*Shrugs* You can certainly like Fallout 3's writing better than New Vegas', but by every objective standard, New Vegas' writing is better. Any argument that says that FO3's writing is better that I've seen has always boiled down to "I liked Fallout 3's plot better than New Vegas' plot." Which is totally subjective, and that's fine. But objectively, New Vegas is significantly better written.

Just like how someone can like Halo: The Fall of Reach better than Hamlet despite the fact that by all objective standards, Hamlet's writing blows the Halo novel's away. That's fine. I like Fallout 3's plot better than I like War and Peace's plot, but you won't see me arguing that Fallout 3 is some literary masterpiece on par with War and Peace. Merely that I like it better.



If anyone wishes to disagree with me, they're welcome to do so. Provided they can actually articulate a rational argument towards that end, to explain how Fallout 3 is, in fact, better in terms of writing than New Vegas'. Of course, that's almost impossible, since it's not true.

People can like Fallout 3's writing more than New Vegas', but some people liking something does not mean it's better. I can cite numerous metrics to support my case. If they can do so to support theirs, more power to them.

Excellent job of completely ignoring the argument and just going with the "lol ur wrong u svck" method.

It's easy to tell that you're from NMA. I think of the four reasons you listed the first is perhaps the closest and most common. I can probably expand a bit:

Atmosphere:
Fallout 3 really pushed the '50s feel. It was the baseball, white picket fence, "american dream" type of feeling. The idea that the cold war happened and you were now living in this ruined, post-apocalyptic '50s type of world (I am aware how this was different from F1/F2). One radio station played iconic '50s hits from Ella Fitzgerald, the Ink Spots, Bob Crosby etc. The other played patriotic American propoganda. You live the first part of your life in an isolated vault-tec vault, with it's comfort and isolation but cold bulkheads and bright lights.

When you emerge, the game world itself is dirty and rusted. The trees are scorched and the earth is barren. The combination of introduction, design, ambiance and music give you the sense that "this is a wasteland" and that the atmosphere has an undertone of the 50s/coldwar era. Even the quest fade in text crackles with a geiger counter sound effect.

New Vegas, like F1/F2, did not push the '50s feel. To be honest, I can't really speak to what feeling they were pushing, if any. Country I would guess? You spend most of your time in the Mojave. The introduction doesn't say much about the war but focuses mostly on the factions and Benny shooting the courier in the head. Even the music at the end of the intro when "Bethesda Softworks" appears is enough to give some pause if they were expecting more emphasis on a '50s/rat pack type of feel.

I believe that is the atmospheric difference most people notice. That's of course in addition to it no longer being a post-nuclear wasteland but something that seems like an "old west" desert full of cowboys, the music being a completely different style and etc.

It is easy to tell that Obsidian designed this game and not Bethesda, because they prefer to tell you a story while Bethesda tries to make you feel it. How someone absorbs the atmosphere, whether through dialogue or other means probably makes a huge difference in which game they will enjoy more. Myself, I would probably rather have a "C" grade story with an "A" level atmosphere than vice versa.

Humor:

I probably can't speak to this because I don't find many things funny and the whole thing is entirely opinion based. Some people think Fallout 1/2 were hilarious but all I saw were toilet jokes, pop culture references and dialogue options that broke the fourth wall. I didn't really find Fallout 3 that funny either, but chuckled at things like Moira Brown's inane survival guide quests and the chick with the Nuka-cola obsession.

I have seen in NV the increase in "inappropriate" dialogue options or the ability to choose a text that seems really random. I would assume this is the humour people were looking for. This probably isn't a huge deal for most.

Questing:

I've had the chance to talk to a few real world friends who've been playing. We've come to a general concensus that there is an overwhelming number of both quests and dialogue in the game. A level that seems to be almost inconsumable. This has been a detriment to the experience, in that a great many of the quests (not all of course) are extremely tedious, dialogue heavy or fedex quests that consume a lot of time for little pay-off story or "reward" wise. Even some of the most necessary quests, like getting the power armor perk from the Brotherhood of Steel, drag on needlessly and take what seems like hours to complete.

And it's not just that quests can be tedious, time consuming or what have you... that exists in Fallout 3. It's the manner in which there are so many of these and that everything is so intertwined with the main story that you can't seem to get away from it. The comparative anology I have arrived at is the following:

Fallout: New Vegas is a 12 course meal, every single night. It's great if you're hungry, but if you're not the quests can be so large, tedious, and inconsumable that you may stand up from the table shortly after sitting down. I've heard more than a few grumble about replayability, not because the story is bad, but because they don't want to get reinvolved in a labyrinth of quests they don't want to do. About 20 hours into NV I was actually starting to feel like I was playing F2 and it was displeasurable.

Fallout 3 is a buffet, where everything is separated and compartmentalized into a pick and serve kind of format. This may be because the main quest is so de-emphasized or because many of the side quests are uninvolved. It's hard to say, the quest structure and what the quests have you doing seem to be laid out entirely different.

