What are the issues with New Reno?

C

Chancellor Kremlin

Mildly Dipped
Hey,

I tried searching, but I only found vague references that appear to suggest this has been discussed before. I tried digging into past threads but didn;t really find what I was looking for.

I read some people don't like New Reno, or that apparently is isn't very 'canon'. Can someone explain this to me?

WHat in particular about New Reno isn't really fallout-ish?

Thanks.
 
Honestly, most of FO2 isn't all that fallout-ish.

MY OPINION:

While gangs, prostitution and drug use aren't out of place. A city where all the casinos work again, the mafia was reborn, technology rampant for excessive neon, gambling machines, movie making, and drug production in a town where they can't fix half the walls is just a bit over the top, even for fallout.

New Reno would have worked if a variety of elements were toned down. However, it seems the town was made as way to give the player "a crap load of things to do" without context to the rest of the world. The only context to the rest of the game seems to be: 1) the source of Jet and 2) a way to get to SAD (which isn't plot essential)

I could make this argument for a handful of other places in FO2 also. New Reno just seems to be the very worst offender.

Still fun, though.
 
Rev. Layle said:
Honestly, most of FO2 isn't all that fallout-ish.

MY OPINION:

While gangs, prostitution and drug use aren't out of place. A city where all the casinos work again, the mafia was reborn, technology rampant for excessive neon, gambling machines, movie making, and drug production in a town where they can't fix half the walls is just a bit over the top, even for fallout.

New Reno would have worked if a variety of elements were toned down. However, it seems the town was made as way to give the player "a crap load of things to do" without context to the rest of the world. The only context to the rest of the game seems to be: 1) the source of Jet and 2) a way to get to SAD (which isn't plot essential)

I could make this argument for a handful of other places in FO2 also. New Reno just seems to be the very worst offender.

Still fun, though.
Click to expand...

Well, don't you think that adds depth to the game? The depth a lot of people seem to be criticising FO3 of not having, and that all the quests are inevitably linked to the main story?

I actually liked how New Reno was a diversion from the main quests. Most of the dark humour present in FO2 was also mainly located in New Reno, which I think is an integral part of what made fallout 2 enjoyable for me.

True, the neon and the slot machines are a bit far fetched (I actually ignored the neon lights), but Gangsters - well, they are basically a step up from bandits/drug dealers, and in a place like New Reno where drugs are prevalent I don't think its too much of an anomaly. I especially loved the Gangster missions.

As far as context is concerned, thats what makes the game non-linear and replayable. When you are in a game that is A to B, it seems everything is there ready for you to complete, like fate or destiny, and you don;t really have much free choice. But when you have to get from A to Z, and there is the whole alphabet in the middle as a distraction or as a possible way to further your quest, then it gets interesting.

I don't know, its all a matter of opinion I think.
 
Well, as far as replayability and fun... yes, new reno has it. I don't hate the area, it's still one of my favorite places to visit for certain character types. I just admit, at least to my self, that it doesn't feel that fallout-y.

I also have issues with these locations not feeling so fallout-ish to me:
- Redding - feels like a spaghetti western going on there
- San Fran (feels like a game stuck in Big Trouble in Little China
- New Reno - seems like I am playing a gangster/film-noir adventure game than a fallout game

Also, the tribal stuff seems on the edge to me, especially at first. The more I play, I feel tribals have a place in the fallout world... and it has a bit of a mad-max/thunderdome-like feel (which i do like)


Overall I love playing FO2; however, I mean I like the setting and story of FO1 better - it was just the right nugget of storytelling and game play for that type of post-apoc universe. Admittedly, I play FO2 way more because it is SO replayable (moreso than FO1)
 
FO2 is bigger. They had to get more "creative".

I assure you that if FO1 was the same scale as FO2, you'd encounter some pretty ridiculous things as well; Things that'd indicate that the designers may have lost a bit of focus.

Like, oh... talking raccoons, y'know.
 
Rev. Layle said:
I also have issues with these locations not feeling so fallout-ish to me:
- Redding - feels like a spaghetti western going on there
- San Fran (feels like a game stuck in Big Trouble in Little China
- New Reno - seems like I am playing a gangster/film-noir adventure game than a fallout game

Also, the tribal stuff seems on the edge to me, especially at first. The more I play, I feel tribals have a place in the fallout world... and it has a bit of a mad-max/thunderdome-like feel (which i do like)


Overall I love playing FO2; however, I mean I like the setting and story of FO1 better - it was just the right nugget of storytelling and game play for that type of post-apoc universe. Admittedly, I play FO2 way more because it is SO replayable (moreso than FO1)
Click to expand...

