The best story, the best roleplaying game, the best Fallout game... Frankly I don't give a crap. There are only two questions I ask myself:

1. Am I having fun with this game?
2. Was it worth the price I paid for it?

If the answer to both are yes, I don't care about the rest. Sure things can be improved, a lot, different things for both games. It would be great if they would, for future games. I guess it's worth discussing, so Bethesda/Obsidian knows what the fans liked and didn't like.

I could join endless Fallout 3 VS New Vegas discussions about which game is best in the end, but I enjoy playing both Fallout 3 and New Vegas and that's all that matters to me. I don't need to establish a winner.

Now this is really interesting. How do you reconcile this stance with the fact that Yes Man pretty much says "Hey stupid, you need to do this, this and this" to get the independent Vegas outcome you've just described? And how do you feel at the end when he clearly hints things might not turn out the way you've planned. By the way, your plan to intervene in the Mojave's affairs...aren't you describing an intervention for the betterment of the region? And is that not a "good" outcome? It sounds like you've ultimately identified the "good" and the "bad" regardless. Unless of course your player's motivation is to take control of the Strip for himself, but again that's not what happens in the end.

That said I'd put this Independent Vegas ending second after House as far as believable outcomes (and especially considering I suspect this could actually be a House ending after all). Yes Man's hand holding, nevertheless, is obvious.

I felt amazing when I drove the NCR and CL from the Mojave.

That's kind of weird, since there is no actual backstory to ignore you could easily lay down a backstory for your character.


It's kind of weird because on average the population of the locations were larger in NV than in FO3.


It would have been nice if Yes Man's and actually most quests didn't hold your hand as much, but that's just the way a lot of games are made this day and age. It's a problem you see ein both FO3 as FO:NV and many other games.

As for Yes Man's hinting; it's left inconclusive, but

You seem to have a poor grasp of causality. The endings are the endings. Motivation is supplied by the player. The very nature of player choice in a game means that there's no other source. All the game can do is create a world with sufficient verisimilitude to make it feel like your choices have meaning at the time you make them.

(There are exceptions, of course, the game can make things happen directly to the PC, to provoke an immediate and strong reaction. That's a great way to launch the story, but you can only do that once or twice before it the player starts feeling that he's being jerked around).

That you find the endings unsatisfying is a valid criticism, but complaining that they don't offer post-facto motivation (a contradiction in terms if I ever heard one) for your actions is ridiculous. You make your choices in game based on how you expect things to turn out at the time, not how they actually turn out.

Now if the endings are wildly inconsistent with your actions, that's a bad thing, because it ruins the suspension of disbelief. But if your gripe is "I fought for the NCR and only got this stupid medal, wtf", that's nonsensical. What were you expecting?



Ironically, the role-playing element which you deride is the only thing that make FO3's story work at all. If no one identified themselves with the MC (something they wouldn't do in generic shooter X), the whole thing would fall apart.


See my comments above.

Update:

You're also abusing the term "canon" as applied to games. There's no way all of the endings can be considered "canon" as they contradict each other. There's only one canonical ending, and at this point we don't know which that is because the devs haven't told us. Your use of the word "canon" is both confusing and incorrect.

I wasn't describing the independent outcome or any particular play-through. I was pointing out that each side has it's flaws, there is no clearly perfect faction. There aren't any white knights riding in to slay the dragon and save the princess. There are ample motivations for the character to act against any one of the factions, and this time you actually have the ability to do so. And frankly I'm glad that the path that holds the player's hand ends up with a less-than-desirable outcome. I've never paid more attention to that robot than was necessary, which on my first play-through involved gleefully gunning him down on the spot.

And by the way, I have no problem with a game having good guys and bad guys, but I do prefer for there to be at least some moral ambiguity. I have a problem with how the brotherhood of steel was transformed from an interesting, flawed, and distinctive organization in FO1 & 2 into the all-mighty Mary Sues of the Capitol Wasteland. Ready to smite the evildoers, feed the hungry, and rescue two-headed kittens from trees! Honestly, they seemed like the end result of a vault experiment where the only reading materials available are RA Salvatore novels and the Boy Scouts of America handbook. And the Enclave returning as a force on another coast with their vertibirds... don't get me started on that.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed Fallout 3 as an overall game... but the story was awful.

Also, there's a lot back and forth about Fallout being a game rather than a novel, which is, of course, true, but FO3's story would fail miserably transferred to novel form. Seriously, starting at birth, then a birthday party, then your dad leaving, then you getting kicked out of the vault. What a mess--I'm pretty sure anyone submitting that to an agent or publisher would get their manuscript tossed straight in the slush pile.

