Fallout: NV vs Fallout 3 : Fallout Series Discussion

» Sat May 28, 2011 9:14 am

What, not at all? But... it's a computer game. Surely the game bit is at least a teeny tiny bit important, otherwise why not just read a book or watch a movie? You'll find better stories there.

[Someone who thinks stories are of little consequence when it comes to judging a game's merits, and misses the days when the story of a game could be summed up with a sentence on the back of the box and would never deign to interfere with the actual game itself.]

Because, I like something called Plot and a little something called Original.

Movies nowadays = Twilight, OMAIGAWD

Books nowadays = Twilight, OMAIGAWD

@ Martyr: Fallout 3 is okay if you don't mind its not like fallout in many ways, And the story is horrible, But then again, this is my opinion, And alot of others probably share it too.

New Vegas is okay if you like Fallouts 'true' setting, And if you like the story, Though bugs can trouble some people, I don't mind them so much.

» Sat May 28, 2011 10:20 am

I dont think either is truly better than the other. They beat each other in certain departments. But I honestly think alot of the 'New Vegas is better crowd' are picking sides based on who developed it, not how well developed it is. Both games are beautiful and fun in their own rights, both are not perfect, both have their major flaws. To say one is better than the other is pure opinion.

Well thats your option :stare: Just kidding I agree. All but the major flaws part, other then bugs there are none I can think of for New Vegas. Also the part about siding with it based on who made it cause Its not way I side with NV over FO3.

» Sat May 28, 2011 11:20 am

Well thats your option :stare: Just kidding I agree. All but the major flaws part, other then bugs there are none I can think of for New Vegas.

But zah jur opunion.

just kiddddaing.

» Sat May 28, 2011 1:02 pm

I find this to be the most baffling opinion/statement in this debate.

With much more skill points per level, skill books, bobble heads, invincible VATS, nerfed Death Claws, more powerful explosives, The Terrible Shotgun, Lincoln Repeater, Fat Man, Harkness' overpowered plasma rifle, that ridiculously powered special chinese Assault rifle, Dart guns to slow down the only remotely scary baddies (Reaver Goul), perks on EVERY LEVEL, overpowered Gass Rifle, that freaking Chinese Stealth suit (I refused to use it, just too easy), The almost perfect perk that gives you all 9 on Special, weightless ammo, instant healing stimpacks (which are way too plentiful), limb damage fixed by stimpacks, sleep fixing EVERYTHING...........

........I just can't conceive how ANYONE can find FO3 challenging. Not Saying NV is a particularly hard game but compared to FO3...........

I'll listen to "better exploration" but sorry, that one just has me at a loss.

If I found FO3 to be harder on my 1st two play throughs then I found them harder, my play through of New Vegas was easy by comparison. But the original crux of the statement was further back, ie how to make hardcoe Mode Harder. The only thing hard about New Vegas, was deleting 110 hours worth of saves so I could level up on my next play through and then having to give up because my saves had corrupted.

» Sat May 28, 2011 2:56 am

Judging by your signature fallout 3 is probably the first FO game you played. :sadvaultboy:

» Sat May 28, 2011 8:44 am

Judging by your signature fallout 3 is probably the first FO game you played. :sadvaultboy:

Different strokes for different folks? :fallout:

Someone prefers the Dark Knight, someone Batman & Robin(ugh) or Tim Burton's version(meeeee). :thumbsup:

» Sat May 28, 2011 5:58 pm

Different strokes for different folks? :fallout:

Someone prefers the Dark Knight, someone Batman & Robin(ugh) or Tim Burton's version(meeeee). :thumbsup:

yeah but if all you watched was the Dark Knight its not fair to say its the best one now is it?

» Sat May 28, 2011 3:28 am

I dont think either is truly better than the other. They beat each other in certain departments. But I honestly think alot of the 'New Vegas is better crowd' are picking sides based on who developed it, not how well developed it is. Both games are beautiful and fun in their own rights, both are not perfect, both have their major flaws. To say one is better than the other is pure opinion.

And the departments in which New Vegas beats Fallout 3 are the departments that are important to a Fallout game IMO. That's the difference as far as I can tell. FNV, for all it's considerable flaws, was designed as a Fallout game first and foremost. Fallout 3 was designed as an Elder Scrolls game set in the Fallout universe.

» Sat May 28, 2011 2:20 am

And the departments in which New Vegas beats Fallout 3 are the departments that are important to a Fallout game IMO. That's the difference as far as I can tell. FNV, for all it's considerable flaws, was designed as a Fallout game first and foremost. Fallout 3 was designed as an Elder Scrolls game set in the Fallout universe.

