*RANT* How The BoS Is Disgraced In FNV

[kkk122]

Yeah, I roleplay in a roleplaying game. Making a character and then playing it is how I believe an RPG is played. Let me put it this way: if I loaded an Independent route savegame and started doing NCR route, it would feel weird to me - like Arcade supporting the Legion would. Maybe you don't have to start a new char to do a different ending, but I do. Because my character is a character, not a walking model I can steer. I know it's not perfect, making a computer game an actual RPG is practically impossible, but that doesn't mean you should play it like a shooter. If you seriously play only like that, I can see why you found it boring.

 

Indy can be done whenever you want on any save. You can't lock yourself out of it until the battle starts. You can get it if you screw up/ignore the other 3 and you have to live with what quests you did - good or bad. It's supposed to be the ending you can get whatever you do, like when you kill House, Caesar and Crocker, because - and I can't stress this enough - you can.

 

I'm not saying FO3 is somehow too difficult or that I don't have the strategy. I'm saying that Bethesda's idea of "challenging" was "having a lot of health" (ghoul reavers, albino radscorpions).

 

For 11 months Obsidian managed to actually do a lot for the game and you won't deny it. They added a crafting system, really upgraded the companion system, added hardcore, brought traits back, upgraded damage system from the Oblivion one and remade the reputation system. Reputation system, which could have worked in FO3 (like it did in FO2, which had town reputation). And like you claimed FO3 is not about economy of the Wastes, I'll claim that NV is not about recreating Vegas area - the fictional one can be explored with as much success. BTW a lot of FO3 features were actually brought back from Oblivion too.

 

And I can easily talk my way out of a Deathclaw fight - I'll just talk Boone into it.

Edited March 20, 2014 by kkk122

[Fistandilius]

Yeah, I roleplay in a roleplaying game. Making a character and then playing it is how I believe an RPG is played. Let me put it this way: if I loaded an Independent route savegame and started doing NCR route, it would feel weird to me - like Arcade supporting the Legion would. Maybe you don't have to start a new char to do a different ending, but I do. Because my character is a character, not a walking model I can steer. I know it's not perfect, making a computer game an actual RPG is practically impossible, but that doesn't mean you should play it like a shooter. If you seriously play only like that, I can see why you found it boring.

 

Indy can be done whenever you want on any save. You can't lock yourself out of it until the battle starts. You can get it if you screw up/ignore the other 3 and you have to live with what quests you did - good or bad. It's supposed to be the ending you can get whatever you do, like when you kill House, Caesar and Crocker, because - and I can't stress this enough - you can.

 

I'm not saying FO3 is somehow too difficult or that I don't have the strategy. I'm saying that Bethesda's idea of "challenging" was "having a lot of health" (ghoul reavers, albino radscorpions).

 

For 11 months Obsidian managed to actually do a lot for the game and you won't deny it. They added a crafting system, really upgraded the companion system, added hardcore, brought traits back, upgraded damage system from the Oblivion one and remade the reputation system. Reputation system, which could have worked in FO3 (like it did in FO2, which had town reputation). And like you claimed FO3 is not about economy of the Wastes, I'll claim that NV is not about recreating Vegas area - the fictional one can be explored with as much success. BTW a lot of FO3 features were actually brought back from Oblivion too.

 

And I can easily talk my way out of a Deathclaw fight - I'll just talk Boone into it.

 

This is why it's a waste of time talking to old school fallout fans. You've literally like ignored 90% of my arguments and you keep moving on to new topics and at the end of the day you don't have any logical reasons why you don't like FO3, you just do.

 

I didn't say you couldn't roleplay. I said your roleplay doesn't determine how good the game is. If you can't roleplay FO3, that's your own fault. Lots of other people do it with no problem. Where you're mistaken is these aren't traditional RPG's. These are action rpg's. The developer sets the role and you play it. I don't care which faction you join in the Mohave, you're still the courier and you're still going to go down one of two paths, the Legion, or the "good guys." Maybe you can't joint the Enclave in FO3, but you can certainly be an evil character and blow up Megaton, blow up the Citadel, etc.

