You're selling it extremely short. I'm not sure how you're managing to do that. Fallout 3 was the beta, and New Vegas is the game we should have gotten? Think of Fallout 3 in terms of design alone, none of that would exist without the creative vision of Bethesda Softworks and the design team's obvious skill in revamping old elements, and introducing entirely new elements. Creative choices of what to keep, what to introduce, what to lose were all on the nose.

From the Vaults to the alternate timeline architecture, new creatures, an epic list of weapons all fully realised and consistent with the world. For exploration alone Fallout 3 is outstanding. If it had been made by anyone else we'd be seeing something totally different. I'm not gonna turn my nose up at quests in FO3 like retrieving the dish to get GNR running, because it is a fetch quest, or the story is bit flimsy (I don't think it is). I'll praise it for taking me across a mutant infested Mall and into a museum in which I experience a tour of a Vault the character I'm playing grew up in, and which achieves success in expanding on the world and lore by introducing alternate histories in the display cases and exhibits. Repeat this one example across the entire Capital Wasteland in varying forms and you have yourself a Fallout experience.

Think of every aspect of Fallout 3, if you played it and explored everything, it is VAST! I haven't even touched on elements such as VATS, and the combat system, all the creative genius of Bethesda. Then introduce the support from Beth for the modding community. You weren't entitled to anything, and certainly not a New Vegas instead of a Fallout 3... Vegas would not, could not exist without 3. I dare say many of the elements introduced to Vegas, would have been there if Beth were still at the helm, most of them were obvious, and a great many were listed by the community, too. It seems like a natural progression of the franchise from 3's launching pad, to me, not a 'way FO3 should have been'.

Edit: Instead of four years on the whole thing, Bethesda given two years to write and build a game using existing elements, would have produced something eerily similar to New Vegas. IMO

See, all of your praise in what you've written says to me that you care mostly about the superficial features of Fallout 3. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. If that's what you enjoy, good for you.

However, myself and many other people have really dug into the depths of that game, and what you find when you do isn't the same Fallout of Fallout 1 and 2. New Vegas is much closer in this regard.

I never felt like I was entitled to anything, but I did expect something better than what Fallout 3 gave to me in the long run, especially after waiting for around a decade for a new entry into my favorite RPG series.

Powder Gangers? :shrug:

Well, that's the faction that represents the people constantly complaining about bugs and the fact their's no ending, etc.

All they do is attack, attack, and attack the devs and the people who try to back up the game. Only way they don't attack you is if you're on their side.

Same with the Powder Gangers, they attack you and everyone else unless you're on their side.

They also share the similarity of being weak minded (in the way of having no idea, not being stupid) and representing a very small majority of the factions as a whole.

Actually I highly doubt they have been paying much attention to it...or if they have they could care less. Bethesda seems to be driven by one thing, make money. Which yes, while that is the goal of all companies at the end of the day, some actually turn out good games in order to do so. I really don't think they care, especially after having heard some of the comments that have come down from them. Be it essentially saying, we don't care about the fans...to "the modding community can fix the textures."

Now to start a rant...
Everyone keeps saying Morrowind, Morrowind...it is what like 8 years old? Everything recent has been rubbish. Overlooking the fact that throwing around and naming things after the previous fallout games does not a fallout game make, they don't seem able to comprehend what an rpg is. Rather they boil it down to everything, everything, everything.
If you look at New Vegas and the previous Fallout titles, they weren't afraid to have the player not see some of their content. Missing things was acceptable. Not getting everything was acceptable. They seemed to design the quests thinking like players trying to solve something they didn't have all the pieces to and less like someone trying to show off how cool or funny they could be each step of the way.

Bethesda's world designs have been terrible and felt disjointed with places seemingly unaware of each other.
Along these lines, the vast amount of ammo, guns, armor and meds in F3 renders the "merchants" pointless which in the larger scheme of things leads one to wonder why the heck anybody buys anything and anybody is poor when everything is two steps away from them.
The New Vegas world feels more complete and aware of itself.
As far as I'm concerned Obsidian proved themselves with this title as they cranked out a damn good game on a fairly tight time schedule, under the watchful eye of Bethesda (who's "compromise" was to let them make a "hardcoe" a toggle mode and not have those features be the standard play) on an engine that is showing it's age. They did a good story that feels like it has some rush to it, but doesn't break under the crazy amount of time a player might spend not following it. They did it without needing to fill every quest with unkillable characters. (That is some good story lining) And they did the quests in a way that actually leave some room for thinking and trying to circumvent some of it. None of which Bethesda has managed to pull off in their last releases.