I'd beg to differ. F:NV is great yes, but the game is just as guilty of 'unfallout' behaviour. Particularly places not involved in quests or storyline slides being empty or devoid of use. And if we have to rely on DLC to add depth to places already in the main game, we cant say its any better than Fallout 3. I love them both equally to be honest.

» Sat May 28, 2011 4:52 am

yeah but if all you watched was the Dark Knight its not fair to say its the best one now is it?

That's why I mentioned Burton's version which (IMO) was the best for me. And ahem... first.

» Sat May 28, 2011 6:03 pm

I'd beg to differ. F:NV is great yes, but the game is just as guilty of 'unfallout' behaviour. Particularly places not involved in quests or storyline slides being empty or devoid of use. And if we have to rely on DLC to add depth to places already in the main game, we cant say its any better than Fallout 3. I love them both equally to be honest.

You'll have to explain this because random exploration has never been a part of Fallout. Its underwhelming nature in New Vegas only lends credence to the fact that Obsidian went into New Vegas with very different design goals than Bethesda.

» Sat May 28, 2011 9:37 am

You'll have to explain this because random exploration has never been a part of Fallout. Its underwhelming nature in New Vegas only lends credence to the fact that Obsidian went into New Vegas with very different design goals than Bethesda.

Thats my point. Alot of places in Fallout 3 had some sort of background story, even vaguely, it was there. But alot of places in New Vegas serve as just land filling. In Fallout and Fallout 2, every waypoint had a purpose, F3 had some non-quest places having some sort of narrative purpose, but alot of places in NV are empty Fast Travel points.

» Sat May 28, 2011 2:11 pm

Thats my point. Alot of places in Fallout 3 had some sort of background story, even vaguely, it was there. But alot of places in New Vegas serve as just land filling. In Fallout and Fallout 2, every waypoint had a purpose, F3 had some non-quest places having some sort of narrative purpose, but alot of places in NV are empty Fast Travel points.

Then I'm not sure where we're disagreeing here. Fallout 3 does have better random exploration than New Vegas. Exploration of this type was not part of the Fallout series until 3. The fact that Obsidian chose to downgrade exploration in favor of more settlements, more quests, better writing, a more cohesive gameworld, a complex, definite ending, etc. clearly indicates that they went into New Vegas with very different priorities than Bethesda.

I'm not saying New Vegas is a perfect Fallout game. We haven't had a perfect Fallout game since Fallout 1 and New Vegas has quite a few things that don't fit the Fallout setting and design elements that don't mesh well with Fallout (mostly due to unavoidably following in Fallout 3's footsteps). However given the constraints of working within a game that was clearly seen as a successor to Fallout 3 and had to be sold to Fallout 3 fans, Obsidian clearly set out to make it as "Fallouty" a game as possible and they did a remarkable job.

» Sat May 28, 2011 7:37 am

Then I'm not sure where we're disagreeing here. Fallout 3 does have better random exploration than New Vegas. Exploration of this type was not part of the Fallout series until 3. The fact that Obsidian chose to downgrade exploration in favor of more settlements, more quests, better writing, a more cohesive gameworld, a complex, definite ending, etc. clearly indicates that they went into New Vegas with very different priorities than Bethesda.

I'm not saying New Vegas is a perfect Fallout game. We haven't had a perfect Fallout game since Fallout 1 and New Vegas has quite a few things that don't fit the Fallout setting and design elements that don't mesh well with Fallout (mostly due to unavoidably following in Fallout 3's footsteps). However given the constraints of working within a game that was clearly seen as a successor to Fallout 3 and had to be sold to Fallout 3 fans, Obsidian clearly set out to make it as "Fallouty" a game as possible and they did a remarkable job.

Indeed. I hope Fallout takes continual steps to Pre-War perfection. I mean. It's been 200 years since the war, we should focus on survival and regrowth, and stabilizing law and economy, and New Vegas was definately a step in the very right direction of this.

» Sat May 28, 2011 2:13 pm

Indeed. I hope Fallout takes continual steps to Pre-War perfection. I mean. It's been 200 years since the war, we should focus on survival and regrowth, and stabilizing law and economy, and New Vegas was definately a step in the very right direction of this.

Fallout should take a step back to its roots, IMHO.

Its a post-apocalyptic game, that is now being pulled forward into a post-post-apocalyptic time. It should take a step back, closer to the Great War, when things were more desperate and less settled, instead of continuing down the time line.

» Sat May 28, 2011 2:51 am

Fallout should take a step back to its roots, IMHO.