The reason a lot of Fallout 3 fans dislike New Vegas is because Fallout 3 isn't an RPG and New Vegas is. I saw this happening about 20 minutes into New Vegas.

Fallout 3 is made to appeal to the lowest common denominator in order to sell as many copies as possible so they get ROI for the license they paid for. New Vegas, conversely, was designed for fans of Fallout.

I'd take a 12 course meal over a cheap buffet every day of the week.

I love the detail and the extent to which the bashing of Fallout 3 and fans of Fallout 3 are connected to praising New Vegas. If I may be so bold as to politely direct you to a place you might find accomadating, may I recommend registering for NMA, assuming this isn't some NMA anonymous meeting? Honestly, this thread is just slightly oversaturated with a lack of respect for opinions, a false sense of mental superiority, and false claims about a certain Fallout game as well as its fanbase.

I only admit that it isn't like Fallout 1 or 2 in some senses such as atmosphere and the way it is conveyed. It is Fallout, that isn't decided by us but by who produces the game, regardless of it being different. You shouldn't try to put words in my mouth. I'm sorry if my post depresses you. We can't all have the same opinion and like things in the same way.

I did play Fallout 1 back when it first came out, but I wasn't interested in it then. I only went back to play the first two after I took an interest in 3. I don't need someone to explain what it is all about, because I get it. I just didn't enjoy it. I see the differences, so it's not a matter of being educated or re-educated on what Fallout 1/2 were. I'm just not held to a belief that Fallout has to be like that. That wasn't ever really the discussion here anyway.

Who sets those "objective" standards though? You?

Because while I'd completely disagree with them, I could accept reasons for why someone would think that Batman & Robin was a better movie. The fact that you find the "It's just a matter of opinion" argument so annoying is a sign of a rather snobbish and condescending attitude, and I find that annoying in any context. The fact that you find the need to "ridicule" those who find Fallout 3 to be a superior game is a rather pretentious mentality and you need to come way down off your pedestal.

Korindabar, that is a terrific post and I agree 100%.



I don't understand why that should be so contentious? Is the Caped Crusader any less valid or "true" a take on Batman than the Dark Knight? Bethesda's take on Fallout is just as valid as Interplay and Black Isle's.



Elitist claptrap. Utter bunk.

Maybe you would, but that will remain to be seen. Will you beat it twice? Three times? Spend 200 hours in it? 300?

Fallout 3 held a top 20 position on xbox live for two years after it's release. Even amongst new releases and popular multiplayer games it continued to stay in the top rankings. Will New Vegas still be there in two? After people beat it, we'll see how much it is replayed. I'm 65 hours in and I can't see myself picking this up again for a long, long time. I am predicting it will drop off the top 20 in a year.

While I do not agree with his statement at all (I thought FO3 was a solid game in its own right, just not enough to compel me to ever finish a playthrough) there is a speck of truth in there.

When I played FO3, it always felt like more of a shooter and less of an RPG. I don't want to use the words "dumbed down." I guess I'll say that it "reduced" the importance of character building/stats/the dice. It was mind boggling to me when, at a very low level at the beginning of the game, I could go around headshotting every single person with 95% accuracy in VATS with a very low Small Guns skill, or that I could throw frag grenades with near perfect accuracy, having never put a point into explosives. I was used to FO2 where in the beginning stages of the game you were extremely inaccurate.

So I do sort of feel that Bethesda took a deliberate step towards making FO3 more accessible to a general audience. And I don't see anything wrong with that, either. The oldschool Fallouts weren't the most hardcoe RPGs either. I'd reserve that title for, say, roguelikes or something else that's really difficult to get into.

And I feel that it worked, too. FO3 has a huge fanbase, and I think that it earned that fanbase, regardless of my personal opinions about it.

Here comes the argument of "connsol playerz r stoopid". Notice how I portrayed that quote with the typical spelling errors and lack of depth which bashers of consoles typically use in their false quotations of console players.

Bilal: yes, I'm in agreement with what you're saying, but there is a world of difference between "made more accessible" and "lowest common demoninator". Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball is lowest common denominator; Saint's Row is lowest common denominator; Fallout 3 manifestly is not.

Well, I hope not. This thread is skirting the edge of being locked probably. Though I've never really understood where the idea that platform preference is indicative of intelligence ever came from.

I do not know, either, but I've seen enough arguments about promoting one's console while looking towards another in a condescending fashion to probably carry out the entire conversation with myself. Anyway, the discussion is still in a civil light, and could stay that way unless tensions rise in intensity to the actual point of name-calling. I just posted my comment to deter future ones such as those I was referencing by straightening out just how predictable the arguments can become. Now that it's known, we can skip that part of the thread, no?

Already beaten it with each major faction except the Legion, actually. So three times.

As for sales, we'll have to wait and see. Though it has sold more than Fallout 3 had at the same time marker.

