[QUOTE=Ganerumo;49164270]Getting a 80% damage penalty because you wanted to use a cool gun instead of using whatever shit looking gun you had that had good stats (which covers a lot of guns in new vegas, the better they get the worse they tend to look) isn't fun nor is it interesting.[/QUOTE]
Hell I could argue that it's stupid that 3 has weapons like the 32 revolver, Chinese Pistol, and Assault Rifle have more interesting designs than the other guns but are ultimately the worst weapons in the game as they are easily outclassed and later become rare after a certain point due to how leveled lists work. In NV you could run with a 9mm pistol to the end of the game if you wanted to, but in 3 you're unlikely to do that as the game actively tries to take those weapons away from you.
[editline]22nd November 2015[/editline]
I don't like shit like the Assault/Marksman Carbine either but weapons are so rare in the loot that it's easy to actually not own the weapons unless you decide to buy them from somewhere. Not to mention they're the only real outliers in the game that feel like a 180 on the art style.
Weapon and outfit design [I]is[/I] crucial in RPGs like fallout and TES, that's why people complained so much about oblivion having horrible looking high level armor.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;49164369]Weapon and outfit design [I]is[/I] crucial in RPGs like fallout and TES, that's why people complained so much about oblivion having horrible looking high level armor.[/QUOTE]
The designs in NV even that bad though. They're about as good as Fallout 3's with the main culprit being stupid looking power armor.
Most of the designs in new vegas are boring real world weapons or pretty forgettable original designs.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;49164397]And? It's still a different company, most people working at Obsidian don't have anything to do with Interplay or Black Isle.
It's like expecting people to thank Valve for Windows existence.. just because a few Valve employees (including one of the founders) are former members of Microsoft.[/QUOTE]
Most of Black Isle immigrated to Obsidian. Sure some of the grunts and mucka-mucks are different, but JSawyer, Avellone, and Urquhart were the main heads and talent of Black Isle that make Obsidian what they are today.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;49164410]Most of the designs in new vegas are boring real world weapons or pretty forgettable original designs.[/QUOTE]
And Fallout 3 didn't had most of its weapons either be awkwardly designed or just based off of real world weapons?
I liked the designs of NV for the most part. Slugging around six-shooters, lever actions, and wood furniture 556 rifles fit the setting well. Along with some of the cooler designs like the Laser RCW and Riot Shotgun. Not to mention that NV had far more weapons than 3 had that not just worked as upgrades to lower level weapons, but also worked as side-grades. I just never saw that big of a problem with the designs other than the carbines.
[editline]22nd November 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Atlascore;49164441]The majority? Based on what? Judging from sells and reviews both F3 and F4 are liked more than NV. If you're only talking about the people that frequent gaming sites, which are a very tiny minority of gamers, then it's still relatively split and not a majority preferring a specific game.
[editline]22nd November 2015[/editline]
Avellone doesn't work at Obsidian anymore, and Urquhart is more of a businessman than a developer.[/QUOTE]
The majority of long time fans yeah. Not just the random greeble-grub that buys the game and plays it but the people that play the games for ridiculous amounts of time, that have played the other games for a ridiculous amount of time, and examine, analyze, and discuss the games.
And while Avellone no longer works at Obsidian, I was pointing out that Obsidian still had very strong ties to Black Isle. However, just because Avellone is freelancing now, it doesn't mean he won't ever team up with Obsidian again.
[QUOTE=cdr248;49164462]The majority of long time fans yeah. Not just the random greeble-grub that buys the game and plays it but the people that play the games for ridiculous amounts of time, that have played the other games for a ridiculous amount of time, and examine, analyze, and discuss the games.[/QUOTE]
Sorry to burst your bubble here but fallout has always been a very casual line of RPGs since the very first game. The SPECIAL system is designed to be a simply designed and simply understandable system that would get anyone into the P&P rpg mechanics (it was originally supposed to be GURPS but they lost the licence on that and made an even simpler version).
There is no "fallout elite". You're not part of any higher group of players and you're not a true fan because you liked New Vegas, and New Vegas isn't misunderstood because it sold less - it sold less because people didn't want to spend money on a full-priced game released a mere year after Fallout 3, and it was bashed by critics because it understandably felt like a bit of a cash-in to release two games based on the same engine with a lot of the same assets within one year of each other, especially when eight years separated the last Black Isle fallout game and Bethesda's first dip into the series.
New Vegas is only poorly rated due to circumstances. There was no conspiracy against the game and there was no mass misunderstanding of it, it simply came out at the wrong time and since most people don't have the capacity or the desire to play the "same" game twice in a row (I know they're not the same game but from anyone's perspective without having done a lot of research on it, New Vegas looks a LOT like a full priced expansion pack).
