Why New Vegas is better then Fallout 3

[Gopher]

ignore

[minngarm]

Well now that i restarted NV and read everything again, admittedly there is a good reason to leave goodsprings found in your courier contract for the chip;

 

"You are an authorized agent of the Mojave Express Package until delivery is complete and payment has been processed, contractually obligated to complete this transaction and materially responsible for any malfeasance or loss. Failure to deliver the proper recipient may result in forfeiture of your advance and bonus, criminal charges, and/or pursuit by mercenary reclamation teams. The Mojave Express is not responsible for any injury or loss of life you experience as a result of said reclamation efforts. "

 

So yea, the possibility of having mercs come knocking to kill you and anyone who gets in their way in order to recover the chip, would inspire you to go after the guy who took it. Its flimsy but it is what it is. Personally I wonder why theres no option to disappear into the mojave, or the west so as to avoid said concequences(sp).

 

Now again, FO3 has a valid story driven action up to megaton, and from there you can either choose to follow your old man to GNR, or help the townsfolk out which will through a series of quests result in you going in the same direction anyways. As for the lack of freedom to roleplay, there is little restriction. Your 18, you just grew up to become a man/woman, your back story is kinda there yea, but your able to play as whoever you want to be from here on out, its not like most raiders grow up raised by radscorpions and thus hate humanity, they have somewhat normal childhoods as well. Your of the age to finally shape your own life.

[Gopher]

Well now that i restarted NV and read everything again, admittedly there is a good reason to leave goodsprings found in your courier contract for the chip;

 

"You are an authorized agent of the Mojave Express Package until delivery is complete and payment has been processed, contractually obligated to complete this transaction and materially responsible for any malfeasance or loss. Failure to deliver the proper recipient may result in forfeiture of your advance and bonus, criminal charges, and/or pursuit by mercenary reclamation teams. The Mojave Express is not responsible for any injury or loss of life you experience as a result of said reclamation efforts. "

 

So yea, the possibility of having mercs come knocking to kill you and anyone who gets in their way in order to recover the chip, would inspire you to go after the guy who took it. Its flimsy but it is what it is. Personally I wonder why theres no option to disappear into the mojave, or the west so as to avoid said concequences(sp).

 

Now again, FO3 has a valid story driven action up to megaton, and from there you can either choose to follow your old man to GNR, or help the townsfolk out which will through a series of quests result in you going in the same direction anyways. As for the lack of freedom to roleplay, there is little restriction. Your 18, you just grew up to become a man/woman, your back story is kinda there yea, but your able to play as whoever you want to be from here on out, its not like most raiders grow up raised by radscorpions and thus hate humanity, they have somewhat normal childhoods as well. Your of the age to finally shape your own life.

 

Well it's something I guess, but it does not exactly zing does it :) I just really hope in FO4 they start the game off with a bang like they did in FO3. A real history, and some sort of 'emerging from innocence' Fallout moment at the start. Preferably a vault. Hey I love vaults. Sue me.

[minngarm]

If they would make it where the powder gangers would attack goodsprings regularly then it would add more incentive to go out into the world.

[MojaveMike]

"I'm going to leave the vault to find my dad."

"Wont you miss your friends?"

"Friends, everybody in here is an a**hole! Maybe people will be nicer on the outside!"

"I'M A JACKASS TO YOU FOR NO REASON SIMPLY BECAUSE AAAAAAAPPPPPPOOOOOOOCCCAAALYYYYPST!"

"Goddammit!"

[minngarm]

Mike, you didnt really pay attention in FO3, the overseer and his goons are trying to kill you, you have to leave or die. Now when you do leave, you have nothing, and no one to go back to, but the one person you know on the outside, is your father, whos leaving caused all of this. Why wouldnt you want to know the why of it? why wouldnt you want to find him so that you dont feel truly alone in this strange world youve never even heared of before.

[MojaveMike]

Vault 101's experiment also makes no f***ing sense.

 

"YOU CAN NEVER LEAVE THIS VAULT! But we have a secret exit that several people have used already!"

[Shantih]

IMO FNV is incredibly better than Fallout 3.

