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

[Guest Messenjah]

I wouldn't say that everyone hates New Vegas either.

 

I have my issues with New Vegas but, they are issues found in almost all games these days.

 

Fallout 3 re-introduced us to the Fallout universe with a brand-new take on it and on the other side of the country, unlike previous games. It's story was easier to follow but also stronger, more focused, and less general. This is because it was focused on a lore-changing events that take place at the end of the story. While this proved to be great story for a first-person shooter that had a focused goal that was inevitable, it also took away from true RPG elements and caused the game to take a very linear path.

 

The problem with this, is that the player is set out to start with good-intent for the world right from the start and eventually also ends on this note. You can be a jerk.. you can be a really big jerk, but in the end, it is all about the common good. There is no way to choose a completely different path and become evil.

 

Also, I felt like the enclave was a great storytelling device that was set up for the FO universe in FO2 that was never fully realized. The issue with FO3 is that by the end, whatever is left of the Enclave is utterly destroyed, getting rid of the games most powerful and dominating enemy force right away. I would have loved it if in FO3, we heard rumor of the surviving enclave setting up base somewhere else within the states after the events in FO2 and they were re-establishing themselves with a new president and recruiting people to build up their army. Perhaps in FO3 they could have been setting up base in D.C. but their primary base of operations was not held there. Perhaps the player could have found Dad but, Dad was now impartial because, as he was a scientist, he was morally brainwashed by their ideas. The player could have sided with enclave at the end or wiped them out as a choice.

 

This way, they could continue the franchise and allow further and deeper story development for the enclave. For example, a civil war could have happened between the president of the NCR and the president of the Enclave that effected a number of states and could have continued on through more games. The NCR and Enclave could have helped re-build societies within the states that they controlled in their own ways. If the NCR took control away from the Enclave by the end, then they could have re-established a new government for the U.S. and perhaps society could finally become re-organized. Perhaps they could have followed this up with another conflict with the Chinese. :) Lots of really great storytelling devices could have been spawned off from this. However, by wiping out the Enclave, they have removed a great way to evolve the world and story in the next few games.

 

New Vegas did help make up for what was lost in FO3 though by taking us back to it's roots... well the next best thing anyway.

 

As for the New Vegas story, I like it because it is open-ended and allows for some decision making, although it could have been better. Although, less direct, and perhaps more of a grey area storyline and perhaps even bland at times, it is a MUCH better story for Fallout and for any RPG. For an open-world and an RPG, the more open-ended a story is and more general the main story is, the better. My reason for this is that I don't want to start my game with a linear path set in front of me. I don't want to start knowing that my guy is good or bad, or that he is a vault boy or a prisoner (Morrowind/Oblivion). I don't want him to have a destiny and I don't really want to hear about him on the radio.

 

RPG to me means "Role Playing Game," and to me, that infers that the player can be their own character and play out a role of their choosing within the story/world. It isn't defined to me as racking up a lot of points to become an unstoppable god. You can do that in most games.

 

What NV offers, is a story where you are just a guy that wandered in with no destiny. You are thrown into a feud between 3 apposing sides and you have to choose how you will help resolve the conflict and who you will side with exactly. This may be more vague and provide the player with a less intense a personal story, but allows for more freedom of choice and decision making.

 

For the haters of Skyrim, I felt like they did a good job on this element as well. The choice between joining the Stormcloaks and the Imperials seemed very interesting to me and was a bit confusing and tricky to figure out who to side with on your first play-through. I also felt like Skyrim was more lore-friendly story-wise than Oblivion was, however I will agree that companions sucked and the guilds sucked other than the Thieves guild. However, it really felt pretty much like a cleaned up version of all the Bethesda games. Bethesda has always struck me as a game studio that is great at starting something but they aren't really great at finishing/polishing it. That's why I buy their games for the PC. I expect that the modding community will address these issues, or as a modder... I will. ;)

 

However, NV does lack in some areas:

 

1. It IS really buggy. AI packages and other events REFUSE to update most of the time and there are a lot of weird physics issues. Someone in an earlier post mentioned that Fallout 3 uses a similar engine to Oblivion. No, the same engine was used for Oblivion, FO3, FONV, and was re-written for Skyrim. So, if you count the re-write, that is four games so far that they have used the same technology for. This is why we see many of the same exact bugs in each game. FONV just seemed to have the majority of them because it was developed by Obsidian rather than Bethesda itself, so bug fixes.... happened less frequently.

