The Narrative flaws of New Vegas

[Spideyisamoron]

It’s become something of a truism amongst Fallout fans that New Vegas represents a shining pinnacle of narrative brilliance that transcends the works of George Orwell, Margret Attwood, William Shakespeare, Terry Pratchett and JRR Tolkien while Fallout 3’s writing is a load of arse. To be sure Fallout 3’s story has plenty of arseiness to go around but in some ways it surpasses New Vegas and to be honest both games share many of the same narrative flaws. Granted neither of these games are going to be winning Oscars for their storytelling but they both deserve a revaluation to see what went right and wrong.

 

Characterisation

 

Like much of their work Obsidian’s characters are strong on paper but paper is a flimsy thing that turns into incoherent mash when you get it wet. New Vegas’s cast are well drawn, but when it comes to execution they never quite feel convincing. And it all comes down to those three dreaded words that have haunted creative writing classes ever since the first Sumerian poet composed that epic ballad to his pet cat mittens, show don’t tell.

The characters of New Vegas may have intricate backstories and nuances but the only way to find this out is almost exclusively via long winded exposition dumps. You can unravel literally everything regarding Veronica’s past, opinions, relationships, innermost desires and philosophy on life by exhausting here dialogue tree the first time you meet her. The dialogue is well written to be sure, but New Vegas tends to depend on people expositing their life story to the player, and we rarely get to experience their personalities and stories for ourselves. The King assures you that he and Pacer are old friends, yet they never share one word of dialogue. Arcade goes into wistful detail regarding his relationship with the Enclave Remnants, yet we never see them interact for ourselves. New Vegas constantly teases us with fascinating dramas and relationship but never lets the player experience them for themselves.

 

Fallout 3 has no shortage of bad writing, but while its cast is often shallow it often manages to express characterisation in a more subtle, involving way than New Vegas. It’s certainly frustrating that the characters of 3 are so taciturn, offering the player with little detail on their back story. However, perhaps we shouldn’t be so quick to brush them off for failing to divulge their life story to any old bum who wanders in from the Wasteland. After all, the face we show to strangers is rarely the same one we show to our loved ones. Vance for instance will act all haughty and unrepentant if you confront him on his loony vampire cult. However, if you eavesdrop on his conversations with Holly he confesses that he’s worried his teachings are doing more harm than good. Nova will say she’s not in a relationship with Gob but listening in on their chatter reveals she’s lying. It’s never explicitly stated that Dr Li was in love with your Dad and jealous of your mother but it becomes obvious from the way she acts around James and her coldness whenever Catherine is brought up. While the game certainly suffers from missteps such as the lacklustre use of the Brotherhood and Enclave the writing has a bit more nuance and effort put into it than it’s usually credited with. New Vegas by contrast while strong in concept often relies on spoon feeding characterisation to the player, rather than letting it unfold naturally.

 

Tension

 

Both Fallout 3 and New Vegas leave how much or how little the player character is invested in the main story up to our interpretation for a genre that revolves around letting us create our own protagonist (unlike certain other games I won’t name *Cough!* Fallout 4 *Cough! Dragon Age 2!) That said the hook of finding a missing parent is more universal and relatable than trying to give the bloke who shot you and left you for dead a second chance to finish the job.

 

However, New Vegas’s greatest misstep in terms of structure is the lack of a darkest hour. It’s a near universal rule of storytelling that to create tension you need to put your protagonist in an increasingly helpless, precarious position as the story progresses, to emphasise the consequence should they fail. In Mass Effect for instance you discover on Virmire that you’re not just chasing a renegade Spectre but fighting a race of lovecrafitan abominations that have destroyed galactic civilisation again and again. To hammer home the danger this new threat represents either Kaidan or Ashley will inevitably die, putting the player in a position where they’re both genuinely hurt by the loss and left feeling genuinely vulnerable, raising the stakes of the story. In New Vegas by contrast the sense of tension and threat progressively deflates as the story unfolds.