 

Gameplay aside (DT for instance but that's a big thing or the possibility of playing on Very Hard without having to use a mod to decrease the extra XP you get in Fallout 3) I feel that the story gives you an opportunity to play a role and choose sides whether Fallout 3 was all about following Dad or completely ignoring the main quest. In FNV you're free to ignore Benny as long as you want and you can explore but the interaction with various factions is a very dynamic element that Fallout 3 lacked.

 

Sure Fallout 3 had random events but when you think about it they weren't so random, you could trigger them by taking your character to the right spot (and reload a previous save if they didn't trigger). The problem is that FNV doesn't benefit from the same spawn system hence the importance of a mod like Increased Wasteland Spawns. That being said I still believe that you still need mods to really enjoy Fallout 3 -I don't deny that mods make FNV a better game as well but there is no mod that can improve the writing and in that respect FNV is (IMO) the better game. If you remember the dialogue with Three Dog in Fallout 3 you can't pretend that all the "good fight" talk (with Intelligence check!) is an instance of good writing. I don't remember many occasions when I feel like banging my head against my computer screen in FNV because of the writing (except when it comes to low intelligence dialogue which is pretty inconsistent in FNV but totally absent in Fallout 3).

 

The real difference is the setting and I can understand that some players may prefer the urban setting of Fallout 3. I like wide open spaces so I enjoy exploring the Mojave Desert as it brings back memories of playing Fallout 1 and Fallout 2. The DC ruins made me claustrophobic at times (which is probably a good thing) but I've also felt that it was a bit lifeless (and it's still the case at some point in FNV until you reach Vegas).

 

FNV is IMO a step in the right direction because it brings back some choices when it comes to the main quest. It's less linear than Fallout 3 for this very reason. The major drawback is the similarity of the ending at Hoover Dam whether you side with one faction or the other. Details vary but for it's not that different. IMO it's still a more satisfying ending when compared to the end of Fallout 3 in which you are simply given a unique choice, either sacrifice yourself or poison the water (this for no reason at all -IMO it can only be considered a valid alternative for an unhinged psycho).

 

The real problem I have with FNV is that you can't play after the main quest (without mods). They should have taken a cue from Fallout 2 which allowed you to keep on playing after destroying the Enclave. True you only got a few comments from NPCs and a note from the devs stored in the Vault computer in Vault City but that was a nice Easter egg that rewarded players who were stubborn enough to check the database through the Vault City terminal at least 40 times (iirc).

 

Last but not least I'm convinced that Fallout 3 tried too hard to present all the elements that were to be found in Fallout 1 and Fallout 2. It wouldn't be a bad thing if these elements felt like they belong in the DC Wasteland. Problem is if you've played the original games you know that this is very farfetched (to say the least). Hence the old Fallout fan has to suspend his disbelief to accept the presence of the Enclave and Supermutants back East. Playing FNV I never felt that the references to Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 were out of place because I knew that the Mojave desert wasn't that far off and because I could play my character as if he had been to New Reno and visited the LA Boneyard before. Likewise running into Marcus wasn't a problem to me because after playing Fallout 2 I knew that a place called Jacobstown would undoubtedly be a reference to what Marcus tells the Chosen One in Broken Hills whereas running into Harold in Fallout 3 was a major WTF moment for me because I couldn't see the relation with the Hub or Gecko and I couldn't picture how the old ghoul could have found his way so far back East when he was supposed to have turned into a tree (according to Fallout 3) hence being unable to move (I don't suppose someone came with a shovel and dig him up to take him that far East -if you see the reference I'm making to a Broken Hills sidequest in Fallout 2). I could also mention the quest that brought you back to Vault 101 and quoted word for word the Fallout 1 phrase "you're a hero and you have to leave" it may have been a rather nice reference to the first game but it wasn't subtle.

 

I liked Fallout 3 because I enjoyed playing a new game with Fallout elements but I love FNV because it is a real Fallout game in which I find what I loved in the first two games without stretching my abilities to suspend my disbelief. I'm certainly not the only one who thought about Tycho after hearing about the Desert Rangers or who enjoyed the small reference to the Bishops and New Reno. I was a bit taken aback to realize that my favourite caravan outfit -the Crimson Caravan- had lost its crazy leadership and turned into a more regular trading company (Demetre and his daughter Keri were certainly more fun than Ringo and Alice McLafferty) but I felt like playing in the same world I discovered back in 1997.