 

Of course FO3 had features from Oblivion. It's the same engine. But they still had to either start from scratch, or strip all the Oblivion features they weren't going to use. VATS certainly wasn't in Oblivion, neither was a companion system. Most of the stuff you're praising Obsidian for was front end beautification. Reputation (like I said 2x already) is just an extension of the faction system. There was already a faction system in FO3, it just wasn't built up like NV. If you don't believe me, try attacking some Outcasts or Slavers and see if the rest don't go hostile towards you. All they did for the Companion system was create a menu. You could already create your own weapons at a workbench and create your own ammo in the Pitt. Obsidian just cleaned up the interface and added an extra menu for recipes. You're really getting in over your head because you don't seem to grasp how simple these things are on a programming level compared to the work it took to actually create the features from scratch. There's a reason why each Bethesda game refines something from a previous game. Because setting the foundation takes more time and then you have to test how it all works out with your other systems.

 

As far as what you said about the economy, now you're just being confrontational for no reason. The "economy of the wastes" ? What am I supposedly claiming? I said the economy in the DC Wasteland sucks, food and water is scarce, that's why you don't see a lot of those things. What part of that did I "claim" that wasn't in the game? I'm sorry, are you claiming that the east coast should have the same economy of California because FO1 and 2 had a different economy? The economy of DC and California aren't even the same now in 2014, let alone after an apocolypse.

 

And claiming that a fictional New Vegas "works just as well" ? Whatever, that's your opinion, but it doesn't change the amount of time, effort, and research it took for Bethesda to recreate a fairly realistic version of DC.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Fistandilius

[kkk122]

I didn't ignore your points - I either acknowledged them or decided there is nothing more to be said in that matter, where we obviously had different experiences with both games. The one I didn't respond to was "engine limitations on cars" one. Let me do it now. Game engine. Not car engine. Otherwise, I think there were working cars in the NCR.

 

I never said you can't roleplay in FO3. I did, I just liked it less. It was fun, but I liked NV better. I know what you said about roleplaying but I really believe it is important in both games but I prefer NV for giving me a more blank character to make whatever backstory I want. I never said roleplay determines how good a game is either. But I do say it determines how different the endings are in NV.

 

I'm not sure I understood your point correctly, but Legion is not evil. It is ruthless and I don't like them, but it is stated several times they managed to maintain safety and stability in an otherwise savage and vicious lands. No faction is really good in NV, but I'm sure you've noticed that one. I didn't care about the ability to be good or evil in FO3. As I said before, karma system makes you choose one (neutral is just going between the two extremes on a daily basis) and unlike NV most of the quests have a direct impact on your karma, having a clear good or bad ending. As for the reputation system in FO3 - it mostly works with negative reputation, but the positive responses are received mostly based on your karma (although I agree in Outcast case).

 

You did say:

Because the game is about solving quests and exploring and not about figuring out how the Brass Lantern managed to find a Squirrel.

It is a valid statement. You have a point - it is not about that. So I say New Vegas is not about a realistic Vegas area. Especially since Vegas had more than a century to be developed differently as a city before 2077. But yes, it changes nothing about the DC being fairly realistic. Setting up an awesome world is Bethesda's strong point.

 

I see your point about Beth doing all the heavy lifting, while Obsidian just comes along and trims it a bit. I fail to see how that makes NV any less of a game. Same how I didn't consider FO2 any worse than FO just for being similar in terms of gameplay. 11 months was still not much time and just like the stupid Skyrim "epic date" a dick move from Beth marketing department.

 

Anyway, we kinda seem to have hijacked this thread. Having (predictably) not reached any conclusions I suggest we call it a tie (or consider yourself a "winner", I know I suck at arguing). I actually have no idea what would any one of us "winning" mean at this point. I think you'll find I was mostly making my previous points more clear or agreeing with what you said in this post. Sorry, but those posts take me a bit too much time to write and as I recently found out I can't really afford that.

Edited March 20, 2014 by kkk122

[peadar1987]

Hmm... I think FO3, you are so limited in the type of character you play. You're either a white knight, saving the wasteland, crusading after your dad, helping people*, or you're a massive dick, who blows up Megaton, shoots everyone in the face, and poisons the water supply for no reason. You don't get to have any depth, at least, not in the main questline.

 

I've said before, Fallout 3 would have been one of the best games ever with a few changes. Have the Enclave split, one faction is genocidal, led by Eden, one faction is led by Autumn, and wants to use the water to rule the wasteland, not kill everyone in it. The "nice" Brotherhood are the splinter faction, helping the wastelanders, but hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned, and everyone from the Enclave to the Super Mutants to the Original Brotherhood, fortified in the citadel and helping nobody unless it gets them technology. And then a few independent factions, make the raiders a bit more realistic and less one-dimensional, they'll only rob you if you look like you have something worth having, you can join them, unite them, and make a vast army of "land pirates", or else you can side with the ordinary wastelanders, try and link the communities up, raise an army and fight the Enclave, the Brotherhood, and the Super Mutants on your own.

 

They're all fighting over the purifier, because of the power that amount of clean, fresh water would give to whoever controlled it, and your endings could vary from the Enclave setting up a brutal but stable dictatorship, to the Original Brotherhood trading vital water for tech (at extortionate exchange rates), to you sitting on a throne at the Jefferson Memorial, sending raiding parties out into the wastes to bring back treasure and slaves.

 

Compared to constructing the world to put them all in, I don't think this would have taken too much work in the GECK, and the game would have been absolutely magnificent.

 

 

*(nothing wrong with that, it's how I usually play the game out of choice)

[JimboUK]

Hmm... I think FO3, you are so limited in the type of character you play. You're either a white knight, saving the wasteland, crusading after your dad, helping people*, or you're a massive dick, who blows up Megaton, shoots everyone in the face, and poisons the water supply for no reason. You don't get to have any depth, at least, not in the main questline.

 

 

 

Even if you play as a "massive dick" you still have to save the wasteland, that's the problem I have with it, no choices, it's like trying to roleplay Grand Theft Auto.

[peadar1987]

 

Hmm... I think FO3, you are so limited in the type of character you play. You're either a white knight, saving the wasteland, crusading after your dad, helping people*, or you're a massive dick, who blows up Megaton, shoots everyone in the face, and poisons the water supply for no reason. You don't get to have any depth, at least, not in the main questline.

 

 

 

Even if you play as a "massive dick" you still have to save the wasteland, that's the problem I have with it, no choices, it's like trying to roleplay Grand Theft Auto.

 

 

Well, you don't, you can poison everyone in the wasteland for absolutely no reason. Not much of a choice really!

[Fistandilius]

I didn't ignore your points - I either acknowledged them or decided there is nothing more to be said in that matter, where we obviously had different experiences with both games. The one I didn't respond to was "engine limitations on cars" one. Let me do it now. Game engine. Not car engine. Otherwise, I think there were working cars in the NCR.

 

I never said you can't roleplay in FO3. I did, I just liked it less. It was fun, but I liked NV better. I know what you said about roleplaying but I really believe it is important in both games but I prefer NV for giving me a more blank character to make whatever backstory I want. I never said roleplay determines how good a game is either. But I do say it determines how different the endings are in NV.

 

I'm not sure I understood your point correctly, but Legion is not evil. It is ruthless and I don't like them, but it is stated several times they managed to maintain safety and stability in an otherwise savage and vicious lands. No faction is really good in NV, but I'm sure you've noticed that one. I didn't care about the ability to be good or evil in FO3. As I said before, karma system makes you choose one (neutral is just going between the two extremes on a daily basis) and unlike NV most of the quests have a direct impact on your karma, having a clear good or bad ending. As for the reputation system in FO3 - it mostly works with negative reputation, but the positive responses are received mostly based on your karma (although I agree in Outcast case).

 

You did say:

Because the game is about solving quests and exploring and not about figuring out how the Brass Lantern managed to find a Squirrel.