 

At first the Legion seem like a moderately intimidating foe due to their success at Nipton and Searchlight (thought their reliance on subterfuge and deception means they never successfully come across as a force that could defeat NCR in an all-out assault on the dam). However, after these initial victories the Legion remains a static force unless the player supports them. While the Courier recruits an army of techno knights, bomber planes and killer robots to support them in the final battle and wittles away at the Legion’s outposts and allies they remain content to sit on their hands until Hoover Dam. Their sole acts of aggression are the destruction of a single unimportant ranger station and an easily foiled assassination attempt on Kimball. More than a few gamers expressed discontent with the second battle of Hoover Dam but could never quite put their finger on why. Perhaps it had something to do with the villains being the ones who are undersupplied and outnumbered, charging hopelessly at much more powerful enemies. New Vegas never really puts the player in a sufficient position of jeopardy and hopelessness to make them fear the Legion could win. As a result the story lacks a palpable sense of threat as the Legion morphs from a credible enemy into Team Rocket in miniskirts.

 

Fallout 3 is somewhat better in this department, though it to makes many of the same mistakes. The death of your Father makes the conflict more personal, and the Enclave are given some victories that make them a somewhat believable threat (Taking Project Purity, stealing the Geck, destroying Liberty Prime). However, much like New Vegas it bungles any sense of tension in the final battle by having the player trail a 40 foot indestructible killing machine. The classic games by comparison did a much better job of creating a genuine sense of suspense then either of their next gen counterparts. The Enclave’s slaughter of Vault 13 in the opening moments of 2 sets the tone brilliantly, as it comes as a huge shock that the place we spent so much time trying to save in the first game could be wiped out so cavalierly. The player thus enters the game with a sense that anyone could be next. When Aaroyo, the Brotherhood bunker and the Deathclaws of Vault 15 are slaughtered it genuinely hurts because unlike Nipton or Searchlight we actually got to know their inhabitants, making it sting on a personal level. Additionally, the player by this point knows that Deathclaws and the Brotherhood are the toughest things in the Wasteland, making the Enclave’s easy obliteration of them all the more shocking.

 

I’m not trying to poo on New Vegas here. The 1168 hours I’ve poured into it show that it clearly did something right. What I am suggesting is that it might be worth revaluating, warts and all with all of its strengths and weaknesses taken into account so future games can improve on the base it left for them.

[Ethreon]

I've read, some I agree, some I don't. Lack of time won't allow me to go into great detail.

 

"However, New Vegas’s greatest misstep in terms of structure is the lack of a darkest hour."

I disagree here. I'm sure it's some massive writing trope, but why? Not all books have a "darkest hour", and not all stories need one. And perhaps you getting shot in the head and almost killed is your darkest hour, and everything after is the recovery.

 

Also, I think some of the issues are either tech based, or simply times based - yea, they had the engine, but had to build the assets and write the story, code everything and wrap it up in less than 2 years.

[Spideyisamoron]

Think of it this way. Imagine the climax of Star Wars if the Rebels went into the final attack on the Death Star outnumbering the Empire 10 to 1, Obi Wan Kenobi was alive and well and they were pretty sure they were going to win. It would be boring as Hell but that’s the exact position the Second Battle of Hoover Dam puts the player in.

 

By placing the darkest hour at the start of the game it means that the sense of urgency diminishes as the story progresses. Consequently the stakes lower rather than that rise as New Vegas reaches the climax as there’s no sense that the player could lose. The darkest hour works best at the end of the second act because it heightens the sense of danger the player faces as the game reaches its conclusion, in contrast to New Vegas where any sense of tension dissipates long before the endgame. Going back to my Star Wars analogy, much of the tension of the final battle comes from the precarious position the Rebels find themselves in. Obi Wan is dead, Han Solo’s walked out on them and the Death Star is just minutes away from destroying their base. This makes for nail biting drama as Vader kills off the rebel pilots one by one and the Death Star creeps closer and closer. It also makes it so much more cathartic and triumphant when Han swoops in at the last moment and saves the day, because up until that point victory had seemed so impossible.

