So why does (almost) everyone hate Fallout: New Vegas?

[asdfpepper]

Way to go, I'm making a controversial topic as my first post. I dunno if this has been discussed in the past but being a lazy jackass, I won't bother searching for another thread. (Note: I haven't played Fallout 3 so I can't criticize it yet. Whom what I have heard, however, I think I'd prefer New Vegas)

 

Anyway, most people I know have said that Fallout New Vegas sucks because it "lacks the Fallout theme." I don't really get it, has it recently become a standard for Fallout games to have a completely apocalyptic, grey and literally ruined atmosphere ever since Fallout 3 was released?

Because when I compare Fallout New Vegas to Fallout 2, there are not much differences in terms of atmosphere and theme (except Fallout New Vegas has more western references andgoshdangitdagnabbit-rednecks)

I have only played Fallout 2 and New Vegas since 2011, so I'm not probably the best person to define that.

 

So why do people (mostly rabid FO3-or-gtfo fanboys) hate Fallout New Vegas so much, and what the hell is the Fallout theme they're talking about?

[HazardHighlanders2011]

I have FO3 and I love it. but i don't have New Vegas but I'd bet I'd love it too. i think some of the people who hate it are people who expected fallout 3 to be like the first 2, they hate the Bethesda made games because to them they are crappy first person shooters that aren't made in the way the first 2 main games are. but some people like fo3 more or NV more or like both. but i haven't really heard of a lot of people hating NV. (mostly because i don't get involved with the Fallout community myself and have no idea what most people think)If anything, from what I've read in chat, most seem to prefer New Vegas, but that's a small percentage of people so you really can't go by that. i guess it's some people like either the wild west-ish themed feel or FO3 feel (whatever you can call it) better. But as i said i haven't played NV myself so there isn't much i can say. my opinion probably doesn't count but i threw my two cents in anyway. also welcome to the forums! i hope you have a good time here. i should get involved in the forums more myself.

[asdfpepper]

they hate the Bethesda made games because to them they are crappy first person shooters that aren't made in the way the first 2 main games are.

Yeah, although Bethesda only developed Fallout 3. New Vegas was developed by Obsidian Entertaiment (which consists of many former Black Isle Studios workers) and published by Bethesda.

 

You'd think that New Vegas would be more appealing to oldschool Fallout fans, having been developed by the mostly same team that made the first two Fallouts.

[charwo]

I'm very much an old school fallout fan, having started palying Fallout in 99. I am by no means an expert, nor am I objective, but I will try to keep the bashing down to a minimum.

 

Everyone agrees Fallout 1 was both an awesome story and an awesome game. Fallout 2 is said to be better, but I say that it's only the expanded play. Chris Avellone and his Fallout Bible was the worst thing to ever happen to Fallout, and would have killed a lesser franchise. However, a note is due about ambiguity. In Fallout, it was questionable about everything, and it was assumed that World War III started and ended on October 23 2077, with that day being the invasion of Alaska that went instanuclear. Also the origins of ghouls was tied to FEV, radiation was even rarer than in New Vegas, and though Fallout had the dead world feel, it wasn't like FO3: southern California is already a desert and it had suffered years of horrible drought.

 

Fallout 2 laid the stages of all suck in the franchise by fully embracing horrible ideas like Sceince! And the dead world (though still with some ambiguity) and tribals and the Commonwealth Origin as well as the Enclave. The Enclave was an excellent idea, but it was done all wrong.

 

So why the hatered of New Vegas? In short, noobs got hooked on FO3s faithful take of the book of stupid that calls itself the Fallout Bible, and New Vegas is a subtle but pervassive deconstruction of the atompunk of FO3. And to be fair, Fallout 3 in and of itself is a horrible horrible RPG (better than Neverwinter Nights), but being a great first person shooter sorta adventure. Now I say this with a lot of love bechase I see all games as story building kits. In and of itself, not worth s***.

 

New Vegas deals with ambigutiy far better and even gives a fig leaf to a human cockroach like Caesar. It requires role-play. Worst of all, it breaks the moment. Most people who think post apocalyptic are shallow, only the ruins, only the world left behind. In New Vegas the world is moving on. Moving from the fall of Rome to the Renassiance constitutes two different genres in the minds of the stereotypically trained, although they are the same story: the dynamic fall and rebuilding of a civilization.

