What group is the most satisfied/unsatisfied with FNV? : Fallout Series Discussion

» Mon Mar 14, 2011 8:55 pm

Well done to Obsidian, they've made a better Fallout then Bethesda did! I know, it seemed impossiable knowing the fact that they had two years with a READY made engine < Sarcasm.

If Bethesda did NV with the updated F3 engine, it would BLOW AWAY the current NV. I'm not saying its bad, but I'd rather have Fallout 4 made by BGS then NV right now.

Obsidian didn't have a choice, and couldn't upgrade the engine. Quit HERPING and DERPING. Not to mention the "READY made engine" is a POFS.

» Tue Mar 15, 2011 2:31 am

Obsidian didn't have a choice, and couldn't upgrade the engine. Quit HERPING and DERPING. Not to mention the "READY made engine" is a POFS.

Oh, sorry. I guess that everyone should have the same opinion as you, master of the universe.

» Mon Mar 14, 2011 10:11 pm

Oh, sorry. I guess that everyone should have the same opinion as you, master of the universe.

Didn't I say to stop HERPING and DERPING? :facepalm:

» Tue Mar 15, 2011 12:04 am

Didn't I say to stop HERPING and DERPING? :facepalm:

1. Imma do what I want, if its not against the law.
2. What the hell is wrong with you. Calm down!
3. What do you exactly mean by HERPING and DERPING? I'm sorry, but I don't repeat some stupid internet memes all the time, thinking its funny.
4. Your annoying. You probably find me annoying so lets not start a flame war and stop it here.

» Mon Mar 14, 2011 11:19 pm

If Bethesda did NV with the updated F3 engine, it would BLOW AWAY the current NV. I'm not saying its bad, but I'd rather have Fallout 4 made by BGS then NV right now.

No, it would be the same ham-fisted, superficial "Fallout" tale we got with Fallout 3.

Fallout 1 and 2 are the Fallout series.

Fallout 3 and NV are the New Fallout series.

Actually, I'd say that Fallout 1, 2, and New Vegas are the Fallout series.

Fallout 3 and anything Bethesda does after it will be the "New Fallout" series.

» Mon Mar 14, 2011 7:23 pm

No, it would be the same ham-fisted, superficial "Fallout" tale we got with Fallout 3.

Actually, I'd say that Fallout 1, 2, and New Vegas are the Fallout series.

Fallout 3 and anything Bethesda does after it will be the "New Fallout" series.

You sir are the most agreeable person this side of the forum. :thumbsup:

» Mon Mar 14, 2011 8:09 pm

i came in on Fallout 3, but love Fallout: New Vegas. im pretty sure that old-school fans and fallout 3 fans are most satisfied at this point, at least from my view.

» Tue Mar 15, 2011 1:02 am

You sir are the most agreeable person this side of the forum. :thumbsup:

Thanks. I only call it like I see it. :spotted owl:

» Tue Mar 15, 2011 1:12 am

Bethesda fans are fans of the amazing worlds Bethesda creates for their games, and Obsidian failed miserably at trying to copy it, leaving Bethesda fans unsatisfied.

Original Fallout fans loved New Vegas from the moment it was announced Obsidian would be developing it, before they even knew anything about it, and the fact that Obsidian managed to create a good RPG turned what was once unfounded love of what they thought the game would be into what the game actually is, so they're obviously the most satisfied. Ever since the New Vegas forum was first created and original Fallout fans started gushing about how because it's Obsidian, it would be better because of this this and this, I knew they would love it no matter what, so it's not all that surprising.

And Fallout 3 fans are a mixed bag, because while a lot of them are fans of Bethesda, plenty aren't, and are just fans of Fallout, or just fans of FPS', and so on.

It's very interesting that the shoe is on the other foot this time around.

And the shoe is going to be on the other foot (the same foot as before) when Fallout 4 is released, and if Obsidian gets another chance after that, the shoe will be on the other foot (the foot it's currently on now) again, only until Fallout 5 is released, upon which the shoe... you get the idea. It's going to become a very smelly shoe if you keep using this anology.

» Mon Mar 14, 2011 8:07 pm

And the shoe is going to be on the other foot (the same foot as before) when Fallout 4 is released, and if Obsidian gets another chance after that, the shoe will be on the other foot (the foot it's currently on now) again, only until Fallout 5 is released, upon which the shoe... you get the idea. It's going to become a very smelly shoe if you keep using this anology.

