TUN: The Shandification of Fallout - General

MrBtongue talks about Fallout 3's and Fallout New Vegas's story and setting. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvwlt4FqmS0[/media]

Once again it's good to see New Vegas getting the praise it deserves.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who considers the realistic caloric intake of enemies I'm fighting.

"embarrasing amount of time I've put into the game" bitch please, I put more than twice the hours you put into new vegas

I feel like the only person that liked Fallout 3 more than NV. Not that it was a bad game though.

A major point with NV is you sympathized with most factions as they had realistic and legitimate reasons for cause and event. Even the Fiends had reasons for the things they did; feeding addiction.

this guy's other videos are great [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT_x64921ls[/media]

I thought Fallout 3 was a better post-apocalyptic game but NV was a better Fallout game

I always felt like New Vegas was a lot better than 3. I never really understood why I did, but now I see why New Vegas was a lot more coherent. It's really interesting to analyze these kinds of things, great video.

[QUOTE=NanoSquid;39707223]I thought Fallout 3 was a better post-apocalyptic game but NV was a better Fallout game[/QUOTE] Problem is, Fallout isn't a post-apocalyptic game, it's a post-post apocalyptic game. As in, the apocalypse is over. People are rebuilding and civilization is all around, in a type of early wild-west setting where the only real safety is in civilization, and everywhere else is dangerous.

That's what a post-apocalypse is.

[QUOTE=zombojoe;39707527]That's what a post-apocalypse is.[/QUOTE] I think he means that it's been long enough after the death and destruction in 2077, that you could consider it not a post-apocalyptic game based on the story. New Vegas didn't feel post-apoc at all, it felt exactly like how he said, with people trying to rebuild, and society reforming in the ruins of the old world. You were fairly safe in the cities, but outside of civilization, you tend to get shot/stabbed/disemboweled. Fallout 3 was very post-apocalyptic in general style, with a handful of settlements, but oddly, in Fallout 2, which was 80 years before 3, there was quite a bit rebuilt, yet the Capital Wasteland felt like FO1's wasteland, with very little rebuilt, even though the same amount of time passed. That being said, i sure would like to see a fallout based in canada or in the rockies.

[QUOTE=Chaohord;39707302]I always felt like New Vegas was a lot better than 3. I never really understood why I did, but now I see why New Vegas was a lot more coherent. It's really interesting to analyze these kinds of things, great video.[/QUOTE] Weapon upgrades, more food (and hardcore mode), more reasonable weapons and enemies etc.

[QUOTE=zombini;39708323]I think he means that it's been long enough after the death and destruction in 2077, that you could consider it not a post-apocalyptic game based on the story. New Vegas didn't feel post-apoc at all, it felt exactly like how he said, with people trying to rebuild, and society reforming in the ruins of the old world. You were fairly safe in the cities, but outside of civilization, you tend to get shot/stabbed/disemboweled. Fallout 3 was very post-apocalyptic in general style, with a handful of settlements, but oddly, in Fallout 2, which was 80 years before 3, there was quite a bit rebuilt, yet the Capital Wasteland felt like FO1's wasteland, with very little rebuilt, even though the same amount of time passed. That being said, i sure would like to see a fallout based in canada or in the rockies.[/QUOTE] i've explained this before in another thread the reason the capital wasteland is such a shithole even that far after 2077 is due to the absolutely huge amounts of radiation it received it's DC, the place got fucking slammed with nukes you can find at least a dozen craters in the 15 or so square miles you play in, of course the place would be a shithole [editline]25th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=J!NX;39708515]Weapon upgrades, more food (and hardcore mode), more reasonable weapons and enemies etc.[/QUOTE] also this new vegas has much better gameplay than fallout 3, due to having better aiming and a better feeling of wasteland survival that said though, i really like the overall feel of fallout 3's world more than that of fallout new vegas

even FO1 had a more developed and coherent world than FO3. Bethesda had free reign on the east coast setting they couldn't really pull it off they just made cool ruins for FPS tourism.

[QUOTE=Leg of Doom;39711549]even FO1 had a more developed and coherent world than FO3. Bethesda had free reign on the east coast setting they couldn't really pull it off they just made cool ruins for FPS tourism.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Lord of Ears;39711153]i've explained this before in another thread the reason the capital wasteland is such a shithole even that far after 2077 is due to the absolutely huge amounts of radiation it received it's DC, the place got fucking slammed with nukes you can find at least a dozen craters in the 15 or so square miles you play in, of course the place would be a shithole[/QUOTE]

That's got nothing to do with the points raised by this video or my post?

The way I see it, damage to the environments aside, Bethesda wrote Fallout 3 like a movie, as explained in the video. A multiple-choice movie, but ultimately the game railroaded you into aiding the Brotherhood of Steel chapter in DC and saving the Capital Wasteland via the G.E.C.K. while stopping the Enclave. Especially before the Broken Steel expansion. Even if you were a vile, murderous douchebag that set off the bomb in Megaton, all the main plot acknowledges is that your father's pissed off, but it doesn't change it really. The 'what do they eat' part actually kinda made me realize that they really just built the world the way it was to convey their intent, logic or not. New Vegas, alongside being a little more closer to the first two games in feeling, doesn't really railroad you in the narrative. It recommends you go find Benny and then deal with whatever you're told at the Strip, but it has all sorts of clever secrets and coding failsafes that let you rush to the Strip as soon as you leave Doc Mitchell's house and bumrush the plot, handle the plot in several different ways with multiple endings according to your choice, and ultimately bring the game to your own desire of progression. They railroad you a little with Mr. House, and with the pardon from Caesar, but you can entirely decide to derail the plot as you so wish and screw [i]everyone[/i] over, or selectively pick off certain factions for a desired outcome. Simultaneously, the world was actually built in a way that it can reasonably sustain itself outside of your actions; while the war of NCR and Caesar's Legion would've spread to civilian populations eventually, it doesn't feel solely like everything is just waiting for you to remedy their problems (even though you do so anyway). That's probably why I enjoy New Vegas more. In an open-ended RPG scenario, NV actually lets you do quite an assortment of options and choices. FO3 lets you do multiple options with some sidequests, but the primary plot outright forces you to be a hero at best, and an anti-hero at worst - even killing you outright if you try helping the Enclave instead. NV just feels, 'true,' to the original two games, and to Fallout in general, in that sense.