I'll just say that's not what I enjoy about RPGs, but it is what I enjoyed, still enjoy, with Fallout 3. It struck me as an attempt at a combat-driven RPG-lite experience, a try at a new thing. It didn't quite work for the RPG pure fans. I don't think it was ever trying to be a power-gamer's hardcoe RPG with FPS elements. It's not an accident there are so many books present, and that Bobbleheads offer ten skill points, or that a combination of Perks can be chosen to make a monster out of a man, or not, and have him left lacking. I can (without BS) gimp a character using the many 'pointless perks' and by selecting a loadout not for maximum damage output but because it's one my character would use, and armour not for its DR but because it's what my character would wear, when playing FO3. It's deffo welcoming the 'average gamer'. I don't expect all games to cover every base when it comes to how I attack them. :shrug:

I'll let you know when I'm on play-through four or five, if I can successfully build a hulk in quick time on F:NV. The writing, I'm loving at the minute, but I think people have selective memories when it comes to the side-quests and experiences of Fallout 3, either because they didn't play it, or they just have bad memories.

I've played Fallout 3 on and off for the past two years, so it's really not a matter of not playing it.

The only thing that I ever felt was truly remarkable about it was The Pitt DLC. Somehow, in some way, they managed to capture the true Fallout atmosphere spot-on with that DLC, and the main quest for it was actually well-written, completely morally ambiguous, and there really was no "good guy" or "bad guy."

I always thought it was a shame that it was so short, and that the entirety of Fallout 3 wasn't like it.

Wow I so strongly disagree with you about that I felt the need to post again.
If they were so "obvious" Fallout 3 would have been better. It wasn't.
I can't say what a Bethesda New Vegas would have looked like, but I bet people would have stood back up when they were killed.
One side probably would have been knights, another side the "monsters."
Moral gray choices would have been trying to decide if someone at the company thought siding with vampires was good or not.
I bet you could have corrected everything you wanted to via numerous characters sitting around for the sole purpose of being "Correct this" stat dispensing machines. (You thirsty bums, I know what you really are there for)
The quests wouldn't have been as in depth, there would be no room for creativity on the players part.
You would have followed the arrows around, and clicked on the right answers it told you to.

Instead of wasting my breath on this, I'll have CEO of Valve Software, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbSQ8JbyQo8&feature=related, respond to this statement for me.

I meant the many new game additions implemented in Fallout: New Vegas. They are all obvious additions. Companion Wheel, item creation, factions and reputation etc. But on the balance issue, what New Vegas is doing better is providing a balanced RPG experience having looked at Fallout 3 and deciding where to cut back, and where to increase the difficulty of areas, decrease respawns for XP farming, increase creature difficulty in accordance with its intended audience. But Fallout 3 wasn't trying to be a New Vegas. It was a game targetting a mass audience and trying something new. Trying to beckon (and succeeding in doing) the first-person shooter crowd and also to cater to the RPG crowd all on the backdrop of a huge adventure of exploration, or a linear main quest depending on the player. It worked.

I don't know if what you say about the moral greyness of a possible Bethesda Fallout: New Vegas is true or not. It depends entirely on the writers, Bethesda may well have employed Sam Harris to write some quests, lol :shrug:


Even if you had more to say, lol, it would be as much speculation as my own statement.

Bethesda is usually great with "hero" stories. Stereotypical, archetypal, good vs. evil stuff. It works pretty damn well in the Elder Scrolls games, I'll admit, but in a world like Fallout, I don't feel it meshes well. However, like I mentioned a few posts ago, The Pitt was an exception to the rule. The writers at Bethesda made an amazing turn-around there, but unfortunately, they didn't seem to hold onto it for the following DLCs.

