wrong.

It was all together unenjoyable, not to mention their DLC scheme has released about 7 insanely overprized faction packs. There's all together very little that sets them apart from the base civs, maybe a unit or two here and there..

[aimlesswanderer]

I've heard a lot of people compare 5 to 3 in the regards that.. it's solid mechanically there's just nothing there. I remember getting so hyped on that game and buying it day one. Played it for about 5 hours and then never played it again, just not sure what went wrong.

It was all together unenjoyable, not to mention their DLC scheme has released about 7 insanely overprized faction packs. There's all together very little that sets them apart from the base civs, maybe a unit or two here and there..

Ah, there must have been a reason I don't really remember 3! Yes, 5, while it runs smoothly, is just missing something, that spark, and is, I am afraid, boring. Silly me, I bought the DLCs when I bought 5, and that doesn't seem like a good buy now!

[drone]

- MOO: 1 good, 2 great, 3 . A friend described the game as something "which plays itself".

I bought MoO3, but then I realized I already had a job. Such a shame, MoO2 was incredible, probably the most hours spent out of my entire game collection.

[lars573]

Your the first person I have seen complaining that the 'tactical battles' in the first two games are impossible to play. Usually the consensus is that the first game had the best tactical battles but not the greatest graphics. Might I suggest that its more a question of your inability to play the battles in the first two games rather than something lacking in the battles themselves? The battles in rome and medieval 2 were poor and the games themselves were obviously aimed children.

Your wrong. The controls are horrible, I've yet to find a way to adjust them to something resembling usefulness. And the camera doesn't help. All of which were fixed from Rome onwards. Really my enjoyment of STW increased immensely once I realized I didn't have to plod through those awful battles if I didn't want too.

[TinCow]

- Civilisation: 1 was fantastic, 2 very good, 3 can't remember much, 4 excellent, but 5? A bit of a shocker, I'm afraid. It's just not fun, which is very disappointing. Something went badly wrong. Not sure how it got such good reviews...

I agree. I do not think there has been a single game series that has sucked up as much time as Civ (counted as Civ 1, Civ 2, SMAC, Civ 3, Civ 4, Civ 5). Yet, Civ 5 only got about two weeks of playtime out of me before I put it down, and I haven't touched it again since. I haven't abandoned the series though. Civ 4 was nowhere near as strong at release as it was after two expansion packs. I'll give Civ 5 some time to mature and then I'll give it another try. I'll also buy whatever comes next, even if Civ 5 remains disappointed. After all, Civ 3 was followed by Civ 4. Hopefully we'll get SMAC 2 though. I was kind of fond of SMAC many, many years ago.

[Prussian to the Iron]

I could get into the massive butthurt argument about Total War and Oblivion vs. Morrowind, but I'll stay out of that and remain on-topic.

I'm done with CoD. I think my first one was Finest Hour, which was awesome (that opening...wow.), and Call of Duty 3 was pretty fun as well (never played MP for either, PS2). Call of Duty 4 was revolutionary and had the best graphics of its time (and lots of new games don't even match the same graphic level), and was my introduction to FPS multiplayer (though I must admit that, at the time, I sucked at it. Hard.). World at War, though everyone talks about how bad it was, I absolutely loved. Kept a similar vibe from MW1, but the focus was shifted more to semi-auto and bolt-action (if that game had been released now, I would destroy everything with the semi's and bolt-actions). Very fun for me, especially Nazi Zombies, playing splitscreen with my friends, and campaign.

MW2 was ok. It was fun for a while, but it was quintessentially the same thing as MW1 and WaW. Just with new weapons and cheaper exploits, a huge amount of quickscoping (1-shot kill from any range....), very unbalanced weapons, and ridiculous killstreaks.

Black Ops I absolutely hate. I sometimes play with my best friend online, just because I don't want to play Bad Company 2 by myself. It's a horrendous game. The graphics were actually scaled back from MW2 (which, IMO, had worse graphics than MW1), the guns were EXTREMELY unbalanced (there's a reason almost everyone uses the same guns. half the guns have no recoil, half have extremely high recoil and no damage boost to compensate for it), kill streaks were still pretty annoying but not as bad as MW2. Just incredibly unrealistic. Freakin hate the game.

MW3 is the same exact thing as MW2, with a few different guns and attachments to keep the 12 year olds happy.


I can't bring myself to buy such an atrocity of a game, such a mockery of the once-prestigious title "Call of Duty".

