Printable View
New Vegas was far better in every way. At least you could actually role play in New Vegas, Fallout 3; it's a finality to not be able to.
New vegas is better in every measurable and also every unmeasurable way.
The bigger question is probably this: Fallout 3: New Vegas or Fallout 4?
What is Fallout 3: New Vegas?
New Vegas still kills both of emQuote:
Originally Posted by Formalhaut
While I'm sure Fallout: New Vegas is probably the better game in terms of things you can do, plot etc., I enjoyed Fallout 3 more.
Still haven't gotten around to playing New Vegas yet. I have it, just haven't felt like playing it.
It's pretty amazing how New Vegas and Fallout 3 feel so different when using the same assets, engine, and, outside of some tweaks, mechanics. New Vegas is a masterpiece.
New Vegas > 4 > 3.Quote:
Originally Posted by Formalhaut
In terms of pure shooting/combat mechanics then 4 is superior but the writing in New Vegas and the options and relative freedoms it gives you is unparalleled. Though I'd also say 3 beats 4 in that regard, just as, controversial opinion time, Oblivion beats Skyrim with that too.
I haven't played 3 so NV for me
So far I am very much preferring NV to 4, but I did try it more last night and I am enjoying it again. Just not to the same degree. I wish I knew what my answers were because the key words they give you don't always match up with what I was expecting, there's much less conversation so far, and it's harder. I like that in NV I can go anywhere and do whatever in mostly any order, barring a few difficult areas. It's much easier to make it a unique experience I guess
I meant to have that : become a comma. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Mirage
This doesn't get better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pumpkin
Totally agree. Oblivion gave the ability to craft your own spells and use the mechanic oh then how you like. You could make a lightning fire dagger, or a multi tiered shield spell and give good defense to your clothes wearing wizard. So much utilityQuote:
Originally Posted by PsychoticNew Vegas > 4 > 3.Quote:
Originally Posted by Formalhaut
In terms of pure shooting/combat mechanics then 4 is superior but the writing in New Vegas and the options and relative freedoms it gives you is unparalleled. Though I'd also say 3 beats 4 in that regard, just as, controversial opinion time, Oblivion beats Skyrim with that too.
Patrolling the Mojave almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter.
To be fair, there are a lot of new assets in NV.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laddy
New Vegas is a masterwork in the old-school traditions of CRPGs, almost up there with games like Baldur's Gate.
4 is an incredibly fun romp through an extremely detailed world with solid gameplay, and a decent enough story.
3 is really a big bag of trout but was still pretty fun to explore.
Ok, well, no, not really :p. That's still as easy a question as the first one. New Vegas.Quote:
Originally Posted by FormalhautI meant to have that : become a comma. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Mirage
Fallout 3 was good.
New Vegas was good, I just enjoyed Fallout 3 more.
Fallout 4 gets very boring very quickly and I think they have "dumbed it down" too much.
There's barely a tutorial, and most aspects of settlements and crafting are left completely to discover on your own by accident or with the help of a guide. I think they streamlined some things, but I think their biggest problem may have been putting too much focus on settlements, and possibly too many resources were also put into ensuring the console versions could eventually be moddable. Either way, it definitely looks like their focus was split somewhere, so I'll agree that it's lacking in a few aspects
I agree. Settlements was woefully under-tutorialled and left too much for you to discover.
V.A.T.S was altered in a way which made the game slightly better in that it doesn't stop charging enemies and you can still take damage.
But all in all, a quite boring game when the mid to late levels are reached and you are one-shotting most human types, and at most 4 shotting death claws.
:cactuar:
They've only "dumbed it down" in that there's no longer meaningful interaction with characters. It's a murder simulator now. (and a very easy one, even on Survival)
Exact-a-mundo!! A point-and-click-shoot-em-up.
Actually most of the time pointing doesn't even matter since you kill everything out of VATS
I'd actually argue the new dialogue system has merely exposed the fact that Bethesda was always lacking in meaningful character interaction in their games.