Too be honest neither faction was all what you make it out to be in the post above.
There are plenty of people not all that happy with Lyons' choice even amongst those that stayed loyal, their war with the Mutants isn't really going fantastic and they're still no match one on one against the Enclave.
The super-mutants are a threat to them as well and it's clear that Elder Lyons doesn't see much future in remaining isolated.

I guess Elder Lyons was as horrified by the way people were living in the Capital Wasteland 200 years after the war as some of us were. :tongue:

@Athenau: A one on one transfer would off course fail, but so would a one on one adaptation of a novel to a game (metro 2033 wouldn't have worked the way it was in the novel). That's like comparing apples and oranges.

@Poison_Berrie
Oh of course. You have to evaluate the story as a game story. But even if you completely ignore that aspect and treat it as some sort of half-assed novel (as Win111 seems to be trying to do), FO3's story would fail _completely_.

That's another thing, why on earth was it necessary to re-use the BoS, Enclave, AND Super Mutants in a setting that is 3,000 miles from where they originated? It would be one thing if they just made cameo appearances, but they recycled them as the major players. How lazy is that? There was the opportunity to introduce new factions and creatures into the Fallout universe, but apparently the East Coast is where FO1 & 2 factions go to retire. Why not have The Institute as a faction instead of just hinting at it in the game? Even deathclaws made the sojourn! Was there nothing interesting going on here in the previous 200 years? These people haven't even re-discovered agriculture yet, where were the super mutants finding all these people to throw in the vats? :rolleyes:

They probably wanted to include as many familiar faces from the Fallout universe as they could to appeal to existing Fallout fans. It just seems like they got so carried away with plugging 'Fallout-y' things into the DC ruins that the end result makes very little logical sense to anyone who actually played the first two games (or to me at least).

Well in truth you can do that with any game if you're going to ignore the main story line.....which you'd absolutely have to do in FO3. I don't quite understand how it was more difficult for you to make up backstories in a game (FONV) that didn't force a back story on you.

My personal experience with FONV was that I was able to make up my own backstory and have it fit into the main quest in FONV.

After a few playthrough's of FO3, I did find a way around the flawed premise by making up a "backstory" after the vault exile. Like the wanderer being captured by Raiders and brutalized/violated for months before killing one and escaping when they let their guard down. This helped explain a more damaged, disconnected, worldly lone wanderer. So there's a big time gap between leaving the vault and where gameplay picks up (on to Megaton!). I often play Anchorage early to explain the amazing combat skills (downloaded special forces training).

None of this fixes the ridiculous nature of the wanderer's relationship with his/her father or the epic fail of a reunion scene but for me, it makes the game playable.....and fun.

Yes, the issues are with the verisimilitude of the world of New Vegas. There are not an infinite number of choices, of course. Games, such as these, by definition have structure and rules that limit the number of potential moves. Thus, my issues are and have always been global with the rules at large, the framework that serves as the backbone for the potential narratives. You insist on looking at things from within the dollhouse. I am looking at the framework of the fa?ade, the artifice of the edifice, so to speak.

Also, you're coming off half-cocked because of some obsession with Fallout 3 and you're assuming a lot about my opinion about Fallout 3. That's apples to oranges. My complaints are New Vegas specific. New Vegas is an orange that wants to be a delicious blood orange. Is it? That's the debate. Time and the world outside these forums have already proven Fallout 3 is a good apple, but you don't need to like apples.




I've already made this point. The only exception being the House ending. But that's only part of the problem.




Huh, is this a point you wish I made? Because I never did.




The endings are wildly inconsistent with your actions, yes. A civilian medal for an incredible military victory is the epitome of wild inconsistency. Also, the motivations for your actions leading to the ending are not believable.




This is confusing. You're just reaffirming my stance about canon with this point. Are you saying I'm not saying this? Because this is exactly my point about canon. This tells me you're not reading what I write, but you're taking the time to respond. That's...strange.

There's going to be one canonical narrative, the structure of which has to work within the universe created in New Vegas. This is the problem I have. A perfect Fallout New Vegas game would mean any of the four paths could believably be canonical (for clarity that's one at a time). In reality only one is believable and another is barely believable.

I loved fallout 3 and I love playing New Vegas both for different reasons. New Vegas is a game I think about when I'm not playing, the quests were a nice change from Fallout 3. Fallout 3 I did like the atmosphere but didn't find the story as compelling, sure I wanted to find my dad but I didn't sit up till all hours wanting to find out how a quest turned out like I did with New Vegas. I liked the game anyway though and played it until New Vegas came out. There was one particular place in Fallout 3 it was one of the underground stations. The sheer devastation just left me standing staring, I can't remember which station it was now.

