So I am doing a full playthrough Fallout New Vegas for the first time.

[Samtemdo8]

Only ever just hung around in Goodsprings, never ventured beyond.

Anyways I just finished playing a LOT of Fallout 3 recently as a way of preparing myself for New Vegas.

So what's the deal with this one because I feel like this is the most overhyped in the Modern Fallout series.

Its better then anything Bethesda themselves made, far better story and writing, etc.

Far deeper RPG mechanics.

But regardless, what is there to expect in this game? All I know is that factions and reputation is a big deal here. 4 of them as far as I know.

New California Republic (NCR)
Caesar's Legion
Mr. House.
And a Robot character who's name eludes me.

 

[Xprimentyl]

I personally just felt Fallout: New Vegas was just more Fallout 3; I never understood the rampant fandom behind it. It felt like extensive Fallout 3 DLC at best. A decent game, for sure, and I did appreciate the added survival mechanic (you must eat, sleep and drink,) but it’s not that vastly different from its immediate predecessor as many praise it to be. But then, I don’t like Star Wars or popular music, so my opinion is just that; take it for what it’s worth.

 

[happyninja42]

Only ever just hung around in Goodsprings, never ventured beyond.

Anyways I just finished playing a LOT of Fallout 3 recently as a way of preparing myself for New Vegas.

So what's the deal with this one because I feel like this is the most overhyped in the Modern Fallout series.

Its better then anything Bethesda themselves made, far better story and writing, etc.

Far deeper RPG mechanics.

Just to clarify, are you saying those lines in the context of "this is what I keep hearing people say about it" ? Or is this your actual opinion of the quality of the game? Because I find that really odd since you flat out said you never left the starting town.

 

[Samtemdo8]

Just to clarify, are you saying those lines in the context of "this is what I keep hearing people say about it" ? Or is this your actual opinion of the quality of the game? Because I find that really odd since you flat out said you never left the starting town.

I played around this game a bit but never fully commited to a playthrough of all its content. Don't even know what the DLC looks like.

All I know is things I've been told about this game.

 

[happyninja42]

I played around this game a bit but never fully commited to a playthrough of all its content. Don't even know what the DLC looks like.

All I know is things I've been told about this game.

That's fine, just the phrasing made it seem like you were saying "I've never really played it, but I know it's better than anything Bethesda has made ever!"

OT: My personal opinion of the game, is that it's boring as hell. I loved FO 3, and played the hell out of it when it came out, and got NV eventually. I got bored with it, on so many occasions. The visual look of it was really boring, orange/brown scrubland, for pretty much the entire map. The fact that it's out in the middle of the desert, means that it's already looking very run down, and nothing about it really screamed "post apoclypse" to me. The ruined towns could've been ruined towns in present day Nevada as far as I was concerned. The factions felt very lifeless to me, and I just found myself very unmotivated to really help them. I gave up on the game at least 2-3 times, putting it down and uninstalling several times, then coming back to it months later. I'd restart from the beginning, because I couldn't remember anything going on...and would get bored again and drop it. I finally beat it, years later, by roleplaying as Dr. McNinja for the majority of the game (I was on a Dr. McNinja binge at the time), and that helped me insert my own enjoyment into the game enough to get to the end and finish it with an NCR ending.

I find nothing about it to be vastly different/superior to FO 3, certainly not enough to warrant the zealous devotion most fans have for it, especially since that worship of it, is always partnered with a fanatical hate for bethesda, to the point of near psychosis.

In summation:

It's an ok game on some levels, but it failed to keep my attention and motivation compared to FO 3. I had zero investment in the factions and events overall, and just didn't really care about what was going on.

It's also still really unstable in my experience. Not as bad as on launch apparently, but crashing at load zones is a regular occurance, so quicksaving is a necessity.

If I had to give it and FO 3 a score, I'd give FO 3 like a 7-7.5/10, FONV, I'd give 5-5.5/10. It's a serviceable game, but nothing that stands out for me personally.

 

[09philj]

Well you wake up in Goodsprings having been left for dead. Basically up to you what you do after that. You could go chasing after the guys who put you in the ground, or you could wander off somewhere else. All roads ultimately lead to Vegas, and it's up to you whether to back US cosplayers the New California Republic, Roman cosplayers Caesar's Legion, or Gilded Age cosplayer Mr House. (Or, perhaps, there's another option that the above cosplayers haven't considered) New Vegas differs from Fallout 3 in that there's a large number of factions you can interact with in various ways, skill checks are now a simple pass/fail instead of a percent chance, there's a much bigger perk list (Even bigger with DLC), the small guns and big guns skills have been merged into a single guns skill, and a new survival skill has been added that gives more benefits to cooking and hunting. From a design point of view, New Vegas is much more on board with sequence breaking and roleplaying than Fallout 3. You don't have to definitively pick a faction until a good way into the main story, and there's a few different ways you can reach that point. Putting lots of points into utility skills is also much more likely to open up unexpected solutions to problems. There are very few essential NPCs. Mostly Obsidian kept important characters from dying by keeping them out of your sights. If you can draw a bead on someone, you can probably kill them unless they're a child. Companions are also much more alive than in Fallout 3, will not tolerate certain behaviours, and all have little sidequests.

The DLC ranges from OK to excellent. Release, and therefore intended play order is:
- Dead Money. Small self contained adventure. It's fine.
- Honest Hearts. Bit more expansive, with more actual choices to make.
- Old World Blues. Excellent. Huge, challenging, well written.
- Lonesome Road. A final boss for people who think they've mastered New Vegas. It's good.

