Sand

I consider everything that is in Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 important. That includes setting, atmosphere, rules system, GUI, perspective, and all. Everything that is in Fallout 1 and 2 is what made the game what it is. Take one thing out, its no longer Fallout.

*in his best Yoda voice* It will be. It will be!

that's the point that you're missing... the fact that someone could "know all" would mean that there is some information that allows someone, or all of everyone, to know something, which requires more "knowing" which means there's some information that allows... ad infinitum. not only is it physically impossible, it is philosophically impossible as well. again, bone up on goedel. there are many concepts that are thought to be true, or untrue, but we can never prove them (the fact that these truths are unprovable has been proven in many cases). if there is ONE thing that is unprovable, your entire thesis on the subject fails. there are many, and a simple bit 'o wiki searching will reveal that. QED taks The thing is I do not believe in impossibilities. Everything is possible, just some things are just more highly improbable than others.

Just because something is innovative does not make it better. Advancement should be used, such as 3D dynamic graphics, but the core design need to remain the same if the game is a direct sequel. The final judge is the individual gamer. If the changes are acceptable then he or she will buy and play the game. If not, then he or she will not buy the game. If you are fine with the changes Bethesda introduced for Fallout 3, then by all means buy and play the game. For me, the game isn't Fallout enough to warrant the name with a following number after it, so I am not going to buy and play the game. Simple as that.

I beg your pardon. Reformed baptist cthulhite. HA! Actually the closest thing to what my beliefs are would be more on the lines of Empirical Irrationalist.

Um... I'm not an Atheist.

It has nothing to do with nostalgia. Fallout 3 is being billed as a direct sequel to Fallout 1 and Fallout 2. S.E.Q.U.E.L.

Oh yes it is a great source of morality where bigotry, hate, and violence festers. Religion has done a real bang up job in the Middle East right now, and hell, human history is full of violence done in the name of religion. Even here in the US there are people, by their own admission devout Christians, support bigotry and discrimination against certain members of our society simply because they are born different. Yeah, real good source of morality there, Walsh. The point is that religion can be just as deprave and absent of morality as science.

I have. Haven't played a game for weeks now, but that doesn't mean we can have our little discussions on the forums.

Look outside your window, and there it is.

If a game is going to use the name of a previous game then it needs to be similar to that previous game othewise its just using the name to sell itself and yes, I don't like that. If I am going to buy a Fallout game I want to play a Fallout game, not a poorly made FPS game with pause and play which Action Points is used as mana. It may be okay for you to accept crap like this but I most certainly will not. If you are going to make a sequel, then make a sequel. If you are going to make a new game then make a new game. Can't make it more plainer than that.

Our civilization, Meta. You know, the whole social and fragmented framework of our society that has a total population over 6 billion. At the time of Eratosthenes, was his findings accepted by the human civilization of that era?

that you disagree but are unable to prove your case proves mine _almost_ by contradiction. you need to bone up on your logic skills, sand. look into goedel's incompleteness theorem while you're at it, which is all the proof i need to make my case. taks IF you say so, but my view is that all knowledge that can be gleaned by scientific understanding of our universe is knowable eventually even though it may not be known right now.

Was his findings accepted by the bulk of humanity? Yes or no. One individual is irrelevant. I am talking about human civilization as a whole. No doubt we can find a single individual here and there throughout history that was ahead of their time but as a civilization? What matters most is not the knowledge of one man, but the progression of technology and understanding of the universe by our species as a whole.

Then we just have to agree to disagree, thusly drawing this argument to a close.

I disagree.

If you are going to make a sequel then make a sequel. If you are going to make a new game then make a new game. Don't be making a new game then slap the name of a previous game on the box. That would be like calling Fallout Wasteland 2. Fallout may be in the same genre as Wasteland and carry some of the same themes, but it has totally different game mechanics and presentation than Wasteland therefore it wasn't called, nor should it, Wasteland 2 but Fallout. As for the whole weapon degradation, it sounds like useless hype like what they had in Oblivion. Instead of "soil erosion" we have "gear erosion."

We will eventually, if we don't kill ourselves off or have a mass extinction level accident, be able to learn all the answers through science. Of course that is assuming that we rid ourselves the shackles of religion that is holding us back.

I would completely and totally agree with this if and only if Fallout 1 and 2 did this from the beginning, but they did not. The designers decided to use the PnP model and so, being a sequel to Fallout 1 and 2 so should Fallout 3. Now if this was an original IP with no relation to Fallout you would have a strong case and I would agree with it, but Fallout 3 is not an original IP. It is a sequel to an established series.

Well, it worked in Fallout 1 and 2, and could have worked for Fallout 3.

Ok, I feel dirty now. Oh, come on. There is nothing wrong with being dirty.

Good point, RP.

Personally, I think we will eventually Science will be able to explain everything in existence. Eventually. Just because we don't know how something works, or why, does not mean it cannot be explained by science later on. Could a person of the 3rd century know how gravity works in relation to stellar bodies or understand molecular biology? Of course not. Ancient people had to invent gods to explain the unexplainable to quell their fear of the unknown. If some occurance happens that defies our understanding of the world we immediately attribute it to the supernatural. We are wired that way. Just remember Clark's Law (paraphrased): Any sufficiently advanced form of technology is indistinguishable to magic. We invented God, Odin, Zeus, and all the rest because at the time we lacked the understanding of how the universe worked all those thousand of years ago.

Morbid curiosity. I am curious to see how much Todd Howard, a supposed Fallout fan, will butcher the franchise. He and his crew might out do Interplay in that regard. Just maybe.

I don't. I want Fallout to be Fallout. No more and no less. Fallout 1 and 2 emulated PnP gaming, therefore so should Fallout 3 if it is to be a proper Fallout game. Now if Fallout 1 and 2 didn't then Fallout 3 shouldn't as well. Fallout 3 is suppose to be a SEQUEL not totally different game.