[QUOTE=Lambeth;49124857]Still better than the DC Metro.[/QUOTE]
Fun fact. You can just, as soon as you walk out of Vault 101, travel all the way to where you father is, do the Tranquility Lane stuff, and fucking [b]BOOM![/b] you've managed to skip a good chunk of the main questline if you wanted to not travel to DC and then Rivet City.
New Vegas, you COULD sneak past the Deathclaws. you COULD just kill the Cazadors.
But you'd be missing out on XP, Perks, Companions, Caps, Quests, Skill Points, etc. Which to me always kicks my ass.
[editline]15th November 2015[/editline]
And even then you'd just be stuck in Freeside trying to earn money or favors to get into the city proper.
[editline]15th November 2015[/editline]
I'm gonna just out and say this. This thread is proof that no one can give Beth even some form of tiny credit at all. I mean I'm not saying Beth is the best thing ever. I'm saying you assholes are giving them way more shit than they deserve. Cut them some slack, they gave us the Fallout with the solid gameplay we've asked them for.
Have any of you even TRIED Fallout 4 yet? Otherwise you're just bandwagoning on the Beth hate train for no good reason other than Fallout 3 wasn't the best.
At least Fallout 3 did ONE thing good.
Revive the Fallout series so you guys can have Fallout New Vegas in the first place, you can all thank Beth for that job. With spirit of Fallout intact as well.
Fallout 3 was a good game and I probably wouldn't be into the fallout series had I not played it. New Vegas was a straight upgrade in so many ways. Fallout 4 looks cool and fun though.
[editline]15th November 2015[/editline]
You could skip a big chunk of the game in fallout 3, yeah, but the game did not recognize it for the most part. Lame. In New Vegas I can kill almost every named character in the game and still be able to complete it.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49124808]
You play the game? Grassy/greyish plains around Boston/Washing are hardly any different.[/QUOTE]
I can't name how many games I've seen that use overdone desert terrain as an excuse as to why there isn't much rendered on screen.
at least the heavily common grassy fields full of cities looks somewhat pleasing to the eye, rather than the same brown and nothing.
and as good as new vegas makes the desert area I'm sick of seeing it being used.
I also have 560+ hours in NV, and 60 thus far in the recently released FO4
Am I the only one who's actually a fan of the "railroading" in New Vegas?
I mean yeah, I'm all for player freedom, but there needs to be some world building and some incentive to level up outside of just "it's an RPG, that's what you do."
Filling the areas north of Goodsprings with higher level enemies not only serves as a sort of barrier for the player to make them explore the rest of the world, but it serves as a challenge one could try to tackle immediately (good luck) or when they get to a decent level. It also gets you to check out other quests and gain some information about the main quest instead of just allowing you to rush to an objective and finish it.
Though I do agree it's not for those who are returning to the game and just want to get the main quest over as soon as possible. Personally, I like to tackle the main quest after I do some side quests and level a decent bit, so it never really bothers me. I actually really like going through the path from Goodsprings to Novac. It's just always interesting to me.
[QUOTE=J!NX;49124781]deserts in games are boring and people should stop using them
it's a lazy excuse at level design
[editline]16th November 2015[/editline]
do you know whats in a real desert?
just sand and shit
wow how exciting[/QUOTE]
i disagree, i think there's a lotta charm in finding places hidden out in the desert
the Mad Max game (which sucked, tbh) is a good example. nice to look at for the most part and had interesting locals to explore
Red Dead Redemption's desert was pleasing to the eye too
[QUOTE=Rofl_copter;49125039]i disagree, i think there's a lotta charm in finding places hidden out in the desert
the Mad Max game (which sucked, tbh) is a good example. nice to look at for the most part and had interesting locals to explore[/QUOTE]
New Vegas was jam packed with great shit all in all
some people (like me) like the desert, dunno what to say. i think it's way easier on the eyes than fallout 3
also yeah it did have a lotta cool shit in it, like vegas and the NCR/Caesars Legion camps which had some character. fo3 had jack shit
plus that vault with the oasis.. and those towns being raided by the legion. all of it added it up to make the world feel very alive
The biggest thing that bugs me about Fallout 4 is that it seems to miss opportunities for interesting quest lines. Possibly interesting locations like [sp]the Greenhouse run by robots[/sp] just seem to have one "go here, kill things, return" quest before becoming entirely irrelevant.
