MTV Multiplayer on the Vegas of New Vegas

Morbus

Morbus

Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
MTV Multiplayer has a piece about what we actually know about the Vegas of New Vegas, which Obsidian has apparently been secretive about. Here's a snip:<blockquote>A Grittier "Fallout"...If That Were Possible

The original two "Fallout" games -- especially the second -- were surprisingly grim and gritty. Prostitution, drugs, a general disdain for the human spirit… those were all fairly prevalent issues that developer, Black Isle, delivered rather well. And while "Fallout 3" certainly had its dark moments, I can't remember feeling quite the same wash of grime across the entire game.

New Vegas is looking to bring some of that dirt back into the picture. "There is a very heavy influence on drugs, and sex, and gambling and the impact that it has on people," Sawyer reveals.

"You, as a character, can participate in a lot of this stuff. You can also help bust it up if you want. The focus for that sort of stuff is in the city of New Vegas itself, rather than the larger conflict between Caesar's Legion and the New California Republic…

In New Vegas you will see a lot of things that you remember from New Reno [from 'Fallout 2'], in terms of the under-handedness and how people are used and thrown away a lot."</blockquote>Link: Uncovering The Mystery Of The 'Fallout: New Vegas' Strip @ MTV Multiplayer
 
This one body here smells a Killian and Gizmo.
 
"In New Vegas you will see a lot of things that you remember from New Reno [from 'Fallout 2'], in terms of the under-handedness and how people are used and thrown away a lot."
Click to expand...

Too bad for me that New Reno was my least favorite part of FO2, with SF a close second.

I wouldn't call FO2 "gritty" at all. Confused would be a better word. FO1 was much "grittier" in my view, as it was a more believable world.
 
This is pretty welcome news for me, at least from the way Sawyer talks about it.

"There is a very heavy influence on drugs, and sex, and gambling and the impact that it has on people,"
Click to expand...

This reads as if it's not just there for the lulz.

I replayed Fallout 2 recently and New Reno didn't stand out as being as silly and stupid as I remembered it to be. A lot of the groundwork is pretty great I feel, it's just that they turned up the silly a notch too high. The feuding families is a great thing, if it hadn't been dressed up in feodora hats and overtly classic moviestyle mafia clichés. The sex trade is a good idea, if there hadn't literally been a prostitute every few feet and the presence of a porn industry. The drugs and addicts are also interesting, again... Just a bit too many.

If the focus can be kept on the human misery that comes from a lot of those things, then I'm all for it.
 
Ixyroth said:
I wouldn't call FO2 "gritty" at all. Confused would be a better word. FO1 was much "grittier" in my view, as it was a more believable world.
Click to expand...
Amen to that. But you kind of understand something like that coming from one who thinks Black Isled developed both games.
 
Fallout 1's world is more believable than that of Fallout 2, I agree on that but what I liked in Fallout 2 was the diversity of the settlements, not all having the same theme.
 
UniversalWolf said:
Ixyroth said:
Too bad for me that New Reno was my least favorite part of FO2, with SF a close second.
Click to expand...
Wow, you liked New Reno less than SF? Interesting.
Click to expand...

It's a close call. SF was indeed an awful mishmash of disparate pop culture. At least New Reno was fairly consistent in its theme. Yeah, on second thought SF may be worse.
 
The Dutch Ghost said:
Fallout 1's world is more believable than that of Fallout 2, I agree on that but what I liked in Fallout 2 was the diversity of the settlements, not all having the same theme.
Click to expand...

I always thought Fallout 1 had a good atmosphere/story/etc. While Fallout 2 had the BEST gameplay. It was more fluid. I never played Fallout 1 more then 3-4 times because the fact that its on a time limit. That just kills me. Fallout 2 is a game I've played way too much.

Fallout 2 was a bit more wacky while Fallout 1 was more serious and realistic.
 
Fallout 2 was such a GIANORMOUS world. And it was gritty indeed. I remember quite vividly this feeling of not knowing who to trust... Where the muties in Broken Hills really just folks tryin' to make a living? Was something darker going on there? Was Vault City, despite it's bigotry and ignorant isolationism, the right way? Or should I help the sexy NCR? Can I screw them both? What about these freaking talking deathclaws!? Should I try to take those heavily armed slavers out, or just mind my own bussiness? What about these ghost farm weirdos? Can I resist the temptation of taking advantage of those poor bastards over there? Jeezus! People really are fucked up pretty bad over here!

You New Reno bashers probably got used as fluffers, that being the genesis of your hatred! Yes, you read that well, FLUFFER!

Then again, I played FO2 first, that may be why can't seem to find the setting of those different towns (New Reno, San Fran...) THAT far removed from what a Fallout game should be...
 
Actually, I had an idea once for a New Reno-themed RPG on its own. Yes, it seemed pretty far from Fallout, so much that I think it could fit in perfectly in a separate game with a much bigger world with it.
 
I wish the series as a whole, would have followed the tone set by Fallout 1 much more closely.

Nothing else compares to it. Not even Fallout 2.
 
F2 have dark and gritty moments, but the humor make it less sad and maybe less believable.

to me the city of New Reno could be great, if it was more big and have more quest, to me it could be one of the greatest city in F2.

the problem with SF is the Hubologists, i dont find a problem with the shi-
 
The Dutch Ghost said:
Fallout 1's world is more believable than that of Fallout 2, I agree on that but what I liked in Fallout 2 was the diversity of the settlements, not all having the same theme.
Click to expand...

There was an article about FO3 that said it was more like an amusement park than a believable world; each town was a "ride", with a specific theme, but there was no overall cohesion or believability to it, which detracted largely from the setting.

FO2 can be summed up similarily. It is nowhere near as bad; I think FO2 had good writers who lost focus and organization, whereas FO3 just began with bad ideas.

Nevertheless, I'm not sure if this is good news. As mentioned above, as long as the emphasis is on how it effects the human condition, as opposed to just being a set piece to prove how dark the world is, than it's probably for the better.

WWJESD?
 
IMissLark said:
There was an article about FO3 that said it was more like an amusement park than a believable world; each town was a "ride", with a specific theme, but there was no overall cohesion or believability to it, which detracted largely from the setting.
Click to expand...
I think that is very obvious throughout the game. The robots shout out random jokes during combat, for one. That never shows much maturity.
 
Okay, how about killable children there sonny? (check-ching I won I won I won I won I won!)
 
Fallout 2 was gritty... in certain parts. Generally, the entire northern part is pretty Fallout 1-ish, it's the southern parts that have problems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top