Funny.

As it seems we have the reverse of what happened when Fallout 3 was released. Back then we saw the fans of the series upset not only with the re-direction a different company brought the series in, but with their utter disregard for established canon and gameplay elements. Now, in 2010, we're seeing fans of TES-style sandbox games introduced to the series by the company who upset everybody following the series from the beginning - upset that the Fallout series has finally released another Fallout game which is being generally lauded by NMA, DaC, RPG Codex, Iron Tower, and so many old fan sites as a "true successor to Fallout 2", which is really just strange in its overwhelming irony. But what I personally don't understand though, is this:

To all of the fans of the series who were introduced via the 5th game in the series (being Fallout 3), why does it bother you so much that a spin-off game (which includes some of the best dialogue, writing, questing, and complex branching) has been released? You all will still likely get your Fallout 4 with just as much meaningless exploring empty and pointless areas once again. This is a bonus. A bonus considered by us who were here before you as a Fallout game worthy of its title. Let us have our victory, however minor it is, and simmer down since you all will, after all, get your game (as much as I cringe to think of another Fallout game as horrible as I personally found Fallout 3) just let us get ours and be happy too.

What you're asking, here, is that they FORSAKE the feel of the Mojave Desert... and fill it up with meaningless crap and trite locations... simply to entertain people who aren't satisfied with the myriad locations ALREADY available to discover. I'll admit that, at the current stage, the game is far more -leveled- than I would like. I would much rather be able to go venture into one of the larger settlements and buy some decent gear. I would MUCH rather stumble across one of the wonderfully constructed locations in the wasteland and find some unique weapon which DOESN'T belong to my friends, or require stealing. (This last bit should be RARE, however.)

That aspect of the game -could- use some work... but fortunately, I have faith in the community to resolve these kinds of things.

Call me what you will, but that's the ONE benefit that being a PC gamer has over the console market... and I rather enjoy taking advantage of it. If I don't like something, either I can change it... or I can wait rather patiently until someone ELSE does. Either way, the game is better for it.

And the game is, by no means, LACKING in places to go.

Fallout 3 had more random locations scattered across the expanse of the DC Outskirts. Going there would yield the same five enemies to kill over and over, a number of curious little trinkets, maybe some food and water... and on occasion a unique weapon or some kind of bauble to keep the player busy. The real QUALITY of these locations was that they are UNIQUE. They are all the -same-, as far as the formula goes, but each one tells a kind of STORY about the pre-War world. It isn't the damn trinkets and gizmos we get... and if it is for you, then you might be right in taking a break. Obviously, you've missed the point.

Fallout: New Vegas has taken ever step to ONE UP its predecessor... and in almost all ways, it really does. Barring the leveled lists of armor and weapons and enemies (a la Oblivion) I find it -greatly- more enjoyable. Why? Because each location is, again, meaningful... but it doesn't feel like it was just THROWN in for me to be amused by exploring it. It feels like it BELONGS there. The only time Fallout 3 achieved this, was in the actual urban centers of DC.

Furthermore, I'm not really always WANDERING out in the wastelands for some ancient piece of heroic armor, or a legendary weapon. I follow old high-ways until I bump into a State Patrol station. Or I come up on a convenience store sacked back in 2077, now the home of a couple raiders. My goal is to complete my delivery, and give Benny back his bullet. These places are just a part of the world in which I exist... and sure, they could open up more of them, but I don't care. Modders will do that anyways, and probably with near-equal skill. (CevSteel! Get on that, already!)

I'm sorry, but it just isn't realistic that some ancient powerful weapon is going to be sitting around on the shelf of my local 7/11 for two hundred years... and I sure as hell don't want Obsidian to think that THIS is what all us RPG'ers out here want. Contrary to popular belief, Quality over Quantity is still better than the reverse... even if I would rather have both.

I

Fallout: New Vegas is superior to Fallout 3 in nearly every single way.


Bethesda's Fallout 3 is a post-apocalyptic shooter Oblivion.

Fallout: New Vegas is a Fallout game at heart.



When I played FO3 I didn't even think I was playing a Fallout game. It was an alright game, but it wasn't Fallout. It was a game which had some Fallout things in it.

FO is about affecting the various tribes and interactions. FO3 is about following your daddy.



If FO4 is Bethesda's post-apocalyptic shooter Oblivion again I'm not going to buy it.





Also, don't call yourselves "Fallout fans" if the only Fallout you've ever played is Fallout 3. Fallout 3 is not even close to a representative of what the Fallout series is about.

