I think I'm the only one who hates NV's story.

[OpheliaNeoma]

In NV there was absolutely no meaning at all, the end product of any quest was exactly the same and changed nothing in the game itself other than random chatter from non-important NPCs. It was incredibly boring. Fallout 3 actually gave a sense of victory, even without Broken Steel. That you either did X or Y for the best or worst possible future of the Capital Wasteland. And it was really really fun, too.

[Zewp]

In NV there was absolutely no meaning at all, the end product of any quest was exactly the same

 

I think you played a complete different game from what I did, because the NV I played had loads of quests that had vastly differing outcomes depending on your choices throughout the quest.

 

Just a single example was the ghoul quest, Come Fly With Me. You could sabotage them so they crashed their rockets instead of reaching their destination. There were many other quests with alternate pathways and endings, whereas Fallout 3 had very little such quests. There were also instances where you could wipe out certain factions as an alternative to doing their quests.

[hoofhearted4]

oh yea, that quest. either let them fly, or dont. but thats it. nothing happens. no change in the game whatsoever.

[baltasaronmeth]

Both FO3 and NV suck at the story department. The games were fun, nontheless, mostly because there has not been anything like this since Oblivion. However, both games failed horribly at transporting the classic Fallout feeling. They are, in my book, something based on Fallout, shaped as a typical Bethesda game: Big map, do what you want (just without all the crowd and things to do).

[OpheliaNeoma]

Hoof gets what I'm saying. In FO3, you can ruin or save the wasteland, destroy a town, replace an entire community with it's enemy, fortify or wipe out a settlement, etc etc etc.

 

In New Vegas, you can do a huge amount of quests, but there is no large outcome, unless you have the final DLC and

Nuke the NCR and/or Legion.

 

[JimboUK]

 

In NV there was absolutely no meaning at all, the end product of any quest was exactly the same

 

I think you played a complete different game from what I did, because the NV I played had loads of quests that had vastly differing outcomes depending on your choices throughout the quest.

 

Just a single example was the ghoul quest, Come Fly With Me. You could sabotage them so they crashed their rockets instead of reaching their destination. There were many other quests with alternate pathways and endings, whereas Fallout 3 had very little such quests. There were also instances where you could wipe out certain factions as an alternative to doing their quests.

 

 

FO3s main quest was on rails, you had one meaningless choice with the FEV at the end, nothing else. The few other choices in the game we also meaningless or in the case of blowing up megaton, idiotic. Like Oblivion and Skyrim you have a linear main quest accompanied by disconnected and disjointed side quests. Todd Howard said they were huge fans of Fallout but it's obvious from FO3 that they'd never played the game before, they must of run quickly through it, misunderstood most of it and then come up with a shooter that had vague references to the Fallout universe. Bethesda do really need to hire proper writers, at the moment their stories are bland, their characters are two dimensional and their dialogue is infantile at best. After playing Skyrim I really fear for FO4.

[bethjunkie]

oh yea, that quest. either let them fly, or dont. but thats it. nothing happens. no change in the game whatsoever.

 

Not to mention that quest was bugged so badly that many players were never able to complete it. I managed to get through it once in 2 1/2 years.

[baltasaronmeth]

 

FO3s main quest was on rails

 

Even more funny, you could skip half of the main quest, if you just wandered around aimlessly, exploring every house, hole and old facility.

[hoofhearted4]

the writing wasnt great in FO3, thats for sure, but i never had a problem with it. i never thought to myself while playing the game that it was bad. ive played games with worse writing, and games with better writing. i dont look for absolute perfection in any game i play, because sometimes thats not even a good thing. what FO3 did, i enjoyed. i enjoyed exploring and learning about all the different factions, and the pseudo-history of the world.

 

that said, FO could set itself up with some epic writing and storytelling. its all there ready to be used.

[hector530]

 

FO3s main quest was on rails, you had one meaningless choice with the FEV at the end, nothing else. The few other choices in the game we also meaningless or in the case of blowing up megaton, idiotic. Like Oblivion and Skyrim you have a linear main quest accompanied by disconnected and disjointed side quests. Todd Howard said they were huge fans of Fallout but it's obvious from FO3 that they'd never played the game before, they must of run quickly through it, misunderstood most of it and then come up with a shooter that had vague references to the Fallout universe. Bethesda do really need to hire proper writers, at the moment their stories are bland, their characters are two dimensional and their dialogue is infantile at best. After playing Skyrim I really fear for FO4.

 

 

except if you have brokensteel. also how blowing up megaton a meaningless choice? it locks out many other quests, by that logic so is deciding between NCR, legion or house all it does is lock quest because you never actually do get to see how it all plays out in the end