there isn't that much epicness is this game

Post » Thu Jun 04, 2009 10:25 am

But really, all FO3 quest is "kill every in quest area, you don't even need to find a key because it is place on the last dead body".


Well, that's not true. You could completel nearly every quest without kiling anything. Only thing i can think of as an exception is clearing Project Purity.
User avatar
Michelle Smith
 
Posts: 3417
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:03 am

Post » Thu Jun 04, 2009 10:31 am

Well, I prefer the "fetch quest" than the "shoot to kill quest"

Shooting everything in your way can get boring if you use the same formula over and over again
User avatar
Josephine Gowing
 
Posts: 3545
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 12:41 pm

Post » Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:01 pm

Shooting President Kimball in the head for the first time was pretty "epic". :laugh:


.50 indeciary round to the back. His flaming body flew to the cheering crowd. Beautiful :moved:
User avatar
clelia vega
 
Posts: 3433
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 6:04 pm

Post » Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:19 pm

Look everyone, all i have seen is more game on game bashing again, All i have to say is there is points to BOTH games that is enjoyable, and parts to both games that outright svcked. FO3 has it on a more believable wasteland and random encounters, and FO:NV has it on Weapons, and Civilized land . Now can we simply stop the Drama and arguing please, it's not like we are all typing on computers in beat up trailers in the Capital Wasteland and Mojave Wasteland that we know what we are talking about, we are advlts and we need to behave as such. :thumbsup:


Shh.. You're not allowed to talk sense here.
Pick a side, now.
User avatar
Ryan Lutz
 
Posts: 3465
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 12:39 pm

Post » Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:29 am

A giant Robot who kill and destroy everything on sight with super lasers, isn epic for some of us

Just because that is epic, doesnt means that it was to be epic for all
User avatar
Angela
 
Posts: 3492
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:33 am

Post » Thu Jun 04, 2009 7:14 am

What are you guys talking about ? theres plenty of epic moments in Fallout new vegas ! PS might be some SPOILERS here: Epic moment number 1. when you fire ghouls out in rockets and you get a nice cut-scene thats epic. 2. at helios one if you launch archimedes= EPIC 3. boomers blows the [censored] at of the legion. 4. When the remnants vertibird drops down to assist you. 5. last cutscene after beating the legate with the yes man quest line. 6. the secret ending when spoiler: General...... gets pushed down into the dam. And many othes ! :)

I know im not supposed to post spoilers here but to show some uf you that theres plenty of epic moments in FO NV i had to sorry... :)

Damn, i've read them :banghead:

And by the way New Vegas has its "epic" moments.
Killing the mother deathclaw with Pushy after filling yourself with psycho, slasher and turbo
Red Lucy turning the bed lights on, after all that hard work
are just 2 examples
User avatar
Add Me
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:21 am

Post » Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:00 am

The post-apocalyptic is meant to be bleak and grimy, its about discovering the mysteries of the past and seeing the world reduced to ruins. Fallout 3 captured that very well.

New Vegas makes more sense I guess, society would rebuild and government would take shape, but thats not what is fun about the current fallout series. Fallout 3 stood apart from most RPGs with its unique presentation.

Think of Bioshock, wouldn't you hate it if rapture wasn't in a dilapidated state? It wouldn't be the same game, there'd be no discovering what went wrong in the city or how it got so out of control.
User avatar
NAkeshIa BENNETT
 
Posts: 3519
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 12:23 pm

Post » Thu Jun 04, 2009 7:47 am

Well, that's not true. You could completel nearly every quest without kiling anything. Only thing i can think of as an exception is clearing Project Purity.

then what about all those quest where you have to kill things to complete then? XD

Cowboy, post apocalyptic just means After the Apocalypse. XD the originals games set the tone and FO3 was not it.
User avatar
kristy dunn
 
Posts: 3410
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:08 am

Post » Thu Jun 04, 2009 4:41 am

then what about all those quest where you have to kill things to complete then? XD

Cowboy, post apocalyptic just means After the Apocalypse. XD the originals games set the tone and FO3 was not it.


Like I said, the sense of discovery is what makes the current Fallout games unique. New Vegas is lacking in this area.
User avatar
Jonathan Montero
 
Posts: 3487
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 3:22 am

Post » Thu Jun 04, 2009 9:44 am

There was nothing really to discover except generic monster camp #92837492834 with random loot...AGAIN...with no point to be there but for you to kill and loot. In NV everything is connected so every place has meaning. Just like in the originals.
User avatar
Madison Poo
 
Posts: 3414
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 9:09 pm

Post » Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:01 pm

Like I said, the sense of discovery is what makes the current Fallout games unique. New Vegas is lacking in this area.