Its a post-apocalyptic game, that is now being pulled forward into a post-post-apocalyptic time. It should take a step back, closer to the Great War, when things were more desperate and less settled, instead of continuing down the time line.

Sorry, but the owners(that's Bethesda) said no to Obsidian when they wanted to make it closer to the war. :shrug:

» Sat May 28, 2011 3:37 am

@Smert

Prehaps that's b/c Bethesda wants to do that in F04.

» Sat May 28, 2011 5:30 pm

I thought Beth stated that they want to keep moving forward in the franchise. Think I am gonna find the source somewhere. :sadvaultboy:

EDIT: Nah, too tired to do this. Consider this as a rumour if you want, but I am sure, I've seen that somewhere, sometime.. :facepalm:

» Sat May 28, 2011 5:22 pm

Honestly, if the game 'went to its roots' the series would stagnate and people would call it 'the series that flopped'. Honestly, a story has to progress. It's foolish to go backwards because of peoples nostalgic longing for F1.

» Sat May 28, 2011 12:51 pm

Thats my point. Alot of places in Fallout 3 had some sort of background story, even vaguely.

:mellow:

Say what now?

Bethesda Ruins: Raiders, period.
Greener Pastures Disposal Site: Erm... radiation? Pre-war I guess?
Talon Company Outpost (south of arlington library): Erm...Yeah what purpose did Talon serve except being the bogey man if we were good?
VAPL station(s): Radio equipment... The backstory behind it is that erm.... Theeeee uhm... Communists did it! :swear:
Martyr, tons of locations had no backstory, just like tons of locations in Vegas didn't have any backstories.
Or maybe you played a secret "uncut" version of FO3. :ninja:

The only reason these locations served were dungeon crawling which is something Fallout never put any focus on in previous games.
Yeah a lot of locations in New Vegas are empty fast-travel points but, what else should they be?
Dungeons?

On the other hand I agree.
Exploration in Fallout 3 was actually fun. (Sorta, kinda, hmm yes/no?)
While exploration in New Vegas is something I just don't bother with anymore.

But Fallout isn't about exploration for me, so I don't really care that much.

» Sat May 28, 2011 10:43 am

Honestly, if the game 'went to its roots' the series would stagnate and people would call it 'the series that flopped'. Honestly, a story has to progress. It's foolish to go backwards because of peoples nostalgic longing for F1.

Huh?

The only reason it would stagnate would be a failure of creativity on the part of the developer. Moving forward doesn’t need to be a temporal move – that’s just silly – all of the games already repeat a “lone wanderer” narrative – they just find different ways to retell it.

I’m not nostalgic, I’m realistic. Buildings don’t go unscavenged for 220 years when they are next to highways, buildings and water sources have no business being irradiated after all that time, and most of the weapons should have rusted into oblivion. They are being lazy and using the same format as games set over 50-70 years earlier b/c its familiar to fans of the series and necessary to ground the game to post apocalyptia.

I don’t want them to repeat F01 – that probably wouldn’t even work with a non-turn based format. They just need to refocus their next game on survival and the wasteland itself, not on king making and off screen politics or they are no longer in their stated genera.

» Sat May 28, 2011 10:02 am

Since FO3 did a sudden leap to 200 years after the war it would make sense if they wanted to do a prequel to Fallout 3.
Hmmm meh, I guess I'll still consider Fallout 3 to take place in 2098. :shrug:

» Sat May 28, 2011 1:27 pm

I don’t want them to repeat F01 – that probably wouldn’t even work with a non-turn based format. They just need to refocus their next game on survival and the wasteland itself, not on king making and off screen politics or they are no longer in their stated genera.

When was that ever the focus of a Fallout game? Fallout was and still should be a cRPG set in a post-apocalyptic world. Not a post apocalyptic survival sim. Conflicts between factions and how you influence the outcome of those conflicts has always been an integral part of the series.

» Sat May 28, 2011 10:58 am

FO1 people fight over water. FO2 people fight over gold(and drugs). FO3 people fight over.....I haven't figured that out yet. FO4 people fight over electricity. Each one was about a different source of conflict in human society.... survival, greed, something, convenience(greedish). I hope they find something else to fight over in the next one, perhaps....someone finds a lost stockpile of Twinkies?

» Sat May 28, 2011 5:17 pm

Not a post apocalyptic survival sim. Conflicts between factions and how you influence the outcome of those conflicts has always been an integral part of the series.

:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

Thats my ol Fallout

Conflcts between faction exist since FO1, in FO2 politics takes a mayor role (Vault City, New Reno families and the NCR), FO3 is just people who try to survive, hey now that Project Purity is activated, its time to rebuild the civilization in East Coast, or at least, in DC