It is a valid statement. You have a point - it is not about that. So I say New Vegas is not about a realistic Vegas area. Especially since Vegas had more than a century to be developed differently as a city before 2077. But yes, it changes nothing about the DC being fairly realistic. Setting up an awesome world is Bethesda's strong point.

 

I see your point about Beth doing all the heavy lifting, while Obsidian just comes along and trims it a bit. I fail to see how that makes NV any less of a game. Same how I didn't consider FO2 any worse than FO just for being similar in terms of gameplay. 11 months was still not much time and just like the stupid Skyrim "epic date" a dick move from Beth marketing department.

 

Anyway, we kinda seem to have hijacked this thread. Having (predictably) not reached any conclusions I suggest we call it a tie (or consider yourself a "winner", I know I suck at arguing). I actually have no idea what would any one of us "winning" mean at this point. I think you'll find I was mostly making my previous points more clear or agreeing with what you said in this post. Sorry, but those posts take me a bit too much time to write and as I recently found out I can't really afford that.

 

Cars are obviously possible, since there's a mod that does it. It has some bugs, but Obsidian would have access to the entire game engine, giving them the ability to do more. That's what people don't seem to understand.... the gamebryo engine that people keep critcizing Bethesda for using.... a lot of games use it: http://www.gamebryo.com/screenshots.php

 

So you have to ask yourself, do these other games have the same problems, or is it simply an issue with Bethesda after almost 15 years of using this engine not using it properly?

 

I disagree with you about the legion not being evil. Their principles are based on hypocrisy and bigotry, enforced by the old "agree with us or you die" approach sprinkled in with a little torture just because they can, but I'll leave it at that.

 

My issue with you bringing up the 11 month deadline for Obsidian is you made it sound like they did a better job with just 11 months than what Bethesda did in x number of years for FO3. I don't see that being the case. My main thing is, I think Bethesda is hands down a better world building team, period without contest. On the surface New Vegas seems like it makes more sense, but when you start analyzing the details, it just doesn't add up, and at the end of the day it's a pretty empty wasteland with a lot of places that just don't serve any purpose. Maybe they ran out of time. I have to question though, whose decision was it to hold them to an 11 month deadline?

 

I also agree that Skyrim should have been pushed back. However, I will say that unless you have a console (mainly PS3), most of the major bugs were fixed and the game is fairly stable and most things work. I'm pretty open minded about these things though. Most people don't think about the process involving making these games. When you design a quest, you design it to work properly. Then you have to sit down and try to think of all the hair-brained ways some idiot 10 year old is going to try and break the game by killing someone or going somewhere you never believed they'd have access to. That process can only really be achieved by game play testing over a large audience and for a game of this size I believe its impossible to make it 100% bug free prior to release because you can only afford to pay so many game testers vs. the millions of people who bought the game the first day. But most people only care about their own experience and they aren't tolerant of that sort of thing. What really irritates me is that they stop offering patches and technical support after a year, when the game is still not 100% bug free.

 

Like I said before, I really don't see this as a "winner" or "loser" conversation. I just get irritated when people start claiming one game or another is superior and then they list their reasons and they don't make sense to me when you think about it logically. I don't have a problem with you saying you like New Vegas more, but your reasons should make logical sense. If you told me you just get the brand of humor better, or you would rather have Marcus than the Super Mutants, fine. But to sit down and make claims about the lore being broken and things that just don't add up, that's where I have issue.

 

Lastly, as far as hijacking the thread, I'll leave that up to a moderator. The fact is, the original OP's statement was false and it was clarified way back on page 1. Everything else in this thread has been a repeat or in our case, an expansion of the bigger discussion, which is between the Bethesda and Obsidian teams and who did a better job of continuing the original fallout lore. The Obsidian team had the advantage of actually creating the FO2 lore, so of course certain things in New Vegas are going to "feel" better, but considering Bethesda added (for the most part) logical connections to the FO1 and FO2 lore, and made the smart decision to move the playing field to the east coast, where nobody really had any information about the country, I think they did a pretty good job of giving us Fallout in an open world 3d style.

