Thanks god obsidian dosn't make an other fallout :)

[kelticpete]

this old thread?

 

first, decisions matter way more in FNV. if you make certain choices, do certain things, way more changes that what changed in fallout 3.

 

secondly, if you think it was solely or largely obsidian's idea to use a lot of the fallout 3 assets and gamebryo engine? I would venture that bethesday gave them a time frame that precluded a major overhaul.

 

any intelligent person who read about Fallout new vegas before it came out KNEW that the graphics would be a bit dated. I can't remember how many reviews mentioned that the graphics were not so great and that it was because they were using an engine/assets that were older than a lot of new games coming out.

 

 

 

and there is no such thing as a single "post-apocalypse feel" there is merely a stereotype of what that would be like. I lived in a town of 5000 in georgia for a year. if the world got nuked, that town would be post-apocaplyse in economy, government, etc...it just would not have the "movie apocalypse look.

[brfritos]

I think people are a little unfair with Obsidian.

 

Sure, the game had tons of bugs and some nasty quest-breaking on launch, this is not an excuse and is unacceptable.

 

But Bethesda had 5 years to produce FO3, while Obsidian had only a year and half to make FNV! Yes, 1,5 years x 5 years.

 

If only they had 6 more moths they could've finished the Legion portion of the game and then...ah, then it would've been a true gem. :smile:

Edited August 29, 2014 by brfritos

[Stronglav]

Only Obsidian.

[RaiceGeriko]

When I originally played FO3... I didn't really care for it. It's been so long since then, so I have trouble remembering what it was that I didn't like about it specifically.

 

But then I played it some years later with some mods. The mods didn't do much - they basically just enhanced the graphics a little, added some atmosphere, and provided me with a few things that moved to offer me personally a little bit of a more refined product. When I played it with these mods, I remember thinking about how much better the game was. In short... I just fell in love with it.

 

Overall, what bugged me about the game originally, I think, was that I was unsure if the game was supposed to be a FPS/RPG or a 3PS/RPG. I was fine with either one, but in either scenario, but experiences were just lacking what other shooters provided. The FPS experience of FO3 was just... well... kind of boring without VATS. But VATS alone the combat did not make. It worked really well, sure. But it was never designed to be the only way to engage in combat. And the combat outside of VATS was just... kind of terrible.

 

By that time, Call of Duty (the first game) had been released, and that franchise in those days was just brilliant. CoD brought something to the table that no other FPS had offered - Aiming Down the Sights. It was just something that as soon as you played it, you couldn't play another shooter without it again. This was something that bugged me about Half-Life 2 as well. There was just no reason not to have it as it provided you, the gamer, the ability to connect with the action like never before. FO3 didn't have this, and it really suffered for it. Add to the fact that there was no sprint feature and a few other QOL features in FPS's... it just always felt like a strange game that I couldn't enjoy.

 

Third Person was even worse, and was a staple of most Bethesda games. The animations were horrendous. The general feel of your character running around in the world felt departed - like they were just floating or they were weightless. The aiming was off putting. At the time, cover mechanics weren't really a thing, but the way everything moved around so fast as if it had no weight... it was just an alien experience. Skyrim still has remnants of this weightless feeling, but it isn't nearly as bad as it had been in their previous titles.

 

The mods I used addressed these features, and essentially gave me a more well rounded foundation for playing a shooter. After I installed these mods, I was able to enjoy FO3. And it was, for lack of a better way of saying it, brilliant. It's probably one of my all time favorite games.

 

The world design was interesting. The world I was exploring was interesting. The theme of the game, sort of a 1950's retro-futurism after nuclear fallout. I'm playing through FO1 and afterwards 2 now, but FO3 nailed it in just about every aspect. The computers, the old tech, the building designs. All of it gave me the experience of this world and this setting, and I had nearly boundless avenues of exploration. The main story wasn't even that bad and became more and more interesting as you got closer to finding your father. It wasn't the greatest thing since sliced bread, but it was enough. Add to that all the side quests and themeparks thrown on top of the unprecedented level of exploration... it was a great game.