 

[Samtemdo8]

Well you wake up in Goodsprings having been left for dead. Basically up to you what you do after that. You could go chasing after the guys who put you in the ground, or you could wander off somewhere else. All roads ultimately lead to Vegas, and it's up to you whether to back US cosplayers the New California Republic, Roman cosplayers Caesar's Legion, or Gilded Age cosplayer Mr House. (Or, perhaps, there's another option that the above cosplayers haven't considered) New Vegas differs from Fallout 3 in that there's a large number of factions you can interact with in various ways, skill checks are now a simple pass/fail instead of a percent chance, there's a much bigger perk list (Even bigger with DLC), the small guns and big guns skills have been merged into a single guns skill, and a new survival skill has been added that gives more benefits to cooking and hunting. From a design point of view, New Vegas is much more on board with sequence breaking and roleplaying than Fallout 3. You don't have to definitively pick a faction until a good way into the main story, and there's a few different ways you can reach that point. Putting lots of points into utility skills is also much more likely to open up unexpected solutions to problems. There are very few essential NPCs. Mostly Obsidian kept important characters from dying by keeping them out of your sights. If you can draw a bead on someone, you can probably kill them unless they're a child. Companions are also much more alive than in Fallout 3, will not tolerate certain behaviours, and all have little sidequests.

The DLC ranges from OK to excellent. Release, and therefore intended play order is:
- Dead Money. Small self contained adventure. It's fine.
- Honest Hearts. Bit more expansive, with more actual choices to make.
- Old World Blues. Excellent. Huge, challenging, well written.
- Lonesome Road. A final boss for people who think they've mastered New Vegas. It's good.

Of those DLCs which one is similar to Fallout 3's Point Lookout or Elder Scrolls' Shivering Isles/Dragonborn?

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[Samtemdo8]

All of them. All four of the big DLC (Dead Money, Honest Hearts, Old World Blues, Lonesome Road) take place in their own self-contained area and feature a new cast of characters and side missions.

Are they big to get lost in?

Because I never found The Pitt to be that big kind of place to get lost in.

Not like Point Lookout or Solstheim in Elder Scrolls.

 

[BrawlMan]

​

 

[CriticalGaming]

For all the hype New Vegas got I played it a few years ago and i really wasnt super impressed. Though to be fair i think the graphics took me out of it because they look like shit.

The Outer Worlds was a huge improvement on the Fallout type game and was made by the New Vegas lads so i can at least see the correlation between the games and why people think of New Vegas as the "best one".

 

[Samtemdo8]

For all the hype New Vegas got I played it a few years ago and i really wasnt super impressed. Though to be fair i think the graphics took me out of it because they look like shit.

The Outer Worlds was a huge improvement on the Fallout type game and was made by the New Vegas lads so i can at least see the correlation between the games and why people think of New Vegas as the "best one".

Does the graphics still look like shit in this attempt to remake the game in the Fallout 4 Engine?

 

[CriticalGaming]

Does the graphics still look like shit in this attempt to remake the game in the Fallout 4 Engine?

I think so yeah. And it's less forgivable that Fallout 4 and 76 look like poo-water.

I didn't mod the game when I played NV, I played whatever version Steam had. But don't let my opinion sway your enjoyment if you are enjoying the game.

 

[Samtemdo8]

I think so yeah. And it's less forgivable that Fallout 4 and 76 look like poo-water.

I didn't mod the game when I played NV, I played whatever version Steam had. But don't let my opinion sway your enjoyment if you are enjoying the game.

I just think its less the graphics and more you don't think a Desert Wasteland is an appealing environment at all. Even with the fancy New Vegas City looking like a Flashy Disneylnad.

 

[CriticalGaming]

I just think its less the graphics and more you don't think a Desert Wasteland is an appealing environment at all. Even with the fancy New Vegas City looking like a Flashy Disneylnad.

That's not true. Because i thought Rage was an amazing looking game for the time. And that Mad Max game was also really good looking.

The Wasteland can be morbidly good-looking if care is taken with it. But Obsidian was forced to reuse Bethesda assets, and when was the last time Bethesda made anything that looked really good?

 

[Samtemdo8]

That's not true. Because i thought Rage was an amazing looking game for the time. And that Mad Max game was also really good looking.

The Wasteland can be morbidly good-looking if care is taken with it. But Obsidian was forced to reuse Bethesda assets, and when was the last time Bethesda made anything that looked really good?

I think Skyrim looked good visually, especially in their re-released Special Edition.

And of course Morrowind has its unique/alien landscape so Art Direction is a +.

 

[CriticalGaming]

I think Skyrim looked good visually, especially in their re-released Special Edition.

And of course Morrowind has its unique/alien landscape so Art Direction is a +.

Different strokes for different folks my dude .

 

[BrawlMan]

Even back then, the first Rage didn't look all that interesting to me. Rage 2 obviously looks better, but it's still a really average game. You can make the wasteland look good, but a lot of games from 7th gen have not done it well, because of the whole real is dog crap brown or gunmetal grey. It's why I do not miss it.

 

[CriticalGaming]

Even back then, the first Rage didn't look all that interesting to me. Rage 2 obviously looks better, but it's still a really average game. You can make the wasteland look good, but a lot of games from 7th gen have not done it well, because of the whole real is dog crap brown or gunmetal grey. It's why I do not miss it.

Spec Ops: The Line also did a good desert overblown landscape well.