Your argument is soon to be shot down by arrogance.

I stated my preference. I found the camera cumbersome and the gameplay even more so. Graphics were just sub-par for the time, but tolerable. Preference. If you like the game, play it. I don't have to. :shrug:

No, it would receive poor reviews and be seen as a major step backwards from NV due to a far weaker story with very limited choices and limited numbers of quests and factions as well as far poorer features such as more limited crafting and no cooking, lack of weapon variety and weapon mods, no hardcoe mode and less enemy variety. The only thing about it that would be considered better is the much more cluttered and better designed open world with more interesting random stuff to explore, however, most would probably reason that it would not compensate.

The hardcoe mode in particular would probably get the biggest backlash as FO3 is a much better environment for it than FNV as well.

One thing Bethesda should not learn from Obsidian.

How to make so many bugs in one game.

I'm rather tired about hearing how every RPG company should learn from Obsidian. I don't find that Obsidian's writing is much better than any others, heck, writing in video games is rather poor. New Vegas' writing is incredibly weak, Obsidian uses a "Tell; Don't Show" style of storytelling and that's the opposite of good storytelling. One thing I see that companies like Bethesda, Bioware and CD Projekt is that they learn from their mistakes to make the story better in their next game while Obsidian does the same style of having a character tell the player what's up and not showing anything, giving way too much exposition.

New Vegas' story relied on an Idiot Plot. All the Factions and characters had to behave like idiots for the player to have any meaning: The NCR couldn't do even the most basic of logistics to save their lives, Caesar's Legion was Trusting of courier even though there was no good reason to trust him and it really wouldn't have been a big deal to have someone check on the explosion, Mr. House is Trusting of you to the point that you have ability to shut down his defenses and expose him for an execution even though he was recently betrayed, Cassie wouldn't take the Crimson Caravan Deal unless your speech or barter was high enough even though it was paying her to remove a ball and chain. I just really can't understand why this game's story can be called great or even good, throw in the fact that nothing is shown and just told, Even the ending showed nothing and was just a boring and pointless montage with the formula of: if you do X then Y happens. The Boomers prosper and Trade, The Fiends launch a surprise attack and many died at Fort Mcarren. At least Fallout 3 had the decency to show the last moments of your life and left some room to think.

Obsidian and any games company can't limit their writing to dialog, there's far more to writing than that. It's ok to have that style in the nineties when Obsidian was black isle because of the technology constraints but now companies have the ability to Show; not Tell and they should use it. Obsidian Tells and doesn't show and that's bad writing, even for a beginner.

Why does everyone seem to hate NV? It was superior to FO3 in every way, I found. Did you guys get put off by the actually deadly enemies this time or something?

And Alpha Protocol was pretty good too.

Video game stories are cliched. Deal with it. If you tried to have a realistic plot there wouldn't be a game to play. If none of the factions trusted you in Fallout New Vegas you wouldn't have had anything to do. Period. Likewise, in Oblivion the fate of the empire and the trust of the superpowers was given to some random prisoner. Fallout 3 had no decency in its ending, it forced you to choose one side and then killed you off; absolutely pathetic by the standards of any RPG, which is why they had to come back and fix it up (somewhat) with Broken Steel.

Also, if you have a problem with being limited to dialogue and notes, go play some other game then. In Beth style RPG's, you are limited to dialogue and notes. Personally I like the way in New Vegas they used this to make you choose a side based on what you can learn from the biased opinions of others.

:toughninja: ERICK CARTMAN SPEAKS THE TRUTH!!!! :toughninja:

I wouldn't say in every way, but I can see lots of places it surpassed FO3. I did enjoy the deadly enemies also, actually feeling worried about there being a deathclaw ahead that may or may not have seen you was so great.

The storyline in both of them was just... okay at best, if you ask me. But that wasn't my favorite part about them anyways. The multiple choices you had during the game was the best part, well, that and exploration/sidequests. There were so many different factions to help out or take out, along with more weapons, more customizable weapons...etc. I'm a full-fledged Beth really devoted fan (they censor phanboy?) and I can say Obsidian took the FO storyline and did it proud. And considering their company consists of most of the people who actually created the first fallouts.... I'm not sure why anyone is surprised by this.

I really hated how both games just ended after the main storyline was over though.... Having to buy DLC to keep playing afterward was kind of adding insult to injury.

I really want to know why people think New Vegas was worse than FO3. Because it was harder? Because it wasn't Bethesda? Because it was different from FO3?

So far all I can tell is that people didn't like it because it somehow strayed from Bethesda's formula, but in fact New Vegas was a return to the roots of Fallout; something which Bethesda strayed from with FO3.