 

New Vegas, to me, felt like they took FO3, gave me the Aiming Down the Sight mod (like they were really doing something special there); put me in a Linear Path World Map that rail-roaded me into all the major points of interests because they were all tied into the main story line; gave me zero interesting places to explore just because; half finished all the level designs (Vegas itself was so disappointing - it felt like the work of a one man mod team that only works on it on the weekends); completely altered the tesla-retro-futurism vibe of FO3, which ended up feeling like a game with zero direction and focus; and then put in a bunch of dialogue that was so good, it only proved to point out how bad everything else about the game was.

 

That being said, there are some rumors running around about how FONV was created by the original team of the series. This is just wrong.

 

There are 2 people who were in the production of FONV that came from the original team:

 

Josh Sawyer: NV's Lead Designer didn't even work on previous FO titles. He was an employee for Black Isle that worked on Icewind Dale. He had nothing to do with FO1 or FO2. No one ever brings this guy up, though.

 

Chris Avellone: This is the guy everyone talks about when they talk about how much better NV is than FO3 in every aspect because, "It was made by the original guy and is closer to the original vision." No.

 

Chris Avellone was a Designer in Fallout 2. He wasn't even the Lead Designer - which means he had zero creative control. He had nothing to do with creating the concept of Fallout or establishing the vision. All of that grunt work was done and created by Chris Taylor in Fallout 1. Fallout 2 was Fallout 1: The Meatier Version. They could spend more time on the RPG aspects, because they didn't have to create everything else in the game. They were on easy mode when developing FO2, and it's the same thing with NV. All of the grunt work with the engine and tone of the game had already been established with FO3.

 

So for me... New Vegas is not the better game. And it certainly doesn't get a free pass in any field just because 2 guys from Black Isle Studios - one of whom only worked on FO2, the other of which had never even worked in the franchise before - somehow were thought to be Fallout Gurus... when they actually aren't.

 

Fallout New Vegas is a pretty terrible game once you get past the mystique of the celebrity creator and recognize that he didn't really propel the franchise into a level of mass fandom that hadn't already been established with FO3.

 

FO3 isn't the perfect game. It's old by today's standards. But it was pretty damn good, if you ask me. New Vegas has some good things going on too. But it never reaches that feeling of being a proper flagship game. It feels like one really big mod that didn't quite hit the marks in the polish department.

 

Its only real advantage is that it is very complex in story. People usually refer to this when comparing it to FO3. Except the issue is that half the time Bethesda was creating FO3, they were also retro-fitting the game engine with very intense changes and dealing with the concept of how to bring FO into a 3D game experience. not to mention building ALL of the art assets that make up 80% of what you find in NV. Obsidian gave a deeper game because they didn't have to do any of that crap. It's exactly why they gave a deeper story and characters in KOTOR 2 - all the hard work was already done. And it was even easier with NV, because half the stuff they added to the gameplay had already been built by amateur modders.

Edited September 3, 2014 by RaiceGeriko

[Ethreon]

Well see zetenrisiel, most people want to replay the game. If it lacks those dialogue options and the need for 3 apples, there will be little replay possibility. Why would I replay a game where I did all I could do first time I played?

 

Just wondering, did you play the first Fallout games?

[greenknightfury]

I had to respond to this due to greenknightfury's addition, it saddens me when so few people actually understand the meaningfulness of freedom, and freedom represented within a game. With true freedom comes responsibility and consequence, for without those, it's meaningless.

 

And you're just a mindless killing machine, devoid of any actually higher-functioning intellect or self-awareness.

 

My responses are in bold:

 

 

Want to be a slaver? You can!