Source: http://gamrfeed.vgchartz.com/story/82519/fallout-new-vegas-week-one-sales-in/


Again, I need to reiterate that I loved Fallout 3. I'm bashing Fallout 3 in this thread only in comparison to New Vegas, as a reply to people claiming New Vegas isn't as good. The problems I've mentioned regarding Fallout 3 are all true, but a game can have problems and still be great. I loved Oblivion, too, but could easily lay out a long list of things in that game that were just awful.

Yes, I am getting a little offended and insulted by the methods of those who would "ridicule" Fallout 3 and it's fans.

I certainly don't appreciate being referred to as the "lowest common denominator" for liking Fallout 3.

Honestly, all of this bashing of Fallout 3 and it's fanbase makes me never want to play an original Fallout game. Hell, it makes me not even want to play Fallout: New Vegas anymore.

It's not the games' faults, however. Such insults naturally instill a feeling of rejectment towards the source of the insulters, but the games themselves do no harm. It's very well possible that, in a few years, Fallout 3's fanbase will go the way of another notoriously critical fanbase affiliated with a Bethesda series by praising Fallout 3 over Fallout 4 with strong criticism of Fallout 4's fanbase.

I'm proud of the fact that I love Fallout 3 because it's essentially "Oblivion With Guns"

As far as I'm concerned, the Morrowind / Oblivion / Fallout 3 game design is the epitome of a great game design. My -life- isn't a scripted set of events, it's a world that I am living in where I make choices and I face the consequences of those decisions, but the only thing stopping me from doing something is my own decision to pursue it.

That is why I love Morrowind / Oblivion / Fallout 3, because I am in a world where I get to make my own decisions and experience the world my own way due to those decisions. As I encounter different people and locations, I can build my own character from the ground up, and watch my character develop into something else, to watch him grow up.

I enjoy linear RPG's as well, when done well (BioWare is my 2nd favorite RPG studio, behind Bethesda, thanks to games like Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, or Dragon Age: Origins), but I prefer experiencing a world over a linear, scripted set of events anyday. I like the actual -literal- definition of "role playing" better than the "dice roll" elements of role playing. As a theatre / creative writing student, I much prefer using my mind to -create- my own story than to have a story already laid out for me. That's what movies and TV are for. If I'm going to play a video game, I want to use my mind to make decisions and watch the story unfold in a unique experience for me.

No, it wasn't. Now, it is.

You're right, Fallout and Fallout 2 aren't to blame, but when I am basically being flat out insulted and looked upon as inferior due to the fact that I was introduced to Fallout through Fallout 3, and I absolutely LOVE Fallout 3 for being what it is, it doesn't endear me in any way to the originals that I'm being insulted for not being familiar with.

There's also the fact that, considering that I love Fallout 3 for being the game that it is, there are no guarantees that I would like Fallout or Fallout 2. My love of Fallout 3 comes from the fact that it is in the Morrowind / Oblivion mold of game design, and the fact that as far as I'm concerned that's the best game design I've ever experienced. With Fallout and Fallout 2 being something completely different, it's really only going to end up being a disappointment.

As Fallout 4 and Fallout 5 will prove, it is, merely because it's Bethesda series to mess with however they see fit. There is no evidence they will even let Obsidian make another one.

You're right. I'm not a "Fallout fan", I'm a Bethesda fan, and Fallout 3 (and Fallout: New Vegas) are just even more installments in Bethesda's amazing game design.

And for that, my opinion and my status has been insulted and "ridiculed" (actual term used in this thread by the OP). I am considered "inferior" for being a fan of Bethesda's game design. You just got done saying yourself that you're "unimpressed" by this side of the debate.

On the flip side, considering what I see as being the superior game design, you can consider me "unimpressed" by your side of the debate as well.

Whiskey Rose is coming across as the guy shouting "Judas!" at Bob Dylan for plugging in an electric guitar. There's room for any number of interpretations of Fallout. You don't have to like them all, it's not as if upon bringing home FO3 from the shop it proceeds to destroy your copies of the first two games. They can co-exist quite happily.

X-Men comics.

X-Men lore is my favorite fiction on the planet. From comics, to the early 90's Fox cartoons, to the movies.

Bryan Singer took a very different approach to the first 2 X-Men movies than the comics. Many elements of the lore were respected and kept in tact, and many other elements were changed. Some changes were minor, others were rather drastic changes. Case in point - the X-Men movies are a completely different entity than the comics that they are based upon, but just because it's -different- doesn't mean it's bad. I greatly enjoyed the X-Men movies.

Then came X-Men: The Last Stand. Bryan Singer departed the project, a new director and new writers came on board, plus a bit more studio interference, and again you get the same thing. Some elements were respected, others saw a departure from the previous "vision", and again some changes were more drastic than others. It was -different-, but I still found myself greatly enjoying it.

And again, all the same stuff happened once more with X-Men Origins: Wolverine, and again, I greatly enjoyed it.

So while it wasn't a video game, there's a perfect example of new parties coming in and taking something that I have a previous love for, doing new things with it and making it something new, and still being able to appreciate it and enjoy it for what it is, and accepting it for being different.