im i the only one who enjoyed the fallout series more then Oblivion and morrowind?


well :fallout:

Fair enough, but the fact remains they could benefit from ideas in another game, and ones which aren't protected at that. The fact that the game was simply published under their name just means there should be more pressure for them to do so.


You're not the only one. Until Skyrim I enjoyed the Fallout series much more. Oblivion was ok, but with such physical fighting styles character animation becomes more important, and they were just horrible.

Also, Fallout:NV has the addition of specialist hand to hand combat moves, which makes it instantly superior in that regard to all TES games. If Fallout 4 (assuming there is one) carried over the new character models and animations from Skyrim, it would be probably the best RPG yet; it already has the gameplay, making the world look and move better would simply top it off; I'd also like to see Fallout incorporate the Skyrim Levelling system, but keep the weapon degradation, which was a massive part of the immersion and gameplay in fallout games. It means you always need to have some kind of backup weapon when you're exploring.

I agree with OP. FNV had a better system when it came to factions. And probably for the Perk and Leveling system too. TES' levelling system is annoying.

There was no point in joining any other faction but NCR in New Vegas. NCR had like 50x more quests ... the others were treated like the red headed step child in terms of quest content.

The way you can interact with them - even if not being able to join them (what good comes from joining a faction if it does nothing really worthwhile in practice) - and how it matters in the end.

The story of New Vegas isn't just about the main quest, but more about everything in the Mojave. There are the Khans, the Fiends, the Boomers, the BOS, the Kings, the Powdergangers, the NCR, the Legion, Mr. House, Yes Man, the Remnants of the Enclave, the Followers of the Apocalypse, all of your possible companions, the towns and settlements -- and with all those you can interact for the better or worse of them, and all of it counts in the endresult and some even during the game itself due to the reputation system.

It's not perfect by any means, but it's far above from what Skyrim offers on that regard.

Disagreement is one thing. Saying "I prefer FO3 to NV" is acceptable.

But saying ridiculous absurdities contradicting reality is another. Saying NV was linear, while it's a sandboxed game where you can go wherever you want, is completely idiotic. Saying its writing is inferior to Skyrim, while the bad writing is one of the worst point of the game and good writing/scenario is one of the best point of NV, is downright laughable. Don't be surprised to be called on your nonsense if you sprout it. If you're really not a troll, then you need to remove your fan-boy glasses then.

In terms of quality writing and decisions? Yes. New Vegas is better than Skyrim. It's actually better than any TES game; including the revered Morrowind.

The best part of TES is it's lore. There is a lot of detailed lore for the series, and it shows up in books, the architecture you see in the games, the armor styles, the names of people/places, sometimes even in quests. But the information and decisions you get as part of what you actually play has always been, imo, bare minimum. It's a bit disappointing, yes. Especially when you can see this great idea someone clearly had on the development side get reduced to a single tree of adventure. There are plenty of things in Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim and Fallout 3 that I have found that were simply "visual quests." There is no story, no actual quest or reward, no information what-so-ever about certain events or things you find in the world other than the story that scene tells in and of itself.

Remember in Morrowind if you leave Seyda Neen towards the dead tax collector's body and there was a guy who fell from the sky? That is an example of what I am talking about. You get a little bit of information from this guy's journal and the scrolls he had on him, but it doesn't lead anywhere or get you anything (except maybe killed if you're like "Wow, these scrolls are awesome, I'm gonna try one!"). There are also things like quests that, at a glance, a deep thinking player would think that it can be done another way because of information you heard elsewhere; but then you end up finding out there is only one strict path to follow in completing the quest line.

Clearly, someone has some excellent ideas for what would be fun and interesting to play over at Bethesda, but for some reason these ideas end up getting truncated in the actual game.

People seem to forget that NV was NOT a sandbox game, wich makes a huge difference.
There was no exploration and they knew it, that's why they added multiple random shacks as 'locations', a couple of caves with nothing interesting ect...
No interesting areas unrelated to quests, invisible walls all over the place, almost forcing the player to go down and back up the map in the form of the letter " U " (and yes i know u could reach vegas at lvl 1, but that still meant u had to follow the path back in reverse to do quests)

Factions were only pleasing on the surface, each faction only gave u a handfull of quests, and let's not forget that u couldnt really join the Kings or FoA or Khans (sp?)
And u only had one real decition to take near the end of the game..

I can respect ppl that like NV, but i will have to say im surprised that people do because it was soo much worse then FO3

i totally agree with OP and some posts in 1st page. Skyrim, lacks many good features from fallout nv (companion wheel for instance). I just hope the mods make this game better

and i see some disagreements over certain posts, please just ignore the posts that have the really dumb comments. I see these posts everywhere, in every topic where someone suggests something that could have actually improve the roleplaying experience

exactly...in fnw i had really the feeling that all these faction had their own targets and place in the mojawe and that the desert was really "alive" through that...in skyrim i dont have that feeling really

IIRC you could become leader of the Khans and decide their fate depending on your game choices before meeting them..

Fallout 3 definitely had the better 'world' for the player; in fact NV felt a little bit like an expansion pack in some respects. What NV did do however was add a few cool gameplay features which overall made the game better for me. Out of all the Fallout and TES games Fallout 3 was the one that had me most involved in the story, but playing it again after NV just made me miss the ability to ADS and the ability to pull off unarmed combat moves.