 

And who comes after you if you do? Is a bounty placed upon your head? Do people react to you negatively? Are you renowned as a slaver? Do civilised settlements refuse to let you in? The answer to these things is either no, or slightly yes, except you can fix it for spamming bottles of water at a homeless guy.

 

Oh, that guy blew up Megaton. He's a psycho--WONDER! I love that guy, he was giving bottles of water to homeless people, what an absolute Saint of a man!

 

Want to kill all the slavers? You can!

 

And is this recognised? Do people reward you? Do the friends and/or families of those enslaved recognise your deeds? Do constables approach you with job offers?

 

Without actually making an impact, your actions are meaningless, you have as much power as a very young child moving letter blocks around in their bedroom, which is ultimately a fine analogy for any Bethesda game.

 

Want to be a law bringing Regulator? You can!

 

And then what? Do you get to rise through the ranks and become more recognised? Are you a feared name? Do you eventually end up running the regulators? Do you see raider tribes forming temporary alliances to take you and yours down?

 

Your choice to join or not join is meaningless.

 

Want to be a paid assassin? You can!

 

And if you are, then what? Do the victims of those close to those you assassinated ever investigate or even notice? Does the law ever get involved to investigate? Are you stopped by a suspicious detective for questioning? Do lone gunman vigilantes ever come after you to make you answer for what you've done?

 

Want to kill the ghouls instead of let them into Tenpenny Tower? You can!

 

And do ghoul sympathisers and ghouls themselves think less of you for doing so? Does anyone have an opinion on what you did? Do you find that a ghoul party member you'd otherwise be able to recruit won't join you just because he's heard of the terrible thing you've done? Do people ever talk about how much of a horrible person you are?

 

Want to talk to people to make them let the ghouls in? You can!

 

Do they ever actually discuss things with the ghouls? Do you ever see friction occurring from letting the ghouls take up residence? Do you see passive-aggressive hate crimes from those that felt pressured into agreeing? Do you see any kind of response from either side at all?

 

Want to abandon young Brian Wilkes to a horrible death from ants, or save him from those ants? You can!

 

Sigh. It's desperate of you to try to split it into two so I fixed that. Though, does this ever come up later in the game? Does anyone in the relevant communities actually speak of it? Does anyone have an opinion on it? Is there any impact either way, or is it just quickly forgotten?

 

Want to abandon him to his fate all alone, or find him alone? You can!

 

Again, separating these two is just a desperate attempt to pad out the list. Again, does it matter if you leave him alone? Do you overhear people commenting on how nice it was of you to find him a home? Do you hear anyone commenting that they're annoyed that you did because he has an annoying personality? Does ANYONE have ANY opinion at all?

 

Want to blow up or save Megaton? You can!

 

Again with the padding.

 

Aside from Moira becoming a ghoul, are there any repercussions either way? You get a house, regardless; you get a community with shops, regardless; you get a robot butler, regardless. Is there ANY meaningful way in which the destruction of Megaton leaves any impact? No, there isn't. It's quickly forgotten, as is everything in a Bethesda game. You don't lose anything, you don't gain anything, there are no opinions, no repercussions... it just is. That's not freedom for anyone other than someone with a psychopathic murderer with a god complex.

 

Want to kill all ghouls and super mutants (and incidentally most of the humans) in the wastes with the anti-FEV virus (or not)? You can!

 

Desperate padding strikes again, so I fixed it.

 

Any repercussions? Any opinions? Any impact as the result of this? I'm feeling like a parrot, but the point needs to be made. Nothing happens! You do the thing, and nothing happens! You're akin to a very small child playing with toys. A child and their toys is not a representation of freedom.

 

It's a game full of [completely maeningless] choices that [have absolutely no impact upon] the face of the Wasteland [whatsoever].

 

Sounds about right!

 

And there you have it.

 

Anyone who believes there's any freedom in Fallout 3 is a person who doesn't possess a mature mind and thus has no grasp of the complexities, nuances, and intricacies of the reality surrounding them. For true freedom to exist, there must also always be repercussions, consequences, and impacts.

