Three vs N V : Fallout Series Discussion

» Tue May 17, 2011 12:49 pm

I don't understand complaints about "realism," we're playing a game in which you can freeze time and change clothes in the middle of a fight for goodness sake. Games only have to follow their internal logic and as far as I can see both F3 and NV mostly do (both deviate when it would break quests, i.e. at Cottonwood Bay).

Boone the Loon - that's the order I played them in and from the reaction of so many F3 players, by far the best.

I was finding the F3 acolytes habit of continuely posting complaints NV annoying, now I beginning to feel sorry for them, it's as if they've lost the love of their lives and just can't let go. I'm dreading what will happen when F4 comes out, the only hope is the game engine has improved enough to mend their broken hearts.

I doubt it though.

» Tue May 17, 2011 4:45 am

The Master was around for years. There was even the children of the cathedral. Yet people still managed to rebuild. Super mutants in Fallout 3 should not have stopped the people from rebuilding. Some people managed to build Megaton and Rivet City and yet they never managed to try to stop the mutants themselves. Or make better armed trade caravans. No one farming. They just sat there for 200 years. Still the thing with the Radiation which should have gone away.

I don't think people who were near the Master's Army were building much (if at all). You're missing the point, supermutants weren't around for a couple of years inF3 but for many decades, if that had happened in F1 that was the game over. I think Megaton was founded by a man who wanted to protect hos family and Rivet City was founded by scientists who wanted clean water for everybody in the wastes, a small lugary. Actaully you're wrong about farming, a few people figured out how and had set one up in the ruins of a farm but they were all killed by raiders. I blieve the idea that they used more damaging bombs in the West nd more radioactive bombs in the east.

Let's get back to the rebuilding.

F1 had a few raider gangs, mutated creatures, a few hostile ghouls, people trying to farm, and an organized army of supermutants who were heading towards them.

F3 had more raiders then people, about as many mutated creatures, tons and tons of hostile ghouls, everybody who had tryed to farm was killed (probably due to it being difficult to protect a field), lots of radiation, Talon Company Mercs. Who slaughter everybody, and tons of supermutants who kidnap people to increase their numbers.

F1 is like heaven compared to F3.

» Tue May 17, 2011 2:06 pm

People of the West were able to rebuilt just fine and there was an army of super mutants attacking people. The radiation had mostly gone away just 84 years after the great war. Fallout 3 was going for "world ended yesterday" look. Nothing changing in 200 years is just stupid IMO.

You can't say that it is stupid because it is not spelled out why it is as it is. There could be any number of plausible reasons for 'how-come' it is as it is, given a bit of thought, but if not given all that actually happened during that period and what prevented or altered progress, basic logic seems to be just accept it and enjoy the game you bought.

» Tue May 17, 2011 11:12 am

Wiki says super mutants have been taking people in DC for as long as anyone can remember. Kind of hard for scrub NPCs to build anything with 8 ft tall 450lb 6% bodyfat super mutants running around with mini guns and other stuff.

Shouldn't all the humans be dead then?
I mean, why the hell would a human settlement stay there for 200 years if there's super mutants everywhere preventing progress?
Going by this all humans should have left, been killed or been dipped a long time ago.

» Tue May 17, 2011 7:59 am

V87 Supermutants are idiots, if it hurts to think do you think they'd be able to get Megaton's gate open? Besides most of them are in D.C. where there aren't any real towns.

» Tue May 17, 2011 8:08 am

NV kept to the Fallout scenario.

Could you not see the difference between Fallout 2 and Fallout New Vegas, Bethesda's Spin-off?

» Tue May 17, 2011 6:56 am

Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 were about humanity's progress in rebuilding the world. That is why Interplay made Fallout 1 80 years after the war. They decided that humanity would have rebuilt a fair amount by then.

In Fallout 1, you had cities like the Hub with thousands of people in it, well armed caravans, ammo making groups, and farming even with a large army of INTELLIGENT super mutants breathing down their necks.

» Tue May 17, 2011 8:04 am

Fallout timeline http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline, it's well worth reading.

Here are my best and worst lists in brief.

F3: Best - huge world full of detail, incredibly extensive DC ruins, real surprises like Vault 112, lots of random encounters, Fawkes, a very well realised game in general. Worst - short main plot, wasteland a but samey, dull colour scheme.