The only reason I forgive Redding is because I can actually imagine a post-apocalyptic america as a wild west, and redding kind of fit in nicely with that.

I agree with you on the Tribals though. Sure, by the end of the game you are like ''Ok, maybe''. But what annoys me is that this village was founded by the Vault Dweller, who by the end of FO1 has a shitload of experience with guns, science, diplomacy not to mention life experience.

And then you have this village with shamans and temples of trials?! I mean, why don't they just live in the frickin temple to start with! Its a lot better than their stupid huts.... you'd imagine given the founder of the place it would be a lot more prosperous....

And yes, San Fran is an oddity. But I just can't get myself do dislike New Reno.
 
coliphorbs said:
FO2 is bigger. They had to get more "creative".

I assure you that if FO1 was the same scale as FO2, you'd encounter some pretty ridiculous things as well; Things that'd indicate that the designers may have lost a bit of focus.

Like, oh... talking raccoons, y'know.
Click to expand...
Except - THEY CUT THAT OUT of the final game because, oh, I dunno, maybe they knew better? ;)

I'm pretty sure FO1 also had a way longer dev cycle too. F2 was released only like 10 months after F1. Most of the games assets and engine were borrowed from the first game - so that is a lot of stuff to jam into a game in 10 months, and, in my opinion, it shows.

That being said, FO2 is still tons better than 99% of the game out there on the market, again, in my own opinion.
 
Certain parts of Fallout 2 were a bit out there such as the Vertibirds, San Fran, New Reno, and there are a few others but then again these things are what make Fallout 2 unique from Fallout 1. It takes what Fallout 1 does and expands on it. Fallout 2 for the most part feels like Fallout 1 plus some extra dose of personality and dark humor.
 
Rev. Layle said:
That being said, FO2 is still tons better than 99% of the game out there on the market, again, in my own opinion.
Click to expand...

I just wish there were more FO2's out there. I had the game for years before I ever played it. I played it once, hated the Temple of Trials, didn't know what to do, quit

Several years passed, I had completed every game I had, when I thought: Im going to play some shit old game I have for years and see what happens. Scroll though some cd's, find FO2, give it a try.

*HOLLY SHIT WHAT HAVE I BEEN MISSING!?*

Loved it so much decided to play FO1. I probably like FO2 better because I started on it, and FO1 seems smaller/not as funny by comparison.
 
The temple of trials is absolute crap. It wasn't even a planned location originally in the game. IIRC, marketing insisted that the devs put in a tutorial level... and the Temple of Trials was the result of that edict. Even then, it is terrible at being a tutorial :)

Also, FO1 wasn't supposed to be knee-slapping funny - it was, in places, as sort of a dark, ironic humor. FO2 was just crammed packed SO full of more-than-likely-unnecessary jokes, pop-culture references, and easter eggs, that it is a bit mind-boggling why they did so..
 
Rev. Layle said:
Also, FO1 wasn't supposed to be knee-slapping funny - it was, in places, as sort of a dark, ironic humor. FO2 was just crammed packed SO full of more-than-likely-unnecessary jokes, pop-culture references, and easter eggs, that it is a bit mind-boggling why they did so..
Click to expand...

Naissus said:
It takes what Fallout 1 does and expands on it. Fallout 2 for the most part feels like Fallout 1 plus some extra dose of personality and dark humor.
Click to expand...

I think while Fallout 1 was ''serious'', Fallout 2 kind of let itself go, but for me that was a good thing, I quite liked it, I can see why some of the original FO1 fans wouldn't though.

But I just loved some of the pop-culture references in FO2. The star wars, good bad and ugly, gangster and almost everything else references were priceless I think. I actually felt the game was more real when they reference things going on in our own world.

The funniest thing for me was that I only realised some of the pop-references afterwards, like when I read Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy and thought ''Wasn't that in FO2?!'' or when I watched the good, the bad and the ugly with the ''Two kinds of people, those with loaded guns and those that dig'' ...

That actually made me like the game more lol.
 
Chancellor Kremlin said:
Rev. Layle said:
Also, FO1 wasn't supposed to be knee-slapping funny - it was, in places, as sort of a dark, ironic humor. FO2 was just crammed packed SO full of more-than-likely-unnecessary jokes, pop-culture references, and easter eggs, that it is a bit mind-boggling why they did so..
Click to expand...

Naissus said:
It takes what Fallout 1 does and expands on it. Fallout 2 for the most part feels like Fallout 1 plus some extra dose of personality and dark humor.
Click to expand...

