I didn't care for New Vegas' story but the mechanics were undeniably better. Fallout 3 had a compelling story but, ugh, wake me up when VATS dies.
Don't tell me you never played Fallout before. Many CoD gamers think VATS sucks, but this is the kind of gamers who never played Fallout before. I mean if it's called Fallout and it doesn't have VATS then what is it? Call of Duty: Apocalypse? Battlefield: Radiation? Or perhaps The Elder Scrolls X: Uranium? Might as well put some time machine in Tamriel and allow its inhabitants to teleport themselves to the future where they soon replace their bows and arrows with assault rifles with scopes and grenades and ride a Harley Davidson instead of a horse. Add some nuclear here and there and then call it, what, Fallout?
There are many things you cannot separate or take away from Fallout. Pip-Boy and VATS are the two most important things. They're so iconic and irreplaceable. The other one people 'like' to forget to mention is the story. Also something that has been removed and denied by Bethesda, the unworthy Fallout license holder: turn-based. Without that infamous quartet, it won't be Fallout. You can call it whatever you like, but it's not Fallout. It will never be. Might as well call it Bethesda's Fallout, complete with day one bugs, glitches and other game-breaking immersions (corrupted save game anyone?) exclusive to Bethesda's well known quality. Oh, and Gamebryo (dear God...)
Honestly I don't even know why Fallout 3 had to be a hybrid first-person/third-person game similar to Elder Scrolls. I'm guessing the build quality/limitations had something to do with 'to cater the needs of console kiddies' (perhaps turn-based isometric is too much for them and too taxing for their next-gen hardwares?). Seriously, it was like Oblivion with guns and mutants. I think the title 'The Elder Scrolls: Armageddon' fits better than 'Fallout'. Or perhaps 'The Elder Scrolls: Guns, Mutants and Atomic Bombs (Oh My...)'.
And sorry mate for being disagreed with you. I'm just being a devout Fallout gamer. Just speaking out loud. No offense.
erocker said:
I'd like to see a game that doesn't use the revamped, renamed gamebryo engine.
IIRC in some interview Bethesda said something about 'using the same engine (heavily modified 2009's GameBryo called 'Creation Engine') one more time to power/develop a new game'. I won't be surprised if they release 'Fallout 4' with 'Creation Kit' modding tools (which probably be named 'Fallout 4 Garden of Eden Creation Kit') again where we modders will find some, if not many familiar Fallout 3/New Vegas and Skyrim leftovers like tags, traits, item IDs, game settings etc inside the engine. Honestly I don't expect radical/significant changes to that so-called Creation Engine except for minor graphics improvement to fit nukes, radioactive and mutants theme better.
And if I predict this right, Boris Vorontsov (I hope I spelled his name right) will release ENB data library for Fallout 4 to fight some memory limitation and add some supposed-to-be-there visual improvements and some modders release unofficial patches to correct bugs and glitches because Bethesda are too lazy to do that and that they're already 'moved to the next project'. Skyrim has 3.1GB memory limit before CTD, what about Fallout 4? New, optimized Creation Engine, 4.4GB and Bam! BSOD?
Whatever Bethesda will develop next, it better not be one with outdated/aged engine or the same one with so many limitations and out-of-the-box bugs and glitches. Nobody SLI-ed their 2013's GTXes or Crossfired their 2013's Radeons to run some heavily modified 2009's engine that can't use DX11 features and more than 4GB of RAM.