[Drunk Clown]

Just incredibly unrealistic.

CoD is known for its extremely realistic combat.

[Prussian to the Iron]

CoD is known for its extremely realistic combat.

Oh of course, just as much as Medieval 2 and Rome TW are known for ending up with historically accurate borders.

[Drunk Clown]

Oh of course, just as much as Medieval 2 and Rome TW are known for ending up with historically accurate borders.

Indeed.

[rasoforos]

Total War - Medieval and Shogun were fantastic, catering for a small number of people who liked substance over shiny things. Rome was an anjoyable Arcade Game, something to play while listening to pop music :P. Medieval 2 was unplayable and it stayed that way ever since...

Fallout. I dont think Fallout3 was a bad game. It was a fine post apocalyptic game. But it wasnt Fallout (during my latest replay of fallout 2 I played a married female lesbian character who sold her spouse to slavery....try to do that with F3...)

[Sarmatian]

I agree. I do not think there has been a single game series that has sucked up as much time as Civ (counted as Civ 1, Civ 2, SMAC, Civ 3, Civ 4, Civ 5). Yet, Civ 5 only got about two weeks of playtime out of me before I put it down, and I haven't touched it again since. I haven't abandoned the series though. Civ 4 was nowhere near as strong at release as it was after two expansion packs. I'll give Civ 5 some time to mature and then I'll give it another try. I'll also buy whatever comes next, even if Civ 5 remains disappointed. After all, Civ 3 was followed by Civ 4. Hopefully we'll get SMAC 2 though. I was kind of fond of SMAC many, many years ago.

If you haven't tried Rise of Mankind - a New Dawn mod for Civ IV, I'd strongly advise it. It's practically another expansion, probably offers more new features than Warlords and BtS combined. I've just tried it, and even though it's a steep learning curve even for experienced Civ IV players, I'm having a blast currently.

[CrossLOPER]

My friends (IRL and online) sometimes point out that I don't like anything and that I always find tiny things to criticize. I don't know how to respond to that other than by pointing at the endless examples I see and hoping that they could at least understand my point.

Fallout - I actually got into this series REALLY late, but I played the first two first. I liked Fallout and thought that Fallout 2 was great and had a lot of tiny things to it that shattered any tiny shred of monotony. Fallout 3 was Oblivion with guns. It was cool the first few times I threw a grenade under a thing and watched it splatter in slo-mo. It was also cool when I ran halfway across the map to megaton firing a defective sniper rifle at a lady wearing a ruined mattress or fighting a desperate struggle against a huge thing with a missile launcher while all I had was a pipe. But that was it. The developers had a shattered planet that they could remake any way they wanted and all they did was make a handful of villages and endless sewer levels.

EDIT: I remember someone on the Bethesda forums saying that Fallout 3 is not Fallout, but rather Bethesda's Post Apocalyptic Adventure. The post was deleted after having about 1 billion replies, but it was true. To be honest, Fallout 3 appeared to be a game where the developers were trying to copy the more well known aspects of Fallout and failed. I don't think any of them ever played either of the original Fallout games.

Elder Scrolls - I played Arena first before moving on to Daggerfall. I played Morrowind and was treated to a unique feeling every time I moved on to another area. The blasted ashlands, the impossible Telvanni structures, the delicate dealings with tribes, raiding daedric ruins, rebuilding the shrine of a god, FINDING A STAFF LOCATED ON THE BODY OF A LOST PRIEST IN A MOUNTAIN RANGE. I still remember the alien howling I heard just before I went to sleep under the stars. Each race had unique voices and you heard the dispositions in the delivery. There were quests that you had no choice but to complete even though you had no wish to do so. Don't get me started on the expansions. Oblivion... It felt plastic. To me, the graphics were worse. It felt as if everything was made from a single template. I saw little imagination in the level design. I had to force myself to get through to the end, while I was left breathless the moment my character at the time finished the last quest. I actually managed to track down Battlespire and Redguard a few years ago. Battlespire was a buggy mess, but it required thinking. You had to approach each fight carefully and there was a good chance you would have to create a new character a couple of times before you had a viable one. Redguard had the skills and stats taken out, but it replaced them with character depth and a good storyline.