Problem with the world in New Vegas is that it had a considerable portion of the map just filled with cazadores and deathclaws which made it unavailable for exploration until very high levels, and even then it'd take forever to actually explore it because you'd have to constantly do back and forths to not die.
In fallout 4 at least the glowing sea is in its own corner and is so far away it practically extends outside of the world map on the pipboy.
Fallout 3 was empty, but I feel like this was a conscious design decision that a lot of people missed on. DC was supposed to be to post-war USA what Pripyat is to IRL Ukraine, and as such, the only people who still live there are either insane, too old or too poor to leave. While Boston was hit from a relatively far away position, DC was hit more and with closer nukes, to the point where the water was turned into battery acid down to the water tables.
If F3 had better writing and better visuals, it would have been a lot more apparent, but the concept is that shit's [I]fucked[/I] in Fallout 3, and the reason the purifier is so important is because it's their only chance at actually getting some purified water in large amounts, meaning the DC area finally gets another shot at being populated since people would actually get attracted to it again, especially with the BoS getting strong and making DC a lot safer. By the time Fallout 4 happens, it's implied DC is outright safer than the Commonwealth.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;49125698]By the time Fallout 4 happens, it's implied DC is outright safer than the Commonwealth.[/QUOTE]
Some of the BoS NPCs comment "If you think the Commonwealth is bad, you should see the capital wasteland." Though I'm not sure if they're just referring to outright destruction or what.
[QUOTE=Anderan;49125738]Some of the BoS NPCs comment "If you think the Commonwealth is bad, you should see the capital wasteland." Though I'm not sure if they're just referring to outright destruction or what.[/QUOTE]
The few BoS NPCs who have actually been around for a while (ie not the ones who arrived after the PC even woke up) seem genuinely shocked that the commonwealth is so dangerous compared to DC, so I assume the BoS npcs who talk about how it's not as bad as DC either don't know what they're talking about or are referring to the destruction aspect, since DC was mostly pacified by 2287.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;49123944]It's not that people like new vegas so much, it's that they defend it tooth and nail and sometimes even grant it qualities that it doesn't have.
And yeah I do think that people were and still are really salty over fallout 3 for no reason and they only like New Vegas because they were ultimately disappointed in 3.[/QUOTE]
Oh I've played through New Vegas literally a week ago due to Fallout 4 hype, I'm not a huge Fallout fan, never played 1 or 2, but I'd been in the FO3 camp up until then. I can definitely see where FO3 outshines NV.
But NV's narrative really kicks in once you get to the strip, and since then it's a rocket ride of fun. FO3's narrative does the exact opposite as it goes on. I think that's a fair ground for declaring NV the winner.
When it comes to everything else, I'd say the ultimate fun you can have is get Tale of Two Wastelands and play around in Capital Wasteland with NV's features. NV's map is just utter garbage next to it, no contest. But NV will always be better simply because it's story not only actually makes sense, but that it's actually very well realized and works down to every dialogue option, where FO3 does the exact opposite. With the two games, it's like with NCR and Legion in NV - they're both dark grey, but one is built on a base that actually works and got fucked up with time, the other is just fucked up by default.
You know, just saying. #notallnvfans
I thought the best part of New Vegas was looking for Benny. Once it starts delving into the politics thing I lost interest.
Well, there's your problem. I'd hazard guessing most people don't see it that way, at least I don't, and the others seem content as well.
If anything, it shows these things are subjective and there are plenty of reasons to like FO3, I would know.