I registered just to applaud this outstanding post that perfectly illustrates why I too love New Vegas.

I got Fallout 3 back in '08, my first Fallout, and I fell in love with it for all the same reasons as the other poster...for the first year.

As my second year rolled on and I crafted a character with max skills, SPECIAL all 9, I began crafting my own hardcoe mode long before they ever said NV would have one.

What I did was only carry a pistol, 10 stim paks and 100 bullets from Megaton after unloading a full load of loot. I only wore outfits regular wastelanders wore unless I came across something better other than power armor or Talon armor. Oh, and I always play using little to no VATS

Playing that way and exploring the wastes as well as the lore itself, I really fell in love with the entire feel.

Bethesda put a fair amount of lore into the meaningless areas, but Obsidian took it to another level.

The combat is what hooked me, but the lore is what won't let me go. The companies, the Great War, these factions, the families even all the smaller individual stories of particular buildings and small businesses.

New Vegas is a huge step forward imo.

There is a difference between being a fan of Fallout and being a fan of Fallout 3.

Once I got a hold of the first two shortly before NV came out, the first one completely blew me away. It was the Rosetta Stone to my unexplainable love for the series. The weapon balancing, the diverse enemies, the freedom to #%&* up and keep the story moving, the cinematic combat (Gunning down Gizmo will forever be ingrained in my mind), it all has a stronger presence in NV.

I'm baffled by how folks say NV is full of useless junk when all the junk is needed to make the cool stuff. BCMs, bullets, food that cures loads of hit points, doctor bags, repair kits, so you can fix your unique weapons.

I don't know.

I love the game. It'll be more time before I can decide if I like this or F3 better, but this game is doing just about everything right...

Somehow they have taken what should be a deeply engrossing and amazing universe... and turned it into their own little private playground... where everyone has to adhere to their standards and definitions of what -is- Fallout, or else you don't get to use the swings and go down the slide.

I am neither defending nor detracting from NMA, but I must tell you that you're not quite understanding what that place is (i.e. a fansite which was created because of the original game). If that site is indeed a site which was created to represent the love of what those first two games were (and remember, even number 2 had detractors there back in the day), then it is entirely reasonable for anybody there to judge anything else based on what they themselves first fell in love with regarding the series. Fallout started as a turn-based, isometric, GURPS/table-top inspired cRPG with a certain style of writing, atmosphere, gameplay and setting. That said, those fan-sites started as fan-sites for a post-apocolyptic turn-based, isometric, GURPS/table-top inspired cRPG with a certain style of writing, atmosphere, gameplay and setting. So while you can say that for you or for others out there Fallout means "this" or "that", what you cannot fairly do is suggest that the people who have created fan sites for a very specific reason are wrong for wanting or desiring very specific things in order to fulfill their judgment of subsequent games as being a positive experience or not.

That said, personally I have to disagree with you and say that the only "brilliant" thing about Fallout 3 was its ability to sell a rabid, cult-based franchise to a mass market. It's almost as if Speilberg took over a Kubrick project and then-

Oh. Yeah.

Nevermind.

:sadvaultboy:

I want to take a moment to go over your list, here... just because I know I kind've came across as a [censored] the first time.


1.) Unique weapon crafting from Fallout 3 was one of my least favorite things. None of the weapons seemed particularly inspired to me... and none of them were really what I would consider as being amazing. Would I complain if they were back? Of course not! In fact, I'm fairly certain I saw at least a couple of them somewhere down in the dark abyss of files included with New Vegas. If I can find them, I'll be sure to add them in to my Weapons/Armor Construction Mod.

2.)Invisible walls are evil. EVIL! I downloaded a mod that removes all of them. Including the map's boarder. We agree, here.

3.) No. I don't like it. I -do- miss underground exploration, the ruins of old facilities and tunnel networks which always run beneath major cities. There is even an actual CITY of homeless people living somewhere underground in Nevada/Arizona. We agree here as well.

4.) I know this will be remedied. I don't like it... but someone (like CevSteel and friends) will open them up for me. Console folks are screwed... but that's the price you pay for being on the console. Realistically, the game didn't have LONG enough to suitably design the interiors of all those buildings out in the wasteland. It would have taken them THREE TIMES as long to develop the game. Would I have waited? Sure. Would I have bought Fable 3 instead? Probably. And so I would likely end up waiting another year or three to get my hands on Fallout: New Vegas. We agree here, as well.

5.) Blueprints? Sure... I wouldn't mind blueprints. Blueprints were nice enough. No argument from me, if they were to bring them back.

