User talk:74.236.29.26

Deleted comments
Thanks for rephrasing your comments. I'm not really aware of a one-stop shop for a list of inconsistencies, but I'll do my best to give a short explanation here myself.
 * No perfect character build possible in first two games. Different character builds made for a hugely different playthrough. In FO3, the game plays out essentially the same no matter what your build is, and every starting build ends up indistinguishable from other builds by the end.
 * First two games: a consistent and thoughtful approach to lore and setting. FO3: change the lore on a whim in favor of fun. Especially, note the resurgence of the Enclave on the east coast as well as creating a new east coast source of super mutants, effectively cutting off the storyline from the first two games.
 * In the first two games, civlization was already rebuilding itself to a high degree, separated by stretches of desert-like stretches of wasteland. FO3: society is less progressed, the ruins of pre-war times remain in inexplicably good condition 200 years later, etc.
 * Branching questlines with drastically different outcomes in the first two games. FO3: one main storyline with minimal difference in outcome, mostly apparent only in cutscene slideshow at the end. No real differences in the gameworld.

It goes on. Tagaziel is really the one to ask. Be warned, he's rude and hard to get along with. But he's really an educated, knowledgable lover of the older games and can explain in great detail and at great length the differences between the games.

Cheers.--Gothemasticator 21:09, January 1, 2011 (UTC)