This, this, and this.
It is my dream for this series, that they correct this abominable mistake for an RPG. With the quickness.

Why should anyone be able to join the Enclave, when everyone not already in the Enclave is ineligible by their own standards, and viewed by them as something to be cleaned off the face of the Earth?

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Stiggs

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Anna_Holt

This view is outdated in FO3.

Because it's a fun little place, minus Mcready or however it's spelled. I just enjoy that small bubble of quasi-utopia in a gruff world.

Maybe if you play a <4 IN moronic Chosen One, he could volunteer as a test subject?

Or, you know, tell Chris you want to join up and get accepted with a high speech skill. Get a free suit of APA, and roleplay away soon after because you're basically a member... sort of. You even get a few quests in Navarro, which is always fun. They could have went farther with that, but went with another 'save da world' plot which is always not fun.

I'm not sure how you can not see FONV isn't just as linear as FO3. The entire game forces the Courier to the dam, regardless of their action. In fact, the game's rather lacking in this regard, meaning none of our choices really make a difference in the grand scheme of things.

I lost a little respect for the game when I realized clearing out The Fort has zero impact on the game, save for a radio broadcast. Call me cynical to believe Lanius wouldn't be re-evaluating his position when he hears news Caesar, and his trained protectors, were wiped out by one person.

I'm also disappointed the final run on the dam wasn't an "all or nothing" approach. The game gives us a warning there's no turning back, but guess what happens when you die? You restart from the last save point. The game doesn't end with a random winner, with your death as a powerpoint slide.

You don't think this isn't linear? It's the definition of it. You will meet Lanius and you will meet Oliver, and because you're one person, your choices don't mean a thing because the game refuses to move like the real world until you interact with it.

I get that, being a game, there are limits, but the fight on the dam should happen regardless if the Courier is there or not. From the moment we leave Doc's residence, we're told by pretty much everyone the fight is inevitable.

To put this in perspective: if the Courier had died that evening, who would have won?

The one thing I did appreciate about FO3, even though it's MQ is linear, is dear old dad's position locks the game instantly, because he's trapped in a virtual reality world. It's not until the Lone Wanderer finds him the MQ progresses, which is a nicely done stop-gap up to that point.

Of course, the game blows it when we free him and he won't work on Project Purity until we get there.

Wouldn't it have been a much more impact to have heard about James' death from a caravanner or on GNR or hear news the fighting on the dam has started and we should prepare ourselves for inevitable change resulting from it.

It's interesting that, while we're in cell in these games, time obviously impacts people, yet not enough to a degree they actually make a difference to the game. Sadly, they just walk around, doing nothing until we talk to them.

Well said, I like you.

Having the final quest of the game always be the battle of Hoover dam is not the same thing as being linear. That's the only thing the game forces on you, and you can experience it from three or four distinct perspectives depending on your choices up to that point, which are likely to be wildly different from person to person.

This is another example of New Vegas being specifically criticised for doing something every other game in the world does. The final battle doesn't happen until you complete all the quests leading up to it! This is different to how it was done in Fallout 3, apparently! And Skyrim, and Mass Effect 1-3, and... hell, name a videogame where the climactic final battle can take place offscreen and you can miss it. But in New Vegas the final battle happening at the end of the questline rather than on a specific predetermined date is bad

'Wildly different'. Not sure if serious. Same invariable scenario, same endgame sequence, same ending.

"One of four factions assume control over the Mojave Wasteland. [censored] happens. Yeah. The minor factions are never to be seen again like all the others."

NV isn't exempt from the faults of the games you mentioned because it's NV.

I think what she? was trying to say was that all games are linear in a way, not that New Vegas was bad for it. Which is true, but what matters is the difference in linearity between FO3 and NV. Nobody can say that FO3 has anywhere near the amount of choice that New Vegas does.

You're forgetting every other thing that also happens at the end of the game besides the battle. Its those other choices along with the faction that wins that make each person have a unique experience.

It all amounts to meaning nothing in the end though, not like FO3. Your karma can vastly change the Capital Wasteland. Felt somewhat satisfying despite the heavy linearity.

Yeah like 'thanks for helping us take control of the Mojave, here's a [censored] coin.'.

Your decisions also vastly change the Mojave as well as Arizona and California depending on not only who you choose to side with, but because of side quests as well.

Same scenario, except that you can be fighting for the Legion, or for the NCR, or you can be taking advantage of the chaos to usurp control of the dam for Mr House, or for yourself.

Same endgame sequence, except that you can fight Lanius in his camp, or convince him to retreat, and then fight Oliver or convince him to stand down and accept your terms, or work out a trade agreement with him, or fight with Lanius and against Oliver in the dam, or convince him to retreat.

Same ending, except there are over 150 epilogue slides and you'll only see about 25 of them in a given playthrough.

In any case, "wildly different" refers to the potential paths to the final battle, not the final battle itself. I'm also not saying that being able to take part in the final battle of the game is a fault.

Your statement is justifying the ending, which isn't the same as acknowledging the game is linear. If you start out with Point A, and have paths 1-4 at your disposal, but all end at Point B, that's a linear game.

All I can say here is if I decided to stay in Goodsprings and help Sunny rid the area of geckos, that battle for the dam never happens.

If you really want your mind blown: remember that each and every consequence to the game is the result of the Courier, not a single faction. Because those factions wouldn't have done a thing had the Courier not shown up.