But saying there are no redeeming factors in NV other than "FO3 sucked" is just ridiculous because obviously there are more, otherwise it would "suck" too, and obviously FO3 didn't suck. It's just that the majority of people seem to like well-realized stories about characters with their strenghts and flaws and relatable concerns, which is something that FO3 lacks and NV just doesn't. Of course if you don't care for it, which is perfectly fine, NV loses a lot of it's appeal.
That's not what I said though. What I said is that new vegas is overrated to hell and back because people are so disgruntled about Fallout 3 that they just exaggerate what New Vegas is and how good it is.
It's still a good game with its own merits, but people widely exaggerate this aspect and give the game more qualities than it has.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;49125869]That's not what I said though. What I said is that new vegas is overrated to hell and back because people are so disgruntled about Fallout 3 that they just exaggerate what New Vegas is and how good it is.
It's still a good game with its own merits, but people widely exaggerate this aspect and give the game more qualities than it has.[/QUOTE]
Not to mention happily slam hard into Bethesda.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;49123555]I didn't hear [I]that much[/I] backlash from the community regarding the voiced protagonist and the dialog wheel is only an issue because it's clumsy and difficult to keep on the screen.
The game still allows for plenty of roleplaying since your character's motivations, moral code and general behavior isn't set in stone - the options, despite being limited to four (three actual options related to choice making since a fourth one is always for asking questions), still allow the player to do most of the major character archetypes from a negative cunt to an overly pessimistic oaf, including more odd stuff like a sarcastic, distant weirdo. If you don't want your character to be attached to your kid, then just pick the options that relate to avenging your husband/wife. If you don't want your character to be attached to his family at all, just don't do the main quest and stick to side quests.[/QUOTE]
Saying "just don't do the main quest" is a pretty horrible way to defend roleplaying in any game.
[editline]16th November 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Rofl_copter;49124109]nah, gameplay was better too. settings were cool. weapons didnt feel like airsoft guns anymore. story was better than ok
again, they feel like two totally different beasts. i never set any expectations for the games, this is just what it was like for me and most other people it seems
playing through fallout 3 was a chore and honestly i dont even remember beating it. i think i played through new vegas like 3 times[/QUOTE]
Oh come on, I love New Vegas and it improved on almost everything but the combat is still generally clunky and most of the guns are either from FO3 or just variations of its weaponry.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;49125869]That's not what I said though. What I said is that new vegas is overrated to hell and back because people are so disgruntled about Fallout 3 that they just exaggerate what New Vegas is and how good it is.
It's still a good game with its own merits, but people widely exaggerate this aspect and give the game more qualities than it has.[/QUOTE]
Maybe because NV does have a lot of things that do technically make it a better game than 3, sure its standing on the shoulder of a giant, but it improves upon Fallout 3 in the places that matter with its main fault being less focus on exploration, and how important that is is dependent on the person
I understand that you arent interested in the topic of the story but you have to admit that the main quest is a definite upgrade from 3. 4 pathways with multiple endings for each and all containing their own questlines that arent just 'good' and 'evil' (except for Legion but thats another debate). Not to mention that there are many quests that have multiple ways to complete them as well as a number of side quests that trump 3's in quality and quantity. Offering more replayability and content that isnt just 'hey i didnt explore this dungeon'
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;49125016]It's funny how spastic the voice acting can be. You go from completely calm to absolutely delusional.[/QUOTE]
That's a Bethesda staple
[QUOTE=C0linSSX;49126312]That's a Bethesda staple[/QUOTE]
Not to mention it's not the only other thing that's spastic about the dialog.
Bitrate of the voices for one. I mean, the first time I met Piper, she had the same voice quality as everyone else, but the more I started to talk to her, the lower quality sounding her voice clips got. It got so bad that I could've sworn some lines almost sounded like the voice actress just recorded them at her home or something.
It's stuff like that I don't understand how it gets past QA testing. Maybe that was the only copy of the clip they had and didn't have time to re-record it? Maybe it's an engine issue? Either way, that's pretty bad, even for Bethesda's standards.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;49125869]That's not what I said though. [B]What I said is that new vegas is overrated to hell and back because people are so disgruntled about Fallout 3 that they just exaggerate what New Vegas is and how good it is.[/B]
It's still a good game with its own merits, but people widely exaggerate this aspect and give the game more qualities than it has.[/QUOTE]
And you aren't doing the same thing? You seem so upset that people like a game you don't.
The story in New Vegas is the best, but even then trying to force myself to play on the older Gamebryo engine is just impossible. I've only managed to play through 3 and New Vegas once each because even with mods the core game-play of the game is just terrible. At least Fallout 4 feels good to play, and the story isn't so bad, I can still just play the game for what it is.
Im comparing the evolution from text to voice as going from your imagination to a drawing. Its perfect on your head, buts only yours, and it limits both the developer and the immersion itself. You can only go so far in graphics and creativity with a text only character in a world of fully voiced/animated side characters. Fallout 3 and nv look like shit, so it really helps to have your character just muted out. The main protagonists in Fallout 4 are greatly performed, and i appreciate the balls of making their own characters with a story and relationships, instead of a mannequin and let your imagination do the rest.
Im loving the story so far, and its kind of dumb to say that radio novels were better because now television gives me the whole picture and wont let me decide or imagine my own. I would even think about having voiceless characters in a setting were all the rest are in all senses are better made, so i prefer fewer better options than all the possible characters i can be, but not that good on their own.
[QUOTE=Rahu X;49126430]Not to mention it's not the only other thing that's spastic about the dialog.
Bitrate of the voices for one. I mean, the first time I met Piper, she had the same voice quality as everyone else, but the more I started to talk to her, the lower quality sounding her voice clips got. It got so bad that I could've sworn some lines almost sounded like the voice actress just recorded them at her home or something.
It's stuff like that I don't understand how it gets past QA testing. Maybe that was the only copy of the clip they had and didn't have time to re-record it? Maybe it's an engine issue? Either way, that's pretty bad, even for Bethesda's standards.[/QUOTE]
Tbh from the beginning Piper's VA to me sounded like they were phoning it in. They didn't seem all that interested and the inflections in her voice never seemed to match up with any of her actions for me.
[QUOTE=Senscith;49128881]Tbh from the beginning Piper's VA to me sounded like they were phoning it in. They didn't seem all that interested and the inflections in her voice never seemed to match up with any of her actions for me.[/QUOTE]
Don't forget the absolutely horrendous delivery of anything Preston Garvey ever says in the game? Truly one of the worst voice acted characters that I can think of.
[QUOTE=autodesknoob;49128758]Im comparing the evolution from text to voice as going from your imagination to a drawing. Its perfect on your head, buts only yours, and it limits both the developer and the immersion itself. You can only go so far in graphics and creativity with a text only character in a world of fully voiced/animated side characters. Fallout 3 and nv look like shit, so it really helps to have your character just muted out. The main protagonists in Fallout 4 are greatly performed, and i appreciate the balls of making their own characters with a story and relationships, instead of a mannequin and let your imagination do the rest.
Im loving the story so far, and its kind of dumb to say that radio novels were better because now television gives me the whole picture and wont let me decide or imagine my own. I would even think about having voiceless characters in a setting were all the rest are in all senses are better made, so i prefer fewer better options than all the possible characters i can be, but not that good on their own.[/QUOTE]
Except the options aren't really better at all so it falls flat on its head.
