I figured why FONV is missing so much apparently from the comments and conversations started ranting about things like, not enough random combat opportunities, empty locations, miles of dead space in the Mojave wastes, etc. It is just a theory, The Elder Scrolls 5 is coming out in November...maybe? I don't really know, I am just taking a stab at trying to figure why the game TO ME was such a let down. As I have written in earlier posts, I am not even finishing my first play through. Not interested enough to finish the game off. Instead of pointing the finger at Bethie, I am gonna take blame for expecting more out of this very highly anticipated game(leaving off with the last one who wouldn't be anxious to play it?). It is possible the developers had nothing at all to do with it whatsoever. Maybe we, as the gamers/consumers want too much(just a thought). Just maybe...Something to think about while waiting for the new Elder Scrolls to come out. Maybe we all expect too much.

Anyone else have any theories?

Despite the obvious sarcasm, it really is on the gamer for wanting too much in the game play experience...

Once again, just a theory.



:gun:

obsidian made new vegas

And Obsidian made it in the image of Obsidian...weak on exploration, strong on story. That's good for some, not so good for others.

But "Bethie" Quality Assured it.

Getting back on track...
Yes..

Many times I've hyped something up or had it hyped up for me, only to find it poor.
Also many times I've snubbed something and loved it afterwards.

People are fickle.. they have strong opinions.
Are prone to ranting and demanding they get their own way, like spoiled selfish brats.

I love NV, it's a good game.. not everyone has to agree with me on that.
Everyone is free to say what they disliked, and how much so.
As long as they realise that they put nothing up front, they put no hours in design.. no effort at all.
If they dislike a game all but those that can't afford to buy a new one, can do so freely.
For most this will be one of 6+ games they never play, despite wanting it do baaaadly, originaly.

There's many things I find odd in the game, but the same goes for every game I've played.
Pointing them out is a good release, but many think pointing out and demanding change is the same thing.

It's a great RPG but svcks as an open world sandbox game. Fallout 3 on the other hand svck as an RPG but is excellent openworld sandbox game. New Vegas lasts for few good playtrough, Fallout 3 much much more. Those who were expecting a "Bethesda" game are understandably disappointed.

Disclaimer: it's the gameplay that matters to me, and even though New Vegas' has better quality, 3 beats it with sheer quantity.

I think if you came to New Vegas expecting a Bethesda style game, you'd be disappointed. If on the other hand you came expecting an Obsidian brand somewhat-Black Isle-ish style game built on the early framework of Van Buren with the skeleton and veneer of a Bethesda game then you got exactly what you expected. If your a fan of Obsidian then I think you got a very good game, as New Vegas (despite some of its flaws) is probably one of their most polished/complete releases they've had so far.

Personally I enjoyed both Fallout 3 and New Vegas. I just wish New Vegas could have been Fallout 3, but that's neither here nor there.

I'm looking forward to TES:V as well. But I know that Obsidian and Bethesda are two different companies with two different styles. I hope the fact that some people get this confused doesn't lead to Beth not continuing to allow Obsidian to work in the Fallout universe.

Wouldn't there be tons of empty locations and miles of dead space in the Mojave wastes?
I think they did a great job of rendering the location. The series has always (read that as the majority of the games to date), had miles and miles of desolate wasteland between major locations. In Fallout 1 & 2 it could take you a week of walking to get to the next town and encounter nothing at all along the way (if you were lucky); If you were unlucky, you might get killed along the way.


How many Obsidian games have you played? (I have only played Kotor2 & FO:New Vegas; I own MOTB, but have not started it yet, so I cannot judge by it.)


I cannot take Fallout 3 seriously when I try to play; I don't have that problem in New Vegas. (Quantity of unlikely encounters is part of it)

Yes, gamers expect too much. It's a false sense of entitlement.

When the complaints about a game's quality start, they're based on that sense (I reiterate: false sense) of entitlement. People also love to hear themselves talk (or blast out a bunch of bs on a keyboard), and it happens to be very, very easy to complain about things. And since misery loves company, you get one kid starting the [censored]ing and a dozen more jumping on board.

All because some people think that game companies owe them the world for a measly $60.

Hypothetically... I would prefer a collection of small locations in the world with 1500 hours put into development, than for them to try to depict the entire world with those 1500 hours, and endeavor to make the entire world interesting to wander about aimlessly in.
(But I accept that this is the premise of the TES series, and am fine with it; However... this was not the premise of the Fallout series, where they tried the same thing ~and though they largely succeeded, IMO it was at the expense of the series premise. :shrug:) ~Did Fallout 3 feel like Fallout to anyone (that played Fallout)?


***Edit: 1500 hypothetical hours developing the world assets and scripts ~not the engine itself.

That's pretty much it, I think. The sales for NV were tremendous; the publicity for the game made it appear identical to F3 in style. I didn't see all the pre-release publicity, but I saw a lot, and nowhere do I recall seeing one of the devs enthusiastically demonstrating the thrilling Speech success rate, you know? It was all grenade launchers, iron sights and dozens of guns, etc.

Players of the older games tend to be pretty knowledgeable about developers and such and I think they had an idea what to expect. They seem mostly happy. Players who came into Fallout 3 via Elder Scrolls don't know what to make of it.