EDIT: I feel sorry for the developers. At first I cursed them for violating a good series, but now I think differently. I remember a live Skyrim demo being played before an audience released on youtube not too long ago. The representative (maybe Todd Howard himself) was going through a snowy mountain range. My first thought was that someone accidentally slipped in Oblivion and Todd was near Bruma. I was distracted from this by the howling of the audience. They were yelling at nothing. Then 2 wolves happened to be in the middle of the path. Todd was about to walk around them when the crowd started their howling again. "It's just a wolf!" Todd protested. Alas, the crowd wanted blood. Todd obliged. Twas then I noticed that the erratic sword swinging was exactly the same as it was in Oblivion. THE WEAPON HAD NO WEIGHT. Then again, if it did, you would have to employ timing and skill to your swordplay. You would have to THINK for a brief moment. The developers realize that this won't probably won't do and left it out. As for the wolves, they had the same AI as they did in Oblivion. All they did was harmlessly clip into each other while Todd swung away.

Total War - Like many, I think the series peaked around MTW. Rome was awesome, but MTW had all the right elements. Let's not talk about the auto-resolve and the absurd reinforcement functions. Those were always horrendous. I got S2TW for free with my processor. Personally, I think it is good and it corrected many of the missteps. However, it just lacks the spark of MTW.

EDIT: Also, I can never shake the feeling that I have played this game before.

Age of Empires - Purging a series built on historical foundations of any realism and replacing it with an absurd storyline because you didn't want to offend someone is questionable. YOU COULD HAVE MADE A GAME WHERE THERE COULD BE A SCENARIO WHERE THE CONFEDERACY WON. YOU WOULD HAVE MADE RECORD SALES. You didn't HAVE to have slaves. You could have replaced them with "frontier labor" or something like that. It would have been more realistic than having DRAGOONS.

Stronghold - "Hey, let's take all the charm and epic historical influence and use the most horrendous voice acting ever. Also, release the pre-beta version of the game." OK, to be fair, I like the direction they were going with adding in estates so that you could deny the enemy castle resources, but why would you give me a unit that could ferry itself across the water WHEN THERE IS NO SCENARIO THAT WOULD ALLOW ME TO DO SO?

Painkiller - No innovation. At all. It is the exact same game every time and somehow each iteration is less optimized than the last.

EDIT: Honorable mention:

Thief - Deadly Shadows veered a bit, but it kept the core elements in the game. The Cradle brought back memories of The Haunted Cathedral from the original game, though that level still reigns supreme. I can live without rope arrows and, to be honest, the climbing gloves seem more realistic. I find myself looking forward to Th4if, despite the fact that the very first marketing for the game is about the worst I have ever seen. Th4if? Well, at least you are tipping your hats to the fact that this is indeed the fourth installment. If Human Revolution turns out OK, then I will likely pre-order Th4if the day it is available.

Deus Ex - This one is a little bit troublesome because core elements WERE taken out in Invisible War. The skill system and the exploration reward system that went with it were gone. I was not rewarded for exploring. It was silly. The universal ammunition thing was absurd as well. However, I can imagine myself playing the game again and indeed, I am going to watch a live streaming of Human Revolution. If it looks fun, I'll get it. I am not at all bothered by the Portal quality graphics. In fact, I hope that means they spent time on the actual game. I was troubled when I saw a on youtube a guy playing a leaked version of the game a couple of months back. The first twenty minutes of the game appear to require minimal input from the player.

In the first game, you were thrown into a covert mission where you had to infiltrate THE RUINS OF LADY LIBERTY and capture a terrorist. AND HE SURRENDERED. The second one was a little bit slower in starting up, but as soon as you learned how to use your inventory, BOOM! Spooky guys in hoods started shooting up security and you had to haul it.

[Drunk Clown]

I don't think any of them ever played either of the original Fallout games.

Sure.

To me, the graphics were worse

Yeah, just like with GTA. San Andreas looked way better than GTA IV.

I saw little imagination in the level design.

Area around Ald'rhun and the whole area around the ghost wall was great. I was like: "Yeah give me more desert, can't get enough of it"

[CrossLOPER]

I'll assume that is all sarcasm, and despite the tone, I'll address these.

Sure.

WHO is my character. WHAT would they do if the specter of the resurgence of the Enclave was not on the horizon? Would they be a porn star? A boxer? If their car was stolen, would they screw the thief so hard that their head exploded? Does their charisma have an effect on anything besides the deals at the market? I don't know because I don't get the chance to do any of these things. I do get to make boom.

Yeah, just like with GTA. San Andreas looked way better than GTA IV.