I think while Fallout 1 was ''serious'', Fallout 2 kind of let itself go, but for me that was a good thing, I quite liked it, I can see why some of the original FO1 fans wouldn't though.

But I just loved some of the pop-culture references in FO2. The star wars, good bad and ugly, gangster and almost everything else references were priceless I think. I actually felt the game was more real when they reference things going on in our own world.

The funniest thing for me was that I only realised some of the pop-references afterwards, like when I read Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy and thought ''Wasn't that in FO2?!'' or when I watched the good, the bad and the ugly with the ''Two kinds of people, those with loaded guns and those that dig'' ...

That actually made me like the game more lol.
Click to expand...
The easter eggs and pop culture references were funny, though i think few less wouldn't hurt. BTW:
I almost crapped my pants when i got the BoS monthy python easter egg. "we are searching for the holy hand grenade of anthioch" *points at random direction*
 
fo2's humor and quirks can also be explained logically through the timeline. fo1 takes place durring an era in california that everything is highly unstable and civilization really is just starting to apear. i mean there are only three "civilized" locations counting the brotherhood. everywhere else is just starting to develop, and one of the "civilized" places is still in its growth(namely shady sands).

i like a lot about the design in fallout 2. you have the two major powers(ncr and vault city) with completely different ideas of how to controll the wastes(such as vault city supporting slavery). you have the agricultural producer(modoc), a city full of slavers, a city of trappers, a city that mines gold(though it doenst make sense considering that all the nugget gold in the us is gone and so you have to have more massive mining operations to make it profitable) and because of the increesed stability in the wastes curancy made out of that gold replaced caps, you have the drug runners whom because of the nature of vice have formed into gangs. everything seems like it would develop into at an early stage, everyone has thier specialty and use it to get what they need. it also allowed for a good deal of politcal unercurrent in the wastes, much of it used. such as reno trying to use its drugs to control redding and a potential war between ncr and vault city brought on by raider activity.

a few things stood out as seeming odd(and not reno, a city with the most highly addictive drug ever made can buy a lot of neon lights from people who know how to make them), such as the hubologists actually having some power but mostly at least to me it made sense or i over thought it and over rationalised it....
 
Concerning New Reno, there are a few things missing to me still.

Where do they get food/supplies? Most cities in the wasteland have some form of farming or trading going on, how can New Reno survive without basic subsistence?

Who does the actual work? Where do people get their money? And I don't think an economy can survive based purely on drug trade and prostitution.
 
TheRatKing said:
Concerning New Reno, there are a few things missing to me still.

Where do they get food/supplies? Most cities in the wasteland have some form of farming or trading going on, how can New Reno survive without basic subsistence?

Who does the actual work? Where do people get their money? And I don't think an economy can survive based purely on drug trade and prostitution.
Click to expand...

Well, there are shops, not to mention the cassinos, and alcohol distillaries. I suppose they would all eomply paid labour.

As for food, I suppose its probably traded in for other city 'exports', like guns, drugs, slaves, etc.
 
Rev. Layle said:
Well, as far as replayability and fun... yes, new reno has it. I don't hate the area, it's still one of my favorite places to visit for certain character types. I just admit, at least to my self, that it doesn't feel that fallout-y.
Click to expand...
I agree, FO2 was all over the place with all the different cultural aspects, film noir mobsters, western, Enclave, Scientology reference, boxing gym, fighting aliens.. Like HOMM with all these different castles in one map.

That said I enjoyed FO2,
It's just FO1 was like a short sci-ficition novel. And an exellent one, that always stayed sharp on the concept. FO1 raised the bar for RPG.

Just hope there will be another post apocalyptic RPG that can convey the "desolate" feeling like FO1 did.
 
metatarsal said:
FO1 was there to survive.
FO2 was there to party 8-)
Click to expand...

That's a good excuse, no seriously.. I thought the dev team was actually trying to have more fun with FO2 :)
Click to expand...

Well it seems like they did, and it reflects in the game world. I think the 'casual' gamer preferred it like that too. Did FO2 generally get higher reviews than FO1?

I can't remember.
 
The reviews I read on FO2 were generally lower than the ones on FO 1. However, this might be just a conjuncture.

Back on the New Reno topic - to me New Reno is "The Hub" of FO2. It's in the middle of the game world, it's referenced in almost every other settlement, it's one of the major players in the local politics and struggle for power.
New Reno is a vital part of the FO2 canon, since it puts in motion most of the game's background. The origin of Jet, spying on Vault City and NCR, all of those and more are a big part of the overall FO2 flavour.

Is New Reno over the top? Possibly. But it's not like it ruins the atmosphere of the game. I thought it to be nice to see something a little different.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top