Also worth noting is that New Vegas came out when people started thinking that buying games at release wasn't a good idea and that waiting for a GOTY edition to come out was a better deal. Since it used steam as DRM and physical copies weren't playable separately unlike Oblivion or Fallout before it, then people just didn't buy the game until a couple of years later when the ultimate edition came out.
Because the game sold poorly at first, and because it [I]had[/I] a poor metacritic rating at release, doesn't mean it's disliked by everyone. If you take the two complete versions of fallout 3 and New Vegas, which were both released a while after the original games came out, then New Vegas blows 3 out of the water in terms of ratings - on steam alone, the Ultimate Edition was reviewed by thirty thousand people and is overwhelmingly positive while the GOTY Edition of 3 is only reviewed by about twelve thousand people, and is just very positive, which is a clear indication that not only people like new vegas more, but they also played it more to begin with.
So no, New Vegas isn't for the elite, and it's not misunderstood. It had a rocky start due to poor timing decisions, and past that point, it sold like hot cakes and still sells like hot cakes now.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;49163651]M16s and other [B]1960s weapons that don't have much of a place in Fallout[/B] since it breaks the divergent aspect.[/QUOTE]
Uhhhhhhh the original games had deagles, miniguns, FALs, jackhammers, p90s etc etc :goodjob:
None of that breaks the divergence. The divergence isn't some set in stone date, its a very very vague "sometime around post WW2-ColdWar". The fashion, automobiles, advertisements etc etc are very 50's but the rest of the lore reflects more on 60-70's politics with communism, nuclear annihilation, and the need for oil. Having shit like M16's and M79's in NV is fucking fine.
The desert eagle was an anomaly in fallout 1, and fallout 2 was the one to bring up all the weird decisions like shittons of real world weapons just lazily brought in the game for the sake of pouring content in the game, which at the time already felt really weird that you'd find a P90 amidst otherwise original gun designs.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;49164518]Wow this post is ridiculous, so just because someone doesn't dedicate their life to the game they're not a "true fan"? Also calling everyone that isn't ultra hardcore into the games "greeble-grub" is rude and awful, you don't need to worship something to be a fan of it, nor do you need to like everything that is part of that franchise.
Also I don't see how the majority of the "true fans" as you put it liking NV matters, it's such a tiny minority, within an already tiny minority of gamers that visit sites like this to discuss games, [B]you're literally basing a game's worth on the opinion of like 1% of the fanbase[/B].[/QUOTE]
Alright I'll admit to that, perhaps my perception has been a little warped by forums. But not only am I talking about NV's popularity among forum dwellers (ie 4chan, Facepunch, SA, [maybe reddit? Never been actually,]) but so is Ganerumo. He's said it himself that the game is overrated by the majority of the dedicated minority of the fans.
And I'd argue that the opinions of dedicated fans are typically taken with a little bit more weight than with someone who simply purchased the game and played it. Of course it's a case-by-case thing, but look at me: I've pretty much played only GTA4 and a little bit of San Andreas. GTA4 was my first GTA game and I didn't even like it, I also liked SA even less. So when I start talking shit about 4 or SA, will anyone take my opinion that seriously because of my background with the series? Probably not.
Same case with Fallout. For many of the current fans, 3 was their first title. So when the move to NV (a game with a much slower pace and less focus on action) and say that it's worse, whereas older or more dedicated fans of the series say it's an improvement, people are more likely to trust the opinion of the bigger fan. That's just a truth of society, most people look to experts in a field (i hate to use this comparison but it fits somewhat) for their opinion. Of course sometimes there's clear overzealous that does make the bigger fan look more like big whiny babies (NMA).
And sorry if greeble-grub offended you, I just like using funny sounding words. On second thought, it sounds more offensive than something like 'mainstream crowd' (even that sounds more offensive imo) or 'average gamer', but it wasn't meant to be overly insulting. Regardless, I apologize.
[editline]22nd November 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;49164636]The desert eagle was an anomaly in fallout 1, and fallout 2 was the one to bring up all the weird decisions like shittons of real world weapons just lazily brought in the game for the sake of pouring content in the game, which at the time already felt really weird that you'd find a P90 amidst otherwise original gun designs.[/QUOTE]
NV's designs were never as bad as Fallout 2's weapon choices imo. NV was no where near 80's Action Movie levels of ridiculous with its guns, things still did fit in with the art style.
I love New Vegas as much as the next guy but Fallout 3 is shit on way too fucking hard and New Vegas is defended way too fucking much.
They both have their problems, but Fallout 3 didnt hold down the franchise and assfuck it into oblivion like some people keep saying, and New Vegas isnt a flawless marvel.