It's not a matter of Bethesda having horrible writers, it's just that they're too used to writing a specific story formula.

I agree about The Pitt, it is a great DLC. I think Bethesda's apporach to writing, just from what I've seen from what I've played, it is more about having the player make choices to be good or evil, and be challenged in so far as, daring the player to do something evil, and to experience what it is to be evil. A much more Peter Molyneux sense of good and evil, presented through fiarly black and white choices. I guess. :shrug:

That's not to say given the Legion and the NCR though, they wouldn't have knocked out a Pitt-esque script for F:NV had they been in the cockpit.

It's always possible, I just wouldn't bet money on it. I'm happy with the way New Vegas is written, especially since I haven't come across a single scripted event that was totally "good" or "evil" in nature. It's a breath of fresh air.

How interesting, I see it as almost the exact opposite, for me a bar was set with FO3 and NV consistently fails to quite meet it. NV's good though, don't get me wrong, and obviously it's all opinion anyway.

I think for most of us it's the game we play first in a series that's the one we fall head over heels for, enamoured to the point of jealously guarding it against those we see as not understanding it like we do. But, to continue this slightly ropey metaphor, it's a relationship that's destined to end in heartbreak and recrimination, beginning with our beloved making doe-eyes at the hip young kids next door and ending with us screaming "they don't love you like I do!" in drunken 3am nuisance phonecalls. The FO2 obsessives went through this with FO3, and now the FO3 obsessives (myself included) are going through it with NV.

I do think that anyone claiming to have some superior insight or true knowledge into what Fallout is and should be about is talking out of their [censored], though. Beth's take on Fallout is no more or less valid than Interplay's, or Black Isle's, or Obsidian's.

(Peeved aside: OP, you do realise making sweeping generalisations about "console kids" makes you look like an imbecile, yes?)

I'm trying to think of one, but can't. You're right it is nice. Also all of the options that should be there, are there. Good, evil and neutral responses, skill checks, SPECIAL checks, alignment checks, reputation checks. But Fallout 3's quests weren't so hung up on morality though, the MQ sure, but beyond that? Most side-quests are fetch type quests that led to something. Which leads me to say that in my almost 40 hours of playing F:NV, most of my level ups have come during a conversation.

The majority of my time has been spent in conversation, and where Fallout 3 would give me a reason (however flimsy you might judge it) to go and fetch something, that journey almost always led me to some great, genuinely memorable experiences. Those experiences are few and far between with F:NV. I'm appreciating towns sporting a variety of different characters and a certain mood, more than I am hostile areas with quirky or informative tidbits scattered throughout. Loving the atmosphere of those towns too though, don't get me wrong.

It's no worse for it, I am loving it, but it does tend to slap you in the chops when you realise you've been sat for forty minutes and all you've done is run around and talk to people, or entered a building, killed some rats or whatever, and left to go talk again, with no real direction in the buildings to lead you down and into something worth seeing. Those moments such as the Vault tour in FO3, the many different actual Vaults of the Wasteland, navigating buildings like the Capitol building while a war is being waged... so many I can't remember them all. Vault 22 , or the Bright cult type adventures are few and far between in F:NV. :shrug:

The incoming DLCs, or Fallout 4 needs to strike a better balance there.

The benefit to this is that now that the shoe is on the other foot, new fans might finally get a chance to feel the same thing that us older fans felt when Fallout 3 came out, and we'll finally gain some respect for our views around here. (Don't take that as a "haha, see how it feels?" comment, because it's certainly not.)




I, for one, am glad that there's no longer a new point of interest every few steps like there was in Fallout 3. Everything in New Vegas is tightly packed and usually centered around settlements, which makes more sense from a logical standpoint. It actually feels like a wasteland, which is what it's supposed to be. I wouldn't be against new things being added in DLC, of course, I just hope it's nothing as wacky and ridiculous as Motherhsip Zeta, or something that only serves as an experience farm (Operation: Anchorage.)

