nimlouth wrote:

@Modbrah let me (hardly) disagree with you:

Fallout 3 IS lorebreaking just from the get go when we have the BoS on the DC for unknown reasons, being that they where located on the west coast. Almost every single faction or element taken from previous games was thrown on the waste and changed in ways that broke the immersion in the world for people that actually played the previous games...

Now for "portraiting the post-apocalypse", FO3 focuses WAY too hard on the desolated and destroyed world after the war... You can make the argument that the DC was bombed/nuked to the ground and that's  why 200 years later it still remmains as a completely burned down place, but that just brings me to my point of why FO3 doesn't portraits a "post-apocalypse".

"Post" means "after"... FO3 is too apocalyptic, you get the feeling that the whole world is completely destroyed, that it remmains on that "destroyed" state and there is no progression... no progression means that you don't get to see what happens "after" the apocalypse on that what if scenario which is the point(and the charm) of the post-apocalyptic game.

I'll say again, FO1 is the best game to present the idea of post-apocalypse, from the way the settlements/factions are portrayed, the asthetics and the athmosphere of the game. Also FO3 having "more places" is just not right sorry . FO3 is repetitive and bland, every place is the same and you (pay attetntion to this) never get the feeling that the world is actually alive and moving, that there's people on it. Fallout 1's intro video (the one with the TV) shows way better the game world and the post-apocalypse than Fallout 3.

I've played from head to toe all of the Fallout games, and when someone says "post-apocalyptic" scenario, I instantly recall the old Fallout's places and asthetics, not FO3's.

For the ones that didn't played Tactics, it actually felt (at least for me) strangely enough, a lot like Fallout 4 on asthetics regards, which is a good thing for both games :d.

Every time I see people make that "Fallout 3 broke the lore" argument, they always bring up the same flawed false arguments as if they didn't actually pay attention or play Fallout 3. The same brotherhood of steel argument gets brought up, when it was clearly explained why they were in the east and they even added in the Brotherhood of Stell outcasts to put extra emphasis on letting people that the original Brotherhood of Stell from the west didn't function like the one player was involved with. The other arguments I've seen made was about the Enclave, and the super mutants not making sense to be Fallout 3, which is false because they were clearly given orders to travel the world to accomplish their goal. It seems like to me that the people who claim Fallout 3 heavily broke the lore just have an negative biased towards Fallout 3. I've never seen anyone says Supermutants or the Enclave being in Fallout New Vegas was a problem, because Fallout New Vegas pays tribute to Fallout 1/2 and alot of the older fans know some of the creators of Fallout 1/2 worked on New Vegas, so those negative biased defenses isn't there and they accept it with little claims of it "breaking immersion". The concept of their being a variety of different type's of factions that expands and is not 100% like the original seems to be hard to understand yo you.

Fallout 3's world is not an "completely burned down place", which can clearly be seen if you actually explored the wasteland and found the many locations. The world is actually more detailed than Fallout 1/2, and if anything those look more "Burned down" than Fallout 3, because there's mainly only a little locations outside the cities/towns, not even any small living area's that a survivor or his group would or does live in. How could you get the feeling that the world is to "apocalyptic", when you meet people frequently and come across established full of people locations like Megaton early in the game?

"Also FO3 having "more places" is just not right sorry . FO3 is repetitive and bland, every place is the same"

I'm pretty sure it's right that Fallout 3 has more places to explore and the world is more detailed than Fallout 1, which there's a wiki to compare locations if you ever wanna get factual. You claim Fallout 3's world is repetitive, but the majority of Fallout 1's world is just the the same repetitive land patterns with little locations actually there. There's only 13 locations in game. You obviously have a negative biased towards Fallout 3, which I already knew as soon as you made that false repetitive argument about the lore, but you saying this just lets me know you're moreso trying to discredit Fallout 3 and hype up Fallout 1 more than what it actually offered(as usual), rather than argue and compare the facts. I've noticed people who say things like you in the Fallout community believe what they wanna believe regardless of what facts it brought up and are delusional that like to ignore and deflect. Check the map of Fallout 1 if you're feeling factual "http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_locations". Going further with you would be a waste of time, so I'll leave it at that.

fallout 1 is best one its more nuclear life than post but fallout 2 nails post nuclear try both

I can see that Fallout 2 and Fallout 3 are fighting for the first place ! Which one will win ? Too close to say.