6.) You couldn't do this, even in Fallout 1, 2, Tactics, or 3. It was never even a GLIMMER of a thought. There was literally zero attention paid to the entire survival aspect, really. At least none which the player could really do anything about. For me, I think the system we have is HEADS above anything ever seen in Fallout before. This really gives me hope that there will be MORE improvements to come, in future titles.

7.) Marked locations are marked locations. They're landmarks. Sometimes a landmark is a broken down car, sometimes its a museum, and sometimes its a dead pack brahmin. They're all there to help you navigate the wasteland. Fallout 3 had plenty of these, too. Fordham Flash Memorial Field, anyone? What the hell was it, other than a means of having somewhere to fast travel to? Or did those two unremarkable raiders running bases really make it -worth- your time? To me this is about as meaningful as any dead cow in the sand, any day. I disagree with you, here.

8.) I -love- the armor in New Vegas. Lots of the Fallout 3 models are back, plus new clothes and hats to wear, plus NEW styles of armor... there's more here than I could have hoped for. Fallout 1 and 2 had maybe... six or seven different armor types. Add in a few 'mk II' variants to spice things up, and maybe you have twelve or thirteen. Most of Fallout 3 and New Vegas' armors are entirely unique models, each of which look different on the player to some degree or another. Am I disappointed? Hell no! I want -more-... but I'm definitely pleased with what I've got. Except the Ranger Armor. I really want the eyes that light up with infra-red vision mode helmet. Plus it's all mostly end-game crap. Bleh. I hate the leveled feel of it all. I hope someone fixes that. I disagree with you, here.

9.) I'm... not sure? I don't really understand what you're asking here. You didn't like the museums, so you want more? Or... erm... I really have no clue. Maybe when you come back you could elaborate with me?

10.) Fallout is about exploration... but it isn't really about exploring dungeons and finding amazing armor and weapons. It never really was. It has always been more about going to meet people and find things which help you along in your main quest to find the water chip/stop the master/kill the Enclave/free your people/save the world kind of game. The exploration aspect only really ever came into play once you had either forsaken all that... or completed your mission. Fallout 3 changed things... but it's story was so weak, that it really never had a chance. It became about mindlessly slogging through hole in the ground after hole in the ground, searching for this, that, the next thing, or Dad... who then proceeds to kill himself. Stupid. I believe we probably disagree, here.

11.) By this point, I can say that I wholly realize where you were going with this whole argument. Your personal message to me helped considerably, as well. And I really do think that I understand, now, what it is you're getting at. So I won't answer this one, because I really can't answer it without sounding like an ass... and you haven't done anything to deserve me being an ass to you. Lets just agree to disagree to some points of this statement.


On the whole... I actually agree with you a good deal more than I disagree.

I wonder what makes us have such radically different -feelings- about the game. That's actually more curious to me than the entire discussion about the game to begin with.


[Edit:] I had to respond to this... so, yeah...




The dialogue in Oblivion -was- good. Random conversations between NPC's were not... and a couple of obnoxious characters made people pull out their hair, but the game's typical interactions with the player were fine. They were actually rather fun, for the most part, and the story was quite enjoyable.

Oblivion's MAJOR downfall was actually one that New Vegas suffers from as well... the game is, by default FAR too highly dependent upon the level of the character.

The biggest difference is that Fallout: New Vegas at least tries to direct the player in such a way as to gradually build them up to higher levels by the end of the game... rather than letting them simply run to the end and kill everyone at level four.

I'm still not getting what you're trying to say.

You say that New Vegas is light on "action," and I'm not sure how that's the case. It's not as if there's less bang bang, shoot the other guy until he's dead going on.

I don't know. I don't really care about all the back and forth between who the real Fallout lover is, or whatever that is all about.

I just don't like this game. It isn't much fun. I'll gladly take Fallout 4 if it is going to be like Fallout 3, if not, no loss. I don't have to play it.

I am neither defending nor detracting from NMA, but I must tell you that you're not quite understanding what that place is (i.e. a fansite which was created because of the original game). If that site is indeed a site which was created to represent the love of what those first two games were (and remember, even number 2 had detractors there back in the day), then it is entirely reasonable for anybody there to judge anything else based on what they themselves first fell in love with regarding the series. Fallout started as a turn-based, isometric, GURPS/table-top inspired cRPG with a certain style of writing, atmosphere, gameplay and setting. That said, those fan-sites started as fan-sites for a post-apocolyptic turn-based, isometric, GURPS/table-top inspired cRPG with a certain style of writing, atmosphere, gameplay and setting. So while you can say that for you or for others out there Fallout means "this" or "that", what you cannot fairly do is suggest that the people who have created fan sites for a very specific reason are wrong for wanting or desiring very specific things in order to fulfill their judgment of subsequent games as being a positive experience or not.