Edited December 20, 2016 by Spideyisamoron

[JimboUK]

Sawyer said there were supposed to be Legion settlements all down the east side of the map but there wasn't time to implement them, it's amazing they managed to produce what they did in eighteen months.

 

Let's not confuse games with movies, they different forms of storytelling, games like New Vegas with multiple paths are especially different, you make your way through the story and create a lot of your own narrative and that narrative moves at your pace. FO3 could have a tighter narrative because like JRPGs it had no choices, the story is on rails but even there the story moves at your pace, how do you create tension without control of the pacing? you can't. Yeah the second battle for the dam was an anticlimax but that's because it had to run on machines with 512mb of RAM and 2004 graphics cards, all on an updated Morrowind engine, spawn 20 enemies and see what happens to your frame rate even on a decent spec PC.

[Spideyisamoron]

Fallout 2 had an even less linear structure than New Vegas yet it still manages to create a sense of danger and rising tension. We don’t know the full extent of the Enclave’s plans at first but we know they’re out there right from the opening cut scene. We get little glimpses of the danger they pose in places such as Redding and Horrigan’s massacre of the peasants, creating a tangible sense of suspense as we know that sooner or later we’re going to have to take on these seemingly unstoppable enemies. When the second act reaches its conclusion the game ups the ante by having them sack Aaroyo and butcher Vault 15, making the conflict more personal and showing the player that not even the people closest to them are safe. This does not impede on the player’s ability to play the game at their own pace, but these predetermined events give the story a genuine sense of momentum.

 

Another good example would be Someguy2000’s mods, specifically their willingness to butcher characters regardless of how much the player has grown to like them. At the end of The Inheritance Bradley will always die, showing the player that the Syndicate means business. And even more shockingly the climax of the Bounties series has you watch helplessly as Marko mows down an entire town of innocent people, including Steven Randall who you’ve gotten to know ever since Bounties 1. Much like Aaroyo there’s nothing the player can do to save these people, hammering home the sense that the danger the Courier faces is very real.

 

New Vegas could have benefited from similar events. More instances like Ranger Station Charlie where we find them wiping out NCR frontier outposts, raiding deeper and deeper into the map as the story progresses, much like the Enclave in Fallout 3. Perhaps even a quest where the Courier, after progressing far enough on the NCR/House path is captured and dragged before a fuming, vengeful Caesar.

 

Scale is the least of Hoover Dam’s problems. In terms of storytelling it’s rather flat, as it boils down to the Legion launching an attack and easily being repulsed. Compare that climax to something like the end of Mass Effect where we see Sovereign and the Geth easily decimate the Council fleet, overrun the Citadel and almost bring the Reapers back. Even the First Battle of Hoover Dam is painted in much more dramatic terms than the one we actually participate in, with the Legion smashing through the NCR’s defences and making it into Boulder City.

[Ethreon]

Eh, the ME1 ending felt a bit flat to me. Again, I think all your issues boil down to technology a lot, and the lack of available power to draw the conflict/endings as the creators would want.

[Spideyisamoron]

While it's certainly important to acknowledge how time constraints limited the developers that shouldn't constrain us from acknowledging the flaws of the story and how it could have been improved. The Someguy series was made with even less manpower and resources but it still managed to create a satisfying story with multiple endings.

 

I think character interaction could have been better handled. Have Manny try to strike up a conversation with Boone as they pass each other between shifts, only to be told to shove off. Have a few bar brawls and raucous arguments in the Atomic Wrangler, have Caesar talk strategy with Vulpes and Lucius. Have your followers chatter with each other in the Lucky 38. With New Vegas I can never quite shake the feeling that all the NPC's exist in their own little bubble, only ever interacting with the player. Interaction is certainly is one area Fallout 3 exeeds New Vegas in. Hang around Megaton and you'll actually see Moritarty and the patrons abuse Gob rather than just hearing about it second hand. In the Citadel you actually experience the characters interacting, you'll actually have the pleasure of seeing Elder Lyons and Rothchild brickering like an old married couple rather than having to take their word that they're super best buds.

