The Obsidian love...I just don't get it.

The New Vegas world was sooo boring that I never lasted long enough to be a part of that 'awesome' story I heard so much about.

The game was a yawnfest for me.

Gimme Bethesda, Bethesda, and more Bethesda please. I've never been disatisfied or disappointed with anything I've purchased that they've been a part of.

I can't take anyone seriously that thinks Lonesome Road was anything other than Chris Avellone's mouth piece for social issues in the game. At least Mothership Zeta had the common courtesy to establish that it was a tongue-in-cheek and fun DLC not to be taken too seriously. Lonesome road tries HARD to be this capstone, pseudo-intellectual set piece and manages to completely fail. It's mediocre as a DLC (literally a linear corridor but forgivable given the setting and name) and terrible as the final installment of what should have been 4 excellent, cohesive stories.

yeah bc it only give me a background same as Fo1 or Fo2 or Fo3. Bc in each of those game my background was predefine. Vault dweller from 13, Tribal from Arroyo, Born on River city and move to Vault 101. Ex military that have a son and move to Vault 111.

i think both are good, and both are different. i really dont think NV been better that 3. But opinions are opinions.

I enjoyed New Vegas world. When I'm going to a location I prefer to know why I need to go there instead of saying "Yeah look a building I wonder what is in there that will try to kill me?"

Also I didn't find the world boring. The vaults are good and there are a few other locations that I enjoyed as well.

Not saying Fallout 3's world is bad or boring but it didn't feel more like a wasteland then Vegas. It had more destroyed buildings sure but one is DC and the other is Vegas and a desert(which it should be)

That is kind of New vegas in a nuthshell though, try and be this morally grey distopia game where every faction is not all that grey and...........fail completely at it. Legion was comically evil, and the undisputed "happiest" ending/ending with least amount of deaths on factions is the Best version of the NCR ending.

New vegas is a GREAT game, do not get me wrong, but all this "Obsidian does Fallout story better" confuses me, since they failed at the ENTIRE point of what they were going for and yet when Bethesda succeeds at what Obsidian failed to do....they get called bad writers.........

Given that I liked The Pitt and Point Lookout from Bethesda, but only really liked Old World Blues from Obsidian, not that the others were terrible or anything, I would say I would rather have Bethesda do the DLC simply based on the fact that they have, so far, made more DLC for Fallout that I liked.

I can't take anyone seriouly who can't take another person opinion seriously.....wait

http://i.imgur.com/yho9pgM.jpg

Intellectualism of any stripe shouldn't be condemned, even if it can be disparaged as 'armchair intellectualism'.I'd much rather intellectualism of any sort over the vacuity of another game with explosion sequences that last longer than dialogue exchanges.

Being impelled to think, even within a ropy premise should never be condemned.

You can't be serious...?

Yes. But Ulysses isn't even intellectual. He's hypocritical, short sighted, and is in desperate need of a mirror.

I'm super cereal.

*No I'm joking*

With 'greatness' being a relative term, I'd say the story was great; at least in comparison to other games.I don't think that's an unreasonable assertion

I'd be game for a combination of the two. Would allow us to see more DLC while having that DLC still hold up in content and quality. Instead of two rushed DLCs by Bethesda or one fully fleshed out one we could have two fully fleshed out DLCs.

At the end of the day every story stems from the author, and their own personal worldview. Lonesome Road was certainly heavy handed, but the point is that - love it or hate it - it actually had a fleshed out narrative. Mothership Zeta was completely vapid, and what little plot it had was just an excuse to shoot aliens.

And yet, because Obsidian couldn't handle the main game in NV to make it engaging enough without feeling fake, I never bothered with the DLCs at all.

Yet, despite what people keep saying about Zeta in FO3, I loved it. Not everything needs to be a heavily politicized statement on the crappy state of our world. Sometimes, a good romp with silly aliens that barely have a loose association with the lore is what's needed. I think Bethesda has the chops to recognize this where most other companies simply don't.

Obsidian did some fairly solid work on dlcs. My only gripe was the overarching enemy that spanned all 3 episodes. All that buildup over a guy with a grudge that was rather.. stupid.

Beth on the other hand.. I liked the pitt and the bog dlc. The less said about broken steel the better though. But to be fair, Beth wrote itself in a corner with that stupid ending.

And that's all LR did for the Courier.

Heh, I rather liked Broke Steel, but then I've always been a fan of the Brotherhood of Steel anyway.

The irony of so many people (myself included) being upset with the way FO3 originally ended is rich. Both previous games ended, period, you didn't get to keep going. So they were actually staying more true to things by continuing the same tradition. Yet, it's Bethesda, they had an even bigger reputation for allowing freeform play after the game ends to uphold. So yeah, painted themselves into a corner, but I think they elegantly painted themselves right back out too.

Considering Fallout New Vegas is hands down my favorite, I obviously voted for Obsidian. They do all the things I care about the most (things related to roleplaying a variety of characters), and I LOVED their DLC for FO:NV (especially Dead Money).

Fallout: New Vegas and Fallout 3 are THE SAME GAME.

God, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

Yeah, there's some improvements but I don't get the idea there's this big huge difference.

Aside from a bit more moral ambiguity and more interesting Companions, there's NO DIFFERENCE.

Well, maybe Fallout 3 is more hauntingly beautiful and sad but NO DIFFERENCE.

:-p

well, story wise is what the are talking about. The stories were VERY different types of stories.

gameplay wise, there are TONS of differences, aiming down sights, weapon modding, level up system, the two abilities you choose at level 1 that change a lot in terms of character build.

LOL.

Patently false.

But I really LIKED the more interesting companions in NV Also loved all the factions you could join or be enemies with, how many things added extra dialogue options (skills, perks, S.P.E.C.I.A.L, faction reputation, past actions, etc...) there were things that added extra dialogue in FO3 but in FO:NV it was a ton, and I love that! I also preferred the desert setting and the whole New Vegas thing to the capital wasteland. <3 Not saying I didn't love FO3 as well, it definitely had a better main story. Both fit my tastes much better than FO4 sadly