 

What's more is that from the endings to the factions, New Vegas is centered around responsibility. Those who want mindless killing and pure escapism could ignore Fallout's potent theme of personal responsibility. In Vegas it is required. That's also the proble with FO3: evil is clearly laid bare. The Enclave has nothing redeeming about it, nor do the raiders nor the Supermutants.

 

Escapism versus immersion. That's the difference: between those who want to understand a world in serious terms and those who want an evenings entertainment. Though do understand I am one of those 'stop having fun guys!' girls. I take my gaming seriously and if a game doesn't pain you, if you don't want to lose yourself In the wonders of the pre war world or blow up Megaton for lulz and adjustment points, you have no business playing. Fallout is fun, but it is never flippant. Low brow aesthetics aside, it's a serious work with serious messages, even when you find a skeleton in a fridge outside Goodsprings. It's art and if you treat it as escapism New Vegas won't let you. FO3 does, but it doesn't facilitate escapism as much as it doesn't demand thought by necessity.

 

I don't like casual gamers who understand RPGs as games and not as storytelling devices. Bear that in mind, but I hope that helps glimmer some truth.

[asdfpepper]

I'm not that serious about gaming, but at the same time, I don't think Fallout as a massacre sandbox made for 13-year old kids who go "lol I PWNRAPED SUNNY SMILS with mah MINIGAWN X--D"

 

People these days seem to think that post-apocalypse is all about ruins. If there's some people left who want to live, then people are bound to start rebuilding at some point. Despite Mojave was barely hit by the nuclear bombs, it's still far from not being ruined to some degree. Buildings do decay after some time.

[charwo]

Considering how easily the Boot Riders went from being 'tribals' to early 60s swinging casino managers, I'll bet anything new Vegas's tribals were as civilized as any group living in modern day Lebanon. One thing that challenged me was New Vegas's conception of tribe. The difference between the raider, the tribal and the small community was blurred in a way no other Fallout had ever done.

 

Technically the Boomers, the white Hairs, the khans and all the gangs of Vegas are tribals, and they don't come off like most of Arroyo and Suilik and those primitives in Zion, barring the New Canaanites. The rebuilding end was fascinating, and I found myself liking Caesar for putting an end to the tribes, but how and to what end are obviously appalling.

 

One thing I wish they would have made more explicit is that both Caesar's Legion and pre war America were not homages to their sources, the 50s and imperial Rome, they were mockeries. They only understood the source in the worst light. Notice how retro pre war people are and then how modern the NCR characters tend to be. Deluge what people told me coming in, NCR isn't just America, it's an America that has made peace with it's past and is trying to move forward. That's a problem with subtlety: people see the NCR flag and think successor state, when Hoover Dam has American Flags all over the place, including the break room where soldiers would disciplined for putting non national flags on display.

 

That's the joke: at Hoover Dam there's a giant sign with an upside down Commonwelath flag saying: America, where have you gone? It seems like the NCR is wrestling with wether it can call itself America: it's ultimately why after I heard Kimball's speech, both me and my Courier decided to back NCR. Although....the Yes Man ending might still happen bechase NCR is not ready to admit Vegas on Vegas's terms...yet.

[gunslinger6792]

I think I can provide some insight as to why some people bash NV. For people who started off fallout by playing fallout 3 New Vegas was very different. Fallout 3 had a clear plot and mission if you will and I liked that. I liked the story plot of fallout 3 I hated the enclave for killing "dad" so and so on. Me personally a game needs a good story plot and for the most part i felt and still do feel fallout 3 had one. thats not to say fallout 3 didn't have its faults supermutants where one. they're a huge threat but without a back story or real agenda they're just there. Fallout 3 was our first exposure to the fallout world. Now to be clear I read up on the other two games first so I had an idea of what happend first, I knew lyons bos was different from the rest and i liked that. I and many others also loved the exploration you could do in fallout 3 something NV is seriously lacking in. So for many of us first timers fallout 3 was a first love and with that comes a sense of nastalgia. New Vegas was very different and very very empty.