One would hope that Fallout 4 would have a world the size of that in Fallout 3, while keeping some of the better gameplay of Fallout:NV.

That is true. My main peeve with Beth games is that they have a crap load of good ideas and potential, but the endresult always seems to ignore or underplay all of it. In favor of what, I cannot tell for sure -- maybe it's the old "Quantity over Quality" issue, but that would be easily fixed without hurting the quantity much at all.



Sure it is. And there is much of exploration -- not as much as in Beth games, but it is there -- in the physical world and within the quests.

And I don't see how an area being related to a quests makes any difference for an "explorer" who likes to ignore the quests and just stroll around than an area having none connected.

New Vegas was a poor experience for me, I always felt like I was missing out on something by going with one faction against another. Making the player complete the game 3 times to experience everything ultimately made me stop playing.

They hit the nail on the head for ME with skyrim. Factions and TOO much choice are detrimental to my experience.

I guess it's a preference thing. Personally, I dislike that you can conceivably do absolutely everything in one playthrough, it kind of defeats the point of character development. Something Fallout did particularly well is make your actions directly affect how other factions behave towards you. Sure it could get annoying, but it meant you really had to get inside your character and choose where you're going to take him.

Also, speechcraft was markedly better in Fallout 3/NV than in Skyrim, where it gets you basically nothing you couldn't get by simply paying a bit of gold. In Fallout:NV it could enable you to cut out the greater part of a quest simply by convincing the guy from the start.

Maybe it was in a DLC wich i havnt bought any for NV, but i remember vividly that after helping them out at the hostage mission i followed them all the way back to their base and there was simply no quests to take and even only around 4-5 npc's iirc.

And yes one would hope for that

Here you assume that your reality is everyone elses, let me tell you how i found vegas to be linear, it forced me away from exploration by having very high level mobs blocking many area's, it forced an ending on me that destroyed my replayability, and the story was not only tedious but walked me along a big U-shape on the map, exploring was made difficult in a way that is not so in bethesda games., hence, linear.



i found the dialogue to be copious yes, but also tedious, lots of dialogue does not automatically equate to good dialogue, is that not an opinion i am allowed to have? it was plain boring.



I am not surprised to be answered, but so far you have called me a troll and insinuated i am idiotic simply for having an opinion, frankly i don't appreciate your insults and hysterically emotive language which is starting to anger me, so i will stop posting now before i return you the favour, as for fan-boy glasses, take your own off before you start telling others to.

It wasn't DLC, I can't specifically remember how to do it, but Great Khan needed to be dead, and I think you had to have sided with Caesar.

But then again, if you make the right options you can convince the Khans to do whatever you say anyway; speechcraft is hands down the best skill in Fallout:NV

Well finding random shack nr 10 isnt really exploration, like i said there was no interesting areas like there was in FO3. Just to name a few: republic of dave, oasis, vaults , paradise falls ect.
And if u dont see the difference between a area related to a quest aka npc saying go check out X compared to actually looking for a place then u simply dont understand exploring.

NV is a good game, but it's a patchwork. Having a lot of factions accentuates that feeling.
The reason why many people prefer FO3 over NV is because the world is more coherent. Same goes for Skyrim.

I agree that having a more complex story tree would certainly be advisable in future Bethesda projects, but having more factions is not the answer to that problem.

I would like to be able to join more but I'm fine with what we have.

You didn't really play the game if random shacks were all you found, or if those are the only things you remember or the most memorable ones. :shrug:

I found the exploration there more rewarding because the rewards weren't constantly there, all around, to cheapen their effects, and I do consider the quests and the different ways of going through them (and the consequences from the different solutions) as part of the exploration too.

And who says you need the quest to go exploring "place X"? That the quest exists shouldn't hinder you in the slightest.

I played through Fallout 3 a dozen times. I never even finished New Vegas.... nuff said.
I'm a traveler, adventure seeker who poke under every rock. So far Skyrim is great, now at lv30

I'm afraid that YES, reality is the same for everyone else, and unless you've got a game with a different content and code in it, you could actually do wherever you wanted and do whichever quests you wanted, so unless you twists the meaning of the words in such a warped way as to make them say anything you want, no NV was not linear nor restricted in exploration.

The fact that you can't kill highly dangerous foes right from level 1 and as such some places are actually dangerous is a plus, not a minus.

Not, copious doesn't equate good.
But it was actually copious AND good. I'm afraid there is no objective scale to measure the goodness of a dialogue, but it doesn't mean that it's not ridiculous to pretend NV dialogue was inferior to FO3 or Skyrim one.
I can prefer the scribbling of a 5-years old boy to Michaelangelo's painting, because it's my tastes, but it doesn't mean the former is actually better than the latter.
(no I don't say NV was on the level of Michaelangelo nor that FO3 was on the level of a 5 years old boy, I'm just illustrating a concept).

I can't believe you actually say that actually relevant choices are a bad point...

You... realize it's EXACTLY the other way around, right ?
Most people prefer NV because it's more coherent than FO3, as FO3 is more of a patchwork of different areas with tenuous links between themselves, while NV is a construct where each part fits in the whole ?

WHY?


Because it was the the very worst part of New Vegas


Having 1/4th of a game, where you had to replay 4 times just to see the entire game, isnt a good thing

Yeah your right akka, I'm wrong for not liking the same things as you.