 

 

As for the guy who is mad because of all the unrealistic ideas.... to me I agree that I would have liked to have seen a much darker game that was far more realistic. However, I have to agree when it comes to style. Honestly, FO has always followed the style of the 20's and 30's and even the 50's. It has always had a certain sense of humor and that is just the way it was written. It is hard to swallow but the FO universe as a whole is Science Fantasy, not really Science Fiction. I think it is an okay idea and I accept it. It is sometimes part of the allure for me, because I like the dark sense of humor and the goofy and weird things that I run into during my gameplay. It is a great way to add in easter eggs like the UFO crash in FO3.

 

Unlike others here, I actually loved Point Lookout more than Anchorage. Anchorage had less of a role-playing experience IMHO and allowed for far less exploring than Point Lookout.

 

I haven't tried the DLC's for NV yet, other than Honest Hearts, which I was disappointed by to an extent because it is nothing like Zion Canyon. Not EVEN close. I have been to Zion and I have walked it's Narrows. :)

 

The one thing though that REALLY gets to me about NV however, is the way the world looks/feels. NV is supposed to be untouched by nuclear bombs but as I walk through the Strip and Freeside, I see burnt street-lamps and cars that are burnt to a cinder. I look at buildings and rubble that look as if they've been hit by multiple bombs. It doesn't look worn-down to me... it looks charred, burned, and blown apart. Less though than D.C. mind you but it is still very present. There are only a very few locations that are even open. Not only this but the strip is nearly vacant. I would feel more convinced by Mr. House if I could see more people actually walking the streets. You would think that a city untouched by bombs and still running after 200 years of a post-apocalyptic world, that more people would be flocking to a city that is still in working condition and has decent running water. I also felt that the locations were really weird and somehow bland. The Gommorah had a lot of potential to help explore the darker elements of NV by way of showing sleeze by way of strippers/prostitution and a mafia-like crime syndicate running the place. What do we get? A dirty building with generic-flat lighting schemes, with guys wearing dirty suits, that carry generic guns, hookers/prostitutes/strippers that wear costumes than only a raider would be into, and goth statues with flames all over the place. What it should have been was a classy establishment that looked a bit like an old fashioned gentlemens club/brothel crossover that was run by guys with 44 magnums that wear dark, clean-cut suites and dim lighting.

 

FO3 did have a 1up on NV due to the fact that it didn't try to display a city rebuilt, but it is hard to count that since FO3 didn't attempt to have any real cities anyway.

 

Personally, both games have their ups and downs but I still feel that NV was certainly a step in the right direction over FO3 for the overall universe and franchise, even though it is less polished, buggier, and the city itself really needed a serious facelift.

[charwo]

Well to be fair, most of the damage that was caused to the US infastructure is actually post war social disntigration. Vegas didn't get nuked, but it sure as hell burned once or twice. If not from the rioting, the refugees and whatnot, then because Vegas lacked a functioning government for nearly 150 years. In that time there were gangs and tribes, and while wards had government, there was probably urban warfare in several spasms.

 

Also, and this bears mentioning, I don't have a problem with the dark sense of humor. In fact, I was pissed off that you had to expend a trait to activate Wild Wasteland and really, it's barely Fallout without the quirky, random, batshit insane easter eggs and random encounters. But they are quirks. I don't have a problem with the aliens, the evil books that burn when put on unholy objects, ghouls, deathclaws and the like. It's the borader dead world thing that bugs me and really only the dead world thing. Everything else can be explained from the premise. I have no problem with the strange and the improbable, I have a problem with the impossible, stuff that flat out lies about how sceintific phenomena work. Lovecraftian evil books and ghosts that need to be reburied do not directly contradict the real functioning of biology. Green Skies in irradiated areas and a dead world that cannot possibly support the mega fuana it does is something that cannot be explained away. The tardis showing up in a cameo in Fallout 1, even if Lore, is less offensive to all important realism than the Dead World. Vampires are less offisive to realism than ghouls made merely by radiation. The what if improbabilities are Fallout's strengths, the outright impossibilities make it camp. And camp has no place ever.