NV: Best - Great plot integrated well with the side quests, varied and colourful world, ED-E & Veronica, lots of real choices. Worst - Feels rather unfinished, several side quests don't feel complete, crashed a lot for lot of people (not me), not as much detail as 3

» Tue May 17, 2011 6:48 am

Shouldn't all the humans be dead then?
I mean, why the hell would a human settlement stay there for 200 years if there's super mutants everywhere preventing progress?
Going by this all humans should have left, been killed or been dipped a long time ago.

Not everyone is like that. Watchout that I don t get the old fo play them and wonder why this or that isn t right. I can tear apart almost anything that is created.

People wanted to know why DC was like that, I tell them why, now they want know why anyone was there??? Give it a rest.

Believe me I ll find dumb stuff in fo fo2 and fo tactics when I play them, nothing is perfect. If you don t like Bethesda s fo don t get it.

They own it now things have changed a little. I can t wait to play old fo to see just how perfect they were. Even though there is no such thing as perfect. I give fo3 best game ever a 8.75 far short of perfect

I give cod 3 best online shooter ever an 8.0

» Tue May 17, 2011 6:49 am

1. Not everyone is like that. Watchout that I don t get the old fo play them and wonder why this or that isn t right. I can tear apart almost anything that is created.

2. People wanted to know why DC was like that, I tell them why, now they want know why anyone was there??? Give it a rest.

3. Believe me I ll find dumb stuff in fo fo2 and fo tactics when I play them, nothing is perfect. If you don t like Bethesda s fo don t get it.

4. They own it now things have changed a little. I can t wait to play old fo to see just how perfect they were. Even though there is no such thing as perfect. I give fo3 best game ever a 8.75 far short of perfect

5. I give cod 3 best online shooter ever an 8.0

1. I actually would love for you to do that.

2. There is no end to it. FO3 doesn't make any sense, the population, the mutants, the BOS, the agriculture, the production, the settlements, the raider wastelander ratio.
Nothing of it makes any sense.

3. Of course they're not perfect but they make far more sense than FO3.

Let's take Klamath as an example.

Right off the bat you see Torr, a brahmin herder, a brahmin herd that belongs to another guy and plants grown by the citizens.
There, agriculture fixed.

Then you hear about that drunk that he has a still, you hear about the trappers who hunt geckos for meat and skin to sell to caravans. You also hear about them eating rats and that Vic is a trader and repairman.
There, production fixed.

Then we have a bar where another guy has a still, we have a general trader who deals with tech (Vic), a brothel and a motel and even a job board.
For outsiders or citizens there are things to do, things to do for fun and things to do for work.

All of these things were so easily put in to make Klamath make some form of sense.

Now let's take Megaton right, what do people do there for a living?
Nothing.
Some sell stuff and the rest just wander around.
There is no agriculture or livestock, hell, even Moriarty doesn't have a still as far as I can remember.
They don't hunt, at most they scavenge.
So agriculture, livestock and production makes no sense.
It'd make more sense if Megaton was the one place that held control over water and they trade it to outside communities for other wares.
But since that is never stated I can't consider that as a possible fact, just speculation.

4. Change isn't always for the better.

5. No idea how COD made it to this thread. :/

[edit]
3. I think that was a little offtopic. Sorry.

» Tue May 17, 2011 3:25 am

What COD have to do with this anyway?

» Tue May 17, 2011 12:14 am

You can't say that it is stupid because it is not spelled out why it is as it is. There could be any number of plausible reasons for 'how-come' it is as it is, given a bit of thought, but if not given all that actually happened during that period and what prevented or altered progress, basic logic seems to be just accept it and enjoy the game you bought.

No it is stupid. It goes against the last Fallout Games. As in the Radiation was gone. Bethesda's writing style: 1) Idea 2) ??? 3) profit. The blank is left for fans to try to explain. Like maybe they used neutron bombs. Nothing to support that. If they had such a weapon they could have used it all over America.

As for the Super Mutants in Fallout they were around for more then just a few years. People also had to deal with Nightkin. The level of development in Fallout 3 is fitting for "war happened yesterday" but not for 200 years after. No one figured out how to farm. Radiation still all over the place. With all the super mutants and raiders around the people would have figured out how to better defend themselves. It also begs the question, why are they living their in the first place?!

» Tue May 17, 2011 9:16 am

What COD have to do with this anyway?

Out context you should have been able to tell.

Even though I think cod 3 was the best on line shooter ever made I sill only give it an 8.0

Goes with the nothing can be perfect point in my post.