 

On the surface New Vegas felt inferior in many ways. The strip or even new vegas itself was empty boring and almost a joke. Compare that to the DC ruins or the national mall and it was a let down. New Vegas lacked true exploring, Obsidian was grasping for straws when they added piles of rocks and an empty radio active drainage ditch as locations. That all said when you look past that the factions where good there was more choice and as many hard core rpg players will tell you, you could actually role play. New vegas did have better companions that actually had stories and the factions where better. Hell if you compare factions and companions from NV to skyrim, NV wins go figure that one out.

 

Anyway as for why people bashed NV its probably because they started with fallout 3 first and had a sense of nostalgia. If theres one thing I've learned playing this game is that nostalgia is a very powerful emotion. thats probably why some old school fallout fans bashed fallout 3 and call fallout 3 players noobs or some such. we all have our idea of what fallout is and each game has had its weak points as well as its strong points. Fallout New Vegas is a great game when you read into the sublties.

[charwo]

I agree with Gunslinger. But it's not just nosaglia: Bethesda's 'roleplaying' desings are much different than Fallout 1 & 2, and set to two different gamers. Fallout, sad to say is a niche game becasue it takes moderate to hard core roleplayers to utilize it fully. Fallout 3 was meant for a general audince and whil general auidences aren't stupid, games for thm are because they need more than to be everything for everyone, be offensive tio know one. They don't take chances.

 

It would have been much braver to allow the LW to join the Enclave, without Dad biting it, and engaging in he intrique between the Fascistic Colonel Autumn and the genocidal Eden. It would have worked far better to explore the dark resesss of the Enclave mind and whether or not the player and thir LW ultimaely aggreed with them. Imagin an ending siding with Autumn, where there was real exploration of what the Enlcave would do with genetic screenings, the massacre of raiders, the extertion of tight, nasy control. In other words, Fallout 3 chickened out on a 'House Ending.' Then again, had House been more 'pro-America'and wanted to be the Prinicpate of a restored US instead of the god king of a desert city state, both me and my LWs might have back him to the hilt.

[JimboUK]

Someone said on another forum, "If you want a post apocalyptic shooter then Fallout 3 is for you, if you want a Fallout game then play New Vegas", a comment I can't really argue with. Bethesda build great worlds but they are useless when it comes to filling them, the standard of writing in their games is woeful, a problem that impacts right across everything. Obsidian didn't put the same level of detail into the environment, they instead created the world through it's people and factions, through talking to people or seeing their actions a post apocalyptic world is brought into being, Bethesda don't have the talent available to do that so resort to burned out buildings to convey the post apocalyptic message. I did enjoy FO3 but I enjoyed it heavily modded and as a shooter, as an RPG it is awful. New Vegas I could enjoy without mods, it has a depth modern RPGs lack, I'd love to see FO4 given to Obsidian, after playing the vacuum that is Skyrim I fear for the future of Fallout.

[gunslinger6792]

Someone said on another forum, "If you want a post apocalyptic shooter then Fallout 3 is for you, if you want a Fallout game then play New Vegas", a comment I can't really argue with. Bethesda build great worlds but they are useless when it comes to filling them, the standard of writing in their games is woeful, a problem that impacts right across everything. Obsidian didn't put the same level of detail into the environment, they instead created the world through it's people and factions, through talking to people or seeing their actions a post apocalyptic world is brought into being, Bethesda don't have the talent available to do that so resort to burned out buildings to convey the post apocalyptic message. I did enjoy FO3 but I enjoyed it heavily modded and as a shooter, as an RPG it is awful. New Vegas I could enjoy without mods, it has a depth modern RPGs lack, I'd love to see FO4 given to Obsidian, after playing the vacuum that is Skyrim I fear for the future of Fallout.

 

Skyrim is a vacuum so much potential but its factions and characters are for the most part so bland. they hinted at things so much when it came to factions or certain characters but leave them alone. I felt in some ways skyrim is worse than fallout 3 when it comes to interesting characters and stories. Raiders of paradise falls have more character than the whole imperial legion. alas im getting off topic here.

 

I don't think fallout 3s factions where as bad as people complained about. tennpenny tower, megaton, underworld, arafu where interesting to me and i cared about their well being. bethesda failed to expand apon that though or show meaniful changes that could accur in the game world.