I never played either, but you seemed to have missed the point.

Medieval paintings are, by all accounts, horrid. They lack perspective, they are difficult to follow and the anachronisms are glaring. However, I personally find charm in them. Yes, Morrowind was gritty in many places, but I would hardly expect a wasteland to be colorful. There were fields and marshes and beaches and all of them could be told apart from one another. In Oblivion, there was the grassy plain/forest template, and it just froze over when it got too far north.

Area around Ald'rhun and the whole area around the ghost wall was great. I was like: "Yeah give me more desert, can't get enough of it"

Forgetting that the area around the Ghost Gate was tainted by Dagoth Ur's corruption and looking around the "pure" areas, the southeast and the southwest of Vvardenfell where swamps/marches, the interior was a mountain range, the interior had numerous grassy fields, Dagon Fel was a dead volcano... The caves were often more than caves. Many were grottos that had unique features and led to structures not accessible from the surface. They were not just holes filled with HDR bloom. Ald'rhun, since you mentioned it, was a town built from the husks of huge crustaceans. Looking at other towns, Gnisis was carved into the side of a mountain. The Telvanni towns were so weird and unique that I still remember them. Even if you didn't lose yourself in the game to find any of this remotely interesting, it's still more imaginative than the generic western European castle model used for every single fort. Bruma is unique in that the Nordic architecture was prominent and Cloud Ruler Temple itself was a unique spot. No where else in Oblivion was any of this present.

EDIT: VIVEC. THAT is a city. It was so huge, it had its own transportation system. Speaking of which, Silt Striders! Propylon Indexes! At least teleportation made sense!

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'll assume that is all sarcasm, and despite the tone, I'll address these.

WHO is my character. WHAT would they do if the specter of the resurgence of the Enclave was not on the horizon? Would they be a porn star? A boxer? If their car was stolen, would they screw the thief so hard that their head exploded? Does their charisma have an effect on anything besides the deals at the market? I don't know because I don't get the chance to do any of these things. I do get to make boom.

You don't know what the purpose of F3 was. After F2, all the bad stuff happened financially to Black Isle and Interplay and the Fallout series looked like it was going to disappear forever for a moment. Bethesda picked it up but didn't know how well the series would go over after a 10 year hiatus. Long periods of no news tend to make people very pessimistic and overly critical since they have been "waiting" longer. (lol Duke Nukem wasn't an average game instead it was IT DIDN'T EVEN CURE MY CANCER IT WAS SO BAD)

So Bethesda bought the IP and used F3 to test the waters. They did do their research on F1 and F2 but what some people don't comprehend is that a first person 3D sandbox is going to be a lot more limited in the amount of choices due to the engine's structure than a very graphically simple 2D top down scroller. For the most part the kind of 2D scroller that F1 and F2 is based upon makes it real easy to add a ton of complexity because it takes less effort to change simpler sprites than it is to change an entire 3D town like Megaton. The time between when F1 came out and when F2 came out was 1 year. F1 came out in 1997 and F2 came out in 1998. Modern 3D RPG's take a lot more time even to make it decent. KOTOR 2 and Dragon Age 2 shows how crappy and hollow a modern RPG is when only given 13-15 months to make, which is more time than it took to make the complex beast that is F2.

The technical differences between presenting a large area from a 2D top down and a 3D first person also makes a huge difference in how far you can make changes to the surrounding environment or even in how big the environment actually seems. What makes this situation even more apparent is that when I read on Reddit posts about F1 and F2, there are always people who say that they are surprised about how small x town is when they get the widescreen patch for computers that run at insanely high resolutions allowing the player to see a much larger square of the map from top down than normally. Areas suddenly go from winding buildings everywhere to a surprisingly close grid like pattern of 4 buildings by 5 buildings when you see the whole town.

The fact is that the Oblivion engine isn't the F1 and F2 engine and people complain about the former not providing the same level of choice as the latter as if the Oblivion engine was designed to be an ever encompassing complex branching tracking engine for Fallout.

This is all why I said earlier in this thread that the next Fallout should be within a much smaller area, not a huge sandbox in the same style as F3 or New Vegas. Make the NPC's serve more uses for more quests instead of being throwaway one time NPCs used to send you to another point on the map.

