What are your thoughs on NV as a entry in the series?

The Courier

The Courier

Blain is a pain.
Okay, I'm more or less brand new to this site. So, hey everybody. I got my start on these games with tactics, as it was randomly installed on a school comp,lol. From there I discovered the originals and fell in love. I even played BoS...I literally melted the disc down. what a glorious bonfire that was...almost salem-esque. lol but upon playying Fo3,(and I love TES...even if oblivion is AAA shit.) I found myself alternately as in love as I was with Fo 1 and 2...and horrified that a bad piece of fan fiction had been made into a game. I've played it to death, and ultimately it was a good experience. But...it just was not fallout.

Then I got NV, now I was excited to hear obsidian was doing it. as I love all of their work, especially when they were black isle and troika. And as soon as it began, I realized what I was playing was no Fo3...it was s full-on sequel Fo2. Which, Fo2 being my favorite, was something that immediately made me beyond happy. real branching quests, no funneling like Fo3's laughable main quest...We have finally recieved a true sequel to the fallout franchise.

So, I know I rambled somewhat, but I just wanted to know from your guys's perspective: Does NV deliver as a fallout game? or does gamebryo (and to an extent, obsidian itself) ruin it still? Just curious to see what you all have to say. And I hope to not ruffle to many feathers in my time here.

And p.s., I hope beth soft burns for making super mutants into slobbering violent retards again. >_<
 
I personally feel the New Vegas is a very worthy addition to the series. Okay, problems with the engine (first two games had many problems too) but the quest design, the story etc. is worthy of a true sequel.

To be honest I think of New Vegas as the real Fallout 3. Fallout 3 is the spin off clearly, not New Vegas.

Most importantly I am revelling in my second play through, which I have enjoyed MORE than my first play through. I can imagine myself playing it multiple times with months-years in-between, like I do with the first two games. That shows that it is a game with depth.
 
my sentiments exactly. My favorite part is how your character build affects everything, unlike Fo3's nonexistant stats. And the lack of "black or white" quest structure. For the most part, its all grey and up to interpretation.
 
Well, I thoroughly enjoyed New Vegas. Despite all it's bugs and glitches, I enjoyed the story and gameplay quite a bit. The new things that they added to it were good, my only real complaint about it was the engine that the game ran on.
 
I agree. I think it does its job well to continue the story (as whole) for the Fallout world.

Though what it ruins for me (sadly) is the engine and gameplay. The Bethesda version of gameybro looking ugly and the gameplay being a shooter ...
 
New Vegas was crippled by the horrible engine, largely recycled (subpar) assets and design conventions forced on them by Bethesda and the inertia of expectations set forth by Fallout 3.

Obsidian did the best they could, but they still lacked the vision of Tim Cain, et al. While Fallout 3 was infantile, Fallout:NV is merely mediocre. I suppose that's an achievement of some sort.

But in a world without Fallout 3, where the only titles to compare F:NV to are F1 and F2, the game would've received a far harsher beating from the Fallout community.

Why?

Really shitty combat. Abstracted locations that can only work in isometric perspective (if you want FPS, then make the damn cities look liveable and populated with more than 5 people at a time). On related note, too few people walking around this dead non-world. This works in isometry only, as an abstraction.

Boring "hiking simulator" aspect replacing the far more interesting system of random encounters. Bland/clunky interface. Terrible visual design (Quake1's brown palette was as much a stylistic choice as a technical limitation - it was limited to 256 colors and had to do complex lighting processing. In this day and age, it's fucking ridiculous, and even Fallout1/2, with the same limitation, had far more colorful visual design). A huge quantity of uninspired writing/quests. Gimmicky/retarded factions with unbelievable goals. Quests with stupid names. Robot cowboys. Awkward indoor/outdoor transitions with people teleporting out of thin air and loading screens (in 2010!). The concept of a "Vegas" "entertainment" city in a post-apocalyptic wasteland that can afford to waste precious energy on lights that can be seen from far away.