 

If there aren't, then any action you take has a net worth of zero. Why? Because you didn't change anything. Change is the most important aspect of freedom, and unless you can actually bring about change, you're not actually free.

 

It is true (as I replied to the first reply to the post you dissect so thoroughly just to repeat the same point over and over), that there is no change or response to most of the things you do in FO3, other than the news stories coming from 3 Dog. Brian Wilkes' fate is the exception there, as saving him and getting his aunt to take him in in Rivet City has both of them making comments to you when they see you, the fact they made no other NPCs react to it is sad; but as I pointed out I dislike how things are left so flat, despite the number of choices you have.

 

However, other than the exact same kind of news stories from Mr. New Vegas, or occasional NPC comments, there is no real consequences to almost anything you do in FO:NV either.

 

Does wiping out Motor-Runner or Caesar stop their groups from acting exactly as if nothing happened? Does anything you do in almost any quest make any real difference other than certain people being dead or not, or changes to Karma or faction friendliness? Nope!

 

There are four choices in FO:NV that have lingering effects beyond "that guy is dead/not dead"(not counting Arcade's companion quest) while actually playing; Choosing a Sheriff for Primm (they actually are in Primm and you get comments about who you picked, as well as it can effect what is available to buy/how much it costs in Primm), rounding up the "workers" for the Atomic Wrangler, getting entertainers for the Tops, and upgrading or destroying the Securitrons.

 

The consequences of every other choice exist only as news segments and slideshow screens.

 

If you think freedom requires consequences, then no open world game (or even mostly "on rails" game, like the Mass Effect games) has any freedom in it, beyond the consequences of "shoot enough of this group and they will attack you on sight" anyway. The only way to achieve it would be a game scripted to actually change things according to your actions, which honestly shouldn't be so hard in most cases, just a simple stopping of Fiend spawning or Caesar Legion spawning and comments of them scattering and fighting among themselves should suffice...of course then they would have had to find something other than a fight at the Dam to make a climax to the story.

 

Admittedly the faction reputation system in NV is a step in the right direction towards your actions mattering in a game, but it still falls far short of real meaningful consequences. Megaton's destruction has physical lasting impact on the world in FO3 in that there is no more Megaton and you won't see anyone from Megaton again; the closest NV event, clearing the NCRCF of all the Powder Gangers, doesn't stop Powder Gangers from spawning all over the places they normally spawn. I suppose you could argue that the BOS bunker bombing is closer...yet it has about as much impact as blowing up Megaton, just removing a place to walk around in, the NPCs that were there and losing the connected companion. The exact same consequences in both games.

[RecrutLegionary]

Complain all you want but there still making money off of you.

[blaze1514]

Complain all you want but there still making money off of you.

Not off of me they aren't. The games were a gift (as are many of my games, and my Xbox live membership, and my anime DVDs........ My family is very giving)

 

 

I love both Fallout 3 and New Vegas. But I feel that the Capitol Wasteland captured more of my imagination, probably a bit unfairly because I was completely new to Fallout when I played Fallout 3. However, Fallout 3 still has that unique feel to it that Fallout NV just doesn't. Fallout NV takes place mostly in the Mojave desert, which doesn't quite push the "post apocalypse" feel quite like a leveled DC does.

THIS.

 

The atmosphere and world-space of the FO3 is what got me hooked on the series. I would count FNV as my favorite, but until I am able to get lost for real life hours doing nothing but exploring for random crap (and good screenshots) then I cannot say I like it better. If a good experienced mod team (or more than one team) would would fix the world-space, I could recreate the atmosphere with EMB and lighting mods.

 

Until then just use TTW, get the best of both worlds.

 

 

EDIT:

As for the whole rebuilding thing... Remember that the Enclave had a small town surrounding a military base (before those NCR commie's destroyed it), the NCR has 6 (if i remember correctly) cities and around 30,000 - 40,000 thousand citizens (just because you do not see the rebuilt areas does not mean they are not there).