I already knew they weren't good at it; this game just made me feel like NPCs were barely even present, rather than just awkward/bad to interact with. It's the biggest weakness of Bethesda games.
I want to be clear that I "like" Fallout 4, I'm just very disappointed in it because it COULD be great, and it isn't.
Fallout 4's dialogue system seems like a really crappy take on BioWare's dialogue wheel. Only it has no meaningful effect on much of anything.
I liked the companion system. Having companions react to stuff was nice.That's an improvement. Even New Vegas wasn't good about that.
I had so many people warn me about ways I could piss off and lose my companions. But ya know what? I actually brought Veronica along with me to help stamp out the Brotherhood of Steel and she never made so much as a peep.
Meanwhile, in FO4, me and my waifu Cait got along splendidly. She loved me for all the things I already did normally.
It's the blood of the Irish in me, I guess.
I'm also in the camp of "Fallout 4 is a decent game, but you can tell they could have done a lot more."
I'm being forgiving, because it is a new system and it's not uncommon for developers to leave a lot on the table when making the first game on a new system. I hope that the next one returns to the better dialogue choices, and more varied ways of playing the different missions.
Pumpkin and I play the games very differently. In Fallout: New Vegas her choices in what skills she took and how she chose to interact with characters made a noticeable difference. In Fallout 4, not so much. I've seen many missions that either turned out basically the same, or made it to where you really could only play it one way. She uses lots of charisma to get out of situations, I use lots of sneaking and rifles. You can't really tell the difference in how the game plays out though.
I'm also not very enamored with the companion like/dislike situation in the new game. I like it in theory, but when you factor in limited dialogue, and skills that don't work well with the limitations, the results are crap.
Let's use Strong for an example. He hates whenever I sneak around or pick locks/hack computers.
Okay fine, if I want Strong around, then no sneaking. What am I supposed to do about safes,doors, and computers? There's really no other way to get into locked safes or doors other than picking them. So if I want Strong around, then I'm stuck leaving lots of areas unexplored. Maybe if they had a strength skill that would let you kick open doors or a demolitions skill that would let you blow open safes it would be okay, but they don't.
If they're going to have companions that don't like certain things, then they need to offer ways for your character to overcome that obstacle in a different way.
Well, you can just not pick locks to pointless rooms of loot and things, if Strong is with you. You aren't actually "missing out" because everyone one of those rooms is exactly the same. On the truly rare occasion where it seems like it might not be, then just come back without Strong.
It is dumb though. I got really unreasonably annoyed when Codsworth "disliked" that I "stole" ammo from an auto-hostile Raider WHO HE WAS IN COMBAT WITH. I still have one suit of Power Armor I can't enter in Sanctuary because it's not technically mine (it belonged to a Raider and I "stole" it) and all my companions there dislike it when I climb in.
Yeah, it's pretty dumb that the companions react to things they have no way of seeing even happen.
To be fair, there are gradients to it, and what little they dislike can easily be regained by everything they do like. I had Codsworth with me for a long time, and I picked locks, and stole from raiders, and he disliked a few things, but he still ended up adoring me in the end. As long as its not "Codsworth really disliked that". I think it's fine. Then again, it's Bethesda, so it wouldn't surprise me if the "so-and-so didn't like that" thing was completely broken, and their standing with you never actually drops and Codsworth would have actually hated me in reality. Hard to tell
With Codsworth in particular you can just keep disassembling and reassembling the same gun mod every few hours until he Idolizes you.
I understand that you don't have to go into those doors, but considering that it's all part of the exploration in the game, that's pretty crap in my opinion.
I don't want to have to go back and find all those safes and doors again. It's not game breaking or anything. You just pick a different partner, or don't use one. I just find it annoying.
It also made me feel that what you can do with your character outside of FPS style combat is starting to feel limited or that it really doesn't matter too much.
There's the item crafting and resource management side of things that has potential, but even it would need polishing in the next game. Specifically the settlement building.
Given the game had so much hype surrounding it, would you say it was a bit of a disappointment Sharky?