[Ethreon]

A lot of those are scripted interactions in an already bustling script city. And tbh, Obsidian people weren't the best at scripting NV - all I have to do is try and save Hendershot's son and be welcomed by a plethora of bugs that make that quest a pain in the back. It would be nice to have more bark convos, but.. they did what they could. The story definitely has holes and issues, don't get me wrong. But I tend to take it as is since I'm aware of the limitations they have to deal with.

 

And speaking of someguy, let's not forget Russell's decisive battle which is a massive issue due to scripting and power requirements, making it not work on a fair amount of PCs. Or his abandoned and dead project, Firebase Zulu. Limitations all over :)

[Spideyisamoron]

Too true, and it's obvious that by Dead Money they'd already gotten better with the scripting and characterisation issues. The companion's chatter around the fountain and Elijah's mad ramblings to himself over the radio did a much better job at naturally expressing character than most of the vanilla game did. The thing I often find is that a lot of debate on the relative merits of the series is that different groups tend to become very tribal in regards to the games they like (Hello NMA) so I'm hoping to look at the series as a whole in a more balanced way, to look at its strengths as weaknesses as a whole.

 

One area New Vegas did excel in was world building. Whatever its limitations in terms of execution it created a very strong base for mods such as Bounties and Autumn Leaves to build on. The NCR, Vegas families and other factions are all very well constructed, allowing the player to really inhabit the world, even if the story wasn't always up to snuff.

 

Really good feedback by the way guys, its nice to have a level headed constructive argument online for once. :happy:

[Ladez]

It’s become something of a truism amongst Fallout fans that New Vegas represents a shining pinnacle of narrative brilliance that transcends the works of George Orwell, Margret Attwood, William Shakespeare, Terry Pratchett and JRR Tolkien while Fallout 3’s writing is a load of arse.

No, the majority is content to simply use the word "better".

 

That said the hook of finding a missing parent is more universal and relatable than trying to give the bloke who shot you and left you for dead a second chance to finish the job.

Finding a missing family member is such a tired trope. It's serviceable, albeit unimaginative, for narratives in the fantasy genre which tend to be personal tales of heroes that go on a journey of self-discovery. Science fiction is not about the individual, though, it's about the human condition as a whole. Fallout, in my opinion, works best as a science fiction franchise. Bethesda made a fantasy game, complete with orcs (super-mutants), a evil antagonist with no redeeming qualities (Enclave, despite them being wiped out in a previous game), heroes in shining armor (BoS, for some reason) and someone to step up and save the world (the player character).

 

However, New Vegas’s greatest misstep in terms of structure is the lack of a darkest hour. It’s a near universal rule of storytelling that to create tension you need to put your protagonist in an increasingly helpless, precarious position as the story progresses, to emphasise the consequence should they fail.

The "darkest hour" trope, is quite positively my least favorite part of any story that has one. Every time I sit down and watch a Hollywood movie, I dread the inevitable moment where everything is made to crumble for no apparent reason and, instead of simply moving on, the story has to spend the next 15 minutes picking the broken pieces up off the floor and putting them back together.

 

And it's not because I want everything to be flowers and sunshine. I'm the kind of sadist who enjoys the utter despair of things like Breaking Bad, The Walking Dead and watching favorite characters getting killed off in Game of Thrones, but in those shows the suffering is more constant and doesn't have a separate act of the story devoted to it. It's just that writers often cram this stuff in unnecessarily because they feel like they have to, are ordered to, or because they genuinely don't have any better ideas.

 

Stories that deviate from traditional methods of storytelling are the ones I find the most interesting. I like stories where the protagonist is really just a normal person, where there are no clearly defined villain, and where my expectations are subverted by not having things play out according to some archaic standard of how to tell a story.

 

Fallout: New Vegas doesn't have a "darkest hour" or many moments of tension. It's not a bad thing, just different, and the narrative being so grounded is a big reason for why I like it.