Edited March 21, 2014 by Fistandilius

[Fistandilius]

 

Even if you play as a "massive dick" you still have to save the wasteland, that's the problem I have with it, no choices, it's like trying to roleplay Grand Theft Auto.

 

 

I just finished a FO3 character so I started another FONV one this weekend. I haven't played in months and a few things stand out to me. One of them is that yes, you can join several different factions and roleplay in that fashion, but just like how NV has reputation and FO3 doesn't and NV doesn't really use Karma much and FO3 does, it's nearly impossible to get negative Karma in NV and do the quests unless you just decide to arbitrarily just kill people. I'm trying to play an evil character and join the legion, but I quickly realized no matter how much I steal, just doing the majority of the freeside quests put me back in the positive karma bracket even though I took the Mercenary dialogue on several options telling them I wouldn't do anything unless I was paid.

 

Some other things I realized completely unrelated to Jim's quote:

The whole area of Freeside has the worst quests I have EVER done in my entire open world gameplay history.

 

<walks into the atomic wrangler> "got any work?" "sure we need 3 prostitutes" <runs to the mormon fort> "want to be a prostitute?" <runs to east side> "want to be a prostitute?" <runs to Mick and Ralph's> "need a holotape" <runs to robot plant> "Ok fisto you belong to the wranglers" <runs back to the AW> "here's your reward." "got any more work?" "yeah, go collect our debts" <runs to north side> "give me money" <runs to east side> "give me money" <runs back to AW> "Here's your money. Anymore work?" "yeah, kill this guy." "How do I get in the strip?" "talk to the King" <runs to the King> "got any work?" "yeah, go follow this guy" <runs to east side> <follows guy to the north side> <run back to the king> "he's a fake" "good job"

 

All it is is constant running back and forth.

 

At least when Bethesda does a fetch quest, you usually have to at least clear a dungeon and find the item instead of just running around talking to people.

 

Also, I take back what I said about New Vegas being more stable. I recently found out that most of the problems I was having with FO3 were due to a faulty USB connection and when I fixed that it ran pretty darn stable on my system. I had forgotten how much stutter, slowdown, and fps drop NV has, as well as the random load screen freezes and crashes. I don't know what the heck they did differently than Bethesda that caused so many issues, particularly after Josh Sawyer's comments about engine limitations. You'd think he'd have worked it out if he was so much more knowledgeable than them.

 

Lastly, regarding the Deathclaws... I will concede it's a lot easier to sneak past them once you've played the game for a while and you know exactly what you have to do, but I still maintain that it's a ridiculously tough task for newer/first time players.

 

EDIT: Also, more specifically pertaining to this thread, I recruited Veronica, and she makes a direct reference to the Brotherhood in Fallout 3. If you ask her, "Does the Brotherhood protect people from raiders or other threats?" She will respond with, "We've had people go rogue, though, and start helping people. One chapter had a small civil war over it. We take our isolationism seriously."

Edited March 24, 2014 by Fistandilius

[Talwyn224]

Interesting topic & some good points but it does seem to be a matter of personal preference/opinion being put forward by Fistandilius & kkk122 that has been the crux of the matter.

 

To me, FO3 lacks the depth of FO:NV. It's storyline is weak and the ending is ridiculous. It shoe-horned in all the troupes & references from the previous releases but did so so ham fistedly that it still causes controversy now.

 

The strength though of these games is this: THEY CAN BE MODDED! There are mods for both games that vastly improve on the original work. The only down side is the plot line for FO3 can't be altered even though its crying out for a total rewrite.

[Talwyn224]

Plus this pretty much says it all about FO3:

 

 

i didn't like all ending in FONV, FO3 made more sense.

Guys, the Enclave can't work the giant water condenser, obviously we should throw all our resources at them in a desperate attempt to stop them from... Actually I don't know what from, but a big, costly battle sounds fun right? Also our useless giant robot now works because some woman who claims to be a scientist and spent 20 years failing to clean water took a look.