» Tue May 17, 2011 12:49 am

Out context you should have been able to tell.

Even though I think cod 3 was the best on line shooter ever made I sill only give it an 8.0

Goes with the nothing can be perfect point in my post.

So you are using something you said like it is factual support for your argument, what? That's hearsay and inadmissible.

» Tue May 17, 2011 3:32 am

So you are using something you said like it is factual support for your argument, what? That's hearsay and inadmissible.

I m saying that nothing is perfect. When I play those games which will be sooner than later and find things that are not just right, or way too far featched like things in fo3 that people bash. I ll have wierd things in the old games up my sleeve. They can t be perfect.

Wiki say why fo3 was not built up, people do not accept that reason.

They just bash and bash, never listening to reason or accepting new ideas. This upsets me sometimes.

I try not to pay attention to the bashing sometimes, but it is hard.

It just the way I am....... Its all entertaining anyway.........

» Tue May 17, 2011 4:24 am

I m saying that nothing is perfect. When I play those games which will be sooner than later and find things that are not just right, or way too far featched like things in fo3 that people bash. I ll have wierd things in the old games up my sleeve. They can t be perfect.

Wiki say why fo3 was not built up, people do not accept that reason.

They just bash and bash, never listening to reason or accepting new ideas. This upsets me sometimes.

I try not to pay attention to the bashing sometimes, but it is hard.

It just the way I am....... Its all entertaining anyway.........

Because the "reason" contradicts the lore of the game universe, and is therefore inadmissible.

» Tue May 17, 2011 3:23 pm

snip

The "New Ideas" are based on nothing. People can make up all the crap they want about why DC is a radioactive mud hole after 200 years since the great war, while the other three Fallout Games have little to no Radation but its not supported by anything. Why? Because Bethesda does not explain anything.

Because the "reason" contradicts the lore of the game universe, and is therefore inadmissible.

This ^

» Tue May 17, 2011 6:48 am

F3

Pros:
-Exploration and fun gameworld
-Return of the series(even if Troika and Bioware were actually bidding for it too)
-DC Ruins have their charm
-Liam Neeson
-GECK and mods
-Random encounters

Cons:
-Crappily crap writing especially the dialogue
-Atrocious voice acting. Were, not the quality, but I am getting truly sick of hearing the same Elf guy from oblivion EVERY time in F3.
-2-dimensional factions who creepily remind me of Arthurian Knights and the typical "big bag guyz in black armor" (who want to kill you every time they see ya. Figures)
-No choice. You *are* forced to help the do-gooders Brotherhood of Steel and also railroaded into the same ending. Why not the Enclave? Or even the Talon Company?
-The leveling system and enemies are a joke. I could slaughter a supermutant on Lvl 4 with nothing but a Hunting Rifle, and a brute with 10MM SMG(tested). By the level of 10, you are practically a god-
The only thing that Broken Steel adds is bullet sponge enemies.
-Dumbed down SPECIAL(fixed with the FWE mods)
-Companions being nothing more but cannon fodders with generic one-liners
-Every [censored] quest tries too hard to be an "epic dungeon crawl adventure"
-Epilogue is meaningless. The only thing that changes is Ron Pearlman's verdict about your karma. WTF.

Also, the epitome of the dumbest writing i've ever read:

"I'm looking for my father. Middle-aged guy, maybe you've seen him?"

7,5/10

NV
Pros:
-Brilliant storytelling and writing
-Mostly grey factions. NCR wants law but are more corrupt, Legion uses inhumane tactics but with the whole "The end justifies the means" etc.
-Deep and memorable companions. They have their own personalities, opinions on your karma/quest solving and are overall VERY well implemented.
-Voice acting. It's not perfect, but miles better than F3. I like how some of the actors even try a different tone to avoid the clone effect.
-Ability to CHOOSE. It's the NCR, Legion, House or the Independent. People who claim "it always leads to the same!" have obviously not played the game at all.
-You can actually have a BIG impact epilogue. You have endings for the main factions, the lesser ones, towns, hell even some NPCs and your companions.
-Closer to the older Fallouts
-More true to the lore
-Gameworld actually makes sense from the logical standpoint. Also, more consistency.
-Variety in the quests
-Damage Threshold
-Improved Gameplay mechanics
-Iron sights and a lotsa of new weapons + ability to mod them
-GECK and mods

Cons:
-Bugs
-A weee bit empty wasteland
-No random encounters

8,5/10

Dude. Seriously, in what world does New Vegas get a better rating than F3? Your forgetting the most important thing. Atmosphere. That's what keeps me playing. I could care less about voice acting and crap. Give me a good story, atmosphere and motive, and I'm set.