I really don't think Fallout 3 was trying to do anything new...and that was another problem.
Factions and reputations, yes those were very obvious considering they were in the first two...but I don't think Bethesda made it much past the bloody perk trait picture when they supposedly played them.
Ok...so they probably did...and then when they got to make F3 they cut it out...in favor of something worse.
When they got to play around with the factions...they watered them down and made them worse.
Controlling companions they surprisingly left a similarly clunky system in place as the first two had.
Who is this first person shooter crowd you speak of? Lets say there are some that only play first person shooters...I don't think F3 would have won them over.
It didn't make a good fps. It didn't make a good rpg. That was half of it's problem.
It was essentially a giant complex "You Win" button.

Oh man, I barely reached the cannons of O:A before I quit it. I didn't play it through until months afterwards, it was like playing a cheap revamp of Goldeneye or somethng.

But what I mean by the adventures of FO3 is in those things present on the fetch quests. Take the sixbot element of the F:NV quest for the pimp, essentially a fetch quest (dunno if you've done it yet). In FO3 you can guarantee that the building you visit would have been comprised of several layers, sporting several bad guys, and multiple terminals hinting at the pre-war occupants (mirelurk lair under Anchorage Memorial). Or one section of it would have a Wastelander performing experiments (Molerat meat dude, mad scientist) or just have, two out of three times, something there, (skeletons piled in a cupboard next to a spent rifle, or Wastelander with a map leading to Oasis I dunno.)

Most of the fetching was being done in areas that were really well designed and really atmospheric (Nuka-Cola bulding, Museum of Technology), and a lot of the map wayward blips were something too - National Guard Depot, Dunwich, Old Olney. Mountains of opportunities for adventure. But I suppose, also mountains of opportunities for XP... heh ha. Those that I've played in F:NV so far have been great. Just rare. A Wasteland it is, sure, but varied Raider hideouts, some defecting NCR hideouts, a hostile BoS patrol in the building you're going into (would have been good for the sixbot quest) wouldn't have gone amiss.

The whole reason many people who first fell in love with Fallout via Fallout 3 fell in love in the first place was Bethesda's amazing world. Obsidian's lack of living up to that standard is also why quite a few of those people, judging by forum posts and personal conversations I've had, find it hard to enjoy New Vegas. You'd have to have been playing with your eyes closed and your ears plugged to not realize Obsidian vastly improved on almost everything Bethesda established with Fallout 3. The problem being that one of the very few things they didn't improve, the "feel" of the world, is what stops a lot of Fallout 3 fans from enjoying New Vegas.

Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 were RPGs, and great RPGs at that. Obsidian made a pretty good RPG with New Vegas. But the difference all of those games have from Fallout 3 is that none of them had the type of world Bethesda is so good at making. I know some people out there have such ridiculous amounts of hatred for Bethesda that they can't even acknowledge that they're greatest ability is making great worlds to explore, but it's true, and it's why so many people can squeeze hundreds, sometimes thousands of hours out of Bethesda's games. New Vegas, though? The amount of content in there will keep me busy for about 100 hours total, but after that I will have no urge to keep playing. That's a great length for any RPG, but it's positively tiny compared to the lifespan of a Bethesda game, most of which don't even have the kind of RPG elements New Vegas has.

Anyone thinking Obsidian has even a teeny tiny chance of developing Fallout 4 is kidding themselves. We know for a fact that Bethesda has two projects in development right now, and it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out what those two games most likely are. Obsidian may very well be allowed to make another game after Fallout 4, so I guess that will be the "real" Fallout 4 for the original Fallout purists. Personally, even though I like Obsidian improving on Bethesda's games so they can improve even more with their next game, if for every game I have to read as much Fallout 3/Bethesda bashing as I've read since New Vegas was announced, frankly the thought of Obsidian making another game makes me want to slam my head against the keyboard. A man can only take so much bashing of his favorite series (Bethesda's version of Fallout) and developer for so long.

It all goes back to perspective. I don't bash Bethesda for their games, or for Fallout 3. I just critically anolyze them, as should be done to any game, or any piece of media, really.

Bethesda has a lot of strengths, and I'm a pretty big fan of the Elder Scrolls series (though Oblivion had its own flaws. But that's for another discussion.) They're great developers. But personally, I don't feel like they gave the Fallout series the justice it deserves.