I really didn't buy into the hype that much, so I'm more neutral.
I was looking forward to the game, but I had a feeling it wouldn't be much different from the previous installments because it was on a new system and some developers try to go conservative the first time out on a new system.
I would say the improvements they made in some areas are nullified by other areas where I think the game is worse.
okay you're all saying a lot of things but the USS Constitution quests exist
I haven't had the heart to go visit it in its new location. I just want to believe.
I have not come across this yet. Where may I find said quest?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Adequate
Go to the very north-eastern area of downtown Boston. You won't miss it.
I personally prefer fallout 3, but I will admit that New Vegas has some things that are superior. The split story, all the DLC, iron sights, mods, cooking, some of the quests.
I'll admit this one was pretty great. I rank it below the Silver Shroud quest, but still a lot of stupid fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Adequate
Captain Ironsides the best dialogue, but running around like a film noir Batman was just too much fun. Plus you get pretty good armor.
Here's a map of "real Boston" overlayed on the FO4 map to avoid any spoilery things. It's between the Chelsea and North End markers, on the west side of the harbor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivi22I have not come across this yet. Where may I find said quest?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Adequate
http://i.imgur.com/Jsx4G8G.png
I agree with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hypoallergenic Cactuar
3 was just better, but New Vegas was more content-y
After playing NV, FO3 just feels very shallow.
And after replaying it, very poorly written if I'm being honest.
Which is probably why Fallout 4 is so shallow as it was the Fallout 3 engine and slightly improved graphics.
Well, no, it was a totally different engine from Fallout 3, but the engine is just a tool for making a game. None of the differences in gameplay from Fallout 3 to Fallout 4 have anything to do with the engine really and could have been done easily if they chose to do it.
But the last comments Mirage and I made were specifically about Fallout 3 being shallow, not Fallout 4. I would actually say Fallout 4 is no worse in that regard, it just does a worse job hiding it in places.
FO4 is pretty much just as shallow as 3, but I felt personally it did a much better job of hiding it, because there was nothing as egregiously stupid like, oh, say, the Main Quest in 3. Like yeah the MQ in 4 wasn't great but it wasn't warmed-over garbage either.
But I mean we're comparing both to NV which was one of the best RPGs of any style in years, warts and all, so it's kind of moot.
FO4 doesn't have an entirely different engine. It's the same codebase as gamebryo, just with some extra stuff to make the graphics up to par with other games. It's the same engine as was used for Skyrim too, naturally.
When I said 4 doesn't hide it as well i specifically meant that the lack of dialogue choices makes it even more apparent that there's little impact you can actually have through dialogue. 3 was just as bad of course, it's just a lot more apparent since it's not hidden under a list of possible, if useless, choices.
It's a shame Bethesda didn't learn anything from New Vegas though. There was a game where your choices mattered.
I see you didn't do a Railroad playthrough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Adequate
Ugh that ending -_-Quote:
Originally Posted by SpuukyI see you didn't do a Railroad playthrough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Adequate
Well yeah why would I do a Railroad play through when the Institute and BoS exist? There are two sides worth siding with and neither begin with "R" or "M".
e; The endings are trout but that's not limited to the faction, it's the fact that Bethesda couldn't figure out how to combine letting you play after you finish the MQ with giving actual closure or outcomes to anything.
The main quest is actually pretty much garbage. The Institute as a faction makes no sense at all. The Railroad makes even less sense. The BoS does at least make sense but they're an unpleasant bunch of assholes who I'd never want to win. And the Minutemen are just a failover faction in case you somehow screw up everything else.
Do you know what I had to do for (SPOILER)the battle of Bunker Hill, for instance? I executed the Synth Courser when we first arrived, since I am Railroading. Every faction was non-hostile to me at this point - even if I attacked them. I killed every single BoS and Institute rep with my combat knife, without making anyone hostile. Paladins took 3-4 backstabs, never caring at all, until they were dead.
