Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

See, I thought the engine was a big problem. They took one of the greatest RPG series of all times, relaunched the genre back when the first came out, and shoehorned it into a game that ended up a poor FPS with skills. Plus, if they had created a new engine from scratch, I would have been able to overlook most of the rest of my complaints about the game. But, since they didn't have to create a whole new engine, they could have afforded to spend more time coming up with characters that give you some reason to care about them, settlements and settings that make sense, and a plot that didn't seem so stupid.

I don't know about you but I really liked the characters from Fallout:NV.  They came across as having different motives and world views.  Plenty of good locations too, they had character and they came across as existing for reasons even if there were some odd things about them.

And to put it bluntly, thinking that they could have remade the engine from scratch is stupid.  The entire reason that Fallout:NV got made was because they cut a deal in advance to use the FO3 engine.  Trying to develop their own engine would have taken years and there was no money to finance such an endeavor.  FO3 was in development for over 4 years.

[automaticsquid]

i told my friends pretty early on to be careful about any recommendations of New Vegas from me. there is a lot in the game i would classify as "continuity porn" for people like me who loved the first 2 and that can cloud your judgement a bit. so having said that i thought the writing and atmosphere in New Vegas were way better than fallout 3 but i also think Bethesda did a pretty acceptable job the upsetting part is viewing it in terms of its predecessors if you were to pretend it was its own product it wouldn't be that bad unfortunately you cant really do that.

[dizzyelk]

See, I thought the engine was a big problem. They took one of the greatest RPG series of all times, relaunched the genre back when the first came out, and shoehorned it into a game that ended up a poor FPS with skills. Plus, if they had created a new engine from scratch, I would have been able to overlook most of the rest of my complaints about the game. But, since they didn't have to create a whole new engine, they could have afforded to spend more time coming up with characters that give you some reason to care about them, settlements and settings that make sense, and a plot that didn't seem so stupid.

I don't know about you but I really liked the characters from Fallout:NV.  They came across as having different motives and world views.  Plenty of good locations too, they had character and they came across as existing for reasons even if there were some odd things about them.

And to put it bluntly, thinking that they could have remade the engine from scratch is stupid.  The entire reason that Fallout:NV got made was because they cut a deal in advance to use the FO3 engine.  Trying to develop their own engine would have taken years and there was no money to finance such an endeavor.  FO3 was in development for over 4 years.

Wasn't talking about NV. Was talking about FO3, since that's the game the engine came from. I've just started NV, so I've not had time to figure out whether I like it or not. And 4 years would have been plenty of time for Fallout 3 to have fixed the problems with their settlements, NPCs, and story. Or create a new engine, one that's more RPG and less crappy FPS.

[Tellemurius]

See, I thought the engine was a big problem. They took one of the greatest RPG series of all times, relaunched the genre back when the first came out, and shoehorned it into a game that ended up a poor FPS with skills. Plus, if they had created a new engine from scratch, I would have been able to overlook most of the rest of my complaints about the game. But, since they didn't have to create a whole new engine, they could have afforded to spend more time coming up with characters that give you some reason to care about them, settlements and settings that make sense, and a plot that didn't seem so stupid.

I don't know about you but I really liked the characters from Fallout:NV.  They came across as having different motives and world views.  Plenty of good locations too, they had character and they came across as existing for reasons even if there were some odd things about them.

And to put it bluntly, thinking that they could have remade the engine from scratch is stupid.  The entire reason that Fallout:NV got made was because they cut a deal in advance to use the FO3 engine.  Trying to develop their own engine would have taken years and there was no money to finance such an endeavor.  FO3 was in development for over 4 years.

Wasn't talking about NV. Was talking about FO3. I've just started NV, so I've not had time to figure out whether I like it or not. And 4 years would have been plenty of time for Fallout 3 to have fixed the problems with their settlements, NPCs, and story. Or create a new engine, one that's more RPG and less crappy FPS.

Lol new engine and Bethesda? Creation Engine is their 'newest technology" but i swear its the same damn thing.

[Kilroy the Grand]

I kinda liked both, FONV didn't hold my attention because just before it's release I had replayed FO3... which I then noticed was practically the same thing.

[kingfisher1112]

NV just didn't feel apocalyptic. You have way too many towns, cities, and others. It evoloved ' Oblivion With Guns '

[Stworca]

FNV had terribly easy combat, as everything was pre-set. It lacked mutant infested DC ruins. It lacked the ghoul sub. It lacked bad moments in the questline.

And it had this cheesy fucking 2 cent DLC plot of uber-elite group of couriers fighting over control of the known world.

So aye, i've liked F3 better in some regards.

[Lord Dullard]

Sorry but i don't think you'll get much approval on this forum since most of us have probably played Fallout 1 and 2 first.

Fallout 3 was a really fun game set in a post-apocalyptic setting but to fans of the series it was New Vegas that was Fallout 3 done right.

Crap. I skipped F:NV after because I tried Fallout 3 and hated it, and automatically assumed NV would just be utter sh*t they plopped out in order to grab more money from the kiddie crowd who enjoyed 3. Now I have to try it.

It all depends on which title started your experience with the series.

Fallout 2 introduced me to the series and I was immediately sold. I now consider it to be the best installment though most people slander it for daring to evolve Fallout 1's setting.

Totally agree. F2 was my favorite, honestly.