Games? Don't you mean a single game? Fallout 3 is the odd one out in this situation, and I like that New Vegas is close to the originals in a way that is logical, it is different enough to be unique but close enough to well... be a good Fallout game.
User avatar
Leilene Nessel
 
Posts: 3428
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 2:11 am

Post » Thu Jun 04, 2009 8:56 am

There was nothing really to discover except generic monster camp #92837492834 with random loot...AGAIN...with no point to be there but for you to kill and loot. In NV everything is connected so every place has meaning. Just like in the originals.


Hahahaha please tell me you're joking. Do you not notice how many useless locations there are in FNV? I just found "Abandoned Shack." It was two pieces of tin, with an empty box and a radio, yet it has a map marker. That's just one of MANY useless location. At least useless locations with some enemies or loot would be half-entertaining.
User avatar
Andres Lechuga
 
Posts: 3406
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:47 pm

Post » Thu Jun 04, 2009 6:12 am

*points to the numerous places like that in FO3* Your point? Plus what do you expect from an "ABANDONED" shack? If it was full of random bad guys it wouldn't be abandoned would it now?
User avatar
Del Arte
 
Posts: 3543
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:40 pm

Post » Thu Jun 04, 2009 1:14 am

You said everything in NV is connected and has meaning. A lot of places don't. That was my point.
User avatar
Tom
 
Posts: 3463
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 7:39 pm

Post » Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:45 pm

The post-apocalyptic is meant to be bleak and grimy, its about discovering the mysteries of the past and seeing the world reduced to ruins. Fallout 3 captured that very well.

New Vegas makes more sense I guess, society would rebuild and government would take shape, but thats not what is fun about the current fallout series. Fallout 3 stood apart from most RPGs with its unique presentation.

Think of Bioshock, wouldn't you hate it if rapture wasn't in a dilapidated state? It wouldn't be the same game, there'd be no discovering what went wrong in the city or how it got so out of control.

So Fallout 3 decides what is Fallout?
I thought Fallout 1 did that. :rolleyes:
Fallout 3 doesn't decide anything, it's the odd one out in the series. (Hmmm, 2nd most odd one I guess, we do have F:BOS...)
If anything it's the other games that did the Fallout feel "right" and are in charge of what constitutes as a true Fallout game.

And you can't take Bioshock as an example.
Bioshock doesn't have any predecessors from the 90's which are civilized.
That game was designed from top to bottom that is was gonna be in a chaotic state.
That was the point of the Bioshock series.
But it was not the point of the Fallout series, so you can't take that game as a comparison.
User avatar
Nina Mccormick
 
Posts: 3507
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:38 pm

Post » Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:08 pm

I think games and movies these days suffer from "epic-itis," personally. They write a crap script or a half-azzed gameworld and then cover it up with lots of 'splosions, giant robots, aliens, pointless action scenes, etc. Maybe I just read too much, but IMO the best stories, like most things in art and literature, are brought to life largely via subtext, subtlety, details, and things that blur the lines between the unusual and the mundane. "Epic" gets over-done and boring pretty quickly, IMO. I feel like it's too-often used as a device to cover up the fact that the writing isn't very clever.

Exactly. This game doesn't work as a sandbox game, as i've said, and will keep saying. The emptiness of the wasteland really makes one feel that this was designed as if for a map node system.

Hmm, fix by fast traveling or with Increased Wasteland Spawns mod?

It really depends on your definitions of "sandbox" and "work." I didn't think Fallout 3 "worked" as a sandbox game because the gameworld was silly and difficult to swallow. Yes, I know it's a Fallout game, but even a Fallout game should be plausible within the context of the fictional setting. The Capital Wasteland was a theme park rather than a place that was even a little bit believable, which to me is a failure when designing a sandbox gameworld. IMO New Vegas succeeds as a sandbox game in a lot of ways Fallout 3 failed as one, but my definition of success as a sandbox game involves having a gameworld that is well-planned and cohesive as a place, so we just differ in opinion. If your definition of "working" as a sandbox game involves lots of respawning enemies to fight at every turn then yes, it didn't work for you. A mod that increases wasteland spawns probably would be a good start to making it more to your liking.

Like I said, the sense of discovery is what makes the current Fallout games unique. New Vegas is lacking in this area.

First of all, I disagree with your opinion here. Second, it wasn't unique. It's a formula Bethesda (among other developers) has been using in one form or another since 1994 (since much earlier than that if you look beyond Bethesda).
User avatar
Richard Thompson
 
Posts: 3302
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:49 am

Post » Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:08 am

then what about all those quest where you have to kill things to complete then? XD


What quests like that were there? I honestly can't remember any quest that had killing things an unavoidable objective (apart from the PP thing i already mentioned). Actually, the Big Town quest i think had too.