I made it inside - the Railroad is non-hostile of course, but their machine gun turrets are still hostile to me so I HAVE to kill my own side's turrets, to walk by. I got inside, and learned that my entire objective was literally just walk all the way in to quest-tag the synths (aka do literally nothing but walk into the room) and walk all the way back out, again with no one firing at me.
This is mandatory main-quest event. I could actually probably keep listening utter nonsense interactions and plot holes from even just this one, but I think you get the picture.
I say we just put Obsidian in charge of all future Fallout and TES games.
And there's a part of me that is like "Oh but Bethesda did Morrowind, I still believe" but I'm pretty sure we aren't gonna get another Morrowind. (Although, thinking about it, if I was gonna trust anybody to do a new Morrowind I'd trust Obsidian.)
Eh, I really can't say I've enjoyed Obsidian games that much more than Bethesda games. And I haven't beaten any Obsidian games any more than I've beaten Bethesda games, so I can't really say much about how they handle their end-game. Other than Knights of the Old Republic 2, which was pretty phenomenal. Alpha Protocol was alright, New Vegas was alright, South Park was pretty good, Pillars of Eternity was pretty good. Fallout 3 was alright. Oblivion was pretty good. And Fallout 4 was pretty good
They rank about the same in my capacity to enjoy them and how much drive they give me to play through everything they have to offer in a game. I'm not sure why Obsidian is seen as so much of a better developer on these forums over Bethesda, or BioWare in a lot of cases. I see them as pretty equal overall. Though I do think Obsidian should have the rights to Fallout back. Or inXile. They both have pretty much the same pedigree of original involvement back in the Black Isle days. But I think inXile will get along fine with the renewed Wasteland IP. Which it too was pretty good, is all I'll count it as. Torment looks to be really good. But we'll see
Maybe I'm just overlooking some valuable nuance. Or I'm just really picky when rating my favorite games and their developers
For me, and I know it's different for other people, but I always preferred Obsidian games over Bethesda ones. That's not to say that they're my favorite dev ever or anything. But aside from Morrowind (which I loved) and Skyrim (which I liked a great deal, although it did have some issues), pretty much anything by Bethesda has just felt meh to me.
I hate to say it because they're really good at making worlds that feel alive. And of course I will always love Morrowind. But I feel like beyond that they're just kind of... there?
Meanwhile Obsidian gave us New Vegas, KoTOR 2, PoE, and Alpha Protocol, all of which I liked (to varying degrees).
That's my take on it, anyway. Obs not everyone feels the same :tongue:
As for BioWare. I liked their older stuff (KoTOR, Baldur's Gate II) quite a bit but I haven't really been able to get into any of their new stuff. I don't know if they're really the dev for me. In fairness it's been a little while since I've given them a shot, I guess.
I'll use some of your game list to summarize why I think Obsidian is better than Bethesda.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vyk
Oblivion - 4/10
Fallout 3 - 5/10
New Vegas - 8/10
South Park - 8/10
Fallout 4 - 6/10
Although I think Bioware is better than Obsidian.
Bethesda have gone downhill in the last decade. Morrowind was by far their pinnacle, and although they've redeemed themselves quite a bit in my eyes after the debacles of Oblivion and Fallout 3, with their respective sequels, I still don't rate them as all that amazing. Still, if they're back on the up from their nadir maybe the next things they come out with will be really amazing again.
On the other hand the only thing Obsidian has ever done wrong is lacked enough time to do everything they want. That's why, for example, Caesar's Legion isn't at all fleshed out. They intended to have a lot more going on behind their front lines where you would see a much more complex society and which might create a justification for a not-evil Courier to side with them, but they just didn't have the resources. For another example, KOTOR 2 was infamous for cut content and a sense of not being entirely finished when it shipped.
But even when that happens the games they make are far more interesting than anything from Bethesda since Morrowind. Alpha Protocol is flawed, but amazing and both meaningfully novel and deep. South Park was a great and hilarious little RPG. New Vegas was way better than "alright". And Pillars of Eternity was pretty much instantly declared a classic of the CRPG genre, not quite the equal of Baldur's Gate II or Planescape: Torment, but really damn close.
As for BioWare, I don't rate modern BW as highly as some do, but aside from massively smurfing up with ME3, they've put out consistently huge and detailed games that win a lot of acclaim and a lot of fans. They may not be making another game as absolutely, incomparably masterful as Baldur's Gate 2 anytime soon, but it's not like I didn't play all the Mass Effect series at release, and I've been spending most of my gaming time the last week intensely playing DA:O so I mean, they're doing a lot right. But they're not doing much that's daring, not how Obsidian attempt and often succeed.
Except telling everyone to get smurfed when everyone was mad about the ending of Mass Effect 3, that was a pretty hilarious bit of daring trolling, I'll admit.
Fallout 3 and Skyrim were two of my favourite games from the last generation. Probably in my top 10 somewhere.
Fallout 3 was a nice introduction to the series to me but is garbage when put up against New Vegas.
That's exactly what I think too :p
I'd say they're all 9/10 gamesQuote:
Originally Posted by SpuukyI'll use some of your game list to summarize why I think Obsidian is better than Bethesda.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vyk
Oblivion - 4/10
Fallout 3 - 5/10
New Vegas - 8/10
South Park - 8/10
Fallout 4 - 6/10
Although I think Bioware is better than Obsidian.
Yes, just like every game. Can you give me an example of a Bethesda-style game (open-world action-ish RPG) that you would rate 6 or lower?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollycat
Yeah I'd probably make fallout 3 a 6/10 but overall the others would be 7.5 or 8 regardless of the developer. But maybe I expect less from Bethesda for some reason. Either way that really does put it in better perspective. Thanks spuuky and everyone else who answered. I get it now. It probably helps I didn't play Morrowind until long after Oblivion. And only on console. So I didn't have a timeless experience with them to compare. And I think I'm missing something in Pillars of Eternity. I liked it well enough. But for me Divinity was much more a return to crpg amazingness. To each their own, but there is a growing list of games I want to be able to see differently and enjoy better the way others do. Either way, thanks again
There aren't really any other games comparable to them... I mean, I'd say the original borderlands would be close to a 6 or 7. Same with the original Mass Effect. I'd give Kingdoms of Amular a 4 or 5, and Ni No Kuni a 6 or so.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpuukyYes, just like every game. Can you give me an example of a Bethesda-style game (open-world action-ish RPG) that you would rate 6 or lower?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollycat
yay, i'm not the only one who thinks ni no kuni is a mediocre game!
Ni no Kuni isn't even remotely like a Bethesda game, but I think it's good, except for the utterly interminable hand-holding.
If only the hand-holding wasn't written into the story. That's about the main thing that turned me off to that game... If it was just tool-tips and tutorial stuff that could be turned-off or by-passed in some way. I love what Ni No Kuni tried to do, and how pretty and imaginative it was. The experience was memorable and fun. But completely ruined... I pray the next one succeeds in all the ways the first one failed, without sacrificing everything that was good about the first one. Though I hear Level 5 has trouble with their end-game. I haven't played Dark Cloud or Rogue Galaxy, let alone beat them, but I heard people complain that the end of Ni No Kuni doesn't do the game as much justice as it deserved(?), and the common complaint was that was just a fault with Level 5. But I wouldn't know
I've heard people say Level 5 really went downhill after Dark cloud and particularly DC2.
someone talkin trout about kingdoms of amalur like i wouldn't find out
also what about two worlds?
I will never know if two worlds two is awful or not because I can't get past how ugly the main character is and how dumb his arms look.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Adequate
My main enjoyment with BioWare games is the attention to diversity they put in their games, whether it's positive representations of trans identities with Krem in DA:I, to LGBT characters, race, or an interesting examination of different religious creeds. I feel like I can be lost in those worlds when I'm playing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Adequate
After playing Fallout 4. I can honestly say Fallout 3 was better in some regards. In fact Bethesda went one step forward and took 5 steps back. The gunplay was better but that was all to it. Fallout 4 was over hyped, bad story, bad characters, bad role playing, no moral dilemmas in comparison to Fallout 1 through 2 and New Vegas, bad dialogue, no honest choices in character of decisions, truthfully in my mind Bethesda smurfed up for the last time. New Vegas stands as the best Fallout in the series with Fallout 2 falling second.
I respect your position Lazerface, but I'm not sure I can really understand it. Everything you say that is bad about 4 is even more true with 3, in my eyes. 4 is mediocre a lot of the time, but it's only mediocre - 3 is actively and offensively bad, stupid, and nonsensical.
Okay you know how there's B-movies that are absolutely terrible in any objective way but still more fun than 90% of actual good movies? Two Worlds is like that but in game form.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollycat
And now you know!
Yes. But Fallout 4 is everything Fallout 3 is but a bit worse. It's Fallout 3v.2. The difference is Fallout 4 really has no role playing in it and everything was fixed from the start with very little options to modify the ending or the outcomes. At least Fallout 3 was an RPG to an extent in wide dialogue options but I still hate the fact that there really is no moral dilemma in Fallout 3 and maybe even lesser in Fallout 4.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Adequate
I can kinda see where Lazerface is getting at, I think. Fallout 3 may have been bad, but Fallout 4 is penalised more heavily because Bethesda should have learned from the mistakes made in Fallout 3 in creating Fallout 4, instead of creating a slightly less crappier version of Fallout 3 (but is more crap due to previous experience and it being newer).
Because that makes a kind of sense.
That's how Elder Scrolls with guns do
That is true. But the realest thing that sets Fallout 3 and New Vegas apart is moral dilemma. Which is really unnoticed in Fallout 3 until you get to the Pitt. To which the Pitt would've made a better Fallout 3 than Fallout 3 itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vyk
wasn't there some moral dilemma in tranquility lane?
No. There really wasn't. Everything was done as a means to an end to find your dad. It wasn't about choosing whether the occupants could be released or not and let them finally die or face an eternity in a virtual hell. All was done as a means to find daddy. Now if you talk about the Pitt. There was moral dilemma there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirage
It is kind of odd, that Bethesda has kind of refused to acknowledge the advancements that Obsidian made in the gameplay department, and yet embraced their idea of "what do they eat?" that people kept asking about Fallout 3
And they only kind of sort of learned from them on companions
But tranquility lane was completely optional and didn't have anything to do with the ending.Quote:
Originally Posted by LazerfaceNo. There really wasn't. Everything was done as a means to an end to find your dad. It wasn't about choosing whether the occupants could be released or not and let them finally die or face an eternity in a virtual hell. All was done as a means to find daddy. Now if you talk about the Pitt. There was moral dilemma there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirage
No, it wasn't. You pretty much needed your dad for project purity and overall advancement of the main storyline.Quote:
Originally Posted by MirageBut tranquility lane was completely optional and didn't have anything to do with the ending.Quote:
Originally Posted by LazerfaceNo. There really wasn't. Everything was done as a means to an end to find your dad. It wasn't about choosing whether the occupants could be released or not and let them finally die or face an eternity in a virtual hell. All was done as a means to find daddy. Now if you talk about the Pitt. There was moral dilemma there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirage
Your dad wasn't in tranquility lane. Does the game actually force you down into that vault? I can't remember anything like that. There's also the thing about killing treeguy or not. Pretty sure that was unrelated to the dad plot as well.
-edit- so i was wrong, the area wasn't optional, but how you decided to solve it didn't have a very tangible effect ont he game world, except the dumb karma system reacting to it. a system that shouldn't really have been in the game at all
The karma system has been around since the first Fallout. In Fallout 3 it just wasn't implemented well enough in comparison to the first two and New Vegas. It didn't allow moral ambiguity at no karma gain or loss.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirage
one-dimensional alignment systems don't really belong anywhere. I didn't play FO1 long enough to deal with it, but how it is in FO3, and even NV is bad.
Yeah but at least there's a chance to be morally ambiguous in New VegasQuote:
Originally Posted by Mirage
Tenpenny Tower and Roy Phillips/the ghouls is better than anything in New Vegas in terms of moral ambiguity.
It really is a beautiful thing that subverts all expectations.
I would disagree that morality was bad in NV mostly since I can't even remember having an overall karma level in it. Most of the time the only thing that affected you was how friendly the various factions were and whether or not you did things to piss them off was generally handled quite well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirage
And I don't think Tenpenny Tower was all that great honestly. Sure there's a bit of a twist if you help them move in peacefully, but that really doesn't make your choices morally ambiguous. It just means things still end badly for one group even if you do the non-psychopathic thing.
Well I just killed all the ghouls anyway. Also blew up Megaton. I needed those 1000 Caps, money is hard to come by in the Capital Wasteland.
Karma in NV wasn't as bad because faction fame was used for most quests. The karma scale isn't any better because of that, however, its suckiness is just made less relevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivi22I would disagree that morality was bad in NV mostly since I can't even remember having an overall karma level in it. Most of the time the only thing that affected you was how friendly the various factions were and whether or not you did things to piss them off was generally handled quite well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirage
No not really. At least I think. The reason why is when you break it down the quest really had no alternative other than kill the ghouls, invade Tenpenny tower, or talk peacefully with Tenpenny and let them kill everyone in the tower. There was no option to ask Roy Phillips to relocate to Underworld in D.C since it's a ghoul community and he'd likely get along finely there. When you break it down it's still morally black and white that judges you for killing Roy or helping the ghouls who were eventually gonna kill everyone in the tower. A better to stay morally ambiguous is to offer no karma gain or loss regardless of decision and open the option to make Roy go to underworld. But he was a greedy sonofabitch. Compare to New Vegas, there's a hell of a lot of moral ambiguity in New Vegas that far overreaches Fallout 3.Quote:
Originally Posted by Forsaken Lover
It's more or less the same deal. You can kill the Brotherhood or form an alliance with the Brotherhood, you can kill the Khans or form an alliance with the Khans, etc. etc..
While NV technically did karma and morality better, they also did it worse. You pretty much had to take the side of the NCR over The Legion since if you didn't you would just get shot to pieces in every location since The Legion is practically nowhere and the NCR is everywhere.
You can complete the game as an entirely neutral party and not get shot to pieces by any of the major factions.
Or leave them alone, convince them to fight alongside the NCR, convince them to fight the NCR, convince them to stay out of it and be left to their own devices.Quote:
Originally Posted by Forsaken Lover
Yes, but the NCR are so heavily involved in the game, and have an incredible amount of quests tagged to them that you would not really get to experience the full game without taking their side. My main gripe with the game is how they handled the NCR and Legion.
I recently played the GotY addition, and I think by and large I enjoyed the DLC more. Although the DLC also does enhance the main game a fair bit.
the legion was a bit one-dimensional. it could have been written a lot better
There actually were lots bigger plans for the Legion including settlements showing regular citizens (as opposed to just seeing soldiers) depicting how much safer their lives were than NCR citizens. There were also plans for a companion for you from the Legion which was originally going to be Lonesome Road's Ulysses. Bethesda pushed Obsidian to release it sooner, that content was cut and we were left with a more unbalanced view of the two factions than was intended.
That seemed pretty mean by Bethesda. I'm guessing the two companies don't get along. :p
They most certainly do not. Did not, at least. Maybe they've gotten over it by now.
They also denied them their bonuses because it only reached 84% on metacritic, rather than the 85% they needed for the bonus. If the game hadn't been rushed, it might have gotten a higher score. Not only that, but they also spent a significant amount of time fixing bethesda's horrible gamebryo engine.
I don't think it was a malicious attempt to stifle their creative vision but more of a "game's good enough, need to get some cash" move.
If you have ever played an Obsidian game, you know that their middle name is "cut content."
It's just how they roll, it's not Bethesda's fault. NV is a miracle compared to KOTOR II.
You should all be grateful, Fallout 3 was a super amazing perfect success. Bethesda didn't have to give Obsidian anything but they chose to, out of respect for the original writers of the series.
Nice try. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Forsaken Lover
Well you might not be grateful for Bethesda's generosity but JE Sawyer is.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/05/i...out-new-vegas/
JE Sawyer received a considerable amount of financial remuneration to have the privilege of designing and writing an awesome game in a much loved franchise.
I paid Bethesda money to consume their consumer product and they made a profit from this. If anything, Bethesda should be grateful to me for choosing to buy said product and providing free advertising by extolling its virtues to like minded consumers.
"Much loved franchise"? It was a long dead cult hit loved by ten people who had given up any hope of sequels before Bethesda resurrected it and made it popular with millions.
Yeah but making it popular doesn't necessarily constitute survival. Hell if anything popularity means it's just going to follow along the common path taken by other games that are made popular and likely lose it's original flavor that connected with the older fans of the series. You might have the younger gen liking it but that doesn't mean the older has to like it or respect the direction the series takes. Hell, a lot of people hate Fallout 3 for the bad story, characters, gun play, and limited weapon and ammunition options. A lot more people hate Fallout 4 for doing everything Fallout 3 did, but worse with only one step forward and 5 steps back. When you go the route of other popular games and adapt a lot of things they do, such a series would lose uniqueness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Forsaken Lover
You realize that KOTOR2 was another case of the publisher rushing things and forcing Obsidian to release an unfinished game right? And it was still better than the original.Quote:
Originally Posted by Forsaken Lover
How many post-apocalyptic open world games are there? The only "popular style" Bethesda adopted was their own. They took their big, expansive environments and transported it to the ruins of America.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazerface
I am in full agreement KOTOR II was better than KOTOR I but that's because KOTOR II did something different while KOTOR I was just more of the same. As a fan of the Star Wars Expanded Universe, all the crap in KOTOR I had seen done before. Fallout 3 didn't have this problem, thankfully.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivi22
And? That idea is unique in it's own and that's not what pisses me off aboutQuote:
Originally Posted by Forsaken LoverHow many post-apocalyptic open world games are there? The only "popular style" Bethesda adopted was their own. They took their big, expansive environments and transported it to the ruins of America.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazerface
I am in full agreement KOTOR II was better than KOTOR I but that's because KOTOR II did something different while KOTOR I was just more of the same. As a fan of the Star Wars Expanded Universe, all the crap in KOTOR I had seen done before. Fallout 3 didn't have this problem, thankfully.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivi22
Bethesda. It's really the bad stories, characters, limited weapon and ammunition types, terrible morality, bad gameplay, being overly simple and too easy from start to end. And just going away from the vibe that Fallout has always given off in the hands of Interplay or Obsidian.
I found New Vegas to be a lot easier than Fallout 3. Not only are companions immortal, you can have two of them. Between ED-E and Boone, you can wreck anything. And when I say "you"I mean "them."
Here was my endgame for 3 vs. New Vegas:
New Vegas - armed with Old Glory and Ulysses' Duster I bludgeoned my way through the NCR's best. I didn't even get to kill Oliver, ED-e or Cass did that while I was beating the "Heavy Troopers" to death with ease.
In Fallout 3, the Air Base and Mobile Crawler were nightmares. By the last two rooms I was out of health and ammo and had to just run for it. Poor Clover died. Those last two rooms are hell, full of Sentry Bots, Hellfire Troopers, Mr. Gutsy's and I think a vertibird. My only chance was to find the PC, launch the missiles, and then get the hell out of dodge. I died so many times....
The hardest part of New Vegas was Dead Money and that's becauseit's one giant gimmick fest. Also terrible in every way.
New Vegas isn't really easy on hardcore mode. Try that. Companions die. Dead Money felt like post nuclear ocean's eleven and I can agree with you a bit there. But to me it's still better than Old world blues.Quote:
Originally Posted by Forsaken Lover