As for not following the lore, Bethesda made the decision that since they did indeed own the IP that they were entitled to change the lore as they seemed fit. But they took a deliberate policy of trying to maintain the original material as much as they could in order to keep it the Fallout everyone would recognize. It's why they placed F3 in Washington D.C. far away from the events or characters of either F1 and F2, because they were testing to see if people would respond before they went about dictating what familiar characters would do.

In short, people complain about Fallout not being what it once was, but this is sillyness. 2D top down styles have not been the mainstream style of RPG story telling for a while. To expect anything but "Oblivion with guns" was just being unrealistic and ultimately doing the same kind of expectation building that most people did with Duke Nukem.

EDIT: On Chris Avalone's twitter account he says that since F3 the Fallout Bible itself is no longer canon. So invoking the lore from that is pointless.
http://twitter.com/#!/ChrisAvellone/...00464676044800

[CrossLOPER]

You don't know what the purpose of F3 was. After F2, all the bad stuff happened financially to Black Isle and Interplay and the Fallout series looked like it was going to disappear forever for a moment. Bethesda picked it up but didn't know how well the series would go over after a 10 year hiatus. Long periods of no news tend to make people very pessimistic and overly critical since they have been "waiting" longer. (lol Duke Nukem wasn't an average game instead it was IT DIDN'T EVEN CURE MY CANCER IT WAS SO BAD)

That's the problem. It was a full price demo marketed as FALLOUT 3. Point is moot since New Vegas was nearly the exact same thing.

So Bethesda bought the IP and used F3 to test the waters. They did do their research on F1 and F2 but what some people don't comprehend is that a first person 3D sandbox is going to be a lot more limited in the amount of choices due to the engine's structure than a very graphically simple 2D top down scroller. For the most part the kind of 2D scroller that F1 and F2 is based upon makes it real easy to add a ton of complexity because it takes less effort to change simpler sprites than it is to change an entire 3D town like Megaton. The time between when F1 came out and when F2 came out was 1 year. F1 came out in 1997 and F2 came out in 1998. Modern 3D RPG's take a lot more time even to make it decent. KOTOR 2 and Dragon Age 2 shows how crappy and hollow a modern RPG is when only given 13-15 months to make, which is more time than it took to make the complex beast that is F2.

Fallout 1 and 2 were not scrollers. "3D is hard" is not an excuse. Bethesda had all the experience it needed from Oblivion, and didn't use it.

The technical differences between presenting a large area from a 2D top down and a 3D first person also makes a huge difference in how far you can make changes to the surrounding environment or even in how big the environment actually seems. What makes this situation even more apparent is that when I read on Reddit posts about F1 and F2, there are always people who say that they are surprised about how small x town is when they get the widescreen patch for computers that run at insanely high resolutions allowing the player to see a much larger square of the map from top down than normally. Areas suddenly go from winding buildings everywhere to a surprisingly close grid like pattern of 4 buildings by 5 buildings when you see the whole town.

It's not the size, it's the content.

The fact is that the Oblivion engine isn't the F1 and F2 engine and people complain about the former not providing the same level of choice as the latter as if the Oblivion engine was designed to be an ever encompassing complex branching tracking engine for Fallout.

This is all why I said earlier in this thread that the next Fallout should be within a much smaller area, not a huge sandbox in the same style as F3 or New Vegas. Make the NPC's serve more uses for more quests instead of being throwaway one time NPCs used to send you to another point on the map.

I am failing to grasp the point you are trying to make... That 3D sandboxes are hard to program? Yes, it is an endeavor, but it is not an excuse to release an empty crater of a game.

As for not following the lore, Bethesda made the decision that since they did indeed own the IP that they were entitled to change the lore as they seemed fit. But they took a deliberate policy of trying to maintain the original material as much as they could in order to keep it the Fallout everyone would recognize. It's why they placed F3 in Washington D.C. far away from the events or characters of either F1 and F2, because they were testing to see if people would respond before they went about dictating what familiar characters would do.

In short, people complain about Fallout not being what it once was, but this is sillyness. 2D top down styles have not been the mainstream style of RPG story telling for a while. To expect anything but "Oblivion with guns" was just being unrealistic and ultimately doing the same kind of expectation building that most people did with Duke Nukem.

EDIT: On Chris Avalone's twitter account he says that since F3 the Fallout Bible itself is no longer canon. So invoking the lore from that is pointless.
http://twitter.com/#!/ChrisAvellone/...00464676044800

You are confusing lore with content. Nothing you did was of any consequence. In the original games, every town you visited was affected in a way based on what you did or did not do. What was the ending in Fallout 3? "Uh, you died." or "Uh, you didn't die, but you really should have." The plot just halted.

