Please let's not go into "I can beat Fallout x in x amount of time."

You can easily beat Fallout 1 in about ten to twenty minutes.

No, but the perspective change alters the gameplay massively, not to mention the switch from turn based to real time. Surely it's obvious what he meant even if it doesn't bother you?

Yeah, it's obvious what he meant. Not sure what it has to do with what you're saying. Perhaps you want to re-read what he wrote. I think it's clear enough.

Nowaday if you want old school RPG like FO, you shall look at indies or remake. I'll suggest you to try Spiderweb's RPG. Turn-based combat, deep story, huge world, good writing, I think their games have everything satisfying old school RPG fans.
They also have very big demo so you can try it before buying it.

Well that's a really narrow way to look at it. F3 wasn't that great, I'll give you that, but it was still far more than just a "shooter." Not to mention it a) can be played only via VATS (I have tried) so you don't really need reflexes and b) original fallouts were about as tactical as my pants. I actually found myself thinking about my next step in combat far more in New Vegas than in Fallout 1 where I just ... Well ... Shot the eyes.

What I want to say, you don't necessarily have to play it as an FPS. It's entirely playable as semi-turnbased pausable ... thing.

And that's just the combat, which is the very least important part of New Vegas. And I cannot stress this enough, COMBAT IS NOT WHAT FALLOUT GAMES ARE ABOUT. Fallout games were always mainly about atmosphere, characters, dialogues and story. And New Vegas is really fantastic in those departments, story is mind blowing, characters are great, you've got a great ammount of choice and the game generally feels like another Fallout game. Do try it.

I know but you see thats the problem. Spiderweb software is the only game company (in my eyes) that i can play and have that oldschool feeling nowadays. There arent any more companies out there that i like. Fallout tactics was my favorite from the fallout makers and i usually like turnbased, which says quite a bit. The problem is that there are really no more companies that i would call good oldschool companies. The only one is spiderweb. Geneforge, Avernum, Avadon. I find myself liking them more than my old favs like baldurs gate.

The problem is that no other company nowadays makes those games. It'd be different if the fallout team was still making the original type fallouts.

Was that tech demo 95% complete like it said? It said that the game was 95% complete.

Might not be an rpg but same interface-Hah!!

http://www.indiedb.com/games/fonline-2238

They are actually releasing it O_O? About damn time.

Basilisk Games says hi. The reason I dislike their games, and why many people like them, is because Eschalon is such a throwback to older RPGs. If you like having a dangerous world and quite a bit of min/maxing with an early '90s appeal this is the game for you.

Yeah, 'cause imagine what Fallout 3 would have been like if it was really buggy!

:3

On topic: I think the first two Fallout games are to RPGs what the STALKER series is to FPSs. They are so unique, atmospheric, gritty, and enthralling. But on the other hand, they can tend toward being an...acquired taste, to anyone who expects a smooth, highly polished experience. Heck, I know that I hated the games when I first tried them. OP, if I remember correctly, you did as well. This is a big part of why Fallout 3 was such a polarizing game. On the one hand, it was a lot more accessible to players, and featured the always-fun Bethesda formula of "stuff + more stuff + even more stuff = LOTSA STUFF!" On the other hand, it butchered a lot of elements that made the first two games so great, and felt absolutely nothing like a Fallout game.

Err... I kinda got off track, I think. Basically what I'm trying to say is that "good" is not necessarily "marketable," and the Fallout games' uniqueness is precisely what keeps their formula from being appealing to the mass market.

I couldnt have said it better. The main reason i could never get into fallout 3 was because it didnt feel like fallout. However, ive heard from people that hated 3 that new vegas is the shit. Ive never played it but i read up on it and it seems to be done well. The original creators made it, thats a plus, and its more roleplaying than 3, or so they say. Ive been researching the game and they supposedly did away with alot of the vats overpowering. I read they even made it reckless to count on vats for slaughtering as the original game was almost too powerful. Im hoping that they will eventually port new vegas over to the psp vita, but thats another story.

Either way, even though i prefer the old, the universe is compelling no matter what game your playing.

It's rather simple. Just because the original games were pretty combat focussed doesn't make them shooters. He's complaining about the fact that 3 and NV are shooters. I don't understand how you fail to see the relevance.

I think after seeing what Bethesda has done with Elder Scrolls and the work of art that was Skyrim, Fallout as a franchise is definitely in good hands. I'm curious to see where they take the series, not to mention that Interplay has the rights to Fallout Online (At least I think they do). People love their Fallout, but Bethesda takes their sweet time making their games, so patience is the key here :)

And obviously, that's not to say Fallout 3 & New Vegas were bad, which they weren't at all. Skyrim just has me super pumped to see what the future of Bethesda games has in store for us.

Frankly, it's kinda hard to know what Bethesda is going to go with their franchises. Between 5 full free-exporation Elder Scroll games, and several others, we've had dimensional travel, snowy mountain, ashen land where mushrooms grow as big as trees and gods are mortal men, worlds that could easily resemble old world Europe and it's mythology. And then Fallout 3, where it explores an area considered one of the most decimated places of the U.S. in the game's chronological progress. I don't quite count Fallout: New Vegas as one of Bethesda's games as Obsidian was the developer, and I guess Bethesda was consultant. They could go anywhere I suppose, with a new Elder Scrolls that resembles the original and it's multi-national and dimensional exploration, and a Fallout that takes you to a nuclear ravaged Asia (Given that there's a heavy implication that the People's Republic were the ones who set off the first wave of nukes, surely there must have been some retaliation). It's an interesting thing to think about, but impossible to predict.