If Fallout New Vegas had come out first...

[Earth]

I've been wondering, after seeing all the FO3 fanboiz going on about how their FO3 (DAT ATMOSPHERE!) is better than New Vegas, what if New Vegas had come out first? Do you think they would have fallen in love with that instead and then denounced FO3 as crap when it came out after? Just wondered.

(also, please point out if there's been a discussion about this already. Still new here )

 

[Earth]

<sigh, if only it had been...

 

[Oppen]

I guess if NV came first, we would most likely be disappointed with FO3 if it came out like it is now. But, if NV came first, FO3 would have more options and be more like fallout we know. So if NV came first of the two, FO3 would be more like FO 1, 2 and NV.

You are assuming Beth will not repeat their errors. I'd rather wait and see before making such a statement. I mean, if it'd be about having a previous game to learn about before making things the wrong way, there were two other completely canon games to learn from, before FO3.

 

[Walpknut]

I am not sure that FO3 fanboys would like it. Most of what they like about the game is rather shallow stuff, none of them really can tell a good story from a bad one, the only things they can perceive are setpieces and long winded speeches that mean nothing.

 

[Earth]

Good point. New Vegas doesn't have DAT ATMOSPHERE or SETTING they keep bringing up. How making the screen darker and greener makes it better I have no idea.

(I don't hate Fallout 3, but it infuriates me whenever I see fans writing off New Vegas as throwaway crap, saying the crappy story for 3 was somehow better. I guess I hate the fanboiz more than the game)

 

[BonusWaffle]

Fallout 3s atmosphere is much better. Bethesda may not have a talent for logic but they are good at appealing to emotions. Broken down houses and people impaled on spikes make for a much more psychologically jarring post apocalyptic wasteland than the traditional barren desert whether or not it makes sense.

 

[woo1108]

Fallout 3s atmosphere is much better.

I don't think so.
It gets boring early.
I really wonder why people think fo3's atmosphere looks good.
IMO stalker has better atmosphere and for NV it isn't lesser than fo3 but taken placed different place.

 

[CthuluIsSpy]

Fallout 3s atmosphere is much better. Bethesda may not have a talent for logic but they are good at appealing to emotions. Broken down houses and people impaled on spikes make for a much more psychologically jarring post apocalyptic wasteland than the traditional barren desert whether or not it makes sense.

No, it's really not, and no they aren't.

Bethesda is good at making a big ass world, and that's it. This of course is not enough to make a good game.

 

[Felspawn]

Fallout 3s atmosphere is much better. Bethesda may not have a talent for logic but they are good at appealing to emotions. Broken down houses and people impaled on spikes make for a much more psychologically jarring post apocalyptic wasteland than the traditional barren desert whether or not it makes sense.

No, it's really not, and no they aren't.

Bethesda is good at making a big ass world, and that's it. This of course is not enough to make a good game.

you are entitled to your option but there are millions of people that disagree

 

[Oppen]

you are entitled to your option but there are millions of people that disagree

And theirs are just opinions too.

 

[Earth]

It's such an annoying what if? I just keep seeing all these people going on about how FONV is crap compared to FO3 and it just annoys me that they never give any real reason (my favourite is when people actually say the characters in FO3 are better)

I like to think that people would have been disappointed with FO3, having been brought into the old Fallout world pretty well by FONV, and may have picked up on the importance of what made Fallout great (story, characters, lore), rather than just being a Michael Bay movie, whatever is cool, goes. But at the same time I worry that people would have preferred the linearity of FO3, and then when they see Liberty Prime, they would squeal. Then again, most of them say FO3's their favourite because they played it first so... (dammit)

It's also interesting to consider what NMA people would have thought of it. Most here seem to like it after "the travesty of FO3" but could they have seen it as a travesty anyway, for the change in gameplay, first person etc?

 

[Lexx]

Even if Fo3 wouldn't be first person & stuff, it still would be a shitty game. FNV shows that people can see beyond the gameplay change, if the actual game is good.

 

[Earth]

Even if Fo3 wouldn't be first person & stuff, it still would be a shitty game. FNV shows that people can see beyond the gameplay change, if the actual game is good.

I noticed NMA has a bad reputation amongst other Fallout fans as they seem to think all of you want to back to isometric so you wouldn't have accepted FO3 no matter what. I've found that that speaks only of a few people here. Most of you seem pretty cool as long as there's a good story and nice roleplaying. Both of which Fallout 3 infuriatingly lacked.

 

[Jim2Dimensional]

I'll be honest. I would most likely have liked NV more if it had come out first. It took me a while to give credit were credit was due for NV simply cause I played Fallout 3 first.

Now a days I can say I prefer New Vegas over Fallout 3.

 

[shihonage]

"Back to isometric" is a red herring.

Fallout: New Vegas is crippled by the Gamebryo engine (crap graphics style, crap combat, crap travel, crap inventory/UI, no indoor/outdoor transitions which were pioneered by Tribes in 1998) and dull writing.

It is still incomparably better than Fallout 3, where the writing looks like it was outsourced to India.

But there could be a good Fallout game made in first-person perspective. Gamebryo just isn't gonna do it, and neither is following the "legacy" of Fallout 2, which extended the world into a boring post-post-apocalyptic ... something, removing the urgency of the meaning of the game's title... "Fallout".

Ironically, Bethesda already made a much more atmospheric post-apocalyptic FPS which is also more true to its source material. It was called "Terminator: Future Shock", and it came out in December 1995. However, it had no indoor/outdoor transitions, which is a trend they've inherited for 16 years.

 

[aenemic]

Depends on what you like in the game.

My ex loved Fallout 3, it was her favorite game. I tried introducing her to FO1+2, she wasn't interested. When NV came out we both played it a lot. She came to Vegas and quit after speaking to Mr House because she didn't like having to make such hard choices. That was honestly her big complaint about the game - too many hard choices.

I think that speaks quite a lot for what a lot of people like/dislike in the two games.

 

[Makta]

Good point. New Vegas doesn't have DAT ATMOSPHERE or SETTING they keep bringing up. How making the screen darker and greener makes it better I have no idea.

(I don't hate Fallout 3, but it infuriates me whenever I see fans writing off New Vegas as throwaway crap, saying the crappy story for 3 was somehow better. I guess I hate the fanboiz more than the game)

You hate people for exaggerating and saying things that makes no sense yet you are dumb enough to do use the same logic?
"The game is green therefor the atmospher is not better!" I'm not sure if i should hit you with a dictionary or if you are trolling or just a bit slow.

NV has better writing story and RPG but F3 has a far better world if you are going by athestics! There is close to no great looking/awesome areas in NV where F3 has several places that looks quite amazing.

Seriously i understand why F3 fanboys cling to their "wrong" beliefs since most of them have't played F1-2 or just don't care so much about the lore but the NV fanboys like yourselfs are in all honnestly worse and there is no excuse for that.

Thank god this board has users like Walpknut that actually uses their brain before posting or i might just have spent most of my time here calling people idiots etc.

 

[Mohamed2001]

Good point. New Vegas doesn't have DAT ATMOSPHERE or SETTING they keep bringing up. How making the screen darker and greener makes it better I have no idea.

(I don't hate Fallout 3, but it infuriates me whenever I see fans writing off New Vegas as throwaway crap, saying the crappy story for 3 was somehow better. I guess I hate the fanboiz more than the game)

You hate people for exaggerating and saying things that makes no sense yet you are dumb enough to do use the same logic?
"The game is green therefor the atmospher is not better!" I'm not sure if i should hit you with a dictionary or if you are trolling or just a bit slow.

NV has better writing story and RPG but F3 has a far better world if you are going by athestics! There is close to no great looking/awesome areas in NV where F3 has several places that looks quite amazing.

Seriously i understand why F3 fanboys cling to their "wrong" beliefs since most of them have't played F1-2 or just don't care so much about the lore but the NV fanboys like yourselfs are in all honnestly worse and there is no excuse for that.

Thank god this board has users like Walpknut that actually uses their brain before posting or i might just have spent most of my time here calling people idiots etc.

Fallout 3 feels like it's in 01/05/2078, not Igotnoidea/Igotnoidea/2277 That's the problem I have with how it looks like.

SERIOUSLY, People are still STARTING to re-build society in Fallout 3, yet in Fallout 2, they are halfway through.

 

[Earth]

Thank god this board has users like Walpknut that actually uses their brain before posting or i might just have spent most of my time here calling people idiots etc.

Thanks for this delightful comment. I made this thread when I was really pissed off, fed up with comments I was reading on various web pages, overzealous FO3 fanboys dismissing FNV as crap, so that was my response. The comments I made may be inexcusable, but you don't have to be so damn insulting about it.

There are a number of other reasons why I dislike the atmosphere the fanboys defend their game with, not just the irritating green filter. The world is still crap after two hundred years, there are way too many buildings still standing, a number of locations make no sense at all, and the ones that do weren't implemented well (like Rivet City. I'll agree people living on an aircraft carrier is clever, but they're also living in the middle of a warzone, surrounded by monsters. How are they still alive?)

To me, the world just feels fake, the atmosphere ruined by dumb mistakes or no thought given. My mind can't enjoy the aesthetics when I keep thinking, how is that still standing? Megaton visually looks good, but why have they built it around a bomb? How are the Little Lamplighter children still alive while living next to a Vault full of monsters? How does Big Town even exist anymore, with no food or real protection? I can't even enjoy the Pentagon without thinking, there's a group of dumbass white knights in there.

Fallout 3 fans remind me of Star Wars prequels fans. They enjoy the aesthetics and deliberately ignore the faults. I wouldn't normally care about these things (sure, let the idiots enjoy their delusion) but these are worlds I care about. I like the Star Wars universe, and I enjoy the Fallout games. But these fanboys don't really care (I should put a little disclaimer here, NOT ALL OF THEM, sorry for any generalisations) to them, it's just, aw cool, the Capitol Buildings still standing, let's check that out, and aw cool, more lightsabre battles!

By all rights most of the Capitol Wasteland just shouldn't exist, and I would have preferred to see a DC world completely annhilated by Armageddon, rather than a heavy bombing raid. I just can't enjoy the visuals anymore, witout thinking "imagine if this had all just been desert, and then you see the Washington Monument still standing after all this time" to me, that would have been far more beautiful (and Fallout-y) than just EVERY building still intact.

I was pretty hot headed when I started this thread, so apologies for that. The Fallout 3 fanboys can enjoy their atmosphere, just don't keep telling me that a game I really like is inferior (something I dispute, as you probably imagine, quite strongly) They can enjoy their STALKER atmosphere, but to me, that isn't what Fallout's about, so it's not for me.

(and hey, at least I'm complaining here, rather than actually bitching at them on other forums)

 

[Josan]

I honestly don't understand how anyone can prefer Bethesda's game over Fallout New Vegas. I simply don't understand the worship Bethesda gets. They can make pretty worlds to play in (Skyrim is bloody gorgeous) but their writing and depth leave much to be desired.

Maybe I'm just biased because I see Obsidian as Black Isle Studios MK2, which, considering the name and the developers, it essentially is.