[dogstile]

See, NV didn't make me feel like i was affecting the wasteland, it was more like I had four main questlines. Was better than 3, but I really didn't effect anything no matter what choice I made. Same thing with skyrim really, the only thing that changed were town guards. Whoop dee doooo

NV just didn't feel apocalyptic. You have way too many towns, cities, and others. It evoloved ' Oblivion With Guns '

This is also a good point. Thinking about it, I can't run five minutes in any direction without finding another damn town.* Fallout 3 had like what, five main settlements with smaller ones that got killed by roaming albino radscorpions scattered about? Thinking about it, I actually want a game that will let me see town guards kicking ass for once, they're usually so underpowered.

*Obvious exaggerations, its just to many. If you point out that you can, you're taking me far to literally.

[Virtz]

FNV had terribly easy combat, as everything was pre-set. It lacked mutant infested DC ruins. It lacked the ghoul sub. It lacked bad moments in the questline.

You mean unlike FO3, where everything is scaled so that you can beat it at any level? How is having pre-set enemies something that makes combat easy? If you run into the deathclaws early in NV, you're fucked. In FO3 they're just level-scaled crap.


And God, with the whole influence thing. In FO3 they totally missed the point of the ending slides. They only mention one side quest and the main quest line, and even there they fuck it up and don't actually tell you the consequences of your actions, they just recap what you did, like you've got alzheimer's or something.

In NV they at least did the proper different endings for every companion, every faction and every major settlement, descriptions of consequences and all.

[Trapezohedron]

FNV had terribly easy combat, as everything was pre-set. It lacked mutant infested DC ruins. It lacked the ghoul sub. It lacked bad moments in the questline.

You mean unlike FO3, where everything is scaled so that you can beat it at any level? How is having pre-set enemies something that makes combat easy? If you run into the deathclaws early in NV, you're fucked. In FO3 they're just level-scaled crap.


And God, with the whole influence thing. In FO3 they totally missed the point of the ending slides. They only mention one side quest and the main quest line, and even there they fuck it up and don't actually tell you the consequences of your actions, they just recap what you did, like you've got alzheimer's or something.

In NV they at least did the proper different endings for every companion, every faction and every major settlement, descriptions of consequences and all.

Fallout 3's level scaling got very absurd when Broken Steel was released. It takes ages to kill albino radscorpions, ghoul reavers and it had hard-hitting 3/4 health of a behemoth type of mutants.

[scriver]

NV just didn't feel apocalyptic. You have way too many towns, cities, and others. It evoloved ' Oblivion With Guns '

It can't stay apocalyptic forever. That was one of the silliest things about F3.

[Darkmere]

While we're singing NV's praises, I would like to gripe about my single biggest complaint with it, story-wise. Since there are some folks here just giving it their first play, I'll spoiler it.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

There is, as presented, VERY little reason to ever sympathize with the Legion. I realize this had to be time constraints, but it's still glaring in a choose-your-path plotted game.

I think it was supposed to be: Yeah, the legion army are misogynist rapists. We get it. They also managed to bring order to a large chunk of Utah. If you utterly break the Legion's might as portrayed (Lanius and Caesar both dead can't leave anyone reasonable in charge), you are dooming that entire area to despair and chaos again. The NCR is already overtaxed; they can't help. House doesn't care. Wild Card might be worse off for the Mojave in the long-term than either of those options, let alone former Legion lands. The price for stability is many lives, security, and infrastructure in Utah.

What we got: A few traders saying it's easier to do business in Utah than the Mojave.

Also, there wasn't NEARLY enough Joshua Graham. That is all.

[scriver]

Yeah, Obsidian really need to get somebody in their company who can negotiate. As is they let themselves get bullied and stuck in these horrible situations. 9 months to work on New Vegas, 6 months for KotoR 2. Damnit Obsidian, backbone -_-

They didn't even get any royalties for FNV. They were to get a bonus if they got 85 on Metacritic, but unfortunately they only got an 84. Yup, major sucks.

[Sowelu]

I woulda liked a little more linearity (heresy).  Aside from a very few things, like deathclaws and cazadores and the BoS, I felt like NV didn't have much difficulty.  You could do /most/ things in any order...and when that includes sniping obscenely-powerful supermutants and annihilating the main enemy faction, something is lost.  But then, maybe that just means I need to play the game with less sniping.

...I'm roleplaying my current character as a member of the IHEMT (Involuntary Human Extinction Movement).  Screw quests, I'm going to try and kill every single named NPC in the game.  Challenge is shanking the doctor who's supposed to sell you stat upgrades, then walking into the Strip with guns blazing.  Or fists pounding, whatever.  Of course, it feels like this playstyle is the only way to get any mileage out of the "instakill sleeping people" and "cannibalism" perks.  It'll also keep me from leveling past the challenge of every area, since ideally I'll slaughter every town I come across without dodging around and doing quests first.

I'm trying hardcore mode after all.  And maybe I should try to avoid Stealth Boys?  Once you get a unique power fist, you can one-shot literally everything in the game if you sneak-attack crit them from behind, even with almost no points in the unarmed skill.

Darkmere:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I actually found it pretty easy to sympathize with Caesar.  When you talk to him, he's intelligent, he could be a decent leader (until he dies and then everything's screwed).  It's just that you have to accept that his way means a TON of dead civilians, and the NCR's doesn't.  Uh, unless you count the Khans.  Oops.  But if you are somehow okay with that choice...then go for it, the eventual benefits might outweigh the costs.  It's easy to roleplay an intelligent, believable character who can live with that on his conscience.

I just wish there was a companion who was mutually-exclusive with the NCR-buddy companions, and was a huge fan of the Legion.