I can only hope that by that time, Bethesda somehow collapses into financial ruin and the rights to Fallout are auctioned off. And I hope Obsidian purchases them.

Harsh, wishful thinking, I know. But I hope it happens.

» Mon Mar 14, 2011 5:36 pm

Being an old-school fallout fan... as well as a fan of Bethesda... I'm both pleased, and not.

Fallout: New Vegas fails to capitalize on some of the greatest aspects of the Fallout Franchises new existence.

It's vast improvements to storyline and dialogue are nice...

...but the lack of properly staging the environment, the poor usage of characters to fill said environment (also a problem in Fallout 3), and the less-than-subtle way that it panders to my old-school nature really take me OUT of the experience. What I would have preferred was a game that was amazing on its own merits, rather than because it REMINDED me of a game I'd played before. Fallout: New Vegas is the best of the First Person games, as far as I am concerned... but really... nostalgia can only carry the game so far.

My hope is that, in the future, Obsidian and Bethesda -both- lend their particular talents to the game.

If that happens, Fallout 4 might just beat out Fallout 2 for my favorite game in the series.

» Mon Mar 14, 2011 5:09 pm

See, the reason Bethesda fans are upset is because Obsidian didn't try to copy Bethesda's design philsophy, they stuck to their own - which happens to be the same design philosophy which gave birth to the series. This is why us oldschool fans are pleased. Period.

Start up New Vegas. Look around you. See that open world? That's Obsidian's attempt at replicating what Bethesda does best, but their attempt failed. Nobody is upset because they didn't copy every little thing from a Bethesda game, Bethesda fans are unsatisfied because of one single thing, and that's the boring world Obsidian created.

You old school fans are pleased because it's a better RPG than Fallout 3, it has a better story, better quests, more fleshed out factions, and so on. I'm not arguing with you about that. But the fact is that the biggest thing they failed at was creating the open world that Bethesda fans love. If New Vegas was the same as it was now, but Bethesda had been in charge of creating the world, Bethesda fans would have been just as happy as you old school fans are.

And before you try to argue with me about "Wat Fallout 3 had teh crapp worlds lol," I'll refer you to a previous post of mine:

New Vegas improved on almost everything in Fallout 3... 90% of the things I can think of were improved. But, as I've been saying since the beginning, the things it doesn't do right, are HUGE for some of us Fallout 3 fans. The world is so incredibly boring, after exploring 80% of the map I can't bring myself to explore anymore. The world does not live up to Bethesda's standards, and that includes the dungeons.

New Vegas is an RPG first, and a Bethesda game second. That is the major problem I have with it. I don't play Bethesda games JUST because they're RPGs, I play them JUST because they feature worlds I can explore for hundreds of hours and have fun every second. The RPG elements are a bonus. Obsidian did not understand this major feature of Bethesda games, and chose instead to make a great RPG that is boring as hell to explore. I don't think the people who vastly prefer New Vegas and hate Fallout 3 understand this. Just because it's a better RPG, does not make it a better game.

From now on, if anyone asks whether they should buy New Vegas or Fallout 3, I'll ask them if they prefer interesting open worlds to explore, or it they prefer good RPGs. If it's the former, I'll recommend Fallout 3, but only if they say they don't care about open worlds or exploring will I recommend New Vegas.

Now the problem with saying that is, that even though I said New Vegas improves on almost everything, someone will still come in and argue with me about it. A lot of members here are so happy that New Vegas is such an improvement to Fallout 3, that they refuse to acknowledge anything major is wrong with it. Sure, they point out obvious things such as bugs, but they refuse to let someone say a single thing from Fallout 3 was better. Yes, there are some people that are willing to compromise, but most people I've seen aren't.

Did you know that not even Oblivion vs Morrowind arguments are that divided? Usually, if you chime into one of those arguments, the people who prefer Morrowind will be able to list several things that Oblivion did better. But not in New Vegas vs Fallout 3 arguments. It's either "I prefer New Vegas" or "I prefer Fallout 3" with basically no possible compromise in between.

» Tue Mar 15, 2011 2:33 am

No, that's Obsidian being forced to work within Bethesda's crap game-engine. Period.