It really depends on your definitions of "sandbox" and "work." I didn't think Fallout 3 "worked" as a sandbox game because the gameworld was silly and difficult to swallow.


In that case we have different definitions :D Mine is that Fallout 3 wasteland makes for better gameplay, and thus works better.
User avatar
Andrew
 
Posts: 3521
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 1:44 am

Post » Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:28 pm

Lots of quests can't be completed unless you can't either pass a speech check or kill the guy. Lets see you complete Burke's quest with out killing anyone too. :P Plus there's quests where you have to kill the other guy if you want to side with particular people in the quest.

However since I haven't played it in so long the one that pops right to mind is the law giver/contract killer quest...:P
User avatar
Krista Belle Davis
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 3:00 am

Post » Thu Jun 04, 2009 1:32 am

Well, yes, but you don't have to shoot anyone :hehe: And strictly speaking Law Bringer and Contract Killer aren't quests.

Many quests make killing things practically required yes, but i don't remember many where it is an objective.
User avatar
Auguste Bartholdi
 
Posts: 3521
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 11:20 am

Post » Thu Jun 04, 2009 11:44 am

In that case we have different definitions :D Mine is that Fallout 3 wasteland makes for better gameplay, and thus works better.

Again, this is just your opinion and what you're looking for in a game. If more combat = better gameplay to you then that's great, but we all have our own opinions. I like combat and places to find too, but I don't like those things in a free-roaming sandbox game when they feel forced and artificial, which is how I felt about Fallout 3's wasteland. The Mojave isn't as full of stuff as the D.C. area was, but to me if feels 1000% more believable and natural. Different priorities, I suppose.
User avatar
Eve Booker
 
Posts: 3300
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:53 pm

Post » Thu Jun 04, 2009 1:27 am

riley's rangers is a good example I think, if you didn't help them by you know fighting then they'd either mostly or all get killed tryign to escape especially if you didn't kill all the enemies going up. I'd consiter those as killing require to complete the objective.
User avatar
Claire Vaux
 
Posts: 3485
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 6:56 am

Post » Thu Jun 04, 2009 1:25 am

I suppose. Gameworld believability or realism has little matter to me. It is a game after all :D
User avatar
Catherine Harte
 
Posts: 3379
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 12:58 pm

Post » Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:43 am

I suppose. Gameworld believability or realism has little matter to me. It is a game after all :D

In that case what does a series like Fallout have over, say, Borderlands? If you don't care about having an immersive fictional setting then why not go for more of an arcade-style experience? There are games I play for action and combat, and there are games I play for escapism. The Fallout series have always been games I've played for the latter experience. There are plenty of games out there that are designed for action/combat/loot at the expense of having an immersive setting (Borderlands, for example). I'm not talking about realism, mind you, I'm talking about believability that comes from cohesion and details. Realism is something else altogether. I've always seen Fallout as something more stimulating to the imagination than the action/combat skills. Again, just my opinion.
User avatar
JR Cash
 
Posts: 3441
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2007 12:59 pm

Post » Thu Jun 04, 2009 1:23 pm

In FO3 we could detonate a nuke and destroy an entire town=epic
did anyone remember the behemoth inside the white house=EPIC
also Liberty Prime destroying everything in his way=FREAKING

is it just me or do u guys think that New Vegas lacked big epic battles anyways please don't troll me
I would say so yes; but all of these I could have done without in Fallout 3, and am [honestly] glad to hear that they don't have re-skinned equivalents in New Vegas.

The Fallout series have always been games I've played for the latter experience. There are plenty of games out there that are designed for action/combat/loot at the expense of having an immersive setting (Borderlands, for example). I'm not talking about realism, mind you, I'm talking about believability that comes from cohesion and details.
Fallout was the Brocoli & Brussel Sprouts of RPG'dom :lol:
User avatar
Laura Simmonds
 
Posts: 3435
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:27 pm

Post » Thu Jun 04, 2009 11:50 am

So Fallout 3 decides what is Fallout?
I thought Fallout 1 did that. :rolleyes:
Fallout 3 doesn't decide anything, it's the odd one out in the series. (Hmmm, 2nd most odd one I guess, we do have F:BOS...)

WE MUSNT SPEAK OF THE BURNED GAMES TRUE NAME. -Foams at the mouth-
User avatar
adame
 
Posts: 3454
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 2:57 am

PreviousNext

Return to Fallout: New Vegas