EDIT, to the guy above me: Yeah, I didn't find the storylines in either to be very great. The original Fallout storylines were the best. And the game ending afterwards did svck, but that's what mods are for! I played New Vegas with the A World Of Pain mod, and it adds like a hundred or so extra locations, plus quests.

You got it wrong. New Vegas was not a great game. That game is filled with bugs.

In my regard, I don't HATE NV. I just think that, quite opposite from you, it was just a rehash of FO3. Combat felt exactly the same, most of the "additions" to the game were mods from FO3 that I didn't use anyway, it was released with more bugs than I've ever played a game with (I actually stopped playing it three days after I got it for about a month, so they could actually fix the game before I would touch it again), and it just felt like a big old rehassh with an orange filter instead of a green filter.

Nothing felt added, nothing felt new, other than the storylines. The new things that were in the game were too small for me to care about. I chalk it up to the game coming out too soon after FO3 and using the exact same engine. The story to me was weaker even. It basically felt like the difference between Madden games year-to-year. Small, subtle changes that don't really add up, with basically a roster update.

And Alpha Protocol was a mess, plainly.

Just one guy's take on it. :shrug:

Actually, you can attribute most of your complaints to Beth. They were the ones who set the deadline for Obsidian, which I agree wasn't nearly long enough.

It's called invisibilty, and it's in TES.

I don't have too much problems with Cliche's in they're handled properly. Having character's behave stupidly for the plot to work when they're supposed to be smart, Caesar is supposed to be a great conqueror the likes of Alexander the Great and he shows no sign when he trusted you, worse is that he's a man who isn't afraid to sacrifice a peon and he could do that to check if you really destroyed the robot factory under his camp.

You don't need to make the factions stupid to make them work. Games like Mech Warrior 4: Mercenaries and Tachyon: The Fringe had factions and portrayed them is competent and powerful, they just needed a Hero to push the scales and end the stalemate. Both games worked out Rather well, they weren't about the stories and
more about gameplay but they didn't have to make the factions to be stupid to make the player matter.

Beth RPGs offer exploration, that's why I play them. I don't mind the stories too much since I really like to go out and treasure hunt, though they have been improving in their story telling, They offered some great show; not tell moments like Growing up in the Vault, the consequences on the choice of saving or destroying Megaton, Finding your Father and your Father's sacrifice in FO3. Yes the Ending svcked but the path to it had some really great moments.

um............those are not even remotely related in any way. with a disguise you can still talk to people and interact with items.

regarding NV vs Fallout 3. they both had their strengths and weaknesses. Fallout 3 had a much better gameworld design and hid their "invisible walls" better. i also preferred the enclave to caezars legion although they dropped the ball on always giving them super damged gear all the time.......thankfully mods fixed that. NV had a better quest set up and of course all the mods that were added into the game like weapon mods, disguises, HTS, iron sights etc. it was also nice to be able to side with the bad guys even if the game did seem steered more towards the NCR. the writing for both of them was standard video game design and it was good enough for me.

one area that NV has shined at is the DLC. the DLC for NV has far surpassed anything from any TES game of Fallout 3. the only thing that even comes close is Shivering Isles but that was a full blown expansions anyways.

I think you got it wrong;

New Vegas is a damn fine games, even with the bugs.

I might buy that, but with 5 different publishers and being unable to really make a good game, the blame the publisher angle doesn't hold much water.

Bethesda could learn a few things about quest design end scripting from Obsidian, absolutely, but Obsidian need to learn a few things from Bethesda about world design, New Vegas is great but the world has a serious lack of random stuff to explore compared to Fallout 3.

i think obsidian should learn with besthesda...

Bethesda > Obsidian :meh:

hardcoe mode was [censored] there should be a REALISM mode where it enables hit loctation damage for EVERYONE Including YOU, arrow through the head one shot kill

Sorry, but hardcoe mode was a frickin joke in FONV. It was not even remotely hard, there are warring factions, you can create your own weapons, man I don't even follow this game and I know that.

wow i read this thread and i raged at how ppl said fallout 3's story was better then new vegas'

god next thing u know these are the same people who think similar voice actors are the best thing ever!!!!

oh yeah as a user who played hardcoe mode i have 2 admit that the feature was a joke lol

I dont know alot about there games but i do know i loved fallout3 and played it repeatedly was looking forward to new vegas got it played it a few hours and it sits on a shelf somewhere i dont know why but i just didnt love it and it didnt captivate me for some unexplained reason as it seems to be very closely related to fallout three which i loved strange.