I guess the psychological trick works well. Feed someone shit for a long time, then give them shit-flavored potatoes, and they'll suddenly be happy because the potatoes aren't pure shit.
 
Hmmmm, harsh opinions. I'm not gonna argue because that's the way you feel and your entitled to it. Know where you're coming from of course but I enjoy New Vegas immensely and much of my love for the game is based on the amount of pleasure it gives me.

Though you're right, Obsidian did a lot better for making its settlements feel real but it still falls short in places like the strip. The area as a whole felt more like a real burgeoning hub of civilisation but some places were too empty. I don't quite understand that, not these days, is it limitations with the game engine again? The strip should have been lively, vibrant and busy. Yes, it is an exclusive place but they are not gonna have a sustainable economy from three gamblers and a few soldiers. The place should've has quite a few more NPCS plus more talking characters. The strip should've been alive with interesting characters, from the NCR, Mojave, New Canaan and other areas. Vegas is a place where people would come from far and wide. It is a shame they were not able to create it in that way. They had to make do with illusions that, as mentioned, don't work in a FPS perspective.

Also, yeah the combat limits it to an awkward FPS/RPG hybrid ..

What's the problem with Vegas being lit up? Energy a problem next to a still working hoover dam?

I cannot agree that New Vegas is merely mediocre. It is hindered by a number of inherent problems but I still would've liked it without Fallout 3 to compare it to. I feel strongly that New Vegas enriches the story of the Fallout universe and carries the torch of Fallout 2. It was riddled with bugs but the first two games were just as bad, Fallout 2 was a horrible mess on release.


It would be very nice if they built on the RPG elements on the new engine for the next game. It really should be a far more detailed RPG, alas this doesn't seem likely to happen.

I think many people will simply not be happy unless they released an isometric turn based Fallout (never, ever gonna happen) which I, again, can certainly understand. If they did I would but it and play it to death. I don't think it'll happen though, seems to be a dead genre- perceived as out of date. This is a shame because I think there is a big market for that game recreation of the table top, RPG, stat based game. Unfortunately the market for FPSs it far bigger and more lucrative. Some people are even put off by the RPG, story elements of Fallout, which I can't fathom- wanna be spoon fed everything!

Hmmmm, I digress.... I'm happy to say, Fallout 1, Fallout 2, Fallout: New Vegas personally. The engine it is created with does firmly make it very much the third of a trilogy, which is often or always the weakest. Some parts of the story are excellent I feel and really did it for me.
 
Well, like I wrote long time ago already: New Vegas is a true Fallout game only because Fallout 3 happened.

Without the decline that was Fallout 3, we would rage about New Vegas instead. It's a lot better than Fo3, but still the same incline.

I personally don't see NV as a mediocre game, it just uses a shitty engine, which I can accept. Rest... was written all over the forum already in the past years.
 
Actually you're probably right, a lot of people in this community would've rallied against New Vegas in a similar way. Maybe less harsh on stuff like the script and characters which were much stronger than Fallout 3. The simple fact of the change of genre and overhaul of the established game play mechanics is the inherent problem for a many people, which is of course no different with New Vegas. Simply put, it isn't a turn based, stat driven, true RPG...

Why is it that there isn't or there isn't perceived to be a market for a proper RPG?

I'm not entirely convinced that a full Interplay/Black Isle team, making a Fallout game in 2011 would create a turn based combat RPG with an isometric view. The market, or perceptions of the market dictates these things and these days I don't think many people would dare go against it.

The games market is HUUUUUUGE now of course, massive, and 90 percent of the population are morons- stands to reason that the gaming market is dominated by morons. Hence the lack of interest in an intricate RPG I guess...

If I win the lottery I'll pay a crack team of modders to create a new game from the old engines..
 
Iabimyshkin said:
90 percent of the population are morons- stands to reason that the gaming market is dominated by morons.
Click to expand...