[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;49124882]
Have any of you even TRIED Fallout 4 yet? Otherwise you're just bandwagoning on the Beth hate train for no good reason other than Fallout 3 wasn't the best.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I have. I even went into it trying to ignore people incessantly bitching about how it's a shit game, and I enjoyed it immensely for... roughly a week? The more I play though, the more I miss some of the things from New Vegas, like the companion wheel menu, or diverse dialogue options and NPC reactions, or nuanced companion interaction that isn't just "Thoughts on current situation / Dismiss / Back / Opinion of me", or having my character not be given certain emotions by default ("Don't worry Shaun, I'm comin' for you!" said tearfully even if I want to play a character who maybe doesn't care that much?), or ammo crafting (which is weird given what we currently have), or even the simple ability to shoot weapons out of an enemy's hand, among other things.
I'm enjoying the game thus far, but I keep finding myself hoping for mods to fix certain things, and realizing that other things (mostly those that involve voice acting and writing, which are a lot now) won't be fixable with mods. I also keep thinking that in many aspects, Bethesda seems to have taken 2 steps forward and one step back, which makes the disappointment that much more pointed.
[QUOTE=ElectricSquid;49129158]Yes, I have. I even went into it trying to ignore people incessantly bitching about how it's a shit game, and I enjoyed it immensely for... roughly a week? The more I play though, the more I miss some of the things from New Vegas, like the companion wheel menu, or diverse dialogue options and NPC reactions, or nuanced companion interaction that isn't just "Thoughts on current situation / Dismiss / Back / Opinion of me", or having my character not be given certain emotions by default ("Don't worry Shaun, I'm comin' for you!" said tearfully even if I want to play a character who maybe doesn't care that much?), or ammo crafting (which is weird given what we currently have), or even the simple ability to shoot weapons out of an enemy's hand, among other things.
I'm enjoying the game thus far, but I keep finding myself hoping for mods to fix certain things, and realizing that other things (mostly those that involve voice acting and writing, which are a lot now) won't be fixable with mods. I also keep thinking that in many aspects, [b]Bethesda seems to have taken 2 steps forward and one step back[/b], which makes the disappointment that much more pointed.[/QUOTE]
The Bethesda way.
[QUOTE=cdr248;49126226]Maybe because NV does have a lot of things that do technically make it a better game than 3, sure its standing on the shoulder of a giant, but it improves upon Fallout 3 in the places that matter with its main fault being less focus on exploration, and how important that is is dependent on the person
I understand that you arent interested in the topic of the story but you have to admit that the main quest is a definite upgrade from 3. 4 pathways with multiple endings for each and all containing their own questlines that arent just 'good' and 'evil' (except for Legion but thats another debate). Not to mention that there are many quests that have multiple ways to complete them as well as a number of side quests that trump 3's in quality and quantity. Offering more replayability and content that isnt just 'hey i didnt explore this dungeon'[/QUOTE]
You also forget that Bethesda simply laid the foundations for Obsidian to add all the extra stuff they did. Since Bethesda essentially did most of the work already, Obsidian had spare time to know how to actually make the game and to add extra shit.
So in a way, most of the "good" from new vegas only exists because Bethesda had already released a full game with a good chunk of the content being reused and reworked into New Vegas. They had that time to rework some things and to improve it and make it better. Even then they didn't succeed a whole lot in terms of actual gameplay and guns, etc.
And let me clarify that I do greatly enjoy many aspects of FO4, so I'm not just baselessly shitting on it. I love the new looks for items, buildings, enemies, etc, I love the detail that's gone into many locations, I love that so many locations are now just a part of the wasteland instead of needing interior cells, I love the player movement's feel and feel of the guns (like holy shit it's miles above FO3 and NV), the new crafting system is great, the settlements are... okay (I wish there were more options for items to place and a larger settlement boundary), and there's just a lot more character to many places and NPCs (Valentine, Curie, the raiders who sound like actual people now; the Glowing Sea, the bright colours of downtown Boston's ruined skyscrapers, the area around Salem) but for as much as Bethesda really got right, they failed in what I feel should've been the core of their attention, and that's the roleplaying aspect. (As well as ancillary game mechanics like I described in the original post.)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
