Disappointed with Fallout NV : Fallout: New Vegas

» Mon Jun 22, 2009 6:27 am

:facepalm:

Ok, what part of quit bashing did not register? We are allowed to express our opinions, but at the cost of bashing another game again? I will say this again without saying my opinion of what i think of NV or FO3, they are just games, we are advlts, and we are allowed to express our opinions without getting bashed, it is as simple as that. Respect people, that is the key here, we are entitled to our opinions without bashing, end of story, we are advlts, not overgrown children.

http://xkcd.com/386/

» Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:12 pm

EA got their senses back again

What? When did this happen?

» Mon Jun 22, 2009 7:56 am

I really don't get why Fallout 1&2 purists call Fallout 3 linear; the Fallout 2 main quest is quite linear as well. In fact, NV beats it by miles in terms of player freedom to explore the story.

» Mon Jun 22, 2009 9:01 am

I really don't get why Fallout 1&2 purists call Fallout 3 linear; the Fallout 2 main quest is quite linear as well. In fact, NV beats it by miles in terms of player freedom to explore the story.

Well, Fallout 1&2 let you choose how to handle the linear storyline. Fallout 3? Not so much, that said I prefer the system NV has and i hope it is in future Fallouts.

» Mon Jun 22, 2009 12:24 pm

no...the vote is in already, FO3 is rated a 9.0...new vegas at 7.5... you might think FONV is more popular but not according to game ratings and i think dlc sales for NV are gonna show how much less popular NV is. not only that, lots of people are going back to FO3 because new vegas wears off in about 2 or 3 playthroughs cause there isn't one random event, the map is super static, the same 3 bark scorpions are in hidden valley every single time you go there and you can't even find ceasers legion on the map unles you go out of your way and head to the river, and there isn't really anything on the map to explore except for maybe 2 or 3 buildings, combat is pretty weak after level 15 and really no fun at all, i get tired of fighting enemies armed with pool ques, spears, macheties and varmit rifles.

lolz

there you go quoting meaningless rankings. Wait lets see, New vegas sold more copies then FO3 burn! XD

Fallout 1 didn't have a "linear" story. Last time I checked you could choose to side with the master.

» Mon Jun 22, 2009 1:24 pm

Fallout 1 didn't have a "linear" story. Last time I checked you could choose to side with the master.

Yeah, it is not like in Fallout 3, where if you decide to use the FEV, the Enclave still wants you dead, and you have royally shot yourself in the foot, FO1 siding with the Master has benefits if you buy into the unity nonsense

» Mon Jun 22, 2009 3:41 pm

no...the vote is in already, FO3 is rated a 9.0...new vegas at 7.5... you might think FONV is more popular but not according to game ratings and i think dlc sales for NV are gonna show how much less popular NV is. not only that, lots of people are going back to FO3 because new vegas wears off in about 2 or 3 playthroughs cause there isn't one random event, the map is super static, the same 3 bark scorpions are in hidden valley every single time you go there and you can't even find ceasers legion on the map unles you go out of your way and head to the river, and there isn't really anything on the map to explore except for maybe 2 or 3 buildings, combat is pretty weak after level 15 and really no fun at all, i get tired of fighting enemies armed with pool ques, spears, macheties and varmit rifles.

No offense, but how many times are do you intend on using this "argument from authorty" (google it)?
As an argument it has been rebutted many times beyond counting as I remember, yet you still keep bringing that up.

» Mon Jun 22, 2009 2:32 pm

Yeah, it is not like in Fallout 3, where if you decide to use the FEV, the Enclave still wants you dead, and you have royally shot yourself in the foot,

At least in FO3 I have some motivation for wanting the Enclave dead, and for progressing through the storyline. FNV, not so much.

» Mon Jun 22, 2009 1:38 pm

No offense, but how many times are do you intend on using this "argument from authorty" (google it)?
As an argument it has been rebutted many times beyond counting as I remember, yet you still keep bringing that up.

a lot of the stuff he says is true though. i stopped playing NV after 2 or 3 weeks. was still playing FO3 after 12 months! The game doesn't have much replay value because all the focus is on the story. once you've heard all the dialogue and endings why play it? The exploration and locations are terrible. Fallout 3 had some flaws but NV certainly did'nt better it. NV improved the dialogue and voice acting but took away all the fun. Theres far too many similar quests as an errand boy. They should have put a lot more thought into some of the quests

» Mon Jun 22, 2009 8:15 am

At least in FO3 I have some motivation for wanting the Enclave dead, and for progressing through the storyline. FNV, not so much.

i agree. i really enjoyed the FO3 storyline(even tho it was linear) The NV storyline didnt really grab me at all. I was so looking forward to NV but feel letdown. The release of skyrimm cant come quick enough

» Mon Jun 22, 2009 6:42 pm

a lot of the stuff he says is true though. i stopped playing NV after 2 or 3 weeks. was still playing FO3 after 12 months! The game doesn't have much replay value because all the focus is on the story. once you've heard all the dialogue and endings why play it? The exploration and locations are terrible. Fallout 3 had some flaws but NV certainly did'nt better it. NV improved the dialogue and voice acting but took away all the fun. Theres far too many similar quests as an errand boy. They should have put a lot more thought into some of the quests

Lets put like this: Fallout NV is more of an RPG than FO3, FO3 is more of a shoot em up explorer than FNV, FNV did really well for only having 2 years.

» Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:35 pm

i agree. i really enjoyed the FO3 storyline(even tho it was linear) The NV storyline didnt really grab me at all. I was so looking forward to NV but feel letdown. The release of skyrimm cant come quick enough

One reason I hated FO3 is because I LOVE THE ENCLAVE! I wanted to help them, but no, I can't. I had to help the pure angelic knights with their tin cans beat back my demon hoard.

My thoughts on FO3 http://imageshack.us/photos/Funny/259/fallout3xo9.jpg/sr=1

My thoughts on the Enclave: http://images.wikia.com/fallout/images/c/c4/Fallout_3_Enclave_Propaganda.jpg

I liked FO3 as a post-apocalyptic shooter, but not as an RPG.

» Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:03 am

Story and Lore are the main centric key apects of the Fallout series, its a role playing game, the point is to get immersed in your role and in the story, yes exploration is a good side-show, combat is an entertaining means to an end, but the end is story progression, story and lore are the most important factors in a Fallout game, in all Role-Playing Games, it is a sad day when people play RPGs not for story or role-playing, but as a grind-and-loot gam, modern RPGs are hardly RPGs anymore, and when Fallout: New Vegas tried to return to the way an RPG should be, people complain... ending slides show the consequences of your choices, if your not one for consequences, than the Fallout series may not be the best match, the choice-consequence relation is heavily stressed and is a big factor in Fallout games, excluding 3, which is why is refer to it as a bastartd, not because i dislike it, i love Fallout 3, but because it deviated too far from Fallout charactaristics and lore to be called a true-blue Fallout, IMHO.

I think we agree on several points here... but not about the importance of story vs. mechanics. When a person sees a TSR/WotC game they know nothing of the story, but have an idea of the game mechanics. I would not play a game for the story if I did not like the mechanics, but I would play one with utter crap for a story, if the game mechanics impressed me. :shrug:

Gameplay's purpose in an RPG is to accuratly represent the lore behind the game and to serve as a medium to progress in the story, allowing you to fill a role, and have fun doing it. Gameplay in and of itself is empty if it doesnt represent the lore and it is a true farce without a story, in an RPG.

I think the opposite (I do :shrug:). I say Gameplay is the game, and story is a fiction that is applied to the game mechanics, not the other way around. Fallout's mechanics were in place before the setting was even decided upon... The setting was applied to the mechanics, not the other way around.

what? your idea of an RPG is different than bethesdas i guess, so go ahead and cut down bethesda all you want, thats all you're doing, i like bethesda rpg's, and so do tons of other peolple. i hear so much bethesda bashing on here it ain't even funny, but the bottom line in people like their games, so if you're not into bethesda games why are you on this forum even?

That's my problem with Bethesda games... I don't see that is has any role. :shrug:

Compare Oblivion to Arcanum and Planescape, and Baldur's Gate ~even Lands of Lore 2... add that one in. Ignore the gameplay and format differences. Those games have roles to play, Oblivion starts you with nothing. I'm not even sure of what purpose there is for giving your PC a name.

» Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:17 pm

One reason I hated FO3 is because I LOVE THE ENCLAVE! I wanted to help them, but no, I can't. I had to help the pure angelic knights with their tin cans beat back my demon hoard.

My thoughts on FO3 http://imageshack.us/photos/Funny/259/fallout3xo9.jpg/sr=1

My thoughts on the Enclave: http://images.wikia.com/fallout/images/c/c4/Fallout_3_Enclave_Propaganda.jpg

I liked FO3 as a post-apocalyptic shooter, but not as an RPG.

i love the enclave as well and would have sided with them if given the choice. as i say FO3 wasnt perfect but it still beat NV hands down! You can hardly say FO3 is a shooter? COD is a shooter, theres a big difference

» Mon Jun 22, 2009 4:59 pm

i love the enclave as well and would have sided with them if given the choice. as i say FO3 wasnt perfect but it still beat NV hands down!

Thats in your opinion my friend. In mine, FNV beats FO3 hands down in every single way except for exploration.