I like the way the two games are different, myself. It's the post-apocalypse setting and retro-futurism I enjoy, not the exact style of play.

I don't think it was like that...was it? J.E. Sawyer prefers skill thresholds to the more realistic percentages (and with decent reasons too, though I don't like it).

As to the guns & sights... Do they really want an RPG that is gun heavy and PC lite?

****If that's actually the truth, then surely FO should be the wrong series for them, and shame on them for forcibly making it the right one.

I don't see why one should. It's supposed to be a game, not an alternate world simulation.

True in theory (good thing too); except that I do honestly believe that they tried to make it a simulation.
(and if you look at the tagline at the top of every fallout forum page, it kind of supports the idea ~though its not why I think so).

I take all games seriously, Chess, RTS play, Planescape, Painkiller, Zuma, even serious Sam

The only game I don't take seriously is 'Toon RPG'.

Actually, it is. It just expresses itself through a videogame medium.

In essence, a lot of the greatest fantasies are, in reality, alternate world simulations. See The Lord of the Rings.

I never felt that LOTR was a simulation; (unless you mean the MMO. I never played that one.)

Curious question though: If the game lets a player play Sam Gamgee... how would they/you/(or anyone here) play him? (would they play him in character, or would they play him as if they were there in his place?)

**Edit: I should clarify a bit... I am treating 'simulation' as the engine depicting what the player would see and hear in that environment [based on viewing angle] were it real and were they really present in it.

The MMO is actually very good. A lot of nice people. It just went F2P.

I was actually very pleased from what they came out with. Perhaps I had lower expectations but I actually love the game. It's even so much better than Fallout 3 ever could be because it's not so slow and pathetic as Fallout 3, it has alot more people, prosperity, REALISM, and even a more enhanced story. The entire game has much better places to explore and the foes are fresh and amazing. Took out the Yogei Bear too because it was too similar to the Deathclawer, and took out the cruddy Assault Rifle which was actually an MP5 and not an AR even. The only real legitimate AR in the game was the AK. I love the fact that they actually put REAL GUNS into the game instead all these 2400 year guns they have in most FO's and most futuristic games. I imagine there will be alot more guns around our time if in only 60 years we get nuked.

The experience is so much better in this game to because it'd more real and fluid, unlike FO3 when it took 10 hours to get to level 5. FONV if more like any other average RPG when it comes to XP besides the XP never changing according to difficulty.

The factions are alot better and smooth - a real military (NCR), only one faction in the game that uses Power Armor all game around unlike the annoyance of it in FO3. The Legion I can admit are abit corky and could use some arranging with it, but that's beyond the point.

Ahh and even just the setting of the game in general is so much better. The bright desert with the nice open space - real easy to get around and navigate. The desert is so much better than the ruins of the DC area where you'd have problems jumping over a destroyed car or jumping over a dabble of scrap metal on the side of a walk path. And the effects like the sandstorms and other effects I have to mention are just amazing and they're beautiful and real.

I can talk about this compared to FO3 and other RPG's for hours but I hope you can see the goods and realize the bad on your own wants and needs.

That's a new one, it was a general complaint that leveling was too fast in Fallout 3 (as is in New Vegas, which i disagree with), and instead of slowing it down they broke the game by increasing the cap.

We are, of course - talking about a videogame forum on the internet.

Without applying any sort of value judgement on the veracity or "worthiness" of any of the complaints that appear here about the game - a certain degree of negative feedback is simply part and parcel to what happens in an online forum. There's the old adage that you "can't please everyone all the time," and this tends to be literally manifested in an environment such as this.

No matter how this game turned out, or within which context it's players were experiencing it - there was always going to be a number of people who weren't going to like it; and who would be vocal on the forums about their feelings towards it.

What the what... How can you say that? Fallout 3 only gives you two options in everything: Holy Savior or Genocidal Demon. You could only side with the BoS, you could only fight the Enclave, you could only watch Optimoose Priem do everything in the final quest... and they game is so linear, combined with how open (too open) the world is, you really could and would do everything in the game in one go, replayability be damned.

I suppose its because (for me) the storyline is not what makes something replayable. You go through a storyline once, twice, three or four times and they maybe different playthroughs all those times, but after that it just gets kinda repetitive and you can only change some relatively minor things in it. For me, replayabliity is about the exploration and atmosphere factor. With the setting Fallout 3 gives me I can think of many many different character choices and can usually follow up with them (managed to do a raider character for instance with the use of the mesmertron). It just seems like with New Vegas my characters have less life and its just "House guy" or "Legion Guy" or "Yes Man Guy" . Im not saying that its impossible to make those kinds of different characters in New Vegas, but with the center being on the storyline its hard to roleplay them (for me anyway). Its hard to roleplay a scavenger in New Vegas for instance while in Fallout 3 it was a really fun character to play as.

In Fallout 3 you could ignore the storyline if you character choice didn't fall in line with it. In New Vegas that is very hard to do (for me) since the storyline and quests are the main focus.

Becasue due to the amount of stuff in the world each playtrough is much more varied than in New Vegas where every playtrough is more or less the same.

Edit: Andronicus above said it much better.

Yes, you are right in that respect, but i think that all the other new and improved factors make up for the static environment, let us all hope that Fallout 4 has all the great stuff from New Vegas with the dynamic-ness of FO3.

indeed :foodndrink: