Fallout - New Vegas

Fallout 3 is one of my all time fav games. Considering there isn't a great deal of info on 'Fallout - New Vegas' do you think we're looking at about a year until release?

 

Ok, you guys already know this but for those who don't...here it goes. The reason why this thread was seperated from other it's not because it's a sequel.

Read this:

FINNALY, it's all I have to say. Fallout 3 universe is not a sequel to 1 or 2 because some things simply do not make sense. It was nothing other than to recapitulate the whole thing through a 3d engine. I believe Obsidian is going to play with the VATs, improving it with a few tweaks.

I have to wait and see but I'm pretty sure they're going to do a better job on all levels. This is the true Fallout 3 I've been waiting for.

 

I'm the complete opposite. I'm worried that these guys are going to wreck the things that were so great about Fallout 3 by introducing the sillier things from the first Fallouts. Fallout 3 had so many little touches that brought home the reality of apocalyptic nuclear death. It wasn't just a setting for adventure and hilarity.

Although I do think that hardcore mode sounds interesting. Food and water shouldn't be optional extras in your backpack.

 

Agreed.

Fallout 3 is one of my all time fav games. Much better if the same designers use the feedback from the gamers to improve the few faults that FO3 had. I'm not so sure about a whole new design team and engine, even if that team has produced some excellent games (although none as good as FO3 imo).

 

Considering that the release time is coming very soon, it means they're going to use the same engine with just a minor adjustments - meaning, VATs (and it surely needs a slight improvement). But like everything else, I'm not too sure. Heck, they might even go for a type of game that consists in New Vegas city only (perhaps in massive proportions). As long the experience is done right, I am willing to embrace it faster than Fallout 3.

I don't get what you're rambling about the "post-apocalyptic reality" in Fallout 3 though. There are Super Mutants, ghouls, centaurs and other type of freak creatures (let's include the over the top stylization from the previous games). 200 years after and the currency are still caps and other ilogical stuff. Most people have all the same voice and you barely absorb any suffer, grief, joy, wtv. And if it's not that, you have the subliminar humor of lying stupidly or giggle at the 50's Rangers radio voice?
Apart from the post-apocalyptic scenario and trade, what else is credible in that world? The team did a terrible work in providing reality or humor. I would be content with just a good execution in one out of the two.

As I see it, like I was, most gamers were thirsty for a tridimensional post-apocalyptic scenario. And now that it's out there, the masses close their eyes to its flaws. Especially console gamers that tend to ridiculously hype any FPS/RPG coming their way.

Yes, I said it...but don't come too close. I'm armed with a MIRV.

 

Everything you point out was in the Fallout universe before, so this game is hardly doing anything strange. And there is nothing illogical about using caps as currency. Currency is arbitrary, and all you need for money is abundance enough for the economy, scarcity enough so they are not worthless, and protection against modification or counterfeiting. Caps have all those qualities. Pre-war cash doesn't at this point. There isn't a force powerful enough to create a new fiat money - not even the Enclave.

Again, you are criticizing Fallout 3 for things all other Fallouts do. If it didn't have the psudo-50's style, it wouldn't be Fallout. This is a science fiction RPG, and it does not have to be realistic any more than Star Trek has to be realistic. It only has to be reasonable.

First, there is the overall look. The incredible destruction and ravishment of landmarks we are familiar with. The vast majority of the map only exists to create a mood - acres of dry brush or collapsed buildings or empty towns that don't have any quest associated with them. The moment you get out of the Vault, and have the blinding flash as you see sunlight for the first time, and then adjust to the vast panorama of desolation was very moving for me. All I could do was just stay there, open mouthed, and look for 10 minutes. And then when you explore you see all the touches of what happened. Letters in mailboxes to houses that don't exist. The remains of couples still holding each other 200 years after the blast. The robot singing a lullaby to a child's bones. The signs of people meeting the end with panic or resignation or futile resolve. The notes of people in the aftermath and what they did and how they died. The still existing cries for help from those long past needing it.

And there is humor too, but just of the pathos variety. The ridiculous coin-operated shelters which many found so useless. The shelter one man found only to go mad because it contained no diversions, so he made his own entertainment using toilet plungers. The daredevil motorcycle rider of the sewers. The ironic pre-war musings left on computers of people who did not know their fates. The people who are still alive and find a world of junk to be the perfect fuel to feed their eccentricities.

Fallout 1 and 2 things like random encounters that play out The Matrix or Star Trek in-universe might have been funny in a third-person game, but it wouldn't fit in a first person one. The way to get the most out of Fallout 3 isn't to grind through the quests and maximize your points, but to create a style and to act in character in the game. Fallout 3 gives you so many options that you can actually be a human in this game. Develop quirks and play into them. My character wore glasses and pretty hats (she was a girl), and collected teddy bears. Look for the little details that litter the world and take them in like a person in the world would do.

I'm kind of sad to be defending Fallout 3 like this because it is just going to make you defensive and hate the game even more just out of spite. And I don't want that to happen. I want you to like the game.

Because I totally love this game.

 

That's just one out of many actually. There were signs of evolution in the first 2 that are nowhere to be found in the third. That's what sequels are supposed to do...right?

No, what you fail to see is that yourself disliked those sort of features. What I am saying is the game was smooth down (with ups and downs) to please old and the new. It's a terrible formula that is FAR from being reasonable. If you take the stylization and shallow (yet funny) characters and devoid them of their absurd extremeties, then it's a false notion of realism. It's like asking a clown to act like Hoffman.

Ok, so you're talking about the post-apocalyptic scenario which I already mentioned. It is well done in creating the ambiance. But once again, when people that live in it are devoided of so many human traces (and similar annoying voices)...who really cares about the dead? The conclusion is that they were empty shells as well.

No, for the most part that's a tragic comedy rubbing a bit of philosophy. Which would be ok, if the NPCs you know what. I mentioned this already so no point of repeating myself.

This isn't about making each other liking, it's a debate of ideas.

I have no idea of what you're talking about the main character. In Fallout 3 it's the same just plus the difference of being able to customize your own character. The Vault past is there, you have an indentity in the world. It's not like you can choose to be a raider or a Super Mutant. Not only that but in Fallout 3 our dude or girl has the same line of dialogue as the NPCs. So it's not different, it's worse. I would rather have better and more variety of dialogue lines to further extend my role play than a vast apparel.

It's not about the quest or inter-relationships? No motive other than just wandering around and look awsome? WTF I have been playing this game for?!
Role playing a character is already something extremely old in RPGs. But it has to happen within a context that is not a Sims aesthetical experience.

You failed to present anything substantial that isn't just about the post-apocalyptic scenario (or the minor defective VATs). I'm open to read and listen about what people that like have to say and type. But they are already losing the battle when they feel satisfied with a less than half experience.

 

These are the little details that make the whole difference when playing. Reputation was existent in 1 and 2. Good thing that the former Black Isles are in charge.

 

No, it isn't. Fallout 3 is in a different setting, more damaged by the bombs and more sparsely populated as a result. It makes as much sense to say all places in Fallout America should have the same level of government as it does to say that two different places on Earth now should have the same level of government.

I don't understand this. And what humor are you talking about? Brahmin that go "Moo Moo I say Moo"? Fallouts 1 and 2 were cartoons - you can't do the same in a 1st perspective game.

People have lots of human traits. Moira, Karl, and Knick Knack are all store owners, but they all have clearly different personalities. Reilly, Tenpenny, and your father all have views on how to reshape the Wasteland, but they all have different motivations, methods, and goals. Agatha, Washington, and Hamlin all have an interest in the artifacts of the old world, but all for different reasons. I don't see how any of these people are hollow - they conversation trees are just as complex as in the previous Fallout games. Have you actually left Megaton yet?

Fallout 3 has 36 different voice actors. Who sounds like someone else?

Everyone should. We have museums to past genocides, and this game takes place within one 100 times greater than all previous genocides combined.

More options means more chance for injecting humanity in the character. And you can certainly chose to be a raider - just wear raider clothes and do raider things and soon enough people in the wastes will respond to you as a raider.

Well, who wouldn't. But there has to be a limit somewhere.

I didn't say that. You just have to invest yourself in the game.

But what is the experience you want? Fallout 3 does what the other Fallouts do, but more immersively and more excitedly, and less boringly and less trivially.

 

You pretty much just agreed with me. It's not a sequel.

Oh really? There's brahmins in Fallout 3. Click E to talk. He says "Moo Moo" then a line of dialogue on yours shows up "Moo". Yes, very complicated to do on a first person perspective.

The humor has to be adjusted to the contemporary aspect though, in that I do agree. However I maintain my word, the past stylization is all over Fallout 3. NPCs included. This latter aspect is what make the characters look so uninteresting when dealing with a realistic setting. There's a blend of the old satyre and the new realistic mannerisms + short dialogue lines. It was poorly executed as they often end up talking like in a limbo. Add the short context of each and you have the recipe for disaster.

Conversation trees just as complex?!
Thanks, you just proved you never played the classics. If anything, even experienced gamers that like F3 complain alot about the NPCs. It's so freaking obvious that I even wonder if you really have played the old ones or any other RPG to consider this one as your favourite.

Wow, clean your ears. Someone in this thread or Fallout 3 complained about this without even touching on that specific matter. This is something you really have no argument on. Many of them sound almost the same and under the same rhythm. Most likely because the developers wanted slow and clear english. Nevertheless, they did a poor work on hiring the voice actors.

Play Mass Effect 2 and then go back to Fallout 3. If you still think there's the same diversity then you're one hell of a biased fan.

...so what? It's a game. And when in that game world most of the people are unconvincing, the immersive feeling ends immediately. Wether it walks, crawls or flies, or just plainly buried, the only good thing about the game is the scenario when I'm walking through the main quest (which, again, so far is decent - the quest). But it should be more than just that. Alot more.

No, it means having negative karma. Reputation sadly was taken out of this version.

Again, you have less to work with in this Fallout. I mentioned reputation and shorter tree dialogues. You talk about apparel.
See a difference?

No, it means you're satisfied with little.

This is going back to the NPC talk. There's nothing to invest there. So far the main quest entertains me enough, I'll give you that.

Immersively? Perhaps, because it's a 3D set...and only that.
As exciting? Using VATs 20 times in the space of a few minutes and yawn at the poorly motivated sidequests is not exactly anyone's idea of excitment.
The trivial aspect of the previous went along with fun and diversity due to its stylization. While this one everything is trivial under a realistic attempt. I much prefer the first.

Of the same breed of experienced gamers (that you're supposedly in) you're the first I ever heard calling this a favourite. It only shows how less you care or are unattentive to scripts. Or you're actually a rookie on this.

 

It's not a direct sequel that carries on the story of the west coast, but it is certainly within the same universe.

You are being purposefully obstinate. In Fallout 3 the brahmin sounds like a cow. It doesn't do a silly little joke. That is how it should be. If it were more like Fallout 1 or 2, it would sound ridiculous.

I finished the first Fallout and went about a third of the way through the second before it got too boring. The Fallout 3 dialog trees are supplemented by the first-person experiences and don't need to be so expositional. They can move and act and point and do things. Listening to a big speech by the Master which you can jump out of at multiple points isn't really a tree - it is a line.

Will you ever actually give examples for anything you say? I've constantly pointed out examples and you never do. Who sounds like who?

You are missing the whole point. It's a first person game. All those touches I mentioned are a vital part of the experience, one that couldn't exist in the old games. You see a history that you don't in the first two. Stalin said "one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic". In Fallout 3 you see the tragedy many separate times.

Negative karma will still get you treated differently.

The side quests are the same in both games. Get someone something they need. Clear a place of dangerous creatures. Protect something from something else. And sometimes things don't end up like you were expected to believe. What exactly is unmotivated about Fallout 3 quests? You actually listen to every character in Fallout 3, so you get much more information about how they feel about the quest and what they expect will happen.

You have no basis for thinking this is some well recognized mediocrity. This game has gotten consistently high ratings and more best game of the year awards than you can shake a stick at.

 

I'd have to play thru again, but there are plenty of examples. It's not the main characters, (your dad, 3 Dog, etc.), but many of the supporting cast, like some of the guys in the Rivet City marketplace, all have the same voice actor.

I know for sure since my buddy was playing it at my place over the weekend (I've been helping him beat the game, since I already have), and as he was going thru a few of the missions, and talking to people at length, it was very obvious that their voices were the same.

If you really don't believe me, I can try and get names, but I think it was fairly obvious.

EDIT: Proof positive...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1073664/fullcredits#cast

 

You do all realise that people are allowed to enjoy\rate games differently?

Fallout 3 is probably in the top 5 games I've played. Somebody telling me it's majorly flawed isn't going to change that. It's just funny watching people telling others why they should or shouldn't like a game.

 

I loved the game myself... there were flaws, sure, but the good outweighed the bad by far.

I just think we all hope that New Vegas accentuates the good and rectifies the bad.

 

The problem, however, is that Fallout 3 takes place 30 years after Fallout 2. It's official. So no matter how much you want to use that argument, Bethesda screwed you on that one.

But you want examples, right? Here's the list of some incoherences:

- Mutants were for the most part eradicated in the east coast. Later under a new type of FEV experimentation, news ones were formed in the west and got out of the Vault. Their intelligence is below even of the least inteligent of the east coast (it's a fact, read the terminal). But somewhat, unexplainably, they're capable of: tactical distribution (raid on GNR, safekeeping Jefferson Memorial); gather high tech weapons and ammunition; randomly infect FEV on captured humans to create more Super Mutants; domesticate Centaurs; holding a biomedical or wtv building. Now tell me, how is possible that such a dumb race, inferior of the ones in Core Region, capable of employing such a massive organization?

- 30 years after the setting of Fallout 2 and the NCR wasn't able to expand there? With all their available means?!...not even a single mention? Yet Brotherhood already had a significant presence in the classics. Funny ah?

- In Fallout 2 the currency were coins, not caps (which makes me wonder if you actually played it at all). This is just a high incoherence as the NCR lack of expansion.

- The sparse and disperse population in Fallout 3 is a completely dumb set. This is going back on Fallout 1 all over again. How is it possible that 200 years after the nuclear war they weren't able to AT LEAST match a few cities on the east?

These alone are enough to prove that Bethesda didn't care about the franchise. And the only reason why I state that in the past tense is because they hired Obsidian.

Thanks for admitting that you don't know what you're talking about.

As for your initial lines, I presented a view in my previous post that should be enough for you to dissect. You just chose to ignore that part.

Complete the games first. Fallout 3 is filled with the same moronic lines toward NPCs. So repetitive that makes almost every approach the same. In this case I don't even need to exemplify as it's all over the game. You could more easily corrupt NPCs and involve them in 2 to more hypothetical scenarios in the classics. In 3 you seldom find that.
How is this not relevant to freedom of choice or a more interesting NPC interaction?

FIFARay007 already did it for me.

Think it this way, would the notion of tragedy be equal if 1 and 2 were FPSs too? You know it would. Why you keep on defending the visual aspect as a vital argument?

Reputation + karma even more.

What you get is a freaking kid out of nowhere which voice makes me want to kill him. In 1 or 2 the characters are well built and emphasize their intents better than in 3. No need to explaining more, I did that a thousand times already.

Here's my argument on this though. Must of the times you get one end scenarios which you rarely find in 1 or 2 - read the walkthroughs and make a comparison. Some censorship issues on Fallout 3 don't help either.

Boohoo, the only reason this game is so popular are thanks to gamers such as yourself that get easily impressed over awsome graphics. The hype was (and still is) so big that reviewers took note of some serious flaws and yet granted it a fantastic grade. Heck, there's even some ill intended backstage manouvers in the reviewing industry, but I'll leave it at that. Anyway, it's not the first game to be hyped and it won't be the last. Especially this one, when many reviewers (or edited articles) barely make any mention of the Fallout chronology which sould of been a fundamental point.


Look, if this was the first Fallout release ever, it would deserve its popularity. The scenario is wonderful, trade is stimulating, the minor defective VATs is cool (when not overusing it) and the main quest is decent. On this perspective, it sounds very good for a begginer in the Fallout universe and I'll give you that (except the NPCs, they still suck ). But I have played the classics and this is rated as an official sequel. I can't close my eyes over this. It is disappointing no matter how you put it.

 

This is not about discussing the game per se. Just a share of ideas of those that experienced the trilogy. We see this on a different light, it's only natural. spejic although fooled me well...he didn't play the whole thing.

 

Unpossible. According to the guys over at NMA (who sound a lot like Chess_Panther), FO3 was a FPS. ( ) That'll melt some brains, since Black Isle is making FO:NV.

 

I'm not a NMA member. They represent the other trench that if one element is out of play, then everything else is.

I'm happy that we're going to use the VATs less, in fact I stated that several times. Learn how to read.

The perspective of the classic players (not every single one of them, truth be told) toward the game is completely different for newcomers in Fallout 3. Not going to impose mine on people who have no clue of what I'm talking about. I thought spejic did (as someone who supposedly played the trilogy)...hence the discussion.