:laugh:

So it's Bethesda's fault that Obsidian failed to replicate the thing Bethesda does best?

Wow. You guys really will find a way to blame Bethesda for everything.

» Tue Mar 15, 2011 4:38 am

Start up New Vegas. Look around you. See that open world? That's Obsidian's attempt at replicating what Bethesda does best, but their attempt failed. Nobody is upset because they didn't copy every little thing from a Bethesda game, Bethesda fans are unsatisfied because of one single thing, and that's the boring world Obsidian created.

You old school fans are pleased because it's a better RPG than Fallout 3, it has a better story, better quests, more fleshed out factions, and so on. I'm not arguing with you about that. But the fact is that the biggest thing they failed at was creating the open world that Bethesda fans love. If New Vegas was the same as it was now, but Bethesda had been in charge of creating the world, Bethesda fans would have been just as happy as you old school fans are.

Here's a good place to start, mate... coming from an 'old school' fan.

First off, take a step back. These are bitter, angry people... and they have a -reasonable- explanation for it. They've had more than a -decade- of disappointment... and for many of them... Fallout 3 just bastardized the whole thing by slapping them in the face with almost NOTHING they could recognize.

I get where you're coming from, too. You're trying to be reasonable.

But for the majority of 'Old School' fans... reasonability isn't going to come for some, long while. If ever. That's just what happens... and it's a sad thing.

If you really want to help them, refuse to argue with them.

Don't debate things. Don't respond to their endless arguments and outrage at your opinion, if they show it. Why? Because they can't help it... not any more than I can help it when I blow up at someone for saying something I find to be profoundly stupid. It's not right, and you shouldn't let us get under your skin.

Just voice your opinion to those willing to hear it, and understand it, and appreciate it.

Nobody else matters. Its your right to have it. Even if I think it's dumb. (Which I'm not saying I do.)

» Mon Mar 14, 2011 2:32 pm

You old school fans are pleased because it's a better RPG than Fallout 3, it has a better story, better quests, more fleshed out factions, and so on. I'm not arguing with you about that. But the fact is that the biggest thing they failed at was creating the open world that Bethesda fans love. If New Vegas was the same as it was now, but Bethesda had been in charge of creating the world, Bethesda fans would have been just as happy as you old school fans are.

When did Bethesda become synonymous with huge open worlds and NOTHING ELSE?

Bethesda didn't create Test Drive 3, they created Morrowind! A game that manages to be as deep and fleshed out as it is huge and open.

Edit: Daggerfall fans feel free to speak up as well.

» Mon Mar 14, 2011 5:05 pm

Bethesda didn't create Test Drive 3, they created Morrowind! A game that manages to be as deep and fleshed out as it is huge and open.

Yeah, pretty much. I actually hypothesize that Bethesda lost their creative edge when Todd Howard climbed up the corporate ladder and put the entire team into a stranglehold.

But that's probably a topic for another discussion.

» Tue Mar 15, 2011 3:24 am

Yeah, pretty much. I actually hypothesize that Bethesda lost their creative edge when Todd Howard climbed up the corporate ladder and put the entire team into a stranglehold.

But that's probably a topic for another discussion.

Your'e right, but we've got people here telling me what being a Bethesda fan means.

» Tue Mar 15, 2011 4:18 am

When did Bethesda become synonymous with huge open worlds and NOTHING ELSE?

Bethesda didn't create Test Drive 3, they created Morrowind! A game that manages to be as deep and fleshed out as it is huge and open.

Huge, detailed open worlds is the number one thing they're associated with. If you ask someone about Bethesda, 99% of the time they will mention either Fallout 3 or an elder scrolls game, and if asked to describe the game the first thing they'll mention is the open world.

And they didn't create Test Drive 3... they've certainly created a lot of games that weren't open world, but none of them are as well known or as popular as the TES series or Fallout 3.

Yeah, pretty much. I actually hypothesize that Bethesda lost their creative edge when Todd Howard climbed up the corporate ladder and put the entire team into a stranglehold.

Todd Howard was project leader and designer of Morrowind and of some of their Terminator games, so I have no clue what other mystical game you're talking about that is proof that Bethesda was more creative in the past, other than Daggerfall. And even then I'd argue that Morrowind was far far more creative than Daggerfall.