You feel like New Vegas didn't live up to Fallout 3 in terms of exploration and lifespan, your seemingly favorite aspect.

Older, die-hard fans feel like Fallout 3 didn't live up to 1 and 2, but are impressed with New Vegas.

I just hope the situation bridges the gap somewhat, because personally I'm really tired of the people who disrespect myself and other (civil) older fans for their views. It seems to happen too often around here.

And maybe the old fans will learn to stop looking down their noses at the johnny-come-latelys, recognizing the shared suffering, and we can all just get along. I don't hold out much hope, though, love makes fools of us all.

Well, I've never been so arrogant as to condemn someone just because they started with Fallout 3. I do, however, call people out on blatant disrespect of anything the older fans hold dear, because it's just uncalled for (I've mostly seen this from the "out with the old, in with the new, those games were old, stupid and boring" crowd.)

I expect the same level of decency from the newer fans, but I often don't receive it (and from the looks of it, most older fans on this forum don't receive it, either.) That's not to say that there aren't a lot of older fans who act childish too, though.

Hmm. I'm loving Fallout: New Vegas precisely because it is Fallout 3 times 'something' with its new additions in terms of gameplay mechanics and options, and its proper implementation of true, limiting, challenging, diversifying, RPG elements that just belong. I disagree with any view that says Fallout 3 isn't the beating heart of what made getting to Vegas possible, though. Not unto death or anything, 'll just disagree and exchange views as to why I do, and on other things, like... whatever. I've been impressed with the characters in a lot of the areas of F:NV, especially the closer you get to the areas around and The Strip, everything goes up a notch. I'm hooked on F:NV. I'm just looking for, and rooting for, and hoping for the perfect balance according to... me. I'm not gonna take offense because someone disagrees with me. Chill out folks. :thumb:

I don't disagree with this. I just pretty much said it in a different way (Fallout 3 being like a beta and all, to me.)

Heh ha. I didn't say you did dude. Tuther guy disagreed with me. But you did kind of sum up Fallout 3 in a paragraph as being poorly written and what have you and broken. I think the vast majority of side-quests are your RPG standard in terms of writing, minus the quantity of skill and other checks in F:NV the quests are almost identical, but the exploration and means to seeing them completed is lacking in F:NV in comparison me thinks. IMO. In Fallout 3, they led you beyond most RPGs and into areas and places and encounters you'd be truly impressed by.

I don't think it's a fluke that it did so well commercially, or was recieved so well by game critics everywhere, the apparent experts, or even by me... heh. That players have been playing it since release - even without mods is a sign. There's something there. It leaves room for personal experience and for some good roleplaying opportunities. Those opportunities just aren't presented or restricted by the game itself as they will be for F:NV. It didn't bother me and I liked having the choice to gimp my character because I didn't want him to be too powerful, a lot of players hate that that's even possible, "you shouldn't have to do that... etc" :shrug:

I can play RtCW to completion on highest difficulty in under an hour and twenty minutes, it doesn't mean it was designed broken because it can be played that way, that fast. It wasn't designed for that. I can slow down and take it easy, s'up to me. S'how I look at it anyway. Bleh heh ha. After five of six posts in the same thread I tend to start repeating myself. So I'm bailing here, I neeeed sleeep. Weeeeeeeeee. :twirl:

Ooo edit - I'm gimping myself now on F:NV. Only carrying 50 of each ammo type for the two weapon loadout I've chosen, (three now) because the hardcoe weight allowance isn't what I thought it would be. I thought it would be forcing me to do this. Also I've read people saying they like having to limp to safety and it being a challenge in F:NV. I didn't use Stimpaks in Fallout 3, so I was having that experience by gimping myself. "shouldn't have to!" - I want to, it's more challenging and fun.

Do you have any proof or is this just your own thoughts on a plausible situation Obsidian may have faced? Unless you were sitting in the conference room where the design poobahs from both companies were working out what they wanted from the game you're just pulling assumptions out of the sky. I doubt it was as difficult as you think - being the framework of the game and the engine were already in place it could be argued that Oblsidian's role was nothing more than a group of glorified modders.