Honestly, New Vegas' map is kind of fucking terrible. Say what you will about the empty vastness of the Capital Wasteland, atleast literally half of the map wasnt blocked by invisible walls or plot mountains. It has more character yeah, but fuck me if it isnt annoying at times.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;49163651]M16s and other 1960s weapons that don't have much of a place in Fallout since it breaks the divergent aspect[/QUOTE]
[t]http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/388795474454925663/489D8E987B068E2FD3D32669141F7663009C4A4C/[/t]
Really nailed the 50s feel.
The minigun have been a staple for power armor users in every single fallout game.
Most of the non-scrap ballistic weapons make no chronological sense in fallout 4 since weapon design went backwards from the 50s apparently? (But miniguns were still made, and all weapons can have holo sights on rail mounts.)
I'm not saying bring back tacticool shit like P90s and the jackhammer or the G11 of all things but the service rifle and FO3 assault rifle were totally fine and would've been more fitting bases for the customization system rather than the 1920s pseudo-decopunk stuff.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;49164756]I love New Vegas as much as the next guy but Fallout 3 is shit on way too fucking hard and New Vegas is defended way too fucking much.[/QUOTE]
Maybe because Fallout 3 got overrated by every video game reviewer out there, and New Vegas got underrated for bugs and shit that have been in Bethesda games since Morrowind.
[editline]22nd November 2015[/editline]
Also Ganerumo, it sounds like you just don't like RPG's.
why would you even spend this much energy talking about something you supposedly hate so much
this thread is honestly starting to become funny
it's gone from valid arguments as to how new vegas isn't perfect to complaining about gun designs that just comes off as desperate and angry. who gives a shit?
Personally the thing i dislike most about New Vegas is [url=http://i.cubeupload.com/6uNtLQ.png]this shit.[/url]
[QUOTE=AaronM202;49165694]Personally the thing i dislike most about New Vegas is [url=http://i.cubeupload.com/6uNtLQ.png]this shit.[/url][/QUOTE]
half of Fallout 3 was just fucking godawful metro tunnels
those things were like the oblivion gates in Oblivion
[QUOTE=RichyZ;49165706]im ok with that, half of fallout 4's map is underwater or empty woodland plains as well
the glow is a huuuuuuuuge missed opportunity as well, it's not really that interesting to explore save for maybe 1 building[/QUOTE]
The Glowing Sea was pretty frickin cool, actually. Would've been better if one of the [sp]secret government facilities in there was actually a full-blown secret government facility instead of just a dinky little one[/sp] but still, it's pretty cool.
[QUOTE=Diet Kane;49165738]half of Fallout 3 was just fucking godawful metro tunnels
those things were like the oblivion gates in Oblivion[/QUOTE]
Yeah but atleast i could fucking GO there.
[QUOTE=UnidentifiedFlyingTard;49165496]
Also Ganerumo, it sounds like you just don't like RPG's.[/QUOTE]
I actually don't like RPGs that much, that's why I play fallout and TES, they're the only ones I genuinely like.
I have 200 hours on New Vegas despite it being my least favorite fallout.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;49165790]by that logic just cause 2 has the world's best game map because its so big and full of "things to do"
even tho its basically just randomly generated terrain and trees w/ copypasted towns
[editline]22nd November 2015[/editline]
yeah but there's basically nothing in the glow itself
you can get 1 leveled power armor, 2 magazines? and that's about it
you explore most of the locations by simply heading straight for the main quest location in there[/QUOTE]
Or im saying that i dont like being mislead into believing the playable space of the video game is larger than what it actually is.
You know.
Over half as small as what its advertised as.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;49165935]it's not really misleading though
it would be really dumb for the mojave desert to have tons of explorable content outside of the main roads and along the cliffside/near water[/QUOTE]
Bruh.
[t]http://i.cubeupload.com/6uNtLQ.png[/t]
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;49164270]Getting a 80% damage penalty because you wanted to use a cool gun instead of using whatever shit looking gun you had that had good stats (which covers a lot of guns in new vegas, the better they get the worse they tend to look) isn't fun nor is it interesting.[/QUOTE]
Here's a shocking revelation:
Stats in a role playing game matter more than the apperance of a gun, this is true for like every game based on stats ever
This is like bitching in Borderlands 2 that the cool looking guns have shit stats and saying it's "Not fun or interesting" lmao what maybe it kind of sucks but saying it isn't fun is pushing it
[QUOTE=AaronM202;49165940]Bruh.
[t]http://i.cubeupload.com/6uNtLQ.png[/t][/QUOTE]
Better than just invisible walls and text that says "You can't go any farther". At least in New Vegas you're being stopped by mountains.
[editline]22nd November 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;49165916]I actually don't like RPGs that much, that's why I play fallout and TES, they're the only ones I genuinely like.
I have 200 hours on New Vegas despite it being my least favorite fallout.[/QUOTE]
Then I'm sorry if I don't exactly take your opinions on RPG mechanics too seriously.
[QUOTE=Aldawolf;49165949]Here's a shocking revelation:
Stats in a role playing game matter more than the apperance of a gun, this is true for like every game based on stats ever
This is like bitching in Borderlands 2 that the cool looking guns have shit stats and saying it's "Not fun or interesting" lmao what maybe it kind of sucks but saying it isn't fun is pushing it[/QUOTE]
Dark Souls is like 90% fashion 10% actually giving a shit about stats.
So is TES.
So is Fallout 4 so far.
Even The Witcher is mostly about wearing cool stuff and not giving two fucks about stats, they were just smart enough to make the strong weapons and armor better.
Why do you think art direction usually makes the first weapons really shitty looking and the late game equipment absurdly good looking ? the looks of a weapon is a reward by itself, often more so than just higher damage.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;49165940]Bruh.
[t]http://i.cubeupload.com/6uNtLQ.png[/t][/QUOTE]
The is the stupidest thing I've seen in a long while. For one it fucking counts [i]the walls of New Vegas[/i] as an area you can't go to, for another it counts the fucking mountains that you can't climb (without glitching) as an area you can't go to, and it counts areas you can go to as areas you can't go to. Why is The Divide red? You can go there. What about the Legion Camp? You have to go there in 3 of the 4 main questlines. All that area between Vegas and Jacobstown? You can go there too, the Enclave base is there along with a NCR relay station.
Sure, the map isn't open like Fallout 3, but unlike Fallout 3 the map isn't [i]completely empty[/i]. New Vegas was about the world and the characters not the exploration, it focused on what Fallout 1 and 2 focused on. Having a vast open world with nothing to see wouldn't add anything to that, except a lot more walking.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;49165923]Or im saying that i dont like being mislead into believing the playable space of the video game is larger than what it actually is.
You know.
Over half as small as what its advertised as.[/QUOTE]
You bitch about NV's space but DC's metro zone is like 50% filler destroyed buildings, 40% metro tunnels, and 10% explorable areas.
Both games do it, stop being a little bias shit
i think its weird that out of everything to complain about in new vegas you choose the weapons. the first time i played through the game i was relieved at how much better they felt compared with 3. like they actually had some weight behind them
[QUOTE=-nesto-;49166106]You bitch about NV's space but DC's metro zone is like 50% filler destroyed buildings, 40% metro tunnels, and 10% explorable areas.
Both games do it, stop being a little bias shit[/QUOTE]
How does that make me biased.
Do you know what that word means.
Am i not allowed to point out a fault New Vegas because its New Vegas? Does that automatically mean that i want to tickle Fallout 3's balls while i swallow Fallout 4's erect cock?
[editline]22nd November 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=RichyZ;49166168]
im not 100% sure but i think fnv also got rid of fo3's dumb rng based chance of hitting enemies without vats
iirc there was a small chance that even if your bullet hit the enemy model in fo3, it had a chance to just invalidate it and call it a miss[/QUOTE]
No, thats still there.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;49164270]Getting a 80% damage penalty because you wanted to use a cool gun instead of using whatever shit looking gun you had that had good stats (which covers a lot of guns in new vegas, the better they get the worse they tend to look) isn't fun nor is it interesting.[/QUOTE]
Funny how you're using this to target New Vegas when it applies to Fallout 4 too. Like RichyZ said all of the endgame equipment is ugly. If you want full-body outfits then tough luck, layered armour is better and you're just using one of the several variants from the start of the game modded with a different texture. Weapons follow the same formula, if you want something good you just have to mod one of the generic weapons and some mods (eg stocks) don't even change the appearance of the gun. What you end up with is the player being punished for using cool looking equipment instead of powerful, shit looking equipment, and it isn't fun nor is it interesting.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;49166042]all the weapons in nv are cooler than most of them in 3
revolvers are badass, the 1911-like 9mm is cool as shit, cowboy repeaters making a return in non-lincoln form is great, etc
also riot armor
also in fallout 4 beth kinda fucked up w/ endgame gear being fugly as hell
heavy combat armor with maxed out stats is a gross glowing white exoskeleton of armor that doesn't really fit with any underlying armor you can find[/QUOTE]
seriously the armor in NV is so much fucking cooler than Fo3's it's a joke
[thumb]http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/0a/NCR_Ranger_concept1.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110127152231[/thumb]
post-apocalyptic cowboy combat armor
vs
[thumb]http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/7/7f/Power_armor_underwear_CA.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20120229000541[/thumb]
quilted olive drab onesie with a metal snoopy cap and corset and a weird square dump-ass effect
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