No, it isn't. It is a game with two fixed points in its story. Not a linear game. A point is not a line. The fact that between getting shot in the face and completing Hoover Dam the player can create practically any story they please, due to the game permitting tackling quests out of order or combining them as you want, means the game is non-linear.


Uh, that's pure gameplay, not the story. If the Courier never showed up, then the NCR and the Legion would have a go at each other.

I'm not saying New Vegas isn't linear at all, but compared to Fallout 3 it has much more space for free choices. The game forcing the Courier to the dam is on purpose because that's the major conflict of the game and is in interests of whichever faction you join (or don't). And your choices do matter, as you can fight behind three different sides with different events taking place during the battle based on the decisions you made.

And if the Courier had died, whoever gained the most local support due to the Courier's actions would win. If the Courier didn't gain help from anyone then the fight would most likely end in a standstill causing the Mojave to be exhausted and drained of conflict.

Caesar was weak and The Fort was just a camp, Lanius has an army with him. The Legion still had enough strong leadership for the next few decades that Caesar's death wouldn't have too much of an impact. After those decades however, then the Legion might feel it.

It was an all or nothing approach, having to restart the entire thing after you die would make it receive more criticism than if it loads from a last save. I don't see how saving during the final battle is a bad thing, and if you don't like the saves then save at the start of the battle and turn off autosave.

Like I said, your choices matter during the battle, and the direction you took your characters skills (and which side you joined) can ultimately impact how you respond to these two or how you deal with them.

It does happen whether the Courier is there or not. However, it taking place not in front of you would completely ruin the purpose of the game.

That isn't linear though. All games have a final boss,even if they have 80 different paths to go down. That doesn't make them linear because they end at the same place.

And you simplified it too much. http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout:_New_Vegas_endings Look at all those different endings and outcomes of your actions during the entire game. Compare that to Fallout 3's.

We're understanding the word "linear" to mean different things, I think. I'm going by the dictionary definition.

New Vegas, linear? Is it opposite day?

Both games' worlds are open, F3's quest are not, apart from the part where you can skip a part of the MQ line, whereas every proper quest (that is, not filler like http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Can_You_Find_it_in_Your_Heart%3F ) has multiple solutions, and sometimes even paths.

To reduce moral issues, I concentrated on positive karma, charm, speechcraft, doing things without compensation.

however, I do hate invisibles walls and the majority of inaccessable buildings that kill exploration.

Your comment implies that those who disagree are content with less, and that that's not enough for you... but what you mention is the easy path IMO.
Roleplaying games are about playing the role ~the role can be assigned; or made if one must, but IMO RPG's [mechanics aside] are content-wise usually better if the role is assigned. Playing the role IS experiencing someone else's story. The whole point of RPGs is to explore what that particular character would do at the time and situation they are in; what does it matter who invented the character?

In the Witcher for instance, the developers had a known PC, a constant that they could develop the narrative around; flesh it out with past friends and acquaintances, write the dialog to the character ~to suit the known character. By contrast all of the TES games I've played can't do that ~ever; they allow for a completely unknown PC with no past and no personality ~you can't even define what the role is ~let alone write the narrative around it; the NPC's all talk to them like waiters and toll booth clerks... Look at the Witcher again sometime and see the conversations with Thaler and Gerralt's friends. This was the same in Planescape... you can't write with that scope of detail if the PC can be anything from a halfling gem dealer to a 6' bipedal cat with kleptomania; and anything in between ~including lizards and demi-gods. Who can write to that in any way but superficially?

No, I like RPGs that allow for custom PC's but generally the actual content of the game seems far superior when the writers have a clue, and are not writing around an unknown protagonist. That is the problem with custom PC... the role can be as deep as the player wants, or as shallow as "Grognar ~he who hits with heavy stick!"... But the NPC/quest designers know next to nothing of what the protagonist is like, or how to respond with the NPCs or the quests themselves. That's never been satisfying roleplaying to me; and the typically generic responses are not preferable [and fall short when compared] to tailored conversations.

Fallout did allow the player to make a custom PC, but it did impose an isolated and institutionalized background; All PCs grew up in the same tin can and would have the same culture shock and be adventuring into the unknown. This is a good thing, not a handicap for roleplaying ~it encapsulates the role and [ideally] helps guide the story development.

Generally the RPGs that allow for custom PCs tend to be better [IMO] when they are party based rather than single character. Single character games tend to be better done as action titles... and IMO those can be great games, but tend to never be great RPGs; though there certainly are exceptions.

No really tough enemies
Karma has very little effect

You and me both, well said.

Not having the iron sights, like in Fallout New Vegas, the 3rd person camera view, and the Armored Vault Jumpsuit not looking as cool as the one in Fallout New Vegas!

The ending. No, not the forced 'face your destiny' thing, the entire battle that went before that moment. Just...just what was that? Liberty Prime made the battle so ungodly easy that in one character file, I literally followed behind him in nothing but underwear with no weapon whatsoever. It didn't really feel like a battle. It was...follow a big robot that curbstomps all the Enclave soldiers from the Brotherhood HQ to the Purifier. I almost felt bad for them, as they literally stood no chance against the robot.

And speaking of Liberty Prime, did anyone else get a 'Transformers' vibe from him? I half expected Shia Lebeaouf and his Bumblebee robot to appear out of nowhere in a cameo.

The fight just felt so weak. The reason behind it was basically who gets to turn the thing on.