 

On the whole Obsidian vs Bethesda thing... They both state that they plan to eventually make new games. Obsidian says that the unwritten rule is that Bethesda gets the East Coast and they get the West Coast. I just hope that someone makes a game on the Midwestern BoS. Especially since we know they still exist (from comments in the recent games mentioning them), but since the retcon of Tactics we do not know what state they are in. If they do make a game on them, I hope they are somewhat similar to the Brotherhood seen in Tactics.

Edited October 7, 2014 by blaze1514

[JimboUK]

 

Megaton's destruction has physical lasting impact on the world in FO3 in that there is no more Megaton and you won't see anyone from Megaton again; the closest NV event, clearing the NCRCF of all the Powder Gangers, doesn't stop Powder Gangers from spawning all over the places they normally spawn. I suppose you could argue that the BOS bunker bombing is closer...yet it has about as much impact as blowing up Megaton, just removing a place to walk around in, the NPCs that were there and losing the connected companion. The exact same consequences in both games.

 

 

Blowing up Megaton was the most idiotic thing I've ever been asked to do in an RPG, what on earth would I do it for? to have a lunatic that likes blowing up towns as a landlord? it's OK if you're roleplaying a lunatic but not for anything else. There are no consequences either, yes the town isn't there but they've made sure the main quest giver not only survives but doesn't even care that you blew the place up.

[blaze1514]

My opinion on "which is better" comes down to this (I am trying to be as objective as possible).

 

Bethesda made a better game. On the grounds that what they made was a landmark for its genre (Theme-park RPG). It did what it set out to do very well. On the other hand Obsidian made a branching RPG. And while it was a good game, it didn't feel like it was particularly memorable (in contrast to other games set up in similar ways). Plus it felt unfinished in many ways (which FO3, while buggy, did not feel like that). However most people seem to brush this off as "Bethesda's fault" for their deadlines. Maybe, maybe not, I don't think so as Bethesda as a strict quality control for what it publishes, its responsible for the delay of Prey 2 (I would wager that if Obsidian made any noise whatsoever about the state of the game, the could have gotten an extension). So in conclusion I like FO3 more because it felt more finished and refined, and it executed itself in a way that makes many people think they are in control (when they are not). As opposed to New Vegas that should have made me feel in control, but was presented badly and had the opposite effect. Now with all that said, I know it is not totally objective (as everyone is bias to an extent), but I attempted to be.

 

As for my personal preference, I think that a main quest-line lends itself better in a more linear route. I think this lets writers give a more developed (developed, not personalized) story. Then you do most of your world changing decisions on the side (FO3 is set up perfect for this, however the story is lacking and cliché, and their were not enough dynamic side quest to get the "you effect the world" feeling across). However I do not like FO3 better because of its setup, I like it because it was presented better. I cannot put my finger on what exactly about the presentation it is, FO3 just seemed to immerse me more.

 

 

Edit: posted early sorry....

Now as for the "everything you say can be fixed by modding" comments... That is the problem, I shouldn't have to mod a game to make it playable. I can still play FO3 on my console with no mods. However the FNV I cannot stand vanilla.

 

I have a list of mods for FNV that I WILL not go into FNV without... while I have a list of mods that i prefer in FO3.

 

-FNV list that is a must.

A PATCH

Drags NCR (more cannonly accurate)

Legion Overhaul

Uncut series

A texture pack (as its retarded that it looks the exact same as FO3)

A base, or an L38 fix

House/ Brotherhood alliance

Sunny follower

Groovatron

 

-FO3 Like list

MSZ Crew

A follower

Groovatron

 

Although this comes to personal preference again, it seeks volumes that I have a list of 10 or so mods that I will not play FNV without. While I have a list of about 3 that I prefer to have on when possible in FO3

Edited October 7, 2014 by blaze1514