[asdfpepper]

Okay, I don't really hate New Vegas but I'm starting to get creeped out by the Nexus fanbase, judging by the images uploaded by Nexus users.

 

Pink-haired anime heroines in mint-condition ultra-futuristic spandex combat armors? What the hell? That doesn't definitely fit Fallout.

[charwo]

And you think Fallout 3 fans are any better in that respect?

 

The rampant amount of sexism and sexual objectification in video games is frankly disgusting, and I understand why a lot of women see male dominated games as having no place for them. But more than the fans, do you think the spandex armors of New Vegas Mods are better than the Bethesda Vanilla armors in Oblivion and Skyrim? Dendra Armor is the toughest in the game, but whereas men look properly clad, when a woman puts it on they look positively stripperific. Here's a hint guys, chain mail bikini protects nothing of a women, not so much as her modesty. There is no place for a midriff in any sort of armor, EVER. I actually appreciate that Fallout 3/New Vegas avoids this, even when they insist on having one sleeved leather jackets (GAAAAA!!!!!!)

 

As for the hair? If the raiders can have the hair gel to make spiky mohawks, then it not much of a stress for their to be hair dye, however distasteful both are to behold.

[TrickyVein]

I have lost faith in the fan-base on the nexus as of late. Just like spam though, even though it dominates your inbox it's easy to ignore. I do appreciate more tasteful captures of female characters.

 

Sexism is here to stay in video games, charwo. All I can say to this is, it's good to be a man. :yes:

 

The male-nudey mods are out there if you want them.

[asdfpepper]

Charwo, I'm not implying that Fallout 3 fans are better at making pictures.

I'm just questioning the lore-friendliness of the pink-haired spandex heroines who shoot lasers out of their tits.

Edited December 8, 2012 by asdfpepper

[charwo]

Ah, but this goes back to the notion of the casual gamer versus the hardcore gamer. The casual gamer doesn't give a s*** about the lore, and creates the asinine n00b stuff we're complaining about. The problem I directly have with casual gamers I have in general is that when I did multiple people roleplay (which I am unlikely to ever do again) any revision or deviation from lore was considered to me casual gaming god modding instead of a valid criticism of the material when it didn't quite make sense (hilarious deconstruction in Werewolf the Apocalypse due to my Ragabash. She insisted on using guns, because while all of her arguments are sound in the real world, in world of Darkness guns are fairly useless. Her attempts to use and understand small group tactics was papered over because the rest of the troupe was uninterested, her attempts to understand scouting from another more skilled werewolf fell through because the guy couldn't justify his characters stats and I ended up not reading the FBI ballistic and firearms reports because not only would it do my character no good, the disconnect would probably have shattered the already paper thin veil of realism).

 

More than that, have you guys gotten the picture that the casual gamer may be the cause of sequel decay? In trying to appeal to a broad audience, the world gets dumbed down with more tits, ass and dakka? Now Bethesda, to their credit, didn't go quite that route, but they assumed a lot less of their audience for Fallout 3 and gave something which in and of itself was basically the broad outline of a Fallout game. New Vegas is different. There's a lot of problems with Vegas, but Vegas in the collectors edition is at least plausibly playable out of the box, even with bugs that are even shittier than Fallout 3.

 

I almost wish there was a DLC called the Hardcore Gamer's pack which would revamp the games? I mean, for Fallout 3 Fallout Wanderers Edition was a magical mod, but why on earth did it need to be a fan made mod, and not part of the actual Fallout 3 vanilla?

[TrickyVein]

More than that, have you guys gotten the picture that the casual gamer may be the cause of sequel decay? In trying to appeal to a broad audience, the world gets dumbed down with more tits, ass and dakka?

 

I can speak as a survivor of the buildup to the release of Deus Ex: Human Revolution on the official Eidos forums:

 

Yes.

 

Modern AAA titles are viewed as installments within a franchise which producers and distributors dictate to a demographic they believe represents the largest market for their product. Creative ideas and innovation are gutted in the final product to meet deadlines for holiday sales and this appeal to mediocrity, or the 'broadest' base. When so much money is on the line, the fear of producing a 'flop' has basically shut-out diversity of content and risk-taking. The modern gamer is being increasingly relegated, denied access to provocative ideas and challenging gameplay, and may not even be aware that he or she is more intelligent and hardier than what industry 'standards' really suggest to a player. Like

 

1) regenerating health (when oh WHEN did this happen and WHY?) 2) compass markers (because I have so little interest in what I'm doing that if I don't have a flashing arrow on my screen telling me where to go at any given time I may get bored and just give up) 3) tips and tricks during loading screens (did you know that pressing the forward button makes your character move forward?) 4) CUT-SCENES (because after all, I play games because I'd *rather* be watching a non-interactive movie!) and of course, 5) brown-haired, middle aged male protagonists. The list can go on. Ketchup on your screen because you know, you're hurt and dying! Checkpoint systems which basically get rid of a fundamental of gameplay: allowing the player to fail. Gah! But I'm ranting.

 

Try convincing someone who plays CoD (and thinks it's the bestest bestest game evar!) that no, actually, games were more intelligent, challenging and varied back in the 90s. It's easy to lose faith sometimes.

[JimboUK]

It's shame to see a thread about the game turn into stage on which loremongers can rant and rave. If you don't like these mods then don't use them, getting upset about the things other people choose to put in their single player game is not the act of a rational person. At the end of the day this is a video game, emphasis on "game", it's not real, it's not life and death, it's supposed to be fun. I appreciate the reasons why some would want to stick strictly to the lore, personally I always play these games though at least once unmodded so I can experience what the devs created, after that I couldn't care less. Bethesda gave us the tools to mod the game, if you want to keep your mods lore friendly then great, I can understand why but others don't and you have no right to criticise them for that.

 

Loremongering only impresses loremongers, the rest of us find it boring.

 

@TrickyVein Modern games suffer from the "let everyone win" syndrome that Todd Howard is so keen on, instead of creating levels of difficulty that would suit varying levels of ability they've just dumbed things down for everyone. I'm all for making games accessible to everyone, everyone who paid for the game should have to right to experience what they paid for but the way they've gone about it is wrong. The latest Hitman has the right idea, at least on varying the difficultly, easy mode is full of the hand holding we've come to expect but the level of help goes down the higher you raise the difficulty.

[charwo]

IIRC correctly, Halo was the first with regenerating health, although it was justified as shield power. The bottomless magazines were the reason I quickly lost reason in anything Halo beyond the music.

 

Also, about the lead almost always being white male and brunette, that comes with the territory. I mean if you look at modern demographics, the characters you are likely to play as ass kicking modern or past folk must almost universally be male. Playing a shootin cow girl in even a semi realistic game would mean being constantly being harassed and shunned for refuting patriarchial stereotypes. Does the average male player want to play a female character other than for T&A factor? And, other than lulz value, does a a straight person even think about playing a non heteronormative protagonist? I mean imagine where at the end of the game, you have a fully buffed out male action hero saving the day, but started out as a level 1 pre-transition female to male transsexual who just before the game started finally figured out 'Hey, I like snatch bechase I'm really a DUDE! this is awesome, but my girlfriend is gonna be pissed!' then you have the man rescue said girlfriend at the end. Then lose her forever bechase 'You're a super great guy and all, but...I like chicks. And you're not, as much as I wish it otherwise.'

 

How would a AAA game market that? No matter how great the gamely and empowering the story is, how would they convince anyone to play it? Most people see game protagonists the way teenage girls see Bella Swan: and empty vessel for wish fulfillment. Who the hell likes Solid Snake as a character as opposed to a vehicle to indulge in the fantasy they themselves can kick ungodly ass.