Having played fallout 3 I was happy to see the Brotherhood of Steel in New Vegas, that was short lived though. As soon as Elder McNamara began talking to me I thought to myself. Uh oh you sound just like the outcasts not the Brotherhood of Steel, well that means the Outcasts are the real Brotherhood of Steel and those lot at the Citadel are the Outcasts. Well I hope you don't find out about what I did at Operation Anchorage (rping my character from the east coast) It was actually a fun part of the game for me.

My next character will cause me some difficulties, being from the west coast. The problem is I don't know where anything is, who would hire a courier that didn't know their way around.

All these reasons mean nothing' were FNV lacks FO3 makes up, vise versa, NV: lack of buildings and space, no enemy's till you get to the strip then 10 minutes later Ceasars legion is your enemy (in my opinion NV is a undercover mod expansion by all the major FO3 modders put together so they can make money to buy a preorder for TES 5 and FO4 ;D) FNV you have no background till you get to the strip, and it goes into extreme detail.. EXTREME DETAIL.. you have to read the fine print to see how every action took hold of Nevada, ... i also have to say these words are a ... well i havent finished FNV, i got sick of the crash patch and stoped playing after that, its a hard game, no matter who you side with you will only have one ally and two enemy's hunting you down (once, what a joke). FO3 you have one set path, sure the karma system was hard to make a set path, but you can do it from the start, get into a fight with butch, ignore them try to get six from Amata, kill the overseeer, nuke megaton, trade the lamplighters for 100 caps, doom that kid from "Those!" by slavery, let ashur keep the pitt, kill the ghoul from PL instead of the brain (then kill the brain) poison the water, get the contract killer perk, devils highway list goes on, the maps not so empty, you have to stock up to go outside the ... say republic of dave (included only in FWE ) actual loot, so all on all? FO3, but not solidly since you have the crafting menus in FNV and mandatory WMK. FO3 makes sence too, 30 years ago Chernobyl got it self a meltdown, to today the equipment they used to push the radioactive ruble away still gives of the original 60 rads, it will for many years to come, fallout stays in the atmosphere for a LONG time, the soil becomes PERMENATLY INFERTILE. people become sick fast, die fast, cant reproduce, get their brains fry out caus of the rads, theres a reason why its hard to grow a carrot , speaking of carrots mine got fryed yesterday, DAMN YOU SUMMER! i hate ausy summers

i here by take away 10 internet cookies from you, if you do not have this amount you next ten great ideas count for nothing.

read my first post, better yet go on wiki or to the library and read a book on radiation, the first generation mutants vats were nuked, and vault 87 had excess radioactive fluid from the G.E.C.K

overall FNV is a much better game. FO3 had better world building and the invisible barriers were more well hidden while the barriers in NV were just blatantly out in the open and made no sense.........the hoover dam barriers really pissed me off to no end because EVERYONE is going to want to jump off of that. thank God for mods. also i liked the ending of FO3 better as well even if it was a bit over the top........it was still aweseome. the last thing that FO3 was better at were the bad guys. caesars legion has absolutely nothing on the enclave.

everything else pretty much goes to NV though. ironsights which are a huge improvement over the normal just shooting from the hip gunplay. there were mods for that for FO3 but there was always issues with them. the balancing is better and i like that they put deathclaws and cazadores in at the start of the game so that you felt small and insignificant early on. they toughened them up as well so that you arent as OP as you were in FO3, at least unless you insist on using the anti-material rifle. NV did a much better job at underground stuff as well. i still havent scouted all of the sewer system around fort mcclarran and vegas. the vaults were alot more fun and challenging especially the one where you "got to watch a movie". there is also a sense of progress as well. as opposed to the stagnation of DC. and best yet.........very few supermutants. as funny as they are to listen to, they are about as terrorizing as a Chihuahua. they need to take some lessons from the STALKER games on monsters.

NV also has Fisto! which is by far the best value for your entertainment needs in either game.

I don't understand why people think FNV is not beliveable.

FO3 is the one of the most UNBELIVEABLE games I have ever played. What if I wanted to join the Enclave? Oh? I can't? Why? I want to help my country!

Better yet, I don't care.

I'll listen to the argument that FO3 has better world building or exploration. Or that FONV has too many bugs (although I've yet to come across them) or blatant invisible walls.

However, when the argument is that FO3 is more believable, more difficult/challenging or has superior writing and voice acting, I won't engage them any more. We have no common ground so I will no longer waste my time. There's just no value in debating it when you're that far apart.