» Tue Mar 15, 2011 3:37 am

Todd Howard was project leader and designer of Morrowind

Best work completed before his ego and lust for power took control.

My thoughts are all pretty "tinfoil hat" at first glance, but I sincerely think that the entire team would be better off without him.

» Tue Mar 15, 2011 12:49 am

Best work completed before his ego and lust for power took control.

My thoughts are all pretty "tinfoil hat" at first glance, but I sincerely think that the entire team would be better off without him.

Don't worry, your thoughts are no different than those of most original Fallout fans. Todd Howard is evil, Bethesda is evil, and so on and so forth. All very standard original Fallout fan opinions. But you're the first one I've seen say "Todd Howard is evil... okay, yeah Morrowind was good... BUT HE'S STILL EVIL NOW!"

» Tue Mar 15, 2011 3:43 am

Don't worry, your thoughts are no different than those of most original Fallout fans. Todd Howard is evil, Bethesda is evil, and so on and so forth. All very standard original Fallout fan opinions. But you're the first one I've seen say "Todd Howard is evil... okay, yeah Morrowind was good... BUT HE'S STILL EVIL NOW!"

Yeah, belittling people is going to get you so far.

Bethesda is a great studio. Todd Howard is the problem. The proof is in the pudding. Go find any interview with Todd Howard, go watch any "making of" documentary for their recent games. Todd Howard isn't evil, he's just a bad choice for lead game designer. It's very clear that his childish visions and talentless ideas are forced upon his team and make their way into the games regardless of how anyone else feels.

» Mon Mar 14, 2011 7:07 pm

Don't worry, your thoughts are no different than those of most original Fallout fans. Todd Howard is evil, Bethesda is evil, and so on and so forth. All very standard original Fallout fan opinions. But you're the first one I've seen say "Todd Howard is evil... okay, yeah Morrowind was good... BUT HE'S STILL EVIL NOW!"

... I'm about to commit original-fallout fan blasphemy.

I -like- Todd Howard. I think he's a pretty down to earth guy, who really loves his job.

I think he's evil. He helped create Morrowind. Morrowind was very, very evil... it consumed most of my young advlt life...

That being said, I think what people misconstrue as a 'lust for power' is really something far MORE sinister, but far less -his- fault: He wants to keep his job. He loves it. And so he's willing to make bad decisions, philosophically, because they're -good- decisions, in today's business sense.

*looks around* Wow... I didn't burst into flames.

Awesome.

» Mon Mar 14, 2011 11:31 pm

Start up New Vegas. Look around you. See that open world? That's Obsidian's attempt at replicating what Bethesda does best, but their attempt failed. Nobody is upset because they didn't copy every little thing from a Bethesda game, Bethesda fans are unsatisfied because of one single thing, and that's the boring world Obsidian created.

You old school fans are pleased because it's a better RPG than Fallout 3, it has a better story, better quests, more fleshed out factions, and so on. I'm not arguing with you about that. But the fact is that the biggest thing they failed at was creating the open world that Bethesda fans love. If New Vegas was the same as it was now, but Bethesda had been in charge of creating the world, Bethesda fans would have been just as happy as you old school fans are.

And before you try to argue with me about "Wat Fallout 3 had teh crapp worlds lol," I'll refer you to a previous post of mine:

I can assume that we all agree that Obsidian's attempt to make New Vega isn't on how Bethesda would have done. That say, I really doubt that Bethesda would have create New Vegas as it was now and I can really picture thank to how Bethesda made Fallout 3. Essentially, a Black and White Fallout with alot of lot of pointless and illogical location. That said, I can say that in Morrowind perspective, they could done both exploration and lore/story in a very depth manner, but along the way, something went away with that.

» Mon Mar 14, 2011 11:42 pm

Yeah, belittling people is going to get you so far.

Belittling people, you say?

And there's the fatal flaw to your arguments: You don't know enough about the series history to form a valid opinion.

The simple fact is that you don't know enough about the series history. You lack the proper knowledge and research required to argue. Thus, any opinion you have on it comes out malformed.

A person who is obviously far more well-versed in the history of the Fallout series than you.

Seems you've been doing quite a bit of that yourself. You seem to have thought it proper to belittle that Fallout 3 fan.

» Tue Mar 15, 2011 3:31 am

Not worth it.