Totally not being an elitist there or anything, I mean they don't like the same thing as you they must be retarded :roll:


OT Yes it is. It has almost all the trapping of the old fallout games only with the terrible engine of fallout 3, Which hampers it but doesn't make it as weird as that Xbox game or 3 (even though 3 was okay).
 
Honestly, one of the only things I hated about NV is a holdover from Fo3. I would like to clarify I do not hate Fo3 as many here do-just dissapointed.(though not surprised...even TES II and III had mediocre writing and immersion issues)
Which is that I can't shoot what I'm aiming at, even at point-blank range. Now, I play alot of shooters, half-life, Unreal (the original, not...*Shivers*...tournament) everything but CoD MW and all those monstrosities...It is ridiculous to think that playtesters and an entire team of developers never thought,"Hey...our crosshair is small and connected to the characters head...not the gun...so it's not accurate..." *sighs* well, at least iron sights help immensely. As I rarely use VATS this time but as strategically needed, as in Fo3 it was necessity as nothing short of a goddamned gatling gun could hit things in real-time. -_-

*oh...woooow. i missed the T in thoughts on the topic name...wtf.
 
'Totally not being an elitist there or anything, I mean they don't like the same thing as you they must be retarded :roll: '

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear here. The fact that I think 90 percent of the population consists of morons is based on a lot more than this. Many, many factors have contributed to that belief, issues completely irrelevant to this topic. Yes, I am an elitist; most definitely, in more ways than one. Slipping it into my comment was probably unnecessary and admittedly added nothing to the discussion.

I do think that the gaming market is so huge now that it covers a wider range of age groups and types of people. Most of these people are perhaps not willing to immerse themselves in a true RPG.

Part of the problem of Fallout being a confused FPS/RPG is the slight silliness of shooting someone in the head with a big gun and them not dying. We know this is because there are hit points but it obviously doesn't work as well as in a strategic turn based battle... not that i'm saying I want it to be conventional FPS by any means. My hope is that future Fallout games will lean more to the RPG elements, my fear is that it will continue to be a heavily diluted modern RPG. It doesn't help that the engine has very dated and very basic AI. Hit points and armour don't make for strategy. There can't be any strategy when all the enemies do is run at you and either hack you with something or shoot you from close range. As if every enemy is in the later stages of rabies and just injected themselves with psycho they just kamikaze towards you whatever the situation. When it gets like that it is no RPG, it is a gauntlet shooting game, run and gun.

Anyway, digressing again, don't wanna just start picking about New Vegas/Fallout 3 again. I still feel New Vegas contributed something worthwhile and significant to the Fallout series. I think Fallout 3 added nothing, especially because it was mostly a slap dash tribute or homage to Fallout 1.
 
Took me a while to like New Vegas. FO3 was full of anarchy. In many ways I loved it. To be honest I found it more interesting to finish the story in FO3 than I did NV. FO3 was finished in a few days. NV took a few weeks.

I love the desert, so that made it for me. Plus Vegas is only a 2 hour drive away, and the Mojave Desert is a great place to go spend the weekend.

@Iabimyshkin,

I dislike the current vanilla game play elements of FO3 and NV. I was sourly disappointed when a scoped rifle couldn't take out raider or enclave from a distance even with a maxed out gun's. I enjoy both games very much, but had to wait to really experience both the way I'd like with mods.
 
Iabimyshkin said:
To be honest I think of New Vegas as the real Fallout 3.
Click to expand...

That sums it up nicely for me.

Sabirah said:
Iabimyshkin said:
90 percent of the population are morons- stands to reason that the gaming market is dominated by morons.
Click to expand...

Totally not being an elitist there or anything, I mean they don't like the same thing as you they must be retarded :roll:
Click to expand...

Well, if you base it on IQ, with a genius level IQ putting a person in the top 0.001% of the human population, then yes, about 90% are morons.
 
Because IQ is most definitely not a contested method of measuring ''intelligence'' (which is itself a very controversial term for psychologist; if you are a brilliant artist but don't do wonders at mathematics or philosophy or don't do wonders at an IQ test, does it mean you are a retarded monkey?). Sorry to break it to you, but the majority are just ordinary people; not multi-doctorates, but not drooling simpletons either (because that's the definition of retarded last time I checked), and it's very insulting and wrong to think the world is divided between Pinkys and Brainys.