I have to agree. Fallout 3 captured the whole nuclear war environment for me. New Vegas did not have that. Frankly, it did feel like New Vegas was not even affected by nuclear bombs. I understand that DC was harder hit obviously since that's the hub of the US, but I was expecting more from New Vegas. The gameplay improved . . . slightly. New Vegas had more quests and a bit more to do as far as companions and other small details but I just didn't feel attached to the game like I was with Fallout 3.

Look, if you've played the other games, the less Fallout 3 makes since. It's 200 years after the war, and it is still irradiated and there is very little recovery. There a few cities, no agriculture, and people still are fighting with sticks and stones. This totally breaks Fallout 3's immersion when you think across the continent, there are armies marching, empires growing, and economies flourishing. As for radiatiation, radioactive fallout washes away from rain fairly quickly; 200 years is plenty of time for that to wash away. Which brings up yet another point, where is the rain? It was never shown in the other games, but I'm assuming that in the presence of agriculture is a sign of rain. DC is right next to an ocean, why is it not raining? Then we go into another thing, the expoding cars. Why are the cars catching on fires and exploding when they are power by microfusion cells? Why?! Sigh... enough for now.... I'm getting exhausted...

Yeah, New Vegas is extremely overrated. Locations are utterly forgettable and loot is scarce. Nothing in NV compares to Megaton, Tenpenny Tower, Little Lamplight, Museum of Technology, National Archives, Army Depot and so on.

I had to buy all the best weapons from some gun store because I couldn't find anything worthwhile. Same goes for AP ammo which is nowhere to be found even though you can barely touch radscorpions without it. I'm surprised they didn't overrun the whole map. I guess everyone buys their ammo at Gun Runners.

There's nothing to do besides talking and doing fedex quests for 200 caps and stimpak.

Btw, the quests in NV are godawful. If Bethesda made this game you'd be hearing non-stop how this is "yet another mediocre Beth game filled with mindless fed-ex drivel" , but hey since it's Obsidian it's masterpiece. Everyone treats you like you're [censored] idiot and sends you on silly errands. They even send you to those artillery firing psychopaths to die 50 times. I guess they know you can always reload...

First off this is your opinion not a fact. If you found the game to be immersion breaking then thats your feeling. Personally Fallout 3 for me was the most immersive game I have ever player, bar none.



I suppose this has been stated before but DC was hit hard, really hard and on top of that they have a large mutant threat to contend with. What do you think the west would look like if the master had not been contained? would there been "empires flourishing"?




Right and the other games didn't have radiation.....your point doesn't make sense New Vegas has radiation that in real life it really shouldn't as well....

Simply put there is rain, however if I remember correctly the reason that they didn't put it in was because of gameplay issues (frame rate and all that) and so they just didn't design a weather system. you really answered your own question with "It was never shown in any of the other games"...



where did you read they were powered by microfusion cells? They are powered by mini-nuclear reactors. Which explode when dealt too much damage.


It sounds to me that your more confused about the fallout setting in general since most of your complaints about the game exist in other games as well. If this is the case please dont say that only Fallout 3 is unbelievable, because by your logic New Vegas is just as bad.

"Beyond the Beef"
"Flags of our Foul-ups"
"I forgot to remember tp forget"
"Eyesight of the Blind"
"GI Blues"
"I put a spell on you"
"Hard Luck Blues"

And more....

Now tell me these are just [censored] simple delivery boy quests.

Truth is, that most of the locations aren't that memorable, because they make much more sense as opposed to the boom cool factor filled generic F3 locations.
And no, I don't praise NV because Obsidian made it (hell, NWN2 svcked big time. And same thing about KOTOR2, since it was rushed). I praise it because it's finally the most [censored] Fallouty game we've recently got.



Hmm actually, the http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Highwayman runs on MC cells, but I am not sure if the same applies to the rest of the cars in Amerikuh. :shrug:

I agree. New Vegas certainly has no fault lying with its quests, they are awesome.



What is this cool factor you speak of? The reason I liked fallout 3's locations more was because they added to the atmosphere a bit better. Sure there was some locations that you could find some really cool loot, but honestly one of my favorite locations in fallout 3 was the Townhouse in Georgetown in which the Mr. Handy reads "And There Will Come Soft Rains," is there a boom factor to that? Or is it because I simply enjoy the beautiful poetry and fallouty feeling that the image of a lonesome robot faithfully carrying out its duties long after its masters have gone that the townhouse stirs up?

There will come soft rains and the smell of the ground,
And swallows circling with their shimmering sound;
And frogs in the pool singing at night,
And wild plum trees in tremulous white;

Robins will wear their feathery fire,
Whistling their whims on a low fence-wire;

And not one will know of the war, not one
Will care at last when it is done.

Not one would mind, neither bird nor tree,
If mankind perished utterly;

And Spring herself when she woke at dawn
Would scarcely know that we were gone.