That said, personally I have to disagree with you and say that the only "brilliant" thing about Fallout 3 was its ability to sell a rabid, cult-based franchise to a mass market. It's almost as if Speilberg took over a Kubrick project and then-

Oh. Yeah.

Nevermind.

:sadvaultboy:

That wasn't the point of my post. Why are you quoting me?



That's fine. You like Bethesda sandbox games with Fallout coating, you don't like Fallout games. That's fine. But to say "it's not fun" is disingenuous. I'm having the best time gaming since '98 when I nabbed Fallout 2 off the shelves. Speak for yourself, partner. Speak for yourself.

Bethesda is the future of Fallout. They own it.
So, I guess I do like Fallout games and you like the games formerly known as Fallout.

How can it possibly be disingenuous for me to write that it isn't fun. It isn't fun. I couldn't be more honest than that simple sentence.

Tough luck? I just got the game I've been waiting 12 years for! I'd say that's pretty darn-tootin' good luck, myself!



No, you like Bethesda's interpretation of Fallout. Nothing wrong with that, just don't confuse it for the other.

If Bethesda wanted, they could declare all lore and events from Fallout 1/2 to be the dreams of a psychotic raider, and they would be right. There wouldn't be a thing you could do about. They own Fallout, and so they define Fallout. It's not an opinion, it's a fact.

You cant officially join a faction, only do freelance work for them

If Bethesda wanted, they could declare all lore and events from Fallout 1/2 to be the dreams of a psychotic raider, and they would be right. There wouldn't be a thing you could do about. They own Fallout, and so they define Fallout. It's not an opinion, it's a fact.

Wrong. Neither the present nor the future can erase the past. The past is what gives birth to both. What reality do you reside in?

What are you talking about? We're talking about a fictional world, and Bethesda can, canonly and literally, do whatever they want with it... or to it.

What I am telling you is that Bethesda has no world regarding Fallout, other than the world already created. They owe their entire existence in this franchise to what the world of Fallout had created before them. Anything they do after that point either fits in or it doesn't. Who cares if they own it now? That's like saying Pizza Hut bought out your favorite local gourmet pizza restaurant. What you are saying to me is what Pizza Hut would say to you: "We can sell you whatever we want, we own your store now." This doesn't take away the fact that most likely the gourmet pizza previously sold is not the same formula and will likely not please the customers who have been frequenting the restaurant.

What are you talking about? We're talking about a fictional world, and Bethesda can, canonly and literally, do whatever they want with it... or to it.

You can declare what is or is not canon all day long, but when it comes right down to it the final word is what the fans have to say, not what you have to say. They're the ones consuming your work, and if they don't accept your canonical addition, what can you do about it?

Official canon and fan canon are two different things. It's why the things like the intelligent radscorpion and talking plant from FO2 get expunged from the FO canon (via the Fallout Bible if I remember correctly.)

I think of Fallout 1/2 as the original Star Wars trilogy and Fallout 3 as the prequels. Same material, same backstory, some of the same characters, yet an entirely different feel and presentation- yet all technically canon. And before you point out that there weren't two different entities at work, I consider 1970s George Lucas and 1999 George Lucas to be distinctly separate.

I didn't say it would please them, but it wouldn't stop the changes. Bethesda decides what is canon, and that is not debatable. When you buy Fallout, you can do whatever you want with it. Bethesda owns this IP as much as they own their Elder Scrolls IP.

What I am telling you is that Bethesda has no world regarding Fallout, other than the world already created. They owe their entire existence in this franchise to what the world of Fallout had created before them. Anything they do after that point either fits in or it doesn't. Who cares if they own it now? That's like saying Pizza Hut bought out your favorite local gourmet pizza restaurant. What you are saying to me is what Pizza Hut would say to you: "We can sell you whatever we want, we own your store now." This doesn't take away the fact that most likely the gourmet pizza previously sold is not the same formula and will likely not please the customers who have been frequenting the restaurant.

Hmmm. You reacted strongly to a post which I meant to be a pretty soft-ball sort of post. This isn't the direction my post you quoted was meant to take you. I don't know how else to explain it. Sorry? I guess?