 

This is a long post but I think I've explained the reasons why I prefer FNV. I'm not saying Fallout 3 is a bad game. In fact if it wasn't for Fallout 3 and its success we wouldn't be able to enjoy FNV today. That's why I don't blame Bethesda for making a new Fallout game since they could have avoided all the trouble and created their own postapocalyptic series without breathing new life into the Fallout franchise (whether we like Fallout 3 or not it introduced this universe to a new generation of gamers) but I can only recommend that players who have never played the original games give the first Fallout a try to see how good it was. Fallout 2 had too many cultural references (Elton John, Monty Python's Flying Circus, Star Wars, Blues Brothers, etc) to be taken seriously and it ruined immersion and while it was a good game it was too tongue in cheek to be taken seriously whereas the first Fallout is a real gem. I know that the turn based gameplay and the graphics are a major turn off for gamers nowadays but if you can look past these elements you're in for a treat. Anyone who has truly enjoyed playing Fallout 1 and 2 will understand the appeal of FNV compared to Fallout 3.

 

EDIT: I forgot to mention the Brotherhood of Steel. In Fallout 3 the BoS made me cringe. The Outcasts were more like the real Brotherhood who were never meant to be knights in shiny power armours. Anyone who has played Fallout 1 knows that the Brotherhood was feared and considered as dangerous and not to be trusted by outsiders. The way FNV depicts the Brotherhood is in line with Fallout 1 (as it should be).

Edited September 27, 2011 by Shantih

[minngarm]

a lot of good points and your own point of view, side note, not to sound like an ass, but you only need to use IMO once or twice, dont need to go so heavy with the term in the first and middle sections.

 

Only thing I would add on that is about your edit, that was the point of the BoS in FO3, they were recreating it to their own image, and Elder lyons chose to call themselves the BoS and not Outcasts because not only did he believe it was the right direction for the BoS but that he wanted to already establish their new presence in the east as the patron saints of the wasteland. Why the outcasts refered to themselves as outcasts is more a referance to being cast out (obviously ><) from Lyons BoS and not that they are different from the "true" BoS. Infact both the BoS and Outcasts explain this in the game.

 

Its basic politics really, keeping the name, or rather claiming it first in the east would garner Lyons more local support for not only his chapter, but for the ideals he wishs to establish for it. Now keep in mind that with the BoS in NV you see, and more or less get to take part in establishing the same radical change in their own doctrine, to match what Lyons teachs in the east.

 

Edit: lastly its not hard to believe Harold walked to the DC area over the course of his lifetime until the weight as he said brought him down and he planted roots. Its a great distance yes, but its not that great that people havent, and do not still cross it easily enough, even if you account for extra dangers. Not to mention how many years its been since his last appearance.

 

Then for the enclave it makes sense for them to be established near the former military headquarters, especially after the constant failures in the west, they would be in retreat for a time. Not sure if it was this thread or another that i discussed the reasonable existance of FEV storage and secondary labs to explain the mutants, IMO it would only be logical to have more than one facility dedicated to a project.

Edited September 28, 2011 by minngarm

[Shantih]

I just stressed the IMO part because this is all about opinions and as a consequence highly debatable. But you're right I most certainly got carried away with the IMOs. ;)

 

It's interesting to see a different perspective. I have to say I didn't find the ingame justification for what Lyons did to my liking but I'm willing to recognize that if we consider things the way you do then it can make sense. I still think that it was a poor choice on the part of Bethesda to portray the BoS as the nice guys. The original Brotherhood never cared about getting support or recognition from wastelanders because they focused on getting technology for themselves and didn't want to share it with the world around them. Basically that's the siege mentality that dooms them in the end and explains why they failed when confronted with the NCR in FNV. Sure they have the firepower and the hardsuits but they couldn't possibly cope with their losses.

 

The point I liked in relation with the Lyons chapter in Fallout 3 was their dealings with James and Project Purity. Ultimately it was their failure to support James and Madison Lee that brought the Project to an end.

 

I much preferred the ambiguity of Ashur in the Pitt DLC. Ashur's motivations made me think about Kurtz in Heart of Darkness/Apocalypse Now and I could have pictured an entire chapter in the DC Wasteland going the way Ashur did as a result of being cut off from its roots rather than the goody two shoes archetype that Fallout 3 presented with Elder Lyons.

