3AMt Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) The visual design is painfull for the eye. how does such a worldspace go through quality control??? Has there been any quality control at all? I guess not... The grafics are just worse. Gamplay is worse, animations are worse. Whats the problem, everything worked well in the original FO3 and it looks better by default. Just hope things will look more vibrant again when beth takes over the stick once more. Lets see. Can't wait for FO4 however, 6 years now :( Edited February 5, 2014 by 3AMt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboUK Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 The gameplay and animations are exactly the same as are a lot of the assets, the additions such as ironsights, hardcore mode and crafting were all mods for FO3. You may want to have a look at the imageshare and then check your settings, the game can look very good and certainly no worse than FO3. Obsidian created a proper Fallout RPG, Bethesda created a poor shooter set in a world vaguely connected to Fallout. Fallout 3 had awful writing, two dimensional characters, laughable dialogue, a linear main quest, no choices with consequences and a plot full of holes. Like Oblivion before it and Skyrim after, the game is good as a modding platform, nothing else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrickyVein Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 If all else can be remedied through mods then what we are left with to judge the game by is the quality of its writing, characters, story and quests. Characters in New Vegas have more lines of dialogue than are written for whole Fallout 3 DLCs. I'm more excited by the prospect of Obsidian making another Fallout game than I am for Fallout 4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeeperFiM Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 I think it's worth mentioning that Obsidian is made up of a lot of the people that worked on Fallout and Fallout 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSupernaut Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 The visual design is painfull for the eye. how does such a worldspace go through quality control??? Has there been any quality control at all? I guess not... The grafics are just worse. Gamplay is worse, animations are worse. Whats the problem, everything worked well in the original FO3 and it looks better by default. Just hope things will look more vibrant again when beth takes over the stick once more. Lets see. Can't wait for FO4 however, 6 years now :sad:That was so well put.Good show! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zetenrisiel Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 I've read both sides of the argument, and I think it boils down to Which side of the fence you are on. It seems long time fans enjoy new vegas more, while bethesda fans tend toward the "shallow" world of F3. Personally, I tend to like the latter. Give me a world, make it "breathe" and I'll invent my own narrative thank you very much. Having said that: I like new vegas, but the fact that it's SO deep frustrates me. Having to talk with Arcade Gannon whilst standing in front of primm and having at least three apples in my inventory and choosinG dialogue option 2 in the beginning of the game in order to get his quest is not my idea of fun. I think Bethesda is going to catch a lot of flak no matter what they do. Just as ESO fans and TES fans will no doubt differ on what kind of game TESVI should be, so will FO fans and FO3 fans will try to pull the series in different directions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrickyVein Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 You exaggerate, of course with the example of talking to Gannon in order to have a quest be made available to the PC. Nothing in New Vegas strikes me as 'SO deep' as to be off-putting. Would you care to share some specific examples that you thought were 'too complex' for you? The replay value of a game like New Vegas with its sprawling multitude of branching options for resolving conflict far outweighs whatever 'personal' narrative the player is left with in a world as bereft of meaningful choice or outcome as what Bethesda created in Fallout 3. But the OP was taking issue with the appearance of the Mojave Wasteland. I'm not going to disagree, but it's pretty easy to look past if you take the time with the game and its story. I think people get confused because of the 1st person gunplay they see in advertising the game. I guess they expect Crysis, but Fallout is an RPG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zetenrisiel Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Yes i exaggerated, and your point about replay value is what I was talking about specifically. I don't want to replay it. I want a persistant world where my decisions mean something to it. For you replay and making different decisions may be fun. We both are fans of the game but we want different things. That's what i was saying. A specific example other than Gannon would be Veronica and vault 22. If you did the quest foe Ncr, even with Veronica with you, her personal quest is never resolved down that avenue. Even if (spoiler) she was three feet away when I deleted the data(/spoiler) Another since I just finished it, is Honest hearts. You are forced down an irrevocable path, which is fine, but then at the last scene with Joshua you are forced into a dialogue check, which you were totally unprepared for and will likely fail unless you knew enough from a wiki or previous playthrough to plan ahead for. There are similar situations in OWB and most especially Dead Money. Going to the Sierra Madre at lv 15, you would have had to consciously put points into medicine from nearly the start of the game, certainly well before the DlC in order to be able to pass the check to save dog/god. Many times the skill checks are moderately appropriate, but for a gunslinging treasure hunter/gambler to have medicine at 75 or 80 by level 20 is unrealistic for a blind playthrough. On a side quest sure, but if you stick it in a main quest and make it your *only* dialogue option it leaves me unsatisfied that the game chose my answer, not me. My response was more in regard to the earlier posts. I dont mind the graphics but the world doesn't seem finished. Most of the vegas outskirts are fully built places with nothing of note. I woukd rather walk through a huge area of nothing to find one neat secret that have an area like the housing part of primm, which serves no purpose storywise and has inly generic NPCs that dont even interact with the rest of the town. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssskoopa Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 but for a gunslinging treasure hunter/gambler to have medicine at 75 or 80 by level 20 is unrealistic for a blind playthrough.That's why the DLC tells you that your Courier need to be at least level 20 PLUS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nivea Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Wow zetenrisiel, you really DO want something 100000% different then most Fallout series fans. I can see why you do not enjoy FNV the replay is a important part of the series since you make different choices in each play through and be a different kind of person as well. Have you tried the Metro series those might be more your style (I enjoy them to). Neither of the games are "Better" then the other, we all want different things in our games. But it is wrong to look down on Obsidian for making a proper Fallout series game or even in a different setting, its just different. Though I find it amusing when people complain about some things that are actually persistent through both games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts