Fallout 4's story fails where New Vegas' doesn't - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=AaronM202;49166195]How does that make me biased.[/QUOTE] You completely ignore F3 doing the same thing but over exaggerate when NV does it, thats bias buddy.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;49166168][B]nv got rid of the delay between clicking and firing[/B] as well as adding ironsights to most guns dunno how people can even think fo3's gunplay/weapons could be any better really [editline]22nd November 2015[/editline] im not 100% sure but i think fnv also got rid of fo3's dumb rng based chance of hitting enemies without vats [B]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[/B][/QUOTE] The first one is false and I have literally seen no evidence of the second point even existing in either games [editline]22nd November 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Atlascore;49164845]True, dedicated fans opinions' are probably weighed in a little more, but everyone else's opinions matter as well. And to be fair there was a decade long gap between F2 and F3, so a new fanbase forming with a different view on things was inevitable, you can't really blame people for not having played the previous games (and thus not being exposed to Fallout's previous nature of less action more story) when they're from a different era with an almost completely different playstyle. It's cool, I understand, I also want to apologize as well, I think my previous post sounds rude in retrospect.[/QUOTE] no problem G I'll admit thought my post is pretty whiny [editline]22nd November 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=AaronM202;49165940]Bruh. [t]http://i.cubeupload.com/6uNtLQ.png[/t][/QUOTE] This really is NV's biggest problem. There's not much there in terms of exploration but imo it makes up with the sheer amount of quests and options the game has. I think I remember reading that Obsidian was going to fill those areas up but were strapped for time, but even if they did, I'm not really sure what they could have possibly put in there.

[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. 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] The only people that believe that Fallout 3 ruined the series are all neckbeards of NMA and RPG codex, and NV is definitely not a game without its numerous (and I mean numerous) flaws, but when you put 3 and NV in the same room, NV tends to shine a little more. [editline]22nd November 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=RichyZ;49166423]dont have a source on the bottom one but i'm fairly sure i saw altimor explain it in an older fallout thread, he's pretty good with crunching numbers and deciphering bethbryo code [editline]22nd November 2015[/editline] also i dont know if it's a bug or intentional but oftentimes in 4 you will just shoot at enemies, see the blood splatter, and do 0 damage theres a vid of a guy using a mirv on a deathclaw with no damage dealt which is just retarded[/QUOTE] I know that there was a ghoul variant in Point Lookout that would be completely invulnerable to damage at seemingly random times, but I can't find anything on bullets just not doing damage sometimes.

[QUOTE=Bread_Baron;49161491]Morrowind has an excellent plot though. As it progresses there's a huge sense of history and the player's placed right in the middle of it. Just to scratch the surface for example's sake my favourite part is when you meet Vivec. He has a ton of optional [url=http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Morrowind:Vivec_(god)#Dialogue]dialogue[/url] where he explains just about everything, then he provides the player with documents that recount [url=http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Morrowind:The_Battle_of_Red_Mountain]alternate[/url] [url=http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Nerevar_at_Red_Mountain]takes[/url] on the Battle of Red Mountain, another explaining [url=http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Dagoth_Ur%27s_Plans]Dagoth Ur's plans[/url] and another with a [url=http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Morrowind:Plan_to_Defeat_Dagoth_Ur]plan to defeat him.[/url] Giving the player full control doesn't automatically mean the story will be worse off. There are plenty of RPGs that provide the player with that freedom and maintain great stories, and most of the Fallout games fit the bill.[/QUOTE] There's even an alternative path built in to finish the main quest in Morrowind for when you completely fucked up and supposedly "doomed" your existence by killing an essential character. And even when you fuck that path up, you can still just go brute-force your way to Red Mountain, take Sunder and Keening without any self-damage protection and kill Dagoth-Ur that way. The choice is entirely up to you, and that's great.

[QUOTE=-nesto-;49166335]You completely ignore F3 doing the same thing but over exaggerate when NV does it, thats bias buddy.[/QUOTE] Im really not, no. Go play New Vegas again and try entering one of those red areas on that map. I'll be waiting. Fallout 3 really only had that in the DC city area. Still not seeing how im biased. [editline]22nd November 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=cdr248;49166459]The only people that believe that Fallout 3 ruined the series are all neckbeards of NMA and RPG codex, and NV is definitely not a game without its numerous (and I mean numerous) flaws, but when you put 3 and NV in the same room, NV tends to shine a little more. [/QUOTE] Of course, im not saying either is bad, and honestly i do prefer Fallout: New Vegas to 3, but fuck me 3 gets shit on for some of the stupidest shit, and its overblown as fuck. Its actually really fucking annoying.

[QUOTE=Cone;49166297]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[/QUOTE] To be honest the second is not armour in the stricter sense. It's a PA undersuit. You rather want to show the combat armour [url]http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/e/e3/FO3_Combat_Armor.png/revision/20120621213851[/url] Which the brotherhood used in FO1 and 2 as well. [url]http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/5/5b/Combatgirl.gif/revision/latest?cb=20060523223340[/url]

[QUOTE=-nesto-;49166335]You completely ignore F3 doing the same thing but over exaggerate when NV does it, thats bias buddy.[/QUOTE] He's not really exaggerating though.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;49166682]various places marked red on the map aren't blocked off[/QUOTE] I think its only Caesers camp that shouldnt be marked red. The Divide doesnt count, dont even bring it up.

-automerge-

[QUOTE=RichyZ;49166682]various places marked red on the map aren't blocked off[/QUOTE] The only places it shouldn't be covering are like tiny slivers near jacobstown that hardly have anything in them, and the tiny dot of land that is The Fort. Marking the walls to New Vegas is hella nitpicky though. Even then, NV's explorable area is mostly just walking space inbetween landmarks and more than a quarter of the map is straight up not there. Tbh, I don't really care about the size of the map or even the amount of dungeons it has, but I will admit that NV doesn't have much going on inbetween its landmarks (which imo, the landmarks in NV are much more memorable than 3's). [editline]22nd November 2015[/editline] 3 does succeed in having more dungeons with better variety and quality.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;49167029]i dont know about variety or quality, a lot of it was pump stations, metro stations, and abandoned office buildings with various ghouls, raiders, or supermutants peppered in with zero context as to what those places were aside from their name on the map occasionally you'd find the odd posed skeleton or something that was kinda interesting but shouldn't substitute genuine environmental storytelling[/QUOTE] Which is personally where I feel New Vegas triumphed. Obsidian put a shitload of development into the environment storytelling of both the Mojave and the DLC environments. I've been pretty disappointed with F4's environments so far, save for The Glowing Sea.

Bethesda seems to have put more effort into making the various areas you can explore have a bit more backstory to them. Theres a decent amount of terminals and shit that tell some sort of story, generally what was going on in the area before the bombs fell. Too bad everyone still alive just wants you to go to a randomly chosen location and kill the super mutants/raiders/ferals there so they can join the Minutemen. The USS Constitution is probably the only noteworthy quest I've found in the ~60 hours I've played that isn't connected to the main story.

I think a great comparison you can make between NV and 4 in storytelling and freedom is when you compare dealing with Benny with dealing with Kellogg in 4. In NV Benny's fate can be decided in various ways while Kellogg is the same no matter what you do or what your character would like to do. You'll get the same results no matter what. I actually feel like I have some sort of personal impact on NV with how I behave in the world and it's characters when I see change happen to them. 4 no matter what I do it doesn't actually feel like I've shaped the world or story in any meaningful way. Maybe I haven't played enough of 4 but I feel like this is the same in all of Beth's games, you don't feel like anything you ever do means shit. You can kill the fucking Emperor in Skyrim and it's got the exact same impact on the world as killing some homeless dude. Don't get me wrong, 4's really awesome as a sandbox shooter and it's better than Skyrim and 3 by quite a bit, I just feel like NV is the better storyteller and RPG.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;49167029]i dont know about variety or quality, a lot of it was pump stations, metro stations, and abandoned office buildings with various ghouls, raiders, or supermutants peppered in with zero context as to what those places were aside from their name on the map occasionally you'd find the odd posed skeleton or something that was kinda interesting but shouldn't substitute genuine environmental storytelling[/QUOTE] Which is a lot more than what NV had. Most of NV's non-quest dungeons were mostly just caves. I'm also not sure why you think Fallout 3 didn't have environmental storytelling, that was like the one thing that the game actually did somewhat well. Not to mention all of notes and terminal entries scattered about the dungeons. While NV did have environmental storytelling, I remember those moments either being very sparse in the vanilla game (DLC had quite a bit) or were put in areas that the player would have to enter at some point for a quest. In Fallout 3, they made inconsequential shooting galleries into neat little places with their own story. [editline]22nd November 2015[/editline] I should probably mention that I don't count landmarks like Vault 22 and the Repconn HQ/Test Site or Searchlight as dungeons

[QUOTE=Atlascore;49162766]What are you even talking about? Obsidian didn't make the original Fallout games, Interplay did, the only thing Bethesda has to be thankful for is that Obsidian accepted the contract to make New Vegas.[/QUOTE] Obsidian is comprised of ex-Interplay and ex-Troika devs. [editline]23rd November 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Ganerumo;49163651] M16s and other 1960s weapons that don't have much of a place in Fallout since it breaks the divergent world[/QUOTE] Sorry for not addressing other issues, but this took me a moment to remember there was a fucking [url=http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/9mm_Mauser]Mauser pistol[/url] from 2nd world war in original Fallout. The Assault Rifle also looks a lot like BAR from WWII. Are you sure we played the same games? There might as well be M16s and other 20 century guns. [editline]23rd November 2015[/editline] [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] You start to sound like that guy who argued Witcher 3 is a better game because Witcher 3 house roofs had better textures.

[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;49167512]Obsidian is comprised of ex-Interplay and ex-Troika devs. [editline]23rd November 2015[/editline] Sorry for not addressing other issues, but this took me a moment to remember there was a fucking [url=http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/9mm_Mauser]Mauser pistol[/url] from 2nd world war in original Fallout. The Assault Rifle also looks a lot like BAR from WWII. Are you sure we played the same games? There might as well be M16s and other 20 century guns. [editline]23rd November 2015[/editline] You start to sound like that guy who argued Witcher 3 is a better game because Witcher 3 house roofs had better textures.[/QUOTE] He's arguing that Vietnam War era weapons shouldn't be in Fallout, not that it's not allowed to have any 20th century weapons at all. I still think stuff like the Service Rifle, Machine Gun, and Grenade Rifle suit the series fine.

I don't see what's wrong with having Vietnam era weapons considering Richard Nixon is mentioned in Fallout 2 and Tactics even mentions the US declaring war on Vietnam.

im pretty sure there were already prototypes for the m16 in the 50s anyway. the weapon choices seem very plausible to me

I always got more of a Mad Max vibe from 1 and 2 than I did a "World of Tomorrow" feel. It was certainly there, but it wasn't nearly as ubiquitous as it is now.

[QUOTE=MaddaCheeb;49167128]Which is personally where I feel New Vegas triumphed. Obsidian put a shitload of development into the environment storytelling of both the Mojave and the DLC environments. I've been pretty disappointed with F4's environments so far, save for The Glowing Sea.[/QUOTE] Fallout 3 has a shitton of metro stations and office buildings but New Vegas is mostly caves, gas stations and wrecked motels. Fallout 4 is the first fallout game I played where the locations are actually interesting from a visual standpoint, and I actually enjoyed exploring the urban environments and other places rather than only enjoying the wasteland. It does help a lot that it's the first of the series with a big open city that's actually open, you can just walk in and out without loading times. [editline]a[/editline] Also while most of the characters you can talk to in NV are more fleshed out than in 3 I feel like they also tend to be a lot more boring. It's basically a big world filled with uninteresting characters and the usual weirdo amidst mostly forgettable people. That's why the NCR was so boring to me, they're in the majority just generic fuckheads. [editline]23rd November 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Anderan;49167905]I always got more of a Mad Max vibe from 1 and 2 than I did a "World of Tomorrow" feel. It was certainly there, but it wasn't nearly as ubiquitous as it is now.[/QUOTE] Fallout 3 being set on a different coast also came with a drastically different feel to it, and Bethesda wanted to renew the series to give it more identity of its own in a market with a lot more contenders than back when Fallout 1 came out. Back when fallout 1 came out it was basically fantasy elements translated into a post apocalyptic setting with all of the tropes and archetypes still around. Fallout 2 extrapolated on that, but Fallout 3 was more of a step into a new, more defined direction that tried to do more than just replace orcs with mutants and werewolves with giant lizards. It kept these elements sure, but it also developed the universe significantly more. I also assume that between 2241 and 2277, there was kind of a "renaissance" era in the wasteland where more and more people got informed about the pre-war times and sort of started taking inspiration from what seemed to them like ancient times, while before that point it was more of a matter of day to day survival. Since the west coast had the thriving and successful Arroyo to help with that, the East Coast didn't have anything similar and places like DC remained in the early stages of reconstruction as a result.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;49168130]Fallout 3 being set on a different coast also came with a drastically different feel to it, and Bethesda wanted to renew the series to give it more identity of its own in a market with a lot more contenders than back when Fallout 1 came out. Back when fallout 1 came out it was basically fantasy elements translated into a post apocalyptic setting with all of the tropes and archetypes still around. Fallout 2 extrapolated on that, but Fallout 3 was more of a step into a new, more defined direction that tried to do more than just replace orcs with mutants and werewolves with giant lizards. It kept these elements sure, but it also developed the universe significantly more. I also assume that between 2241 and 2277, there was kind of a "renaissance" era in the wasteland where more and more people got informed about the pre-war times and sort of started taking inspiration from what seemed to them like ancient times, while before that point it was more of a matter of day to day survival. Since the west coast had the thriving and successful Arroyo to help with that, the East Coast didn't have anything similar and places like DC remained in the early stages of reconstruction as a result.[/QUOTE] You really didn't have to share your whole theory/defend Beth's choice to choose a more distinct art style. He never said that the use of the retro-future theme was bad, I don't think anyone thinks it's bad. In fact, Beth's decision to push retro-futurism into the art more is probably one of the best things to happen to the series. But tbh, I don't think Fallout 3 expanded upon the universe that much other than the references to the Commonwealth and the Institute. [editline]22nd November 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Ganerumo;49168130]Also while most of the characters you can talk to in NV are more fleshed out than in 3 I feel like they also tend to be a lot more boring. It's basically a big world filled with uninteresting characters and the usual weirdo amidst mostly forgettable people. That's why the NCR was so boring to me, they're in the majority just generic fuckheads.[/QUOTE] Let's extend this thread another 10 pages with a Mr. New Vegas v Three Dog discussion lets go son

[QUOTE=cdr248;49168346]You really didn't have to share your whole theory/defend Beth's choice to choose a more distinct art style. He never said that the use of the retro-future theme was bad, I don't think anyone thinks it's bad. In fact, Beth's decision to push retro-futurism into the art more is probably one of the best things to happen to the series. But tbh, I don't think Fallout 3 expanded upon the universe that much other than the references to the Commonwealth and the Institute. [editline]22nd November 2015[/editline] Let's extend this thread another 10 pages with a Mr. New Vegas v Three Dog discussion lets go son[/QUOTE] Awkward stage Travis Miles > Mr. New Vegas > 3 Dog

[QUOTE=RichyZ;49168440]So you fight the Good Fight with your voice on Galaxy News Radio.[/QUOTE] (B) HATE RADIOS

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;49166030]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] As a game designer, I have to say your thesis is not only incorrect in a flat manner, but also operationally and mechanically wrong. Aesthetics absolutely matter, but it's absolutely hilarious to hear you bitch about aesthetics and motifs in a [B]bethesda[/B] game, which is tectonic levels of ironic. I am literally laughing right now.

[QUOTE=Anderan;49167905]I always got more of a Mad Max vibe from 1 and 2 than I did a "World of Tomorrow" feel. It was certainly there, but it wasn't nearly as ubiquitous as it is now.[/QUOTE] The feeling I got is they world moved on from the old ways, but if you looked it was still there in the background. Which is why I kinda like the way Fallout 1 and 2 does it more, the retro futurism wasn't in your face.

[QUOTE=HAKKAR!!!;49160675]why are we arguing about the definition of an RPG when the real question is why does bethesda suck at writing stories so hard[/QUOTE] Because its the same fucking writer since Oblivion.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;49165694]Personally the thing i dislike most about New Vegas is [url=http://i.cubeupload.com/6uNtLQ.png]this shit.[/url][/QUOTE] Uh, do you not see the fucking mountain ranges? [editline]23rd November 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=RichyZ;49169338]doesnt beth still have some animators that they hired straight out of college before they were even done with their degrees? because it really shows[/QUOTE] I dunno. ALl I know is the same writer behind Oblivion, Fallout 3 and Skyrim, wrote the story for Fallout 4. ANd it fucking shows. Because almost everything is a fucking fetch quest. [editline]23rd November 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Ganerumo;49168130]Fallout 3 has a shitton of metro stations and office buildings but New Vegas is mostly caves, gas stations and-[/QUOTE] Dude, stop. You tried defending Fallout 3's main plot point which again, doesn't make any sense for where its located and its intended goals. You also have [B]zero[/B] fucking clues as to where Fallout comes from because if you knew, you'd know it came from Wasteland which was doing the opposite of Fantasy CRPGs and designed in every facet with that. Further, they jumped the plotline 200 years forward yet we have towns and cities built like they were just hobbled together a few years ago and no real culture from place to place. Megaton and every other settlement were basically the same thing with no real difference in feeling or culture other than 'sheet metal'. In Fallout NV, the game you try oh so hard to shit on, The Great Khans, have a personality. FUck, the god damn fucking raiders have [B]a fucking leadership system and own set of morals.[/B] They even do little things, like give each raider group their own fucking name, which goes miles more in the immersion and world building park then, "Oh, Raiders again." Just stop, you don't know what you're talking about or even the history of the game.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;49168130]Also while most of the characters you can talk to in NV are more fleshed out than in 3 I feel like they also tend to be a lot more boring. [B]It's basically a big world filled with uninteresting characters and the usual weirdo amidst mostly forgettable people.[/B] [/QUOTE] Oh come off it, you just described Fallout 3 and 4 in a nutshell. [editline]23rd November 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Swilly;49169351]I dunno. ALl I know is the same writer behind Oblivion, Fallout 3 and Skyrim, wrote the story for Fallout 4. ANd it fucking shows. Because almost everything is a fucking fetch quest.[/QUOTE] To be honest that's probably down to the game designers, unless he just really likes writing fetch quests and tells them to suck it.

[QUOTE=Swilly;49169351]Uh, do you not see the fucking mountain ranges?[/QUOTE] I'd like to point out that there's still more places to go in NV. The map is small so you won't go long without seeing something. Meanwhile most of F3 is that small area in D.C., everywhere else is just big empty spaces. [QUOTE=Swilly;49169351] Further, they jumped the plotline 200 years forward yet we have towns and cities built like they were just hobbled together a few years ago and no real culture from place to place. Megaton and every other settlement were basically the same thing with no real difference in feeling or culture other than 'sheet metal'. [/QUOTE] Let's just take a moment here to remember that Shady Sands already had houses made with masonry. I mean it's not fucking hard to make bricks or cement, even without being able to excavate for materials. Also they have fucking cinderblocks laying around. [QUOTE=Swilly;49169351] In Fallout NV, the game you try oh so hard to shit on, The Great Khans, have a personality. FUck, the god damn fucking raiders have [B]a fucking leadership system and own set of morals.[/B] They even do little things, like give each raider group their own fucking name, which goes miles more in the immersion and world building park then, "Oh, Raiders again." [/QUOTE] Which makes more sense than a bunch of savages killing people at random. Every raiding band should act as a tribe.

[QUOTE=Swilly;49169351]They even do little things, like give each raider group their own fucking name, which goes miles more in the immersion and world building park then, "Oh, Raiders again."[/QUOTE] Some of the raider groups (Khans, Jackals and Vipers) were actually from the fallout bible in 2002 as well, so their inclusion was pretty neat.