 

As far as the FEV is concerned this is open to debate. I'm not convinced but it's (once again) a matter of opinion. I'd rather consider the existence of Enclave remnants after what happened in Fallout 2 rather than a large scale power the way the Enclave is depicted in Fallout 3. Then again it made sense for the devs to use the Enclave as the main villains for the very reason that it tied the story with elements from previous Fallout games. I think it would have been better if they had developed the Talon Company as a force to be reckoned with.

 

That brings me to another thing that annoyed me in Fallout 3. Basically taking into account the fact that the Burke/Tenpenny line didn't lead anywhere after you blew up Megaton when it could have been expanded into a very decent alternative for characters who wanted to go down the evil path. A sort of Dark Brotherhood for Fallout if you will. Linking it to the Talon Company could have made an interesting questline.

 

Fallout 3 didn't showcase enough moral ambiguity. The Pitt DLC was a gem in that respect. In FNV choosing between factions is not necessarily that clear cut. Granted, the Legion are the bad guys but if you can lose sight of the atrocities and your character rationalizes things by thinking that the end justifies the means then it can be RPed in a way that makes sense. A Legion affiliated character may be evil but he (rather than she) may still believe (just like Caesar does) that this is all for the "good" of the wasteland. The NCR is corrupt and ruthless (Bitter Springs comes to mind). They may not crucify people but they embody bureaucracy and subject the people to a system where vested interests back West control and exploit the Mojave. There is no place within that system for individuals who want to retain their own freedom and individual rights. I'm not saying the Legion is better but the fact is that neither the Legion nor the NCR are perfect. After all the NCR is serving the interests of powerful economic factions like the Crimson Caravans, the Gunrunners and the Van Graffs. The Crimson Caravans are probably as devious as the Van Graffs. They try to crush smaller outfits like Cassidy's and vie to establish a monopoly over the Mojave and then expand towards Utah. Just like the NCR is constantly expanding and crushing anyone who tried to resist them (like the Khans who have evolved from their raider origins in Fallout 1 and 2 or what's left of the Brotherhood of Steel). Mr House and Yes Man are no better. House is egotistic and megalomaniac. Yes Man turns out to be even scarier (you don't want an AI to be the one in control if you value human life). In the end the NCR may seem like the lesser evil but there is no denying that the new order they bring to the Mojave is corrupt and unforgiving. Furthermore the NCR can't bring the rule of law to the Mojave, they have expanded too far and lack the manpower to enforce their new order whereas it is made clear that the Legion (despite the atrocities or pehaps because of them) managed to pacify the East.

 

By turning the BoS into the good guys Fallout 3 failed to bring that kind of depth to the game. It's been a constant in older Fallout games that there are no good guys in the Wasteland (unless maybe you take into consideration the Followers of the Apocalypse -then again one should never forget that Caesar was once a follower).

 

What I missed the most in Fallout 3 was the depth that comes from good writing and elaborate questlines. That brings me back to Fallout 2. If you consider the links between the NCR and the Bishop family in New Reno and the plot hatched to launch raider attacks against Vault City to force Lynette to ally with the NCR and to get rid of Westin in the NCR then you have to admit that this sort of entanglement can only make a game better. It is rewarding for the player because this is not thrown in your face and you have to put all the pieces together to figure it out.

 

In Fallout 3 there was an attempt to avoid the clichéd happy ending by making the Vault Dweller accept a final sacrifice but this was undermined by the fact that it came across as a last minute Deus Ex Machina in the main plot. Broken Steel somehow fixed that but it also forced the player to follow the path of the Brotherhood (or skip Broken Steel altogether).

 

What I'm hoping is that Bethesda takes a few clues from FNV for Fallout 4 and that they manage to bring back some of the moral ambiguity that they presented in the Pitt DLC. Fallout 3 failed for the most part in that respect but if anything I think that they were trying to steer things in that direction and that is a good thing.

 

I hope will get more crazy cults like the Hubologists or the Children of the Cathedral. After all a Postapocalyptic world is the perfect setting for crazy cults to prosper.

Edited September 28, 2011 by Shantih