» Mon Jun 22, 2009 7:45 pm

Yeah, it is not like in Fallout 3, where if you decide to use the FEV, the Enclave still wants you dead, and you have royally shot yourself in the foot, FO1 siding with the Master has benefits if you buy into the unity nonsense

But what sane person in FO3 would use the FEV and do what the president says? After all he tells you that it will kill any mutated cells it comes into contact with purifying the land. He also went on to say that you the lone wander wouldnt be effected because you grew up in a vault. What he either doesnt know or doesnt tell you that you should know is that you were born outside of the vault and your parents were from outside the vault. Doing as the president asked you to do with the FEV wouldnt seal the fates of everyone else but yours as well. So the Enclave wanting you dead in the end could just be as simple as the president knew you were of "pure" nature and the FEV ould kill you as well and tried to play you for a fool and still view you as an enemy.

a lot of the stuff he says is true though. i stopped playing NV after 2 or 3 weeks. was still playing FO3 after 12 months! The game doesn't have much replay value because all the focus is on the story. once you've heard all the dialogue and endings why play it? The exploration and locations are terrible. Fallout 3 had some flaws but NV certainly did'nt better it. NV improved the dialogue and voice acting but took away all the fun. Theres far too many similar quests as an errand boy. They should have put a lot more thought into some of the quests

I played New Vegas for a while, I have to say I love both FO3 and New Vegas but I just dont have much time put in on New Vegas. The ironic thing is I watched videos hyping myself up to the release of the GOTY edition with all the DLC. I pretty much knew what to expect for the most part but I still put 300+ hours in it. I got New Vegas the day it came out and put it down after 120 hours and only now picked it up again but I put it down again as I create a mod for the game.

The errand boy is what bothered me as well but I toughed it ou and told myself what should I expect I am a courrier and what do they do other than being an errand boy.

» Mon Jun 22, 2009 6:35 pm

I think we agree on several points here... but not about the importance of story vs. mechanics. When a person sees a TSR/WotC game they know nothing of the story, but have an idea of the game mechanics. I would not play a game for the story if I did not like the mechanics, but I would play one with utter crap for a story, if the game mechanics impressed me. :shrug:

I think the opposite (I do :shrug:). I say Gameplay is the game, and story is a fiction that is applied to the game mechanics, not the other way around. Fallout's mechanics were in place before the setting was even decided upon... The setting was applied to the mechanics, not the other way around.

That's my problem with Bethesda games... I don't see that is has any role. :shrug:

Compare Oblivion to Arcanum and Planescape, and Baldur's Gate ~even Lands of Lore 2... add that one in. Ignore the gameplay and format differences. Those games have roles to play, Oblivion starts you with nothing. I'm not even sure of what purpose there is for giving your PC a name.

Agreed. :thumbsup:

» Tue Jun 23, 2009 1:28 am

Thank god the 200 post mark is coming.

» Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:41 am

Lets put like this: Fallout NV is more of an RPG than FO3, FO3 is more of a shoot em up explorer than FNV, FNV did really well for only having 2 years.

having only 2 years to make it is none of my concern. Thats there problem. all i care about is the end product and a lot of the quests were boring. They should have come up with better more exciting ideas

» Mon Jun 22, 2009 7:34 pm

having only 2 years to make it is none of my concern. Thats there problem. all i care about is the end product and a lot of the quests were boring. They should have come up with better more exciting ideas

I prefer turn based combat and a great story to Nuke Throwing robots any day.

» Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:26 pm

Exciting for whom? Those who have a short attention span that want giant robots firing lazer baemz, epic nuculer sploshuns, and rocket lawnchairs?

» Mon Jun 22, 2009 2:36 pm

I prefer turn based combat and a great story to Nuke Throwing robots any day.

Same here. I missed the TB combat, but NV did not otherwise disappoint.

**I would like to see Bethesda create a licensed open world game where the player role plays a PC with a reasonably defined past and goals, as well as a fleshed out personality. How about the Zatoichi character, and have the quests and action on par with the films. I could enjoy a game like that, and really get into the character ~the more realism from them the better.

» Mon Jun 22, 2009 4:21 pm

Exciting for whom? Those who have a short attention span that want giant robots firing lazer baemz, epic nuculer sploshuns, and rocket lawnchairs?

so the people that prefer FO3 have a short attention span? lol thats probably the most ridiculous thing ive ever heard. These games are set after a nuclear war with america in chaos, of course there should be action. running around doing repetitive errand boy quests is hardly epic writing is it? the story is pretty basic aswell, a ten year old could follow it. as for turn based combat again.........no

» Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:04 pm

the story is pretty basic aswell, a ten year old could follow it

Which is the problem for a M-rated game.

» Mon Jun 22, 2009 9:38 pm

War never changes i guess, and it appears, neither does the arguing.