» Tue May 17, 2011 7:18 am

Dude. Seriously, in what world does New Vegas get a better rating than F3? Your forgetting the most important thing. Atmosphere. That's what keeps me playing. I could care less about voice acting and crap. Give me a good story, atmosphere and motive, and I'm set.

People have opinions.

Mine and many others feel that Fallout 3's story is crap. Good vs Evil and it forces you to Good. Very little options and the atmosphere is wrong based on the first Fallout games. Fallout, Fallout 2 and Tactics.

The writing in everyway is crap, not just the story but dialogue. Fallout 3 is more of a FPS with very little RPG in it. Fallout 3 when compaired to all the other Fallouts does not hold water, IMO.

Fallout 3 is just Fallout and Fallout 2's plots mixed together and set in DC.

» Tue May 17, 2011 3:52 am

People have opinions.

Mine and many others feel that Fallout 3's story is crap. Good vs Evil and it forces you to Good. Very little options and the atmosphere is wrong based on the first Fallout games. Fallout, Fallout 2 and Tactics.

The writing in everyway is crap, not just the story but dialogue. Fallout 3 is more of a FPS with very little RPG in it. Fallout 3 when compaired to all the other Fallouts does not hold water, IMO.

You're right in the way that the story was pretty svcky, short and uninteractive. But F3 is still pretty darn fun, right? You've goota agree with that!

» Tue May 17, 2011 8:28 am

You're right in the way that the story was pretty svcky, short and uninteractive. But F3 is still pretty darn fun, right? You've goota agree with that!

On it's own merits it's an awesome game.
But as I wanted a Fallout game, after almost a decade of nothing, what I got I wasn't very pleased with.

» Tue May 17, 2011 8:06 am

You're right in the way that the story was pretty svcky, short and uninteractive. But F3 is still pretty darn fun, right? You've goota agree with that!

Yes I agree Fallout 3 is fun. I played hundreds of hours of Fallout 3. I just don't feel it is a great Fallout game. Out of the five Canon games its number five on my list.

But as I wanted a Fallout game, after almost a decade of nothing, what I got I wasn't very pleased with.

Agreed

» Tue May 17, 2011 2:43 pm

On it's own merits it's an awesome game.
But as I wanted a Fallout game, after almost a decade of nothing, what I got I wasn't very pleased with.

Yep, Fallout 3 is one of my favorite games, but it is my least favorite canon Fallout game.

» Tue May 17, 2011 3:19 pm

Dude. Seriously, in what world does New Vegas get a better rating than F3? Your forgetting the most important thing. Atmosphere. That's what keeps me playing. I could care less about voice acting and crap. Give me a good story, atmosphere and motive, and I'm set.

I have a different opinion, which says that NV is a more immersive and superior Fallout game. Deal with it.
However, there isn't a word about F3 being boring in my review, so stop putting words in my mouth.

» Tue May 17, 2011 5:13 am

People wanted to know why DC was like that, I tell them why, now they want know why anyone was there??? Give it a rest.

Believe me I ll find dumb stuff in fo fo2 and fo tactics when I play them.

You sure will, in Fallout 2 you could even have a talking Deathclaw as a companion ... oh yes, it's true ... so much for those saying "such-and-such" is dumb.

I won't bother taking apart the other nonsense that has been said above such as "It wouldn’t have been like that after those many years".

The early Fallouts were a fantasy "what if" post apocalyptic nuclear chaos scenario ... the same as Fallout 3 is.….
...more about survival than civilisation or humanity building.....
...I have no problem if all following Fallout sequels are like that, for THAT is the scenario I wanted and that is what I got in Fallout 3.….
...a similar scenario game-play and content to the early Fallouts 1 and 2, but now without the Board-game combat of those Fallouts.

Fallout 3 made the Fallout sequel a true RPG role playing game.
That is why the early Fallouts 1 and 2 will always be last on my list of favourites. I am an RPG player, no longer a Board-game player. Board-game play does not belong in a true RPG.

Thank Bethesda for taking over ‘Fallout’ and showing how it should be done. Awards galore from respected reviewers, best RPG, best writing, best….