About the subject matter, yes, New Vegas is the true Fallout 3 for me. The engine has it's... quirks (like the Infinity engine had it's own, too, let's be fair, even if it wasn't as bad) and the world requires some suspension of disbelief (I dream for a game like New Vegas set in a sandbox as well-crafted as Just Cause 2's even if it would be a logistical nightmare to have an RPG in a world that big), but other than that it got all the trappings of a good Fallout game. I am probably certain skills play an even bigger part here than in the two previous Fallouts, you can't go on 5 minutes without a skill check. Plus, but that's just me, I actually like the combat model a bit more, but I never was a big fan of turn-based so that's a foregone conclusion.

So, while Fallout 1 will remain the best of the series, I don't know if New Vegas or 2 should be the runner-ups (mods not included, obviously).
 
Josan said:
Iabimyshkin said:
To be honest I think of New Vegas as the real Fallout 3.
Click to expand...

That sums it up nicely for me.

Sabirah said:
Iabimyshkin said:
90 percent of the population are morons- stands to reason that the gaming market is dominated by morons.
Click to expand...

Totally not being an elitist there or anything, I mean they don't like the same thing as you they must be retarded :roll:
Click to expand...

Well, if you base it on IQ, with a genius level IQ putting a person in the top 0.001% of the human population, then yes, about 90% are morons.
Click to expand...

IQ isn't a measure of intelligence, it is a measure of potential intelligence. And as the guy above me said nobody is a true genius at everything. If people were, my people wouldn't only now be starting to struggle for freedom.
 
FO3 is a mediocre game, (nothign worse than that, nothing better either) but New Vegas is a very good game, and a very good Fallout in my opinon, I actualy enjoyed the world mroe than FO2's if only because it was more focused and cohesive.
 
In my opinion, it is certainly a worthy entry to the series, and a true Fallout 3, but it has its own share of problems.
I don't want to bitch about the engine or gameplay, since, in reality, it isn't Obsidian's fault, and the guys have managed to deliver a good RPG in every other aspect, with interesting story, well-written characters and cohesive world. So that's from where most of my criticism should and will come from.

Main thing I hate about New Vegas is certainly the Legion. If you ask me, it is slightly badly portrayed, at least if you compare it to what developers promised it would be. It is just an another Bad Guys Co.
I guess that would be okay, but if you side with Legion, you get half the amount of quests you'd get if you side with, say, NCR, which makes it non-profitable and well, a rather dull, faction to side with.

Other than that, I hate a few other minor things, like the way New Vegas itself, or to be precise, the Strip is organized and designed. Again, engine limitations, but still...
There are few other things, too, though I doubt it is worth mentioning.

All in all, it is a good entry to the series. In few points a weak one, though in some even better than Fallout 2, and all in all, certainly a better game than Fallout 3.
 
Now the question is, is will the next Fallout game have less problems because it is on the new engine or not? Let's hope it at least can have more active people in a place at once.
 
Can I just point out that no, I wasn't basing my comment on anything to do with IQ- which is not a definitive measure of intelligence, in any case it has nothing to do with what I said. Also I never used the word 'retard' I said morons. Anyway, forget it please, this isn't the place to be getting into this and it isn't the place for me to explain the reasoning behind it. I shouldn't have said it so flippantly because i'm not willing to explain it- this is a Fallout forum.

I quite liked the legion but I certainly agree that there should've been more substance to the story in which you side with them. I would've even accepted a DLC which boosted that side of things. Others may disagree but there are many, many hours of gaming time in Vanilla Vegas so I wouldn't have objected to a DLC fleshing out the legion play through. Also, yes they did end up being pretty much the bad guys- grey areas here and there but ultimately the slavery, cruelty and unrelenting, uncompromising brutality ensures that they are the evil faction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top