EDIT: Let me assure you that any ire is directed towards Bethesda, not you.

My point was that I am questioning their design decisions for that game. YES 3D sandboxes require careful design and development. There isn't very much you can add between towns in the desert or indeed a forest. Want to know what the ancients who created Fallout 1 and 2 did? They realized this and decided to OMIT the areas and focus on development of areas that actually matter. They could have easily implemented a familiar system with the random encounters as well with minimal intrusiveness.

[a completely inoffensive name]

That's the problem. It was a full price demo marketed as FALLOUT 3. Point is moot since New Vegas was nearly the exact same thing.

This is just hyperbole though. It was a full game that could give 100+ hours of content, just because it provide enough content for you doesn't mean that it is a demo.

Fallout 1 and 2 were not scrollers. "3D is hard" is not an excuse. Bethesda had all the experience it needed from Oblivion, and didn't use it.

Forgive me, typing at 3am makes me say weird things like scrollers when I didn't mean to say that. They are top down 2D games and it is easier to change the game environment than it is for a 3D first person perspective game. Unless they were to spend another year on it, what they did was already awesome for the Gamebryo engine. They allowed you to wipe out an entire city. It takes more time to get the same level of "change" possible on the latter than it is for the former, but big budget games have a strict timeline. This essentially does make a valid excuse because they literally do not have enough time to put in everything you could think of for every single region like F1 and F2.

It's not the size, it's the content.

The size of the game world greatly impacts the content within it.

I am failing to grasp the point you are trying to make... That 3D sandboxes are hard to program? Yes, it is an endeavor, but it is not an excuse to release an empty crater of a game.

More hyperbole. F3 has tons of content and to deny that is going over the top. If you are going to compare F2 as the standard level of content required than every modern RPG from the ME series to F3 and New Vegas is just an empty crater.

You are confusing lore with content. Nothing you did was of any consequence. In the original games, every town you visited was affected in a way based on what you did or did not do. What was the ending in Fallout 3? "Uh, you died." or "Uh, you didn't die, but you really should have." The plot just halted.

Megaton, Tennpenny Tower and the end game for Broken Steel have big consequences. The reason why not every single place has these type of consequences is because of what I said earlier, the higher complexity of the game engine and the strict timeline makes it impossible to replicate the F2 experience on Gamebryo.

EDIT: Let me assure you that any ire is directed towards Bethesda, not you.

No problem.

My point was that I am questioning their design decisions for that game. YES 3D sandboxes require careful design and development. There isn't very much you can add between towns in the desert or indeed a forest. Want to know what the ancients who created Fallout 1 and 2 did? They realized this and decided to OMIT the areas and focus on development of areas that actually matter. They could have easily implemented a familiar system with the random encounters as well with minimal intrusiveness.

I have my doubts about that. Bethesda was comfortable in using the Gamebryo engine in the way that Oblivion was structured. To break the mold again by attempting a new spin on how you perceive the world in a first person perspective like that (does your screen fade to black and then you reappear in the next town, or do you just fast travel everywhere?) would be 1. risky 2. time intensive 3. unnecessary from their perspective as they had just made a well polished RPG that had many square miles of "empty space".

[CrossLOPER]

OK, I'll concede that they did the best they could. However, that is why a sandbox was not the best idea. Morrowind worked because they had more time to work on the content and add charm to the game overall. They maintained the design decision used in Arena and Daggerfall that empty spaces are boring and should be minimized. In Arena and Daggerfall, time was of the essence with any quest. In Daggerfall, you could purchase horses, carts, ships and properties to expand your mercenary gig and get were you need to go. Morrowind kept the flow with boats, Silt Striders, and propylon devices. You needed to know where you needed to go. You were rewarded for research. There was always something you had to look out for. Why oh why they decided to hop on the teleporter and quest marker pointer plague ship is beyond me. All it did was make those empty spaces emptier.

I am not sticking to nostalgia. I think that the new Deus Ex looks like one of the best games I have seen in a while and am sorry that I did not pre-order. Likewise, I will be looking forward to seeing what they have done in Skyrim. I hope it's GREAT. It's just that seeing what they've done with Fallout New Vegas is disheartening. Same game with terrible expansions. This after they